The NY Times had a pearl-clutching article by Daniel Glover about supposed conflicts of interest that progressive bloggers have (even though they typically identify those conflicts...), which has been rebutted all over the place, so I won't waste time doing that. I do have a simple question for Glover:
How come someone like David Sirota who, whenever he discusses anything to do with Sherrod Brown or Paul Hackett, readily admits that he has a 'conflict of interest', whereas someone like Henry Kissinger, who has received millions of dollars in fees from foreign governments, is usually not identified as a high priced consultant for foreign governments, but as a former Secretary of State?
Just asking.
- Log in to post comments
Tell me, do you really think all you academics who depend, essentially, on government money for grants and such are really without a conflict of interest when you cover up for the atrocity of scientists filling the world with nuclear weapons.
Sure, politicians paid em to do it...but thats the point!
Can't even remember the series of clicks that brought me to your blog - but I'm thrilled they did. Your intro..."The New York Times had a pearl-clutching article..." is one of the most vivid phrases I have come across in eons. I'm currently working on a novel set in early 20th century Michigan, and I'm putting you on notice that I just may have to use that.
And by the way, you are totally right about the double-standards in terms of establishment vs. non-establishment entities. It's all part of what I now choose to call corporate (as opposed to main-stream) media.
Thanks.