Quote:
Originally posted by Icon
A-Ha! You're right. I thought something seemed off.
Chompsky is solid for a few reasons, one - He's a linguist, entereing field to become a philosopher. Two - He uses unequivical logic. His conclusions are based on the most logcal and simple possibilities. He can retain an incredible amount of information and see the bigger picture at all times. When he speaks, it's almopst hard to stay awake cause it's like he's reading an essay.
Jean Raulston Saul - he's pretty good at taking events and drawing logical facts from them - global terms for local events
Naomi Klien (Although she can be a little hollier-than-though at times), Haroon Sidiqui
those are a few. I am particular to print rather than internet, that's my personal Bias. The BBC at times can be pretty good, so can the CBC. Before the bush administration seized power, there were a few good maistream newsmedia as well, but it looks like they've put the crunch down.
how about u?
|
most of the information I have read about the above events I have read several books about
: "The War against America", "Seeds of Terror" "Holy War, Inc." and a few others, however I do not adopt any one of the above theories and read the "middle", where events are discussed by all three.
As news sources I do read reuters, BBC and often use news.google.com which gives a multinational view of the same events.