Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Media Beast vs. Public Interest

By Jeff Cohen, AlterNet. Posted August 30, 2006.


As the John Mark Karr debacle shows, TV news loves stories that keep viewers passive and fears the ones that might motivate us to take action.
Advertisement

John Mark Karr is one sick puppy -- a school teacher who fantasized that he'd engaged in consensual sex so passionately with six-year-old JonBenet Ramsey that he accidentally killed her.

And television news in our country is one ravenous beast -- abandoning any notion of journalism, proportion or decency to again prey upon JonBenet's corpse for ratings and profit.

God only knows what combination of hurt and mental illness went into producing the sick puppy. On the other hand, there's no mystery about what created the media beast: corrupt government policies combined with corporate greed.

Make no mistake: The media beast is every bit as compulsive and out of control as Karr, who may yet end up behind bars for child pornography. But the beast is free to maul again and again.

For 10 days, TV news has fixated on this imposter-culprit as if he were a world-historical figure -- like Nelson Mandela emerging from prison, only bigger. TV tracked Karr's travels across the globe, telling us what he ate for dinner, analyzing his attire.

To extend Karr's allotted 15 minutes of fame into a 10-day ordeal, TV news ignored important stories of war, environmental degradation, corruption, citizen activism. Instead, TV viewers were offered hundreds of hours of single-minded examination and debate on one burning question: Did Karr do it? The inquiry was relentless and aired all sides.

If only we'd had such in-depth, full-spectrum debate when the Bush team was dragging our country into war based on pretense.

I worked in cable news just prior to the Iraq war. As I describe in my book Cable News Confidential: My Misadventures in Corporate Media, journalists at MSNBC got into trouble with management for questioning Team Bush too strongly, for insisting on genuine debate.

By contrast, no one will get into trouble for this embarrassing 10-day spasm of overwrought Karr coverage ... as long as ratings were good and coverage was cheap. If so, news producers can expect congratulations for a job well done.

Tabloid stories involving sex, crime or celebrity are preferred by TV news management today. These stories are inexpensive to cover, since speculation by alleged experts can fill fill up hours of airtime. And tabloid stories typically don't offend anyone in political or economic power, including corporate sponsors and media owners.

But aggressively covering an administration bent on war can cause all sorts of problems. Especially for a media conglomerate that has business pending before the Federal Communications Commission. Especially when that media titan is lobbying the FCC to allow it to grow even more titanic -- as was happening in 2003 exactly at the time the Bush White House was launching its invasion of Iraq.

During the run-up to war, I was a senior producer on Phil Donahue's primetime MSNBC show, the most watched program on the channel, until it was terminated three weeks before the war began. An internal NBC memo soon leaked out, complaining that Donahue was "a difficult public face for NBC in a time of war ... He seems to delight in presenting guests who are anti-war, anti-Bush and skeptical of the administration's motives."

Stick to tabloid stories and your TV career will flourish. Be skeptical about officialdom's war motives and they'll show you the door.

I'll never forget my first day of work at MSNBC headquarters in the spring of 2002. As I entered the building's central corridor, I saw a number of framed posters celebrating highpoints of the channel's early history. The first one: "The Funeral of Princess Diana." Then: "Death of JFK, Jr." On the opposite wall, I saw "Columbine Shootings, Live Coverage" and "The Concorde Crash."

I remember thinking: If these are what MSNBC considers its highlights, what were its lowlights?

TV news owners and management love stories that keep viewers passive, on the sidelines -- as spectators. They fear the ones that might motivate us to take action, on the field -- as citizens.

Active, informed citizens seek out (and build) independent media. They're the kind of pesky activists who intervene in FCC decisions and fight to diversify a mainstream media system that's been surrendered corruptly to a half-dozen conglomerates.

TV news is trying desperately to hold on to its audience of passive consumers, those who know everything about John Mark Karr's dinner of pate and chardonnay, and next to nothing about the court ruling that Bush's warrantless wiretapping is unconstitutional.

Last night, with cable news anchors looking ridiculous over their 10-day JonBenet binge, one MSNBC host seemed to need a scapegoat. If not murder, she asked a legal expert, couldn't Karr at least be charged with "conspiracy to set off a media frenzy"?

You see, the 10-day hijacking of the airwaves was not her fault, or her bosses' fault. It was Karr's fault ... TV's version of "the sick puppy ate my homework" excuse.

Digg!

Jeff Cohen is the founder of the media watch group FAIR, and author of the new book, Cable News Confidential: My Misadventures in Corporate Media.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
It's par for the course (which the prez is sticking to)
Posted by: talkville on Aug 30, 2006 12:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As we approach November, the pattern emerges - on most if not all major news channels, on local and national; and just about on the same day that Mr Karr is determined not to be pursued in Colorado, along comes the arrest of Mr Jeff the polygamist to take the baton. Iraq, Afghanistan (and who knows where else?) slip into the shadows. Keep the viewer watching 'real time CSI's' and getting to play detectives. At all costs avoid any critical thought. The 'main stream' of the media is pretty much clogged - best to look around clearer tributaries. Great article!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

love
Posted by: rsaxto on Aug 30, 2006 1:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The master controllers of American media (the richest of the corporate elite) love the current major media effort (the least rational in the developed world) for it makes the people sheep easy to control and propagandize. They do not want well-informed citizens for these decent citizens would surely want a better-informed populace who would vote for less warfare and less greed and more intelligence in their leadership. We will continue to get propagandists running the major media until we stop tuning in and rely on the truth instead of propaganda and worthless mumbo-jumbo.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just Another Distraction - or JAD Journalism
Posted by: mat38 on Aug 30, 2006 5:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It was a story that deflected the real news which was Bush and others were served papers chargin them with subverting our constitution and commiting war crimes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

BloominBlackSheep
Posted by: bloominblacksheep on Aug 30, 2006 5:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
MSNBC is very sad; I find myself turning to CNN more and more though neither network is very satisfactory. Thought things might improve when they put Abrahms in charge but things only got worse with more prison and violence programming. What does this say about our Country? The article was excellent...it feels like there is a conspiracy (actually) to have MSNBC as a propaganda arm for the Bush Administration, and during the 2004 Elections it appeared both 24-hour channels were also doing that. The FCC was utterly useless. In 60 years of (conscious) awareness of my Country (I am 68) I have never seen anything as corrupt as the last five years.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

bluedevil
Posted by: bluedevil on Aug 30, 2006 6:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great article! Notice how as we get closer to the only chance in the next two years of voting out one party control (which would in a sane universe be a really big story), TV fills the airways with one distraction after another. It doesn't help that the "loyal opposition (are they ever)" are sitting on their hands, but TV news programming is really making Orwell look like the genius he was.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Great article, but
Posted by: alternetty on Aug 30, 2006 7:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
what can we DO about this situation? Complain to the FCC? Boycott advertisers? Turn off the TV?
They're all options, but they all take time to produce results— if any.
In the meantime, we need to support indepedent media organizations that are providing us with alternative news and views. That means sending a check to FAIR, or Democracy Now!, or Free Press, or Air America, or whatever your favorite organization is.
If we really care about this issue, we need to put our money where our mouths are.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Great article, but Posted by: therabshakeh
» RE: Great article, but Posted by: colinmeister
» RE: Great article, but Posted by: therabshakeh
» Three simple letters...... Posted by: papergirl
Cohen is spot on, unfortunately
Posted by: Jesse on Aug 30, 2006 8:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cohen points out the one thing that is the biggest driver to stuff like this: it is cheap to produce.

That's the rub--all media organizations are bunsinesses. Un that milieu, they need to make money and do so cheaply. War coverage is a damned expensive thing to do. (In fact, it is a truism in the news business that none of the stuff that people consider important ever makes any money).

I am not sure what solution there is. At one time there was a public-service ethos of them men (and they were mostly men) who ran the media outlets. There was also the fairness doctrine (however misused) and restrictions on ownership. To say that news outlets should just not concern themselves with making money doesn't strike me as a complete answer. After all, the advertisers used to underwrite Cohen's paychecks, and as an old friend said to me once, "I like food with my meals."

Then there is the political and cultural issue--nobody wants to get complaints or appear partisan, as the relentless attacks from the right have made anyone who writes a skeptical story suspect. In this sense a lot of self-censorship happens--and not because people are cowards, but because out of all the things I have to deal with every day spending valuable time justifying everything I write is a pain in the butt and just too damn frustrating. (You never manage to convince anyone who accuses you of bias, ever. I gave up years ago).

Government-owned media along the lines of PBS can help, but that is a little too vulnerable to political pressure for my taste (see the issues with PBS). The BBC is the shining exception, and that should be a caution to us about how hard it is to create something like that.

So we have seen the problem, I am not sure what the answer is, tho.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

People listened to the TV/Radio frenzy
Posted by: Thinker on Aug 30, 2006 8:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, the news frenzy was excessive. However in order to continue there had to be an indication people listened.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

World's most elaborate and expensive DNA test . . .
Posted by: FauxPorteno on Aug 30, 2006 8:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As much as I am disgusted with the standard media circus elicited by the arrest of this whack job, I am 10 x more upset that the D.A. wasted tens of thousands of tax payer dollars to have Karr extradited back to the People's Republic of Boulder for the world's most expensive DNA test.

DNA samples surreptitiously obtained from saliva off the rim of a drinking glass or from a strand of hair retrieved from a bathroom sink are quite common and not in any way illegal. The two matters (media hype and tax dollar waste) are inextricably linked - here's how: fearing more public criticism on top of that previously heaped upon them after the initial bungled investigation, the DA insists that Karr be extradited post-haste to face charges in Boulder. Forget that much of his story did not check out and a simple DNA test would have cleared him and saved the people of CO thousands of dollars. Karr may have been extradited anyway (although this is unlikely given the multitude of perverts and deviants living in Thailand) but it could have been done in a less urgent manner which would have cost FAR less than this overreactive response. You may find this trivial but given all the examples of gouging and waste here on Alternet today, one would think we would realize that this kind of shit adds up. 50K here another 75K there but we can't rebuild New Orleans . . .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The next Entertaining Distraction?
Posted by: common intelligence on Aug 30, 2006 8:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What will be The next Entertaining Distraction?

Every rerun, every fast paced sound bite and 3 second scene cut, every "get rich in real-estate" infomercial, "not" reality show, is so highly engineered or accepted to keep peoples minds bouncing in confusion.

Even the movie industry and theater houses are involved in the game. Marketing commercial distractions. Dangling preverbal carrots before the dumb asses (no offense to the donkeys!).
Even just check out the ever expanding latino networks that flaunt stupid game shows with bodacious make-uped women that seduce the audiences with endless sexual innuendoes.

All this and the reintroducing of old news that turns out to not be news at all such as Karr, etc. It's all distraction.

Ratings have nothing to do with the networks push to draw audiences. The whole blood distraction system is under one corporate system driving force.

Remember what GW said after 911. "Go shopping". "America is open for business".

Therefore our only defense to gain control over the machine is STOP participating. Stop feeding the machine! Turn the damn TV OFF!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

TV news lost me
Posted by: badkitty on Aug 30, 2006 8:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
TV news lost me when the Republicans started screaming about Bill Clinton's sex life. Excuse me, but mature adults do not publicly evince interest in consensual sex between adults, and really, don't have much interest in sex crimes either. I gave up on TV news during this sordid episode and still am not clear on the finer (?) points--unless they were big black newspaper headlines, I missed them, because I avoided the news magazines too. I've barely managed to watch it since, except for the weather. I do follow the Daily Show, since its clips from CNN et all reinforce my opinion of network and public television news.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Media Disinformation
Posted by: rwa on Aug 30, 2006 9:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Prof. Michael Keefer, Globalresearch.ca
August 29, 2006

Most of us, I would guess, are well aware of the constructed nature of the news and news commentaries fed to us daily by the corporate or "mainstream" media. We’re not surprised to find, in those cases where we have managed to obtain independent knowledge of a subject, that mainstream news stories are often only tenuously connected to what appears to have been the actual series of events. And we’re coming to expect, on the part of the people who construct these news stories and tell us how to interpret them, an increasingly slender respect for such archaic notions as truth, rudimentary ethics, and intellectual integrity.

As Arundhati Roy puts it, "In the 'free’ market, free speech has become a commodity like everything else—justice, human rights, drinking water, clean air. It’s available only to those who can afford it. And naturally, those who can afford it use free speech to manufacture the kind of product, confect the kind of public opinion, that best suits their purpose."1

Critical understanding of this kind has been assisted by the spectacular deconstruction in recent years of a whole series of major news stories, which have noisily disintegrated before our eyes—rather in the manner of those self-destructing public sculptures which enjoyed a brief vogue in the latter part of the twentieth century. When those Rube-Goldberg or Heath-Robbins-ish artifacts were exhibited by their creators, they clanked, grunted, heaved, threw off sparks, set themselves on fire, and eventually collapsed into smoking heaps of cogs, wires, pulleys and girders before appreciative audiences of avant-garde cognoscenti.

That’s much what happened in 2003 and since to the corporate media’s narratives about Saddam Hussein’s fearsome weapons of mass destruction, about the supposed reluctance of Bush and Blair to go to war in Iraq, and their supposedly pure and democratic motives when they did. That’s much what’s happening now to the claims advanced by Israel to legitimize its renewed aggressions against the Palestinians and Lebanese (Hizbollah’s "kidnapping" of two Israeli soldiers rather loses its steam as a casus belli once people learn about Israel’s prior provocations—and about the fact that all the early Israeli statements and press reports identified the soldiers as having been on Lebanese soil when they were captured).2 It’s happening as well to two somewhat more complex stories that have, until recently, been managing to sustain themselves in the corporate media.

One of these is the story that George W. Bush actually won the 2004 presidential election, and hence has some right to the office he continues to occupy.3 The other is the no less fraudulent story that the terrorist crimes of September 11, 2001 were perpetrated by a gang of Islamist fanatics led by a bearded Saudi in an Afghan cave—rather than being organized (and subsequently covered up) by civilian and military officials at the highest levels of the Bush regime.
For full article go to:
www.globalresearch.ca

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What coverage?
Posted by: colinmeister on Aug 30, 2006 9:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It comes as news to me that the story of the perv who confessed to murdering GordonBennett Ramsey, or whatever her name was, was a hot news item.

It was covered very briefly a couple of times on BBC World News, and well down the list of stories. It seems I am missing very little from not watching network, cable or local news, so I think I'll keep it that way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What coverage? Posted by: fork
All the news which fits in twenty four hours
Posted by: bookwoman on Aug 30, 2006 10:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unfortunately, many little girls end up raped and killed in a twenty four hour period. How did Jon Benet Ramsey's story get to be so much more important than the others. I think we have to look at this and get the media to stop turning all news outlets into tabloid type conduits.

As for John Mark Karr, his story got him out of a country where the punishment for his crimes are far worse than he will face in the United States. Remember they cane people for defacing cars over there. Can you imagine the punishment Karr would have been facing. He may be a disgusting beast, but he isn't stupid.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WHAT NETWORKS FEAR MOST?
Posted by: Roverton on Aug 30, 2006 12:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
NO RATINGS! GIVE THEM A BIG TASTE OF IT!

Turn the TV CABLE NEWS OFF!

Feels good, doesn't it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: WHAT NETWORKS FEAR MOST? Posted by: papergirl
It's Crazy
Posted by: sofla100 on Aug 30, 2006 2:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This story always had way too much of the dynamics of various "set-up" jobs in the media. Like "the rich Ramsey's." The media myth: we are all to believe US Justice will triumph somehow eventually. Why, because their wealth (Ramsey's) won't let them "escape justice" (and "everyone knows" they did it). The American myth of "justice for all" at work again. As though having a gazillion dollars doesn't help a lot of people everyday deal with the "justice system." Then the "whacko mother" Mrs. Ramsey, who "obviously pushed the little girl way beyone what she should have with the beauty queen stuff" and then we were told must have gone over the edge. Once again, media myth and hype. In the meantime, how many little children were murdered or raped and it's not even a headline in the paper. As for real news, oh yea, a couple more American soldiers were killed today in Iraq. I think you might find that on page 10 of the Times.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dirty Laundry?
Posted by: hotlipsin61 on Aug 30, 2006 4:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As soon as the arrest in JonBenet Ramsey murder case was made, we were treated to seing her pretty face over the airwaves and in print for us to see. It's been frightening. Haunting visions of a dead child on our TV sets.
It's been non-stop; an avalanche of old clips, analyses from talking heads, interviews with law enforcement, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. I was weary of it after one day. I had my doubts on the suspect from the onset.
Never mind about that. We in the media have problems. There are plenty of people who have their dirty laundry aired nearly every night, usually prominent or famous folk who find themselves in trouble such as celebrities, athletes, politicians and businessmen. It may sell papers and increase ratings, but it's hard for some to change the channel or put that paper down. We like to see people "get it."
The public and the media both are at fault. You want to read or see people get exposed in the light as a cockroach but at the same time you like to read positive stories as well.. We try to report the "facts." But we were over the Ramsey story faster than flies on a watermelon rind on a hot summer day.
Many reporters and editors strive for news balance. Where I work we try not to delve into tabloid journalism. We'll leave that up to other publications.
The dirtier the laundry the better. But let's not forget our ethics and compassion in the news media. We must separate "news" from "entertainment." But it's all news.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Corporate media has weird notions of what qualifies as 'tasteful news'
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Aug 30, 2006 5:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You know, I deliberately tried to avoid any intake of the JonBenet Ramsey story and it was impossible - the name John Mark Karr was splashed across so many headlines that it got lodged right in my consciousness, no matter what efforts I made to avoid this.

However, I can't quite remember the name of the 14-year old girl who was raped and killed by some US soldiers, whose names I also can't remember. What was her name? After a quick search, I find this: Attorneys want federal officials gagged in ex-soldier's murder case, Associated Press Now there's a sanitized headline for you! No mention of rape, no prominent display of the soldier's name, no mention of who it was who was raped, no mention of the other four attendees...see also U.S. military names soldiers charged in rape, murder probe, CNN.

In case you were wondering:
Soldier's name: Army private Steven D. Green
Rape/Murder victim: Abeer Qassim al-Janabi
(and her 5yr old sister and parents; who were apparently just shot, not raped).

Initially, Steven Green was honorably discharged by the Army due to "unspecified personality disorder" - I bet that Mr Karr has that same "problem" - it goes by the name of psychopathic homicidal rapist disorder. CNN used the word 'alleged' six times in that story (the alleged rape, etc.), but after a brief survey of CNN reports on Karr (with headlines like, " 'Sexually, I am like a wolf,' Karr bragged to landlord"), I find very few uses of 'alleged'. Contrast the above headline with this one from CNN: "Stress sent soldiers to drink and drugs, colleague testifies". Oh, those poor stressed-out rapists and murderers.

Would you expect this headline on CNN: "Stress sent school teacher to drink and drugs, colleague testifies"?

How about, " 'Sexually, I am like a wolf,' Pvt. Green bragged to comrades"?

Taking this a little further, there are 5 stories with Abeer and Green on CNN, but a total of 28 stories on Ramsey and Karr. Coverage, frequency - this, by the way, is the kind of work that PR firms do for their clients (Google makes it easier!).

But wait! Karr is now 'not a suspect' - the corporate media was so desperate for a hot and distracting story that they didn't even wait to be sure it was true. What's next? More unsubstantiated terror plots and code red alerts? Where did that story go?

To sum up, the sensational and inaccurate coverage of the rape and murder of a 6yr-old 'beauty queen' (ugh!) is deemed to be 'in good taste', but US media outlets won't provide similar coverage of the rape of Iraqi women by US soldiers or publish photos of the dead bodies of children bombed by Israel in Lebanon, because that would be 'in poor taste'. I don't know what's more sickening - the actual events, or corporate media practices in the US.

--------------------------------
I posted this earlier in response to a comment, but here it is again in the main thread (it took a while to find those photos):

"As far as the media goes, have you ever noticed the remarkable similarity between the smirk of Tom Brokaw, trusted and charismatic news anchor, and the smirk of George W. Bush? Just compare these beauties - who is less genuine?

George W. Bush's smirk and Tom Brokaw's smirk

We live in a time of universal deceit.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What's disturbing about all this...
Posted by: richmx2 on Aug 31, 2006 12:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... is not the suggestion that this "made for TV" event was designed to distract Americans from "bad news", but that there are those defending the prosecutor for "preventing child abuse."

Karr was possibly a danger to children... in THAILAND, not in the prosecutor's baliwick. She had a telephone, and there are telephones in Thailand. (My own feeling, based on having hired foreign English teachers abroad, is that Karr was in trouble with the Thais, but faced only minor charges in the U.S., and figured out a neat way of extraditing himself at no cost... in Thailand, he probably wouldn't survive long enough to even get to court).

What worries me is that a local U.S. prosecutor thinks they have the right to enforce their laws elsewhere, and wastes U.S. taxpayer money needlessly, then is defended for it by many. This is imperialism of the worst sort.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: cognitive dissonance Posted by: DoctorAndy