|
NOVEMBER 6, 2003 – Since we began
the Moderate Independent a mere six months ago, M/I has taken off.
Within just a few months of startup, the major news networks and
tabloid programs were contacting us for information, major
Newspapers were using our material, on-line columnists and bloggers
had us quoted and posted everywhere from here to Austria to South
America to Russia, and activists and writers were sending us
information for our review and consideration..
All this without running a single
advertisement.
It seems we have filled a need that was
completely being ignored out there: truly unbiased reporting that
cares only about truth, and doesn’t play the game of allowing a
certain number of lies into the mix just to make things seem
“balanced.” If the truth seems to fall all on one side or the
other, we don’t care. We just print it.
Now, with our on-line following large
and still rapidly growing, we will, in the coming year, be branching
out into other mediums. Yes, the new year will see the coming of
the first print edition of The Moderate Independent, and – hold on
to your remotes – the airing of the first episode of M/I TV.
No, we will not be on a major network…
yet. Remember, we are still just a seed, growing by your word of
mouth, completely without advertising.
But we will be on the air to a sizeable,
non-online audience. We will give you more details in the future.
As for one the most often asked
questions, outside writer contributions, we always welcome
submissions. However, there are few we accept, not because of
quality, but because it has to fit the format, as in it can’t be
slanted right, left, or even middle. It has to be solely about
truth – and, just as importantly, it has to be informative, not just
editorial commentary on news obtained from another source.
In case you haven’t noticed, we don’t
jump on every story the corporate-owned-and-operated news reports.
For example, we didn’t touch the recent story about CBS pulling the
Reagan miniseries. Why? Because the mainstream media was doing a
fine job of covering it, we had no extra information to present, and
opinions on both sides were widely available. M/I is not just
another attention hungry news source that thrives on jumping on the
over-covered because it brings ratings.
Quite the opposite. Our m.o. is to fill
in where the rest of the media is failing. We don’t want to compete
with the ABC’s, CNN’s, FOX News’, etc. We want to fill the void of
dismal failure their underlying biases – whether they be political
or showing crap for the sake of ratings - create.
You will also notice we don’t do updates
on a daily basis. I explain this as follows: if you knew a person
who, regardless of if they had anything important or interesting to
say, came over to you and spoke into your ear for thirty minutes
straight every single day, would you be getting served well by that
friend; would that be acting respectfully with regard to your time
and intelligence; would that friend be informing you or simply
taking up space where useful information could exist?
We report what needs to be reported when
it needs to be reported as it should be reported. That is what
separates us from everything else out there. We spare no topic,
pull no punches, but, just as importantly, know when we have nothing
useful to add to the world’s conversation.
So thank you all for spreading the world
so widely so fast, and for all of the positive (and critical)
commentaries you e-mail our way. We do our best to respond to every
e-mail in kind, as in if you give a thoughtful comment – even if
critical – you get a thoughtful response. You act like a
big-mouthed ass, and… well, ask some of our critics who have run
away crying as they got blasted in return. Fair notice for those
who can’t give as they take: this is not the corporate media, and
we take no crap and baby no idiots.
On the other hand, the vast majority of
the commentary has been extraordinarily positive and grateful,
frequently offering thanks for us giving voice to a perspective that
was missing out there, “a breath of fresh air,” as one recent
e-mailer called it. As with our readership, the e-mails have come
from all corners of the globe., from the rainforests of Australia to
Germany to every corner of the American map.
I will leave you with excerpts of two
recent e-mails, one from someone agreeing with a story and one from
someone disagreeing, but before that, let me just take a moment to
say, Hey, Les, if you ever get tired of running a network like CBS
that, due to it’s corporate nature, has to cower before the RNC, you
can come work over here at M/I. Peter Jennings and CNN’s Cristiane
Amanpour are considering the opportunity as well, as they both have
had to live the horrible life of working for networks which force
them to cower before the Bush/Limbaughians. (see
http://www.moderateindependent.com/v1i10jennings.htm and
http://moderateindependent.com/v1i11mediawatch.htm respectively
if you happened to miss those stories.)
Of course, Mr. Moonie, you will have to
start out with something basic, like sharpening my pencils, until
you get the feel of working for ownership that will print the truth
no matter whose hemorrhoids it causes to flair up. And for the
record, I wouldn’t have watched the boring miniseries anyway. If I
want to know anything about Reagan’s role in history, all I have to
do is look at the results of his policies – Osama, Saddam – and
enjoy the Reagan legacy we all are still living today.
FOND READER’S E-MAIL
Oh, you are SO
correct in your observations of holding Democratic debates on Fox
News.
The first I
heard of the first scheduled debate, I clearly knew that this was
going to be Murdock's
effort to
do whatever he could to bash the Dems, and put his boy on a
pedestal.
Talk about
putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop - hey maybe thats why
they call it Fox News!
You have to
admit though, ol' Rupie really knows how to target his audience of
Bush/Limbaughian idiots.
Just look
at the highly intellectual, mentally challanging entertainment he
offers on his Fox entertainment channels:
1. Married with
Childen
2. The
Simpsons
3. Cops
4. King
of the Hill
5.
America's Most Wanted
Now this is
programming that a Bush/Limbaughian can really relate to.
You know,
really quality programming that builds character and stimulates the
mind.
Joe
Millionaire can be added to the list.
Fox only offers
one good program as far as I am concerned - Seinfeld
- and I
noticed that that show is always conveniently scheduled to be on
at the
same time as other channel's Network News.
Good way
for Rupie to get you to watch his "fair and unbaised" news reporting
instead.
So yes,
Rupublican's want to get rid of PBS, what they call "trash" tv.
After
all, with all the quality programming on these days, who needs PBS.
PBS is a
waste of public airwaves, aimed at liberal intellectual nerds.
Liberal
shows, like NOW with Bill Moyers, who does unethical things like
substantiating his claims with facts.
Certainly
wouldn't want any Bush/Limbaugh Republicans picking up any bad
habits by watching trash tv like that!!
KEEP UP THE GOOD
WORK!
I stand
by you.
Centerville, VA
AND A DISAGREEABLE BUT MATURE READER’S
E-MAIL
Anyways, I stand
by my point on giving or not giving credit on economic growth to a
particular leader. I never said H.W. Bush deserved credit for the
90’s, merely that the economy was already in growth mode (I stated
“Clinton inherited an already positive-growth economy from H.W.
Bush.” – maybe I could have worded this with less emphasis on Bush
and more on the timing) and Clinton was still talking it down for
election purposes – at no time do I actually give either credit or
blame to Bush 41 or Clinton. Also, I specifically state by way of
fairness, that I hold Clinton NOT responsible for the recession
we’ve faced in recent years – I blame that on the bubble bursting in
technology, 9/11 and general economic cycles. I do, however, state
that I believe some policies can have an impact; as an example I
think that without the tech boom Clinton’s tax increase of ’93 would
have negatively impacted economic growth (obviously just my belief).
This is not in conflict with my statements of not crediting or
blaming one leader, but an admission that certain (not all) policies
do influence the economy (in Clinton’s defense, I believe his
support of NAFTA and free trade in general did positively influence
the 90’s growth, though again I would not stretch that into stating
he was responsible for what happened in the 90’s).
I love open
debate, thanks again for your time.
Mike (location
unknown)
----
All reasonable voices welcome. Welcome
to The Moderate Independent. |
