Unhealthy Reporting
excerpted from the book
Unreliable Sources
a guide to detecting bias
in news media
by Martin A. Lee & Norman
Solomon
A Lyle Stuart Book, Carol
Publishing Group, 1990
p201
American journalism has been much better at pointing to environmental
victims than culprits. Even when responsibility would seem to
be clear, corporate biggies usually slide right off the media
hook.
p218
Who does the EPA really protect?
An Associated Press report was sympathetic
to the struggle of a small town in North Carolina against a paper
products plant dumping millions of gallons of "dark, poisonous
wastewater" into a river bisecting the community. But the
AP article did not mention that the corporation might be resisting
change simply because it's cheaper to pollute and pay measly government
fines than to invest in waste treatment. So it may have seemed
reasonable to readers that an Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) official had the gall to suggest "it's the classic
confrontation between jobs and environmental concern." More
classic was the reoccurring evidence of the EPA's unwillingness
to enforce its own rules, but that angle was absent from the story.
Also absent from that story, and many
like it, was an explanation of how the EPA suppressed vital information
regarding the deadly poison dioxin, which was among the chemicals
bleeding into the North Carolina waterway. Greenpeace magazine
revealed that the EPA secretly worked with paper industry bigwigs
to cover up the presence of dioxin in discharge from mills. As
1990 began, dioxin was still an ingredient of some paper products-including
milk cartons in millions of American refrigerators.
According to former EPA press officer
Jim Sibbison, the EPA regularly soft-pedals stories about pollution-and
mainstream media obediently accept EPA leads, routinely concocting
stories around them. "It makes no sense for the press to
continue to treat the EPA as a reliable source of information,"
Sibbison asserts, adding that "the story now is malfeasance
at the EPA itself, and the facts won't be found in a press release."
Sibbison derides the news media's "inability
to see the EPA as part and parcel of the pollution story-a kind
of bureaucratic smokestack, as it were." Michael Weisskopf,
a reporter on the environment beat for the Washington Post, has
conceded that journalists are often misled by the regulatory agency:
"It is very easy for the EPA to snooker members of the press
unless they are watching the ball all the time."
Kneejerk acceptance of the EPA line is
typical of the media's unhealthy reliance on official sources.
When weather reporters on local TV news broadcasts state the air-pollution
index is "low" or "moderate" today, for instance,
they are really just relaying an administrative definition provided
by federal and regional agencies that regularly kowtow to powerful
corporate interests. Smiling weather forecasters accept government
criteria on health and environment issues without question, even
though independent scientists tend to be much less sanguine about
pollution levels that the government says are nothing to worry
about.
The high cost of public health
President Bush's proposals for controlling
air pollution ("Every person has the right to breathe clean
air...") caused a big news splash in early summer 1989. Although
most reporters celebrated the President's air pollution scenario
as a demonstration of his commitment to the environment, criticism
of the plan's cost was immediate. Syndicated business writer Warren
Brookes wrote that "the risk to the economy is infinitely
greater than the slight health risks" which Bush's program
might alleviate. Perhaps Brookes was not among the millions of
people encountering difficulty breathing the air in the nation's
major cities.
When the EPA mandated the use of filters
for the U.S. water supply in order to destroy disease-causing
microbes (which can result in Hepatitis A, among other afflictions),
a New York Times news story dubbed the move an adoption of "costly
rules." To make its point, the Times mentioned costliness
of the measure three times in the first four paragraphs of the
article. The price of the EPA mandate: $3 billion, a pittance
compared to the price-tag on any number of nuclear weapons projects
enthusiastically supported by the Times.
In November 1989, the Times made no secret
of its go-slow attitude toward big expenditures to protect public
health. A front-page article-headed "Cure for Greenhouse
Effect: The Costs Will Be Staggering"-explained that a major
effort to limit carbon effluent "makes little economic sense"
for the United States. The cost of limiting this carbon production
could be so "staggering," in fact, "one pessimistic
but not implausible estimate" says the cost might "rival
the current level of military spending." But not to fear,
writer Peter Passell concluded, "high cost need not rule
out action, of course, if the alternative is catastrophe."
Phil Shabecoff, an environmental reporter
at the New York Times bureau in Washington, has voiced concern
that media attention fails to recognize "the significance
of the issue." Shabecoff contended that "increasingly
national security is not going to be defined by the number of
weapons we have, or the military budget, but by the state of our
natural environment and the quality of our resources."
Free-lance writer Dick Russell interviewed
many other journalists who are also eager to provide high-quality
coverage of environmental news. But, as Russell noted, they work
for "institutions that are increasingly dominated by corporations
with a vested interest in maintaining a status quo that has perpetuated
many environmental problems."
p221
The world's rainforests and the World Bank
Newswriters' zeal for simple leads and
tidy conclusions has been evident in the U.S. media's belated
coverage of massive deforestation in the Amazon, where half the
species on the globe are estimated to reside. Not big on context,
mass media accounts usually omit the fact that luscious rainforests
are also being grazed, burned and bulldozed (in the name of economic
progress) in places ranging from Costa Rica, Haiti, Guatemala
and Mexico, to Australia and even Alaska.
Those who read National Geographic's lengthy
feature on preserving the rainforest (in the issue with a hologram
of the Earth on the front and a goldarch McDonald's ad on the
back) wouldn't have learned of the World Bank's insidious role
as supplier of the money behind most of Brazil's deforestation.
In the 51-page spread, five of six references to the World Bank
were positive, with the magazine only able to bring itself to
say in passing that "the finger of blame is often pointed
at the World Bank."
U.S. news media rarely acknowledge the
impact of the international monetary power structure on the environment.
Nor does U.S. journalism link ecological problems to the grinding
poverty and class oppression of a country like Brazil, where government
policies dictate destruction of forests. Likewise, struggles for
social justice and a healthy environment are kept separate. Agronomist
Susanna Hecht and columnist Alexander Cockburn have pointed out
that in the Amazon "tribe after tribe of Indians has been
exterminated through the decades, and hundreds of rural organizers
harassed and murdered across the region"-yet "such crimes
have scarcely been a preoccupation of the North American media."
The people and ecosystem of the Amazon are being ravaged by an
exploitative social order. That the rainforest cannot be saved
without overturning this social order is a reality ignored by
splashy coverage in the USA.
The environment is perhaps the "biggest"
story a reporter can face; that's part of the problem. "Because
nobody sees the ozone layer there isn't the immediacy," said
Dianne Dumanoski of the Boston Globe. Ecological issues that are
difficult to cover-requiring more time and money to produce-can
seem too amorphous and global. "Basically, it's an area that
requires a great deal of work for very little visual payoff,"
explained Linda Ellerbee, formerly of NBC and ABC News, "exactly
the kind of story TV was created to ignore."
p238
VIOLENCE, DRUGS AND CRIME
Our media never tire of deploring violence,
drugs and crime in American society. Yet among the scourges most
exacerbated by the media are...violence, drugs, and crime.
American mass media are strongly against
violence, and, in doublespeak fashion, they strongly encourage
it. Every decade the average TV viewer takes in more than 100,000
acts of violence. The acclimation to "solving" problems
with violence starts very early.
Saturday morning cartoon shows are replete
with violence, as role-model characters express anger by clobbering
each other. When children watch prime-time, it's even worse. The
8:00-9:00 p.m. time period is now the most violent hour of the
TV day. Overall the average child sees more than 1,000 dramatized
murders on TV each year.
But does all that televised violence make
children more aggressive? TV network executives say no, pointing
to a study commissioned by NBC. However, says American Psychological
Association official Brian Wilcox, three separate independent
examinations of the study each "concluded that the network-hired
researchers misinterpreted their own evidence and that NBC's own
data actually showed a causal relationship between television
violence and increased aggression in children." In fact,
according to the Knight-Ridder news service, out of 85 major studies
on the subject, the NBC study was the only one that did not find
a direct connection.
"We keep pumping children with the
messages that violence is the way to solve their problems-and
some of it takes hold," commented Aletha C. Huston, co-director
of the Center for Research on the Influence of Television on Children.
As an exceptional article by Knight-Ridder reporter Carl M. Cannon
concluded, "the evidence on television violence is in."
* "It comes in studies-more than
3,000 of them-almost all of which show that children who watch
television violence are more prone to use physical aggression
than those who don't."
* "It comes in somber warnings from
child psychologists who can tell after one visit which preschool-age
children watch violent television and which do not."
* "It comes in the configurations
of the corpses, mutilated by disturbed teenagers to resemble victims
in slasher movies that find their way onto television."
Addictive drugs
Meanwhile, a substance that contributes
to many violent tragedies-alcohol-gets too little challenge from
news media. "We've been engaged on a national level in a
war on drugs for three years. But people aren't aware that alcohol
is the biggest drug problem in the country," said Christine
Lubinski, an official with the National Council on Alcoholism,
which works to end alcohol's "privileged position in society."
A major obstacle continued to be the reality
that mass media are on the take from breweries, wineries and distillers.
Media proprietors have been pleased to pocket the enormous booze-soaked
ad revenues. The same media provide little information about the
dire impacts of alcohol.
While the press has gone wild reporting
on tragic instances of babies born addicted to crack, it's been
rare to see a major news report on a far more widespread occurrence-fetal
alcohol syndrome (FAS). American news media have not hesitated
to sensationalize what can happen after pregnant women use cocaine.
But despite all the self-righteous hoopla about the need to stop
drugs, the mass media have in effect winked at FAS, the country's
most prevalent preventable birth defect. Journalistic institutions
haven't done much to inform the public of the Surgeon General's
conclusion that no amount of alcohol is safe for a woman who is
pregnant or nursing a newborn.
Likewise, women can watch TV for nine
months and never be told that smoking while pregnant severely
jeopardizes the health of their offspring. In 1989 the Surgeon
General reported that cigarettes were currently responsible for
more than one out of six deaths in the United States. Such facts
are treated as intermittent items in the media-but not as a "crisis."
In contrast, the American news media frequently
denounce drugs like crack cocaine and heroin, commonly decrying
their use as a national emergency. The "drug crisis"
has become a never-ending media sensation.
When people take addictive drugs, despair
is often a crucial factor. To examine that despair, however, would
require deeply probing social conditions. Politicians usually
aren't interested in such pursuits, and American journalism doesn't
bother with them much either. A key effect of anti-drug frenzies
in the media, sociologists Craig Reinarman and Harry G. Levine
point out, is to "blame individual behavior and morality
for endemic social and structural problems, and divert attention
and resources from those larger problems."
Drug scares not only sidestep social ills;
media-induced hysteria actually undercuts possibilities for really
solving them. The same White House preaching anti-crack sermons
"had just said NO to virtually every social program aimed
at creating alternatives for inner-city young people. Unfortunately,
these kids cannot 'Just say NO' to poverty and unemployment. Drug
abuse...has been used as a scapegoat for crime, rebellious youth,
failing productivity, broken families, urban poverty, black and
Hispanic unemployment, and other social problems that have little
to do with drugs and much to do with U.S. economic and social
policy."
Drug hysteria
The media provided an enormous build-up
for President Bush's "war on drugs" speech from the
Oval Office in September 1989. By then, some news accounts mentioned
that public opinion saw drugs as the nation's number one problem.
When pollsters asked Americans "What do you think is the
most important problem facing this country today?" in July
1989, barely over 20 percent answered, "Drugs." Two
months later, well over 60 percent gave that answer. Amazing what
some media hype can do.
In Washington, an upsurge of murders tied
to the drug trade generated enormous publicity in 1989. The New
York Times reported that "the crime and-drug crisis is the
first long-running, truly local story in recent memory to draw
so much national attention. News organizations are responding
by pulling staff members from other assignments to roam the streets,
carrying newly purchased cellular phones to keep in contact with
their offices and portable police scanners to stay on top of the
latest killings." During previous years, the rampant poverty
in the Nation's Capital seems to have been much less important
to the media managers determining the flow of news across the
United States.
The problems of crack and other illicit
drugs were real and horrendous enough. But while some critics
said that attacking the causes of drug abuse was the only possible
solution, most media echoed official evasions. Bush called for
spending about two-thirds of anti-drug funds on law enforcement.
The New York Times quickly editorialized that "there is broad
agreement that as much ought to go for treatment as for law enforcement."
But whether earmarking a third or a half of the money for drug
treatment programs, both Bush and the Times were content to piddle
around with non-solutions. Even William Randolph Hearst Jr., hardly
a bleeding-heart liberal, noted a few days later that "95
percent of the many thousands of drug addicts who seek treatment
are turned away."
It was certainly true that, as a front-page
headline in the Times reported, "In Cities, Poor Families
Are Dying of Crack." But they were also suffering and dying
of many other afflictions-including preventable diseases, inadequate
health care, lead poisoning, malnutrition, lousy schools, greedy
landlords, a severe dearth of economic opportunities, and an overall
atmosphere of institutional violence in their surroundings. Drugs
were taking a heavy toll on minority communities in the U.S.,
but media seemed prone to mistake cause and effect.
Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page,
interviewed for this book, cautioned that "we fool ourselves
thinking that we are going to fight this 'war on drugs.' We fall
prey to this war metaphor...from government sources and the media
picks up on it." He added: "Our culture kind of demands
that we have a war metaphor before we can deal with a social problem.
We have a cultural drive to deal with this in a legalistic sense
instead of a sociological sense of really caring about the people
who are the victims of this problem. We're talking about illiteracy,
bad schools, we're talking about alienation, we're talking about
racism, we're talking about a lot of things. Social problems that
are at the root of the drug problem."
Street crime and suite crime
While the roots of lawlessness get little
media focus, street crime and punishment are hot topics. Severe
penalties for corporate criminals, however, are non-issues-even
though a single act of white-collar corruption, such as cutting
corners on safety for new cars or any number of other consumer
products, can cause more human suffering and death than dozens
of crack dealers can. Typically, the criminal role of the banking
industry has gotten little press-even though, according to the
New York Times, "more than $100 billion a year in drug money
flows through the nation's banks."
Double standards are pervasive. Although
a Newsweek cover story observed that "the Crack Nation includes
all sizes, classes and hues," white people were absent from
the featured photos. Meanwhile, black people in the Newsweek spread
"were profiled in the usual flattering positions that the
media delights in showing us," wrote Earl Hutchinson, an
editor based in Inglewood, California. "They were in handcuffs,
stretched out on the ground, spread-eagled against a wall, in
court, marching off to prisons and drug wards." Newsweek's
words were in sync with its pictures. According to the magazine,
the crack plague "feeds on junkies and cops, hookers and
babies" and must be "mercilessly destroyed." But
in an accompanying story about big-money swindlers, titled "White-Collar
Shame," the tone was decidedly less harsh about rich white
criminals: "The harshest penalty may be the one they inflict
on themselves."
News media generally recycle the judicial
system's definitions of crime. "We have a system shaped by
economic bias from the start," wrote Jeffry H Reiman, professor
of criminal justice at American University. "The dangerous
acts and crimes unique to the wealthy are either ignored or treated
lightly, while for the so-called common crimes, the poor are far
more likely an the well-off to be arrested, if arrested charged,
if charged convicted, and if convicted sentenced to prison."
Day to day, and year to year, news reporting looks at this status
quo uncritically.
When journalists discuss thefts they are
referring to individual actions-not economic manipulations by
the high and mighty. As attorney Gerry Spence has written, "the
cost of corporate crime in America is over ten times greater than
the combined larcenies, robberies, burglaries and auto thefts
committed by individuals." But the magnitude of the theft
bears little relation to the amount of media reporting. And when
reporters refer to violent crime they mean murders, assaults and
the like-not the corporate policies that result in injuries and
deaths. Like other instruments of the power structure, America's
mass media impart what Reiman calls "a message of enormous
ideological value to those at the top in our society: the message
that the greatest danger to the average citizen comes from below
him or her on the economic ladder, not from above."
For every citizen who is murdered, two
Americans "die as a result of unhealthy or unsafe conditions
in the workplace." But the news media join in accepting the
legal bias. "Although these work-related deaths could have
been prevented, they are not called murders," Reiman notes,
adding that "the label 'crime' is not used in America to
name all or the worst of the actions that cause misery and suffering
to Americans. It is primarily reserved for the dangerous actions
of the poor."
The news media do little more than repeat
the judgments of a system that "deals with some evil and
not with others," Reiman says, "because it treats some
evils as the gravest and treats some of the gravest evils as minor."
Crimes in the streets are real enough.
But by downplaying the importance of crimes committed in the suites,
journalists literally become little more than court reporters.
If our media were more independent and
evenhanded, a TV news broadcast might include reportage like this:
Two people were killed in an armed robbery today. And in other
crime news: Figures released today show that more than 20 area
residents died last month because they could not get adequate
medical care. At the same time, failures by local employers to
provide safe working conditions resulted in the deaths of four
workers.
p250
Blaming the victims: black families
For many children of all races, poverty
is not a word but a gnawing reality. "Indeed," says
Temple University professor Noel Cazenave, "there are millions
of neglected and hungry children trapped in America's wretched
house of mirrors, and their plight-and its real causes-have yet
to become a cause celebre to America's white corporate media."
Almost half of all black children in the United States -- 45 percent-were
living in families officially below the poverty line, a 1989 study
found. Congressman George Miller, chair of the committee that
issued the report, said that "for America's youngest children
and their families, the 1980s have been a disaster."
Miller blamed severe cuts in government
help. But all the Republicans on the committee disagreed, blaming
erosion of family structures and values-an explanation buttressed
by decades of mass media boosterism for the idea that black families
are largely responsible for problems faced by black people in
America. Morton Kondracke of the New Republic typified the media
spin when he wrote, "it is universally accepted that black
poverty is heavily the result of family breakdown." Such
an assertion was akin to saying that the absence of food is heavily
the result of malnutrition
In 1986, in the midst of a decade of sharply
accelerated inner-city poverty, CBS broadcast a two-hour documentary
by Bill Moyers, "The Vanishing Black Family: Crisis in Black
America," that was widely praised by mass media. Newsweek
proclaimed that "Bill Moyers and CBS News look unflinchingly
into the void: it's no longer only racism or an unsympathetic
government that is destroying black America. The problem now lies
in the black community itself, and in its failure to pass on moral
values to the next generation."
The CBS documentary could be seen as an
honest attempt to show the horrendous conditions of life in black
ghettos. But it was expert tunnel vision, fixated on effects-unwed
mothers, young black males with few job prospects, dilapidated
housing-while virtually ignoring causes. As writer Barbara Omolade
noted: "The concept of a pathological underclass has become
the rationale for continued racism and economic injustice; in
attempting to separate racial from economic inequality and [in]
blaming family pathology for black people's condition, current
ideology obscures the system's inability to provide jobs, decent
wages, and adequate public services for the black poor."
Media stereotyping has persisted. "The
incessant emphasis on the dysfunctioning of black people,"
says the longtime president of the National Council of Negro Women,
Dorothy Height, "is simply one more attempt to show that
African-Americans do not really fit into the society-that we are
'overdependent' and predominantly welfare-oriented. Quite overlooked
in this equation is the fact that most black Americans are, on
the contrary, overwhelmingly among the working poor."
The black family scapegoat has been invoked
by politicians and news media time and again to declare limits
on public responsibility for improving the oppressive circumstances
that afflict millions of Americans. In the words of scientist
Stephen Jay Gould: "How convenient to blame the poor and
the hungry for their own condition-lest we be forced to blame
our economic system or our government for an abject failure to
secure a decent life for all people."
There has been some breakthrough coverage
going beyond the usual blame-the-victim approach. A prime example
was National Public Radio's half-hour report titled "Black
Men: An Endangered Species." Produced by Verta Mae Grosvenor,
written and narrated by Phyllis Crockett, the program revealed
stark truths about black America:
* "There are almost as many young
black men in prison as in college."
* "For the first time in American
history the life expectancy for black people is declining."
* "Murder and suicide are the two
leading causes of death. A young black man...stands a one in 21
chance of being murdered before he's 44; for a white man, it's
one in 133."
* "The suicide rate for young black
men is up and rising. White men who commit suicide tend to do
it when they see themselves as 'powerless' in their 50s; for black
men, 'powerless' in their 20s."
* "Even though black men make up
only six percent of the U.S. population, half of all the men behind
bars are black."
* "There is no federal response to
what's happening to [black men] shown by the alarming rise in
statistics. There are, of course, some job training programs,
some education programs, but there is no focused effort on this
problem."
Why are these facts so rarely articulated
n the major media?
p253
Martin Luther King, 1968
"A nation that continues year after
year to spend more money on military defense than on programs
of social uplift is approaching spiritual death."
p266
In the United States [in 1988], fully one-fifth of the races for
seats in the House of Representatives had only one candidate.
What's more, as The Nation pointed out, over 98 percent of House
members and 85 percent of Senators won their bids for reelection
...
p273
A public secret
For decades, every President has claimed
that it's necessary to threaten to fire nuclear weapons in case
of a non-nuclear attack on Western Europe. But, thanks to government-media
coziness, this is a policy that most U.S. citizens don't even
know exists.
A poll by the Public Agenda Foundation
discovered that 81 percent of Americans were not aware that the
United States has refused to adopt a "no first use"
policy. And 78 percent did not know that the publicly-announced
U.S. policy is to respond with nuclear weapons in the event of
a Soviet conventional attack on Western Europe. The U.S. media
have failed to illuminate these matters, which suits Washington
policy makers just fine. Meanwhile, throughout the 1980s, the
USSR kept issuing no-first-use pledges while urging the United
States to do the same.
"The refusal of the U.S. to renounce
the first use of nuclear weapons," wrote journalism analyst
Jay Rosen, "is an example of what might be called ( a 'public
secret'-a fact that is publicly known but not known by the public.
Such facts mark the limits of the public as an active body in
a democracy, for they make it impossible for citizens to debate
and help decide the matters the 'secrets' concern. One can hardly
get agitated about a policy one does not know exists. Thus, the
same study that found a large majority ignorant of the first-use
policy in Western Europe also found that three of four Americans
oppose the use of nuclear weapons to repel a conventional attack."
To the extent that the press educates
U.S. citizens about nuclear arsenals, it is primarily to promote
continued acquiescence to policies of nuclear terrorism by their
own government. Although present arsenals bristle with tens of
thousands of nuclear warheads capable of incinerating humanity
many times over, the U.S. nonetheless is pushing ahead with plans
to deploy extremely accurate new missiles during the 1990s. Because
accuracy encourages military minds to envision a disabling first-strike,
these weapons are especially aggressive in character.
p275
Freezing out the peace movement
For 19 months, the Kremlin held its nuclear-test
fire while asking the White House to join in the moratorium so
as to make it permanent. During that period, Southern Nevada shook
with 25 nuclear explosions beneath the desert floor. News media
provided little coverage of what was going on. At the same time,
more than 1,400 Americans were arrested for nonviolent civil disobedience
at the Nevada test grounds; the rare news accounts of these protests
were spotty and fleeting. Mass media also gave minimal and sometimes
disparaging coverage to other forms of dissent, such as a petition
drive for a test ban treaty that gathered 1.2 million American
signatures between spring and fall of 1985.
Even at the height of the grassroots citizen
movement for a nuclear weapons freeze, the New York Times had
put leaden feet down in a widely reprinted editorial shortly before
the November 1982 statewide referendums across America. In tones
of wise elders lecturing errant offspring, the Times let it be
known that because "the freeze remains a simplistic, sloganeering
response to a complex issue...we urge a vote against." On
Election Day, most voters ignored such conventional wisdom, approving
freeze ballot measures in state after state.
But the nation's most pedigreed commentators
continued to pour antifreeze into the engines of the nuclear arms
race. The Washington Post attacked two leading women's organizations
in the disarmament movement as "Soviet stooge groups."
(The charge was later retracted.) And news articles echoed editorials-Strangelovian
fixations sugar-coated with verbiage about slowing the nuclear
arms build-up. Someday.
Leaders of peace groups have generally
been excluded from national TV debates about the arms race. The
only strong opponents of U.S. nuclear weapons policies allowed
on the biggest television shows are usually Soviet officials.
This time-honored mass media practice-discounting many millions
of Americans strongly opposed to their government's nuclear escalations-persisted
throughout the 1980s.
U.S. media all but ignored disarmament
activism as the decade drew to a close, while confining nuclear
arms "issues" to inside-the-Beltway differences on the
pace and mix of nuclear deployments. By presenting "arms
control" as some kind of counterweight to the arms race,
mass media have continued to further deadly confusion, since "arms
control" has always aided the arms race as a reassuring euphemism
for reshaping nuclear arsenals with newer weapons while discarding
older ones.
On a short leash from the Oval Office,
mainstream reporters do not wander off very far to sniff at nuclear
weapons policies, the epitome of hallowed "national security"
concerns. As a matter of routine, journalistic ears are cocked
to the master's voice. And no spectrum of mass media's allowable
opinion is more constricted than nuclear weapons "debates."
Controversies may flare up about specific weapons systems-but
not about actually putting a stop to the production of evermore
deadly weaponry. Perpetual nuclear arms development remains sacrosanct
to the military-industrial-media complex.
Unreliable
Sources
Index
of Website
Home Page