<div>It is true that the slogan "if it bleeds it leads" for media coverage of news is often applied, given the ratings boost and thus advertising revenue that coverage of disasters brings to profit driven "journalism." It is also true that social, economic and political disruptions and disasters are used to control populations, of course. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Consider Naomi Klein's stunning (meant all too literally!) book, "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism," reviewed at URL below by former London School of Economics Professor of European thought, John Grey:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/reviews/end-world-we-know-it">http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/reviews/end-world-we-know-it</a></div>
<div>---------------</div>
<div>(The paragraph below is my brief comment on Klein's book, not from Grey's review):</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Klein outlines this approach to globalization in spreading the Milton Friedman "Chicago School" of free market capitalism, with references to communications between Friedman and Chilean dictator and human rights abusing monster Pinochet, documentation of the MK-Ultra CIA program of mind control experimentation, using electroshock and chemical "brainwashing" techniques on human subjects, and how this program relates to treatment of "detainees" in the so called "War On Terror," to mention of few of the examples she documents.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The 9/11 attacks were exploited by the neo-cons in the Bush administration to enact their plan of remaking the Middle East via invading Iraq, a disturbing example of fear and propaganda controlling the masses in the world's so called leading democracy during a time of disaster and crisis. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>But it is also true that horrific destructive events that in magnitude should inspire global outrage and response, sometimes are given scant coverage. Rather than being overemphasized for whatever purpose, there appears to be reason(s) sometimes mass atrocity and destruction are back page news. It seems there is deliberate lack of coverage of some crises, even if they might boost ratings and sell advertising. The horror in the Congo in Africa is one example. While the recent terrorist attacks in Mumbai in India are given 24/7 coverage, I suspect many US citizens are not aware of the magnitude of the human rights abuses in the Congo.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The editorial below suggests that Obama will be tested regarding his commitment to responding to genocide and/or mass atrocities, in his response to the Congo:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/nov/20/drifting-toward-genocide-in-the-congo/" target="_blank">http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/nov/20/drifting-toward-genocide-in-the-congo/</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>The peacekeeping operation recently asked U.N. headquarters for 3,000 more troops. As early as today, the Security Council could act on a resolution drafted by France calling for 2,785 more troops and 300 more police to help battle "the deteriorating humanitarian situation and in particular the targeted attacks against civilian population, sexual violence, recruitment of child soldiers and summary executions."</div>
<div>
<p>As a member of the U.S. mission to the United Nations told us, though, no country has yet volunteered the extra soldiers - shades of the cries that went unanswered in Rwanda. President-elect Barack Obama has said the U.S. has a responsibility to prevent genocide. He may find this pledge tested sooner than he expected. </p>
<p>------------------------------------------</p>
<p>More information on the violence in the Congo:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/03/congo-rwanda-genocide-violence">http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/03/congo-rwanda-genocide-violence</a></p>
<p>-------------------------------------------</p>
<p>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett</p></div>
<div>Ted Moffett wrote:<br> </div>
<div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"><span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"> I am inclined to agree with the conservative view on the nature of humanity, at least at this point in human history. But our species is very very young; I think humanity, if we survive the impacts of our ignorance and destructive impulses, will eventually make heaven on Earth. But if we cannot limit the destructive side of our nature, the future is bleak. There is thus no other option but to try, even if futile.<br>
</blockquote>----------------------<br></span>The destructive side sells newspapers, and is useful for controlling the population. That's why we see so much about it. I feel, deep down in my heart, that it's overstated by quite a bit. You can always look past the gruff exterior and find good in most anybody. Sometimes they hide it well, is all.<br>
<span><br>Paul<br><br><br><br></span></blockquote></div><br>