The Times Goes to War: Editorial bias in a news story is often a subtle thing, but it can make a huge difference in readers' perceptions. There's no better example in recent memory than the copyrighted lead front- page story in the Sept. 10 Seattle Times.

The banner headline: "Majority of state residents back attack on Iraq but fear backlash." And the lead sentence: "Most Washington state residents support a military strike against Saddam Hussein and Iraq, even though they believe it would increase the threat of terrorism against Americans at home and abroad." And while "most" turned out to be only 57%, the next 35 paragraphs supported that lead. You had to read the graphics in an accompanying page A-8 sidebar to discover that a much stronger majority -- fully 68% -- agreed that the U.S. should attack only "if that military action has the support of the international community."

The problem is, it doesn't, and won't. In fact, opposition from the "international community," leaders and public alike, has remained virtually unanimous. Absent Iraq nuking a neighboring country, that's not likely to change, absent outright bribery. So in actuality, two-thirds of Washingtonians don't think the U.S. should launch the essentially unilateral attack Bush is advocating.

You'd never have known it, unless you read really, really closely. In fact, you'd have thought exactly the opposite. The only mention of the "only if" question was a brief, numberless, inside-page dismissal, noting that some of those opponents had also responded that they opposed war under any circumstances. (So?)

The Times seems to have lurched politically rightward in its news coverage lately; it's the same paper whose front page Ashcroft press releases have been trying for months to convict James Ujaama on preposterous charges.

But the Iraq poll story is beyond bias; it's disinformation at its worst. And it left readers with an impression that was demonstrably untrue.--Geov Parrish

Reclaim the Media has come and gone and, well, most of our country's media remains claimed. Reviews of the confab were mixed. The high point was a fabulous, well-attended (1,000+ in Town Hall) event Friday night with Amy Goodman, David Barsamian, Davey D, and others electrifying the audience (though Amy was jetlagged, tired, and rambled a bit). It's the sort of inspirational pep rally the left excels at. But the rest of the weekend seemed to draw complaints and some disappointment from a number of attendees.

The workshops were more about theory and opinion than the actual creation of (i.e., reclaiming of) media, and what reclaiming did happen (e.g., a microradio station that simulcast many of the sessions) was hardly publicized at all. And the Freeway Park stage, running for two days, had hardly anyone watching almost all of the time -- giving the impression to passersby or NAB attendees, fairly or not, that the "protesters" were a tiny and motley bunch, at times outnumbered by the bored cops.

But most disturbing was that NAB attendees and Reclaim the Media attendees had virtually no interaction. There is a tendency, in the alternative media movement, to see all mainstream/corporate (choose your term) media as "the enemy," as a hopelessly corrupted, evil influence, politically and culturally, on the country. Which is true. But it will also, for the foreseeable future, remain where most of our country's residents get their music and news and political possibilities; ignoring that audience condemns progressives to the margins. It doesn't have to be that way. Corporate media isn't a monolith, and neither are the people within it; the structure is corrupt, but it can, at times, be used or subverted.

Exploiting that has to be a part of any alternative media strategy. Even more importantly, those folks have an awful lot more expertise in how to attract and keep an audience than most of us do; there's a lot of opportunities to learn and to put their knowledge to better use. It's fine and well to sneer at the NAB, a gathering with more money represented in any given room than Reclaim the Media could claim by adding up the net worth of every participant. And the purposes of commercial media (to make money) and alternative media (to be community voices) are at best unrelated, at worst antithetical. But they're the same technologies and skills, and the lack of any meaningful alternative presence within the NAB Radio Show -- to dialogue, but also to learn -- was the biggest failure of a oftimes remarkable alternative media weekend.--G.P.

Credit cards that "pay you cash" are the latest scam. The ads even ask us "What will you do with all the cash you earn?" Actually, you won't get enough to buy a vacation on the beach (as one billboard suggests); you'll only "earn" one percent of what you charge -- i.e., if you were to charge that vacation for $500, you'd "earn" a measly five bucks. Will the average consumer really be ahead on a net basis this way? Probably not, as the average consumer (a Citibanker told me by phone) has an outstanding credit card balance of around $7,000, on which s/he is paying an annual average rate of 14%. So, an additional purchase charged on the account will "pay" the consumer one percent, once, but the consumer will pay 14 percent, until the debt is paid. As one economist once told me, "the banks never lose." If this ploy looks attractive to the unsuspecting consumer, it's far more attractive to the banks issuing the credit cards. --Win Hutton