USA Today Describes Black Militia Leader as White Supremacist

Is the Major News Media Practicing "Driveby Journalism?"  Are
they reporting the truth?  Or has the truth been yet another
innocent victim of a cowardly driveby attack?  In an effort to
seek the truth, a reporter for an online newsmagazine,
interviewed the same people a reporter for USA Today
interviewed, basically followed in the major media's footsteps,
and came up with a shockingly different reality.  The USA Today
reporter had written an article on militias that would have just
about anybody who read the article believing that ALL
militia-types were gun-toting, paranoid racists.  



Militia members, according to the "driveby" article published in
the nation's newspaper, USA Today were described as "racist and
almost always paranoid." The article was titled 'American
movement' --of arms and ideology ... Militias stepping out from
shadows.



The online newsmagazine article:  "It had to be true. Didn't it?
I mean, Mark Potok, the writer of the article -- being a good
journalist and a human with a conscience -- would have had to
check the facts before writing and publishing it, wouldn't he?



Yet what militia member  J.J. Johnson's wife was telling me
seemed to fly in the face of everything Mark Potok had written.
The article quoted second-hand sources as claiming that many
militias are well-stocked with leaders known to be white
supremacists.



Yet J.J. is black. His wife is white."   Not your typical white
supremacists.



It's absolutely amazing how leaving out a few key details can
totally change, not only the feel of a story, but even the final
conclusions one comes to.  For example, a little thing like what
race a militia member happens to be may not seem very important,
but when the reporter builds his entire article around a militia
leader who happens to be a black man married to a white woman
and then asks the reader to accept militias to be "well-stocked
with leaders known to be white supremacists," it makes one
wonder WHY  that particular detail was not mentioned.  Did the
author of the article think that perhaps we may not believe what
he wants us to believe if we had read those additional facts? 
And if those facts were left out, how many other small but
critical details are left out?  Or changed completely?  If we
can't trust this reporter with small, relatively insignificant
details, how can we ever hope to trust him with the larger truth?



*****************************************************************



The following excerpt came from an article titled, "Driveby
Journalism," located in the following directory:



http://www.worldofwebs.com/CyberRoute66/guidebook/guidebook.htm



The URL is CASE SENSITIVE, so enter it exactly as typed.



********************************************************

To read the rest of this eye-opening article, go to the above
listed directory where you'll also find other equally insightful
articles, such as:  



� Dumbing Down America (the history of how America has and is
systematically being dumbed down), 



� Politically Correct History, the Newest Rage (what kids are
learning or not learning about American history nowadays),  



� Is Your Property Guilty? (a look at the new civil property
seizure laws), 



� Can America's Jobs Be Saved? (a disturbing analysis of
America's current economic woes followed by some possible
solutions),



� Not With My Child, You Don't (a questioning look at
pre-planned educational outcomes and the cold, hard reality of
what they mean to you and your child),



� Is the Net Under Attack? (an exploration of current attempts
at regulating the Internet and what these new laws could mean to
you). 



********************************************************

Let's each do what we can to help keep America great!!!