Research

Once I was done at George's, I decided to look deeper into the issue and see what other newsfeeds are saying about the assassination. Scanning through several newsfeeds and digging deep through the major North American networks, I turned up nothing. Nada. No bloody information from any other North American news source, which said something about North American reportage.

Instead of doing a search through newsfeeds, I decided I would metasearch on the topic and I visited the Gnome in order to hit 5 search engines at once. A few infinitely long moments later (god, I hate bad internet connections...you can't do any real work for any length of time) I had several pages of results, with each nearly identical result pointing to right-wing blogs by "independent" bloggers who reference the exact same fucking article -- a news report written by the Sunday Times Online, the biggest piece of right-wing Republican propaganda bullshit ever, second only to Fox News.

So I investigated the Times Online article, and lo and behold all there was instead of a newsfeed was a dead page which said "SORRY, TIMES ONLINE HAS GONE TO THE PUB". What website in its right mind would go to the pub? Was this a fucking method in order to generate something that amounts to sympathy in the public's eye? Was this message intended to create the illusion that the people who work for the Times Online are actual people and not a part of the propaganda machine? If so, it's complete bullshit. I hate these bastards.

At a dead end, I explored the metaresults again and found a left-wing news source in the South Pacific, "The Australian", that also covered the story. I found far more information than Fox News gave, the article explained the Israel government's position on nuclear powers in the Middle East (see the Israelites being the ONLY nuclear power...go figure. They're also closely aligned with the United States. Are you beginning to see the picture here?) and how they opened the plant to the press but instituted a formal ban on photographic journalism.

Huh, who wrote the article? I took a quick glance up to the top of the article and found the name "Sarah Baxter". A quick search turns up another article at the infamous Times Online, of which I only have a small snippet due to convenient site shutdown. "A Democrat for Bush: Sarah Baxter is a life long Labour voter in Britain and a registered Democrat in the United States. So how come she wants George W. Bush to remain president?" What do you know, a Democrat supporter of war in Iraq. No wonder the article takes on two different viewpoints at once. Make up your goddamn mind, woman!

[More to come later]