That's all we have at press time. We stand by the rest of our story. Thank you for the help.

The above post is correct. The IMC is often used by some to spread false information, either intentionally or becasue some people have a need to believe nasty rumors in the first place. In this respect it is no better than mainstream media who also distort and sometimes misrepresent news stories. The real difference is that mainstraem media is packaged as 'pre-digested', that is, the writers claim to have done all the analysis for you so you don't have to. Mainstream media is a commodity, a 'trusted source', and as such is consumed uncritically who are too much in a hurry to think for themselves. What is the most damaging about corporate media though is the stuff they leave out - the stuff that only rarely finds its way to print and at that without a proper context. The IMC on the other hand promotes open publishing so that we can be assured that no voices are accidentally censored. As a result we often have to read through a lot of shit to get to the juicy bits of IMC news. When you read the IMC newswire you are asked to read it critically. This is not the fucking LA Times where you are expected to just believe everything you read. True many of us victims of public schooling are ill equiped to read critically but that doesn't mean we are incapable of learning, we just need different models presented to us. An informed citizenry depends on critical thinking. Otherwise you are at risk of having a leaders who say things like "this is an attack on America's freedom" and a population that then believes we must all prepare for war.

It is interesting to see how some IMC readers hold on to their 'beliefs' regardless of the facts. In this respect they are no better than folks they are so often oppsed to. Take the story of CNN reportedly airing 10 year old footage. Even when we get confirmation from the originators mouth that the original report was in error there still remain people who are skeptical. Some people will believe what ever they need to shore up their idiology and really can't be bothered with facts. I think it may be significant that so many people are willing to hold on to a condemnation of CNN. Their reasoning may be false but the existance of such people is a truth that is telling in its own right. Ditto with those who think that all terrorism can be laid at the feet of the CIA. The truth or falsity of their belief is not as relevent as the very existance of their extream skepticism. Think about it.