Kane Pappas, Director and Producer of "Orwell Rolls in His Grave"
A BUZZFLASH INTERVIEW
As BuzzFlash has repeatedly taken note, we believe that "Orwell Rolls in
His Grave" is a brilliantly assembled documentary that cinematically distills
down to its essence the argument that the corporate media have become a de facto
extension of the Republican party. And it's all accomplished in a low-key,
low-budget style that only adds credibility to the weight of its accomplishment.
For the time being, BuzzFlash.com is the exclusive seller of "Orwell Rolls in
His Grave" at: http://www.buzzflash.com/premiums/04/05/pre04014.htm.
Here is the first part of our interview with Robert Kane Pappas, the New York-based
director and producer of "Orwell Rolls in His Grave."
* * *
BuzzFlash: You directed
and produced this remarkable documentary, Orwell Rolls in his Grave,
subtitled: Explores What the Media Doesn’t Like to Talk About -- Itself.
During the film, you make a very compelling case that we’ve entered an
Orwellian world. Often we use the Orwell analogy at BuzzFlash, as do other progressive
web sites. I feel like it’s almost a cliché. But you really made
the case here effectively that in an age of corporate media consolidation, where
the media are aligned with the governmental message -- that is to say, the Bush
message -- we’ve truly entered an Orwellian age.
In 1984, one of the main goals of the Ministry of Truth was to erase
history on a daily basis so that anything that conflicted with the message of
the government perished. There was only one person who had the repository of
truth. You keep coming back to this in a very striking way, to imply that either
we’re at the point, or not far from the point, where the media are a megaphone
for the government.
Robert Kane Pappas: Well, 1984 is a novel, but a couple of things
struck me about Orwell. One had to do with the newest story obliterating the
last story, so there was this public forgetfulness. A story runs its course,
you see it day and night, and then it goes away. And then I started watching,
and it appears that if you have the right experts speaking, and more importantly,
choose the right moderator, it's quite easy to control the discussion. You can
focus the people’s attention here and then focus it there. With all our
investigative tools of the news media, it seems that they never connects the
dots. You may have a series of stories, all showing a pattern of behavior in
government, and for some reason, the news media don’t treat it as a pattern.
It’s each individual bit, each little dramatic thing, and then it goes
BuzzFlash: So there’s no context?
Robert Kane Pappas: Right. It’s so ubiquitous -- the mass news
media, and the mass media in general -- that the public consciousness really
is affected. It influences the way the public looks at things. Anecdotally,
just talking to people, it’s incredible how confused they are. They only
hear around the edges of stories. They have the collective ability to remember
what happened six months ago, but the ability to make any kind of connections
seems to be diminished.
BuzzFlash: The medium itself doesn’t have historical memory.
Robert Kane Pappas: Correct. The history of Ronald Reagan's presidency,
as recounted by the mainstream media, is a case in point. Orwell Rolls in
his Grave examines two striking examples of this: deregulation and the "October
Surprise." Deregulation's failures and excesses were largely ignored, despite
the fact that the public paid a huge price economically. And the October Surprise
is, in my view, a watershed example of "losing history." Ex-Newsweek
reporter Robert Parry at Consortium News wrote a startling series on the
The other thing I wanted
to say about Orwell that really struck me was the misuse of language that he
goes into in 1984 primarily, but also Animal Farm, and the ability
to name something or misname it. Watching the news over the last several years
more carefully, I realized that complicated stories or concepts are boiled down
to short euphemisms -- tag lines -- so the public's understanding of it is diminished.
They don’t know. This euphemistic use of language turns everything into
either a two-word marketing phrase, or they name something the opposite of what
it means. By lying first, or misnaming something first, you can define how people
think about it, and quite strikingly.
BuzzFlash: This is something that was discussed during an interview BuzzFlash
had with George Lakoff, a professor of linguistics at the University of California
who’s an expert on messaging. He uses an example -- the phrase “tax
relief” that the Republicans say -- and who’s going to be opposed
to tax relief? The very structure of the phrase makes it almost impossible to
oppose because it uses the word “relief,” which people associate
in a positive way. You want to have relief. So if you’re opposed to the
so-called Bush tax relief, well, you’re opposed to people feeling better,
and less stressed and less burdened.
Robert Kane Pappas: It cuts off discussion. And, given the methodology
of the mainstream news media, the time restrictions, the short audience attention
span etc., rectifying these false impressions is difficult. We are now slaves
to polls and focus groups.
When watching TV news, you
notice there are polls for everything. We hear about these things called focus
groups. I guess anybody who lives in America today is always buying stuff --
you know, we’re consumers. The way they sell us anything -- which car
we’re going to buy, what cereal we eat -- the same exact techniques are
used for politics, and for grouping the population very specifically, like you’re
trying to sell them something. You massage it with the right words and focus
group those words. It’s almost dehumanizing. It’s treating things
that could be very serious, life and death things, like they’re selling
you some cereal. You can see how dangerous that is when it’s indiscriminately
used or purposely used to manipulate a population.
BuzzFlash: You brilliantly show this through interviews and through a
very creative use of lingo back and forth between the interviews and documentary
footage. Your focus is on the collusion of the corporately owned media, whose
interests are aligned with a government that provides economic tax breaks and
economic incentives to the corporate media.
Robert Kane Pappas: People don’t understand how overwhelmingly
important that point is.
BuzzFlash: Well, this is your point, and you make it very clearly. But
it’s also something that the media itself -- what we’ve just been
discussing -- lends itself to. Marshall McLuhan said television was a cold medium.
But for many people, at least as far as politics today, it’s an emotional
medium. I recall reading an interview with Chris Matthews saying issues don’t
matter any more. He said, and I paraphrase, that he goes with what his instincts
tell him, and his emotions -- that’s what interests the viewership. And
so television, whether it’s news, entertainment, commercials or negative
political ads -- it’s all the same technique, in a way.
Robert Kane Pappas: Bob McChesney and Charles Lewis make the point in the
movie that people who started out as journalists entered it as a public service,
and they find out that they’re really involved in the numbers. It’s
like they’re selling a TV series. This perverts news reporting terribly,
because some of the most important stories -- certainly the most important stories
most of the time -- are not that dramatic. What’s going on in the committee
room, which changes the scope of what you can own, where all of a sudden a big
entertainment entity can own both the conduit and the product -- all those TV
stations, all those cable stations, the newspaper, the movie studio, the radio
-- those behind-the-scenes, committee-type lobbyists hammering out the way the
law is written, or something that happens at the FCC, are so crucial to what
we’re going to see, how people are going to feel.
Yet it’s not dramatic, so the story goes under-reported, a blip on the
radar screen. We give much more notice to one kidnapped child than we do to
something that is vastly more important to the population in terms of consequences.
BuzzFlash: At one point, you show a chart of all the cross-ownership
of the media. CBS, for instance, recently didn’t allow MoveOn.org ads
during the Super Bowl, and CBS canceled the airing of a movie about Ronald Reagan
because of opposition from the right wing. NBC will not provide tapes of an
interview with Bush to a fellow documentary maker, Robert Greenwald, for a film
he’s doing because it’s embarrassing to Bush. In other words, they
won’t provide footage of a public appearance by Bush on "Meet the
Press" to a documentary maker. Disney, which owns ABC, prohibits Miramax
from distributing Michael Moore’s documentary. All this cross-ownership
is serving a censorship function for basically one political perspective and
one political party -- the Republican Party.
Robert Kane Pappas: The media companies say, "It’s our airwaves,
it’s our free speech," when it's really public airwaves. They use
that type of argument. They originally got all this extra ability to have these
various networks by claiming that it was going to improve diversity. But in
fact, through the use of stuff like copyright, Greenwald, for instance, can’t
have that news piece, which is a very important interview because it showed
whether our president understands a serious issue. They said, well, that’s
our program; we won’t license it to you. We own it.
BuzzFlash: As Mark Crispin Miller says in your film, we basically have
the appearance of diversity in media, when really there’s a uniformity
of message. He quotes Goebbels about that in your film. We keep hearing there’s
diversity, but then we get an instance like Sinclair Broadcasting saying they
won’t allow their affiliates to air "Nightline" the night it
memorialized the soldiers killed in Iraq, because they said that was a political
Robert Kane Pappas: In Disney’s case, the argument was we don’t
want to offend people, so we don’t want to distribute Mike Moore’s
movie because we have a family audience. Well, they have many divisions in Disney
-- Touchstone, Miramax -- and their films are not what you would call family-friendly.
Bigness makes you common-denominatorize everything. You don’t want to
offend. And then, at the same time, there are the government connections between,
say, the Bushes and major broadcast owners. And there’s such a connection
that there’s probably a wink and a nod, I would guess, and they make sure
that certain types of stuff doesn’t get on with regularity. So underneath
it all, there can be a political agenda, and it’s very easy to pull it
off now. You only need a few people well positioned. For instance, George Bush's
first cousin, John Ellis, ran Fox's presidential desk on election night in 2000.
BuzzFlash: And was talking to Jeb Bush and George Bush that evening on
Robert Kane Pappas: And Fox was the first network to call the election
for George Bush. We didn't hear much about that story.
BuzzFlash: In your film, the Clear Channel connection to Bush is brought
up, which we’ve covered on BuzzFlash. Here is a corporation that now owns
about 1,200 radio stations, and basically they are shills for the Bush administration.
They sponsored “support our troops” rallies. Well, we support our
troops, but they were basically saying support the Bush administration, and
they wouldn’t air any opinion to oppose the Iraq war. And the owner of
Sinclair Broadcasting was involved in the deal that made Bush a millionaire
with the Texas Rangers.
But let me go back to one of the people you interview. You’ve got an all-star
cast of experts on corporate media. Charles Lewis, who is stepping down after
a very illustrious career at the Center for Public Integrity, is a very candid
fellow and obviously has been non-partisan in exposing political chicanery and
fraud. But he admits that the Center for Public Integrity hasn’t focused
on the corporate media because to do so would, in essence, be stupid; he’d
lose media coverage for the other things they expose if they started to focus
too heavily on the media -- he didn’t say it exactly that way, but close
to it. And he said, well, how many people do you think we would get if we started
exposing the media? Coming from a guy who has as much integrity as one can have
in the world of public affairs, it was kind of chilling to hear that. And he
was being very honest about it, admitting that he’s not particularly proud
of it, but that’s the reality.
Robert Kane Pappas: The news media control the stories about the news
media. So if you want to report on the media, it has to go through the media.
They can stop it directly. They can frame any discussion on one of the news
shows so as to avoid or absolutely bounce off an issue like that, where it’s
immediately directed away from that type of discussion. The implicit threat
is, if you talk like that too much on the media, they will marginalize you.
You won’t be invited on the show. That is the implicit threat Charles
Lewis was talking about. So they have two levels of power there, like no other
As Bob McChesney brings up, even the oil industry and the tobacco industry are
not in control of the discussion of their stories. You can see how tobacco was
outed, in terms of its health effects. And oil -- you’ll have some discussion
about it. But in the realm of mass media and their unbelievable impact, they
never have to say they’re sorry. They never have to apologize for completely
blowing it. A good acquaintance of mine who works with Fox News, I called him
in January of 2003 and said, “What’s going on?” It was the
run up to the war, and he goes, “It’s the Super Bowl.” And
that phrase just caught me -- the Super Bowl. So this war was treated like something
to be sold.
The media never have to admit, "It wasn’t just the bad CIA information.
It was us, too." They don’t have to discuss that. Charles Lewis explains
how media consolidation impacts our political system because of the amount of
money candidates need to run political ads. He says that you are basically a
money-raising machine if you’re a politician. And
you have to get that money from people who want access. So on that level, it’s
destroying our political system.
And Lewis explains that they control how much airtime a politician gets, and
you’ve got to be famous to be elected. It’s an amazing methodology
BuzzFlash: You’ve mentioned that it’s all a kind of selling.
Corporations own these media companies. Their purpose is to sell products through
advertising dollars. To sell products, you have to have viewership. To have
viewership on politics now, it’s been decided by the corporate media that
you have to goose the emotions of the viewer, not necessarily provide information.
If you go up to Canada, they have what they call news readers, and you get information.
Here, you get a lot of emotion or visual imagery. As you were mentioning about
the Iraq War, the Super Bowl -- the first day of the Iraq war, you had this
24-hour coverage of shock and awe, as though the bombs dropped in Baghdad were
a fireworks display.
Robert Kane Pappas: It’s visuals and drama. As a filmmaker, I understand
this. We love the great big visuals and the drama of movies. That’s what
drives people to the movie theater a lot. This whole technique has been applied
to the news, and it kind of pulls things out of balance, and then what gets
the coverage is not what’s necessarily important.
BuzzFlash: The media today are part of a corporate world that’s
in the business of making a profit and selling something, not necessarily in
the business of serving the public interest. Let’s say a newspaper in
a mid-size city saw its primary goal as making money. But maybe it was family
owned and it had a sense of “civic responsibility.” At least, this
is our image of the ideal kind of print paper in America. Today we have large
corporations of which news divisions are only divisions within a television
network that’s owned by a larger parent company that, as you said, for
ABC, may have many divisions, including entertainment, and even many other businesses.
The news division is just a profit center for the larger company. As a profit
center, it has to, in essence, sell things -- in this case, advertising -- in
order to make money. So the news division just becomes part of that selling
Robert Kane Pappas: That seems to be intrinsically what’s going to
happen in these large corporations. But look what’s happened in addition
to that -- we had oodles of coverage about Martha Stewart. Not a single reporter
that I can think of asked, "Whatever happened with that Harken Energy thing
and President Bush?" At no point did the media ever say “Bush.”
They went back with Whitewater 10, 15 years with Clinton. The information is
out there in the public record; the prima facie evidence against President Bush
with regard to inside trading was very strong. They just never connected the
dots in what was a significant parallel. So here we have a case where, whether
it’s their corporate attitude of not offending or it’s purposeful,
they missed a very important story that defined Bush’s character.
BuzzFlash: I think it’s Charles Lewis again in your film who talked
about the range of coverage being very narrow -- in other words, the reporter
knows that they have to report within a certain framework, and that framework
means basically not doing investigative journalism to any great extent in the
papers any more. It means not riding the Bush administration too hard. It means
it’s acceptable to follow up on a story that Karl Rove and the RNC planted
-- that Kerry threw away his medals -- but not to emphasize the AWOL issue of
Bush too much.
Robert Kane Pappas: It’s a very particular type of self-censorship
on the part of reporters. Number one, you don’t want to offend your boss.
What happens in journalism is -- especially among the people on the tube --
you can make seven figures if you become a star reporter, or you could be working
at a newspaper for $50,000 a year. As you get higher up in corporate journalism
circles, the amount of money becomes exponentially more, so the tendency is
to self-censor more.
And when an administration
like the Bush administration has such connections to one of the three or four
companies that can hire you and pay you these huge salaries -- as opposed to
if there were 20 viable broadcast news services that had nationwide reach --
when there’s only a few, you can be blackballed easily. You can be viewed
as too much of a muckraker, which can kill your career.
BuzzFlash: When you were a film student, you interviewed an outgoing editor
of The New York Post, a Murdoch-owned paper.
Robert Kane Pappas: Right. I was in graduate film school at NYU. It was
during the hostage crisis and the gas crisis. And it was the first time I could
remember where there was this endless news story. In the case of The New
York Post, every day there was a little icon of a hostage blindfolded or
something. From day one to day four-hundred-something, it was just endless.
We’ve come to be used to it now with stories like the OJ trial, but this
was like a year-long soap opera. It seemed like something was happening to the
way they were reporting the news -- you could just feel it. When Murdoch bought
the Post, I didn’t even know who Murdoch was at the time, but its
sensationalism quotient went way up.
One day, I took a video camera down the Post, and I got an interview
with the city editor, Peter Mitchelmore, who was actually a Fleet Street guy.
I asked him about this hostage story. He goes, “Well, you know, actually
we’re getting kind of sick of the hostages now, aren’t we? I mean,
I hate to put it that way.” He himself had a problem with the presentation
of it, because at the end of the evening, he told me he was leaving the Post.
BuzzFlash: And you have that videotaped -- that grainy black-and-white
interview with the city editor of the Post who was about to be fired
because he was objecting to the sensational bent?
Robert Kane Pappas: I think he said he quit. He just laughs at the end
of the tape.
BuzzFlash: He says, “This is my last day,” or something.
You were there at the beginning of an era, sort of accidentally. Or you sort
of sniffed something in the air in the coverage of the Iraq hostages -- the
sensationalism, which now is regularly on television. Fox is certainly the chief
exploiter of that.
Let’s look at the role of Fox. It’s headed by Roger Ailes, a former
GOP operative, and one could argue he still is a GOP operative, although not
paid by the Republican party. Now he’s paid by Murdoch, who is a backer
of the Republican party. And talk about Orwellian -- here is a station that
Cheney says he watches, and it’s the only truthful station on television.
Robert Kane Pappas: It’s a propaganda service.
BuzzFlash: It’s a propaganda arm of the White House, more or less.
In fact, they became involved in trying to discredit Wesley Clark. They distributed
a videotape transcript the morning he was to appear at a Congressional committee
Robert Kane Pappas: I don’t think people understand how much power
that gives Bush and company, because they have a major worldwide news corporation
that can not only disseminate what they want disseminated, but it can keep a
story alive. It can set the focus on what part of the story we’re looking
at. And that’s key because, if you focus on a certain part of the story
to the exclusion of what was really important about the story, you can effectively
hide in plain sight what a more rigorous news media would pick up on. Oftentimes,
it's what the foreign press picks up on.
BuzzFlash: What could be more Orwellian than Fox calling itself “fair
and balanced” as a slogan?
Robert Kane Pappas: I believe they also tried to copyright it.
BuzzFlash: And sue Al Franken.
Robert Kane Pappas: But to call yourself the exact opposite of what you
are -- that’s free speech. It’s your speech. And you can repeat
it. And you have the image of the waving flag on your screen suggesting "This
is the patriotic network." Well, Murdoch, born in Australia -- Australian
citizenship, American citizenship -- he refers to himself as a Brit. We’re
talking about a man of the world who is married to a Chinese national, his third
wife. He has two young children. In a true sense, he controls a huge hunk of
the Chinese media. And he’s in partnership with the Chinese. Now for him
to own the patriotic network where everyone’s running around -- I watch
Fox! I’m a patriot! -- because the flag is waving on the side of the screen,
and it calls itself fair and balanced, but it’s an arm of the Republican
party’s propaganda, is an incredible situation.
BuzzFlash: And Fox knows how to use modern technology to be graphically
attractive, visually enticing.
Robert Kane Pappas: They’re brilliant technicians. They know how
to move images on the screen and use music. They’re as good as or better
than CNN, NBC, they’re tops in that field. There are a lot of very talented
editors and graphics people working at Fox.
BuzzFlash: The most basic political technique of the right wing and the
Republican party is character assassination. We’ve seen a shift perhaps
from the discussion of politics into a dissection of personality. We saw that
tellingly, of course, in the Clinton administration, with "Slick Willie"
and so forth. Then we saw The New York Times and Washington Post
adopt the Republican party attack on Al Gore -- that somehow he was a liar --
without really seriously questioning the massive deception and lies of the Bush
campaign in 2000. They have started up with John Kerry, following the Republican
line, saying he’s a waffler.
Robert Kane Pappas: If you wrote or sold a product so deceptively, you’d
be in jail or out of business.
BuzzFlash: What is it about television? Most of the right wing commentators
attack personality and character more than they even attack public policy.
Robert Kane Pappas: But it’s a technique. Some of this is real
dark science. I remember in the run-up to the 2000 election, after the first
debate -- and I believe it could have been planned because it was worked out
so quickly -- one of the networks put together a montage of close ups of Al
Gore expressing impatience with Bush’s answers -- exhaling. They strung
together these two- and three-second clips. And within hours, on all the news
shows the debate centered on Al Gore’s expressions, not the substance
of the debate. They were able to absolutely change the discussion from what
these guys were talking about, to a discussion about Al Gore’s facial
expressions, giving Bush a complete free ride. Bush was barely coherent in the
first debate, but it was all about Al Gore. That shows the amazing power of
The same thing happened with Dean, when he exhorted his followers following
the Iowa Caucuses.
BuzzFlash: Didn’t Diane Sawyer ultimately apologize?
Robert Kane Pappas: Apologies don’t make it, because everyone knows
the first impression is the impression that’s repeated and repeated and
repeated. And these are techniques that the Republicans use. Bush has flip-flopped
on many things when it suits him. He will change on a dime, and the media will
not call it a flip-flop. The Republicans have been so clever about, as we said,
euphemistically using the language in a very disciplined way, and to ends that
I don’t believe in. They repeat and repeat that two-word phrase to describe
someone or to assassinate their character.
If the Democrats turned
around right now and had the picture of Bush in his flight suit with the caption,
“Mission accomplished,” and then someone laughed on the track, and
we showed that thousands of times to the public, I wonder what would happen?
It’s a one-way street, largely, in the area of character assassination.
BuzzFlash: Is this because the Democrats won’t do it?
Robert Kane Pappas: When you’re really thinking in terms of marketing
in a strict sense, it would be like one ad says, “This cereal is really
good. This cereal is really good. This cereal is really good” -- never
changes the pitch -- that's the Republican marketers. Meanwhile, the Democratic
commercial says, "This cereal is good," and then another commercial
says, "This cereal's usually good, but if you eat too much you might get
sick." I'm simplifying, but that's pretty much the difference between the
Republicans' and Democrats' discussion of issues.
Republicans have taken a corporate marketing approach very akin to marketing
a product on TV. They repeat the same phrase until people are sick of hearing
it, but now they believe it. The Democrats actually think that there’s
information being transmitted here, and maybe more is better. Or let’s
see more than one side. Let’s air this thing a little bit more. By definition,
that is not going to be as good a marketing technique as repeating your same
phrase. It just makes sense. And on that level, that’s what the Republicans
do. They have the discipline to sell that product. And then they have the choir
repeating that same phrase. And that’s how it works.
BuzzFlash: Yours is the only documentary we’ve seen that’s
so focused completely on the media while tying in other issues -- the media’s
role in the Florida recount, judicial nominations, and so forth. Are the media
what would be known in marketing terms as the vehicle of distribution for the
Robert Kane Pappas: Yes.
BuzzFlash: And so the messaging gets through the brand identity which
is, in Bush’s case, he’s a virtuous man. He’s an honest man.
He’s a family man. He’s a religious man. He’s a man of values.
This is key to their brand identity, which is eroding a bit now because of the
Iraq torture scandal. But the media still accepts as conventional wisdom that
he is all these things.
Robert Kane Pappas: But this problem will continue to go on even if Kerry
wins. We need to fix what they’ve done over the last four years. We can
keep that at bay by focusing on a mistake Kerry will make if he’s elected,
so this is an ongoing problem. We couldn’t be in the pickle we’re
in if it weren’t for just a few companies reciting the same line in unison
and then moving on to the next one. Their techniques and their structure and
their methodology are really problematic. The media conglomerates need to be
re-regulated. Their structure and methodology are seriously flawed.
BuzzFlash: Greg Palast, who is a favorite of ours, makes an appearance
in your film. There’s a wonderful flow to your film, and it brings together
many diverse issues relating to media coverage and corporate ownership. You
spent some time on the issue of the so-called consortium that studied the recount
and hired the University of Chicago firm that’s expert at polling and
polling analysis to do an analysis. You come to the conclusion that the consortium
intentionally took a position that made it appear that Bush actually won, when
that wasn’t the case.
Robert Kane Pappas: The network consortium did a couple of things. They
said you can do all this research about what happened with the ballots, but
you cannot characterize it. This company was not allowed to categorize or speak
about its own results. That’s crucial. Once again the discussion was contained.
CBS said it had never seen such an exit poll where the one candidate was projected
to win by seven-plus percent, and they were off, and he lost. Look at the Congressional
testimony of that stuff. It speaks volumes.
BuzzFlash: Let’s return again to something that I believe Charles
Lewis brought up. In the issue of deregulation that’s recently come up,
there have been a few rounds of this. One of them occurred, I believe, in ’96.
He brought up that, before the Internet really blossomed, and there wasn’t
a large alternative for news, the media, he said, hardly covered at all the
fact that they were seeking deregulation. And this is sort of understandable;
they don’t want to draw attention to it themselves. But the statistic
on the number of stories about the issue of deregulation coming before the FCC
was miniscule on television.
Robert Kane Pappas: It was the 1996 Telecommunications Act. I was watching
the process a little bit by now, and the press would keep repeating the phrase,
"Telecommunications Act," sometimes using the adjective "landmark,"
but we never had any idea what was in it. According to one survey -- and I can’t
think of the name of the group -- one of those centers that calculates what
appears on all the major networks and for how long -- found that there was a
total of 19 minutes of coverage on the Telecommunications Act by all the major
networks combined over a period of 9 months.
John McCain stood in front
of the Senate and said: This discussion we’re having now -- you will not
see this on any TV news program or read it in any newspaper. He’s one
of the Republicans that will call a spade a spade occasionally. And this massive
bill that changed all the rules was kept from public view, and was drafted behind
[BuzzFlash Note: Part 2
of this interview will appear at a later date.]
A BUZZFLASH INTERVIEW
* * *
Your Copy of "Orwell Rolls in His Grave" from