Chicken Chicks
Diane Sawyer's Interview Reveals More Media Bias

Millions of Americans tuned in over a week ago last Thursday to watch the Dixie Chicks cower in front Diane Sawyer, who played more the part of an angry parent than an objective reporter. While parts of the report did seem fair and balanced, the non-verbal cues throughout the interview pointed to the fact that free speech in America is on its deathbed.

Any soul who has already begun to unlearn almost surely realizes by now that the mainstream media is the puppet voice of corporate America, secret governments, and the wealthy elite who control them both. So one thing you knew you WERE NOT going to see that night was a lively, intelligent discussion about free speech. What you did get was another attempt at consensus mind control.

Sitting there in all her self-righteous glory, Diane Sawyer repeatedly asked questions with a loaded body language that reflected the sentiment of one of her questions; "What were you thinking!?" In other words, how dare you speak out against the president, especially on the eve of war! The only thing missing from Ms. Sawyer that evening was a pair of horned-rimmed glasses to stare out over, and possibly a ruler in which to smack across Natalie Maines' knuckles. "Bad Girl! Now apologize and take your time out."

Also notice that Ms. Sawyer chose to interview the Dixie Chicks, whose anti-war message was limited to a very weak statement about Ms. Maines' embarrassment in sharing the same state with our current dictator-in-chief. No chance of getting a more intelligent anti-war voice fighting censorship on the show, such as a Tim Robins or Susan Sarandon. Both of those advocates would easily run rings around Ms. Sawyer's grade-school interrogation tactics. They also would not have apologized or broken down into tears either, robbing ABC of the drama it knew it would get with country music's most celebrated, but certainly not most intelligent, band.

So in the end, the Chick's make it clear that they "support the troops", whatever the Hell that means (see previous editorial), even though it still isn't clear to them WHY the troops are over there. Ms. Maines ultimately retracts her controversial statement, hoping that she and her band can return to a normal life of sedating the masses through tried and true music marketing techniques of looking sexy and singing lyrics that lack substance.

While the interview was a network ratings victory for ABC, the more important goal of reinforcing a dying world vision was accomplished that evening. Had the Dixie Chicks been unrepentant and steadfast in their anti-war stance, the interview would never have made it on the air.

If the networks pursued the Bush administration's criminal role in the Enron scandal, or more importantly, September 11th, as they did the Dixie Chicks, perhaps the world would be one step closer to freedom than one step closer to global fascism. But let's not forget where Ms. Sawyer draws her checks from, shall we?

The Institute of Unlearning believes that despite the apparent victory of ABC in this round, it ultimately can go down as a defeat for the elite controllers if the unlearner sees through the transparent aims of the anything-but-objective media. Then we wouldn't have to listen to the proverbial fat lady, or in this case the Dixie Chicks, sing out the end of human freedom.

Whose Life Are You Living?