What’s so ‘alternative’ about these alternatives?

I simply don’t get it! Actually, I haven’t been ‘getting it’ for a while. Maybe you can help me get it; will you? Here is the quandary: There are several major websites out there with quite a following. These websites advertise themselves as the ‘alternative.’ That is, the alternative to the mainstream media. They market themselves as ‘raw’ news and commentary sites. That is, the ‘real & raw’ news versus the processed, filtered, span bull sh. . sold to the public as ‘news.’ So, they say all that, right? Well, that was the straight forward and easy part.

Here is where the quandary begins:

I have been visiting these ‘alternative & raw’ news and analyses sites for a year or two. I go to these sites and check out every single headline-title boldly displayed on their homepage. When I click and check out these titles-headlines-links I end up finding myself standing right in the middle of the mainstream media news outlets: New York Times, Washington Post, MSNBC, LA Times, ABC . . . And I go ‘ what the he . . . ’ I check to see whether I made a mistake, took a wrong turn along the way, that is from the moment I entered these ‘alternative’ sites and clicked on their supposed ‘alternative’ headlines links, and frankly, I can’t see how I (or anyone) could have lost my way and ended up right in the bosom of the very mainstream media I’ve been trying to avoid. I then turn around, all disgusted, and quickly leave the very mainstream sites I have come to despise, thinking; heck I ended up adding one more hit to their traffic stats, and most likely contributed a penny or two to their corporate advertisers. Are you still with me? I kinda get it up to this point, and this is where I get stuck:

I, and many others like me, go to these ‘alternative & raw’ news and information sites because I know not to trust and support the corporate-owned and government-controlled mainstream news sites. But then, when I go to these ‘alternative & raw’ sites and check out their bold headlines, I am either taken directly to those same mainstream sites I try so hard to avoid, or, I am given the same propaganda’s summarized version with an audacious note indicating the source as the same evil mainstream media outlet. If this trend had applied only to . . . let’s say 25% of their content, headlines, then, I’d say ‘okay; tons of good for a little evil-bad.’ However, this trend applies to more than 75% of these major ‘alternative & raw’ news sites. Don’t take my word for it; go check and compile your statistics/numbers. Then why the he. . do I bother checking out these ‘alternative & raw’ sites? Why the he. . do I expose myself to the same propaganda only delivered via a third party?

And while we are at it: don’t these ‘alternative & raw’ news sites actually participate in disseminating the establishment-mainstream propaganda? Aren’t they increasing the visitors traffic thus the corporate advertiser revenue for these establishment-mainstream propaganda outlets? Then, when it comes down to it, aren’t these ‘alternative & raw’ outlets extensions of and pimps for the establishment-mainstream media?

Then why the he. . would anyone bother visiting these quasi ‘alternative & raw’ news sites? I don’t get it. Do you? Any food for thought?

In addition to publishing Boiling Frogs, where this article originally appeared, Sibel Edmonds is the founder and president of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC), a nonprofit organization dedicated to aiding national security whistleblowers. She has appeared on national radio and TV as a commentator on matters related to whistleblowers, national security, and excessive secrecy & classification, and has been featured on CBS 60 Minutes, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, and in the New York Times, Washington Post, Vanity Fair, The American Conservative, and others. Her book, ‘Shooting the Messenger,’ co-authored with Professor William Weaver, is forthcoming from Kansas University Press in the fall of 2010.