this is funny stuff: the article cites reed irvine's "accuracy in media" outfit--the politics and results of which are obvious--check them out:
http://www.aim.org/
and proceeds to build a "case" for some kind of "left media conspiracy"---which ustwo then repeats on his own, as if repeating a dubious (at best) claim makes everything somehow better. so much for the interpretation.
the article itself is truncated to the point of incoherence (perhaps you have to do this kind of thing if you want information to fit inside a far right interpretation...who knows, really)....so you can't tell if things are as they appear to be from this account or if something else is happening in the situation--for example, anyone can claim to be getting ready to launch an attack on the us, yes?---i am not sure that this problem of superficial reporting would be so central if it was not attached to such a whackjob "explanation" for the non-importance of the story in the american press, such as it is.
so this looks like gertrude stein thought oakland did: there's no there there.