NationStates Jolt Archive

Forgive me for this, but when I read stories like this one (http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000653667), I feel like my head is going to explode. Now before I begin, I have to say that in this particular instance, blame extends beyond the media outlets, because a certain very prominent politician has been making this claim publicly--or at least hinting at it--for the last two years, but damnit, the media could have called him on it.
NEW YORK While the press gave extensive coverage Tuesday to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s statement that he hasn't seen "any strong, hard evidence" to link Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaeda terrorists who staged the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, it became ever more apparent that the media still have their work cut out for them on this issue.

Rumsfeld's comments came as a new USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll found that 42% of those surveyed thought the former Iraqi leader was involved in the attacks on New York City and Washington.

In response to another question, 32% said they thought Saddam had personally planned them.

The same poll in June showed that 56% of all Republicans said they thought Saddam was involved with the 9/11 attacks. In the latest poll that number actually climbs, to 62%.

The independent commission that investigated 9/11 concluded in June that there was "no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." The panel also said "contacts" between al-Qaeda and Iraq "do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."See what happens when your news media gets to be more concerned with profits than with doing their job as government watchdog?

Oh, and by the way--just one more nail in the "liberal media" meme's coffin.

Both Bush AND Cheney have said that Saddam did NOT have anything to do with 9-11. However, he did provide support for terrorists.

That some people believe otherwise is on them. Unless you think that Bush and Cheney have some way of controlling peoples minds.

Both Bush AND Cheney have said that Saddam did NOT have anything to do with 9-11. However, he did provide support for terrorists.

That some people believe otherwise is on them. Unless you think that Bush and Cheney have some way of controlling peoples minds.
Both Bush and Cheney did say it, true, but Cheney only did so last night and Bush only did so after being cornered into it by a reporter some months ago, long after the Iraq invasion had taken place. They also both said there was a connection, and more importantly, hinted around about it, for much of the time between the 9/11 attacks and the invasion, and the press rarely, if ever, called them on it.

Do Cheney and Bush have some way of controlling peoples' minds? In a sense they do--a complacent and compliant media, and that's who I'm pissed at in this thread. If they'd called Bush and Cheney out when they first made the statement, or trumpeted it when it became clear that it wasn't true, then we might not have 62% of Republicans polled thinking it was.

Both Bush and Cheney did say it, true, but Cheney only did so last night and Bush only did so after being cornered into it by a reporter some months ago, long after the Iraq invasion had taken place. They also both said there was a connection, and more importantly, hinted around about it, for much of the time between the 9/11 attacks and the invasion, and the press rarely, if ever, called them on it.

Do Cheney and Bush have some way of controlling peoples' minds? In a sense they do--a complacent and compliant media, and that's who I'm pissed at in this thread. If they'd called Bush and Cheney out when they first made the statement, or trumpeted it when it became clear that it wasn't true, then we might not have 62% of Republicans polled thinking it was.

You see the media as biased to the right, I see it biased to the left. Who is right? Neither. The media cannot win. Any story they write will be looked at through the eyes of the reader and held up against the readers values and seen in whatever light that allows.

If a story is critical of Kerry you would probably say it is a right biased story and I would see it is accurate. The opposite for a story critical of Bush.

For the record once more...I am not so much "for" Bush as I am against Kerry. Kerry is such a scumbag in my eyes. He will raise our taxes if he gets the chance to pay for some feel good program that will cost more than it should and the country will become weaker in the process.

We disagree on one very important point--you see the media in general as having a political bias. I don't, with a few exceptions. Let me give you an example. ClearChannel is notorious for their right-leaning owner and stunts in the past. They sponsored "support the war" rallies during the run up to the war in Iraq, and the owner has been a Bush supporter from before Bush was actively in politics. But when you look at Air America's most recent expansions, they're to ClearChannel stations. Why? Because profits are the most important thing to the corporation, and right now, Air America is hot. Profits can overcome political bias much of the time.

Most of the media, because it is corporate, has a bias toward profits and nothing else, and investigating stories costs money, money that could just as easily go toward shareholder dividends or executive bonuses. That's the problem--they've gotten cheap, and as a result, they've shirked their responsibility to us as citizens. Because of that, we have 42% of the people in this survey believing something that no one in this country should believe, namely, that there were operational ties between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.

You think I'm being ideological here, but I'm not--this is not a left-right, liberal-conservative problem. A news media that underserves the people who count on it is a bad thing for everyone, no matter what your political leaning, because as Jefferson noted, a working democracy requires an educated and well-informed electorate. The above example shows that our electorate is not well-informed, and it doesn't point out any one media group and blame them for it. All are to blame, some more than others perhaps, but all are responsible.

Forgive me for this, but when I read stories like this one (http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000653667), I feel like my head is going to explode. Now before I begin, I have to say that in this particular instance, blame extends beyond the media outlets, because a certain very prominent politician has been making this claim publicly--or at least hinting at it--for the last two years, but damnit, the media could have called him on it.
See what happens when your news media gets to be more concerned with profits than with doing their job as government watchdog?

Oh, and by the way--just one more nail in the "liberal media" meme's coffin.
Or, we can just confidently say, once and for all, that polls are complete and utter horsepoo.

The US media as of late has just become a failure all around. If it does not agree with a person's particular slant it must needs be biased the other way. Or at least, that is the prevalent belief among people in the US.

Truth be told, the media is just looking for the flashiest stories to get the best ratings possible. They are conscerned with numbers, not with the truth. Not anymore.

That some people believe otherwise is on them. Unless you think that Bush and Cheney have some way of controlling peoples minds.
It's my idiotic opinion that this nation is comprised largely of idiots. So if, by saying that Bush and Cheney have a way of controlling minds by the daily dissemination of so called facts, for well over 18 months on an almost daily basis in all major media outlets, then yes, I think they do.
When you hear, see and read lies (ok - misinformed statements) over and over again over a long period of time, they become truth. To the average idiot anyway.

Or, we can just confidently say, once and for all, that polls are complete and utter horsepoo.

Yeah...statistics are crap, everyone knows americans are actually slender braniacs.

Yeah...statistics are crap, everyone knows americans are actually slender braniacs.
I believe he is referring specifically to political polls. Which is why he said polls, not statistics.

And yes, political polls as of late have been highly untrustworthy

Both Bush and Cheney did say it, true, but Cheney only did so last night and Bush only did so after being cornered into it by a reporter some months ago, long after the Iraq invasion had taken place. They also both said there was a connection, and more importantly, hinted around about it, for much of the time between the 9/11 attacks and the invasion, and the press rarely, if ever, called them on it.

Do Cheney and Bush have some way of controlling peoples' minds? In a sense they do--a complacent and compliant media, and that's who I'm pissed at in this thread. If they'd called Bush and Cheney out when they first made the statement, or trumpeted it when it became clear that it wasn't true, then we might not have 62% of Republicans polled thinking it was.
In basic psychology there is the whole STRONG concept of a "control group", to which the poll in this case relies upon itself ... i note little involvement of democrats, just republicans and conveniently undeclared in this case ....
I would be inclined, upon reading, that with the poll, specifying republicans for the 62% figure, only 28% of republicans were NOT spoonfed chimpf*ck parrot morons w/proportionate intelligence quotients of figs.
Why wouldn't it say, i wonder, what percentage of democrats believed that, since it mentioned earlier in the main poll that the test group is a general assemblage of people?
Left on that merit, i guess my response in thinking that the majority of people at least in this poll (and maybe many others), being republicans, aren't likely to be able to pour water out of a boot with instructions on the heel.

Forgive me for this, but when I read stories like this one (http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000653667), I feel like my head is going to explode. Now before I begin, I have to say that in this particular instance, blame extends beyond the media outlets, because a certain very prominent politician has been making this claim publicly--or at least hinting at it--for the last two years, but damnit, the media could have called him on it.
See what happens when your news media gets to be more concerned with profits than with doing their job as government watchdog?

Oh, and by the way--just one more nail in the "liberal media" meme's coffin.

What does this have to do with media, other than show that Republicans believe what they feel like believing regardless of what evidence they are presented with?

I believe he is referring specifically to political polls. Which is why he said polls, not statistics.

And yes, political polls as of late have been highly untrustworthy

Well, I said statistics...
But nevermind. Whose interests would it serve to fake the results of a poll like that one?

Well, I said statistics...
But nevermind. Whose interests would it serve to fake the results of a poll like that one?

Oftentimes results aren't faked on purpose; subconscious bias.

But with regards to political polls, it may benefit any number of groups or people. Either campaign could have their interests served with a faked poll quite well.

What does this have to do with media, other than show that Republicans believe what they feel like believing regardless of what evidence they are presented with?
It's like this--if the media were doing their jobs, namely, getting to the facts and appropriate context in a story instead of playing "on the one hand/on the other hand" all the time, as though non-factual claims were somehow worthy of the same treatment as factual ones, then this wouldn't be nearly the issue it is today, (and Bush probably wouldn't be the nominee, his party having jettisoned him for anyone else). But the media does precious little investigative journalism anymore, and we get the short end of it as a result--all of us, not just the woefully misinformed--because those misinformed people have a vote that counts for just as much as the votes of those of us who have been paying attention the whole time.

This is exactly the reason why 44% of people polled believe that WMD's have been found in Iraq, even when they most certainly have not.

The media failed to attack Bush for his failures in intelligence gathering, and invading another soveriegn government under mysterious circumstances.


Imagine if Austrailia invaded England for no good reason.....the media would be all over it, and heads would roll.

Instead, News companies like Fox News, have appluaded him for it.

This is THE biggest failure of a President, since Ive been alive, and the American Media has dropped the ball in a huge way.

Why on Earth should I have to get reliable news from the Daily Show?
Or The Guardian?

I believe he is referring specifically to political polls. Which is why he said polls, not statistics.
<--- she

Imagine if Austrailia invaded England for no good reason.....the media would be all over it, and heads would roll.


Hell, if Australia invaded England everyone would be all over it. England far outpaces Australia militarily; that would have to be one hell of an invasion.

<--- she
My apologies.

Hell, if Australia invaded England everyone would be all over it. England far outpaces Australia militarily; that would have to be one hell of an invasion.


Who cares?

I think you see my point.

If any other country invaded another on false or uncertain circumstances there would be no end to the outrage.

This is exactly the reason why 44% of people polled believe that WMD's have been found in Iraq, even when they most certainly have not.

The media failed to attack Bush for his failures in intelligence gathering, and invading another soveriegn government under mysterious circumstances.


Imagine if Austrailia invaded England for no good reason.....the media would be all over it, and heads would roll.

Instead, News companies like Fox News, have appluaded him for it.

This is THE biggest failure of a President, since Ive been alive, and the American Media has dropped the ball in a huge way.

Why on Earth should I have to get reliable news from the Daily Show?
Or The Guardian?
Sarin, antrax, and other non-nuclear WMD's have been found. And Bush isn't in charge of gathering intelligence. And Bush didn't invade anyone. Nice try though.

I think you see my point.

If any other country invaded another on false or uncertain circumstances there would be no end to the outrage.

Agreed. It seems the US media gave bush a slip on that one, while any other nation would have seen no end to the coverage.

Sarin, antrax, and other non-nuclear WMD's have been found. And Bush isn't in charge of gathering intelligence. And Bush didn't invade anyone. Nice try though.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041007/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq_weapons&cid=540&ncid=716

They have found no illegal weapons produced since 1991, before the first war.
You are right, Bush is not in charge of gathering intelligence. However, he did give the orders to invade Iraq on what is quickly being perceived as nonexistent grounds.

Sarin, antrax, and other non-nuclear WMD's have been found. And Bush isn't in charge of gathering intelligence. And Bush didn't invade anyone. Nice try though.


Bullshit,.

If anything significant had been found Fox News would still be touting it as a victory.

Provide some proof.

Bush is the chief of the executive branch, its his job to view the intelligence that was gathered, and make good decisions based on the crdibility of that evidence.

He failed.

Nothing has been found.

And Bush most certainly DID invade Iraq.

What Bush and co. are capable of is documented here. (http://www.mediabistro.com/articles/cache/a2124.asp) And before everyone starts crying "Wolf! WOLF!" check the website (http://spinsanity.com/) that it comes from.

This is a non-partisan issue, as the slow decline of actual investigating has been happening for while. Now it's costing lives. Sites like the above and Factcheck.org (http://factcheck.org/) are not enough, and wouldn't be neccisary at all if the media did it's job.

the American media must be overthrown--theyre just another arm of the corporate facist police state

the American media must be overthrown--theyre just another arm of the corporate facist police state


oui, c'est vrai.

keep the New York Times though, and the New Yorker.

oui, c'est vrai.

keep the New York Times though, and the New Yorker.
and Vanity Fair

and Vanity Fair

Hard to go wrong with anything Conde Nast puts out.


Ooh, cant forget the New York Review of Books either.

the American media must be overthrown--theyre just another arm of the corporate facist police state
the insane side, http://folk.uio.no/tfredvik/g35/scans/insane.gif welcome to the maddness.

Hard to go wrong with anything Conde Nast puts out.


Ooh, cant forget the New York Review of Books either.
C-span is good too I forgot them

C-span is good too I forgot them


Yup, but for the rest of the corporate 'news' media, there is the ditch and the firing squad.

Yup, but for the rest of the corporate 'news' media, there is the ditch and the firing squad.
and throw the FCC into the ditch too

It's like this--if the media were doing their jobs, namely, getting to the facts and appropriate context in a story instead of playing "on the one hand/on the other hand" all the time, as though non-factual claims were somehow worthy of the same treatment as factual ones, then this wouldn't be nearly the issue it is today, (and Bush probably wouldn't be the nominee, his party having jettisoned him for anyone else). But the media does precious little investigative journalism anymore, and we get the short end of it as a result--all of us, not just the woefully misinformed--because those misinformed people have a vote that counts for just as much as the votes of those of us who have been paying attention the whole time.

Well it sounds to me like the connection you are making is that it is the media's responsibility to turn ordinary street-level Republicans/conservatives into free-thinking authority-questioning sentient beings. If all of the GDP of Earth were put into education and journalism I doubt that would ever be possible (especially since we'd all be too busy starving ;) ).

But let's look at this case: Bush and his puppeteers strongly infered, via word and deed, that there was convincing intel that Saddam had Al Queida connections, and the media reported that they did. The Nine-Eleven Commission concluded that there was no evidence of such connections, and the media reported that. Rumsfeld himself recently said that there was no strong hard evidence of any such connection, and the media reported that. The percentage of Republicans who believe that such a connection did exist has actually gone up since the Nine Eleven Commission's report was released, and the media reported that too.

What would you have the media do? Insert their own undercover operatives into Al Queida? Interview detained Iraqi officials directly? Go door-by-door to the homes of every registered Republican in the USA and tie them down with their eyes fastened open a-la-A Clockwork Orange and force them to digest the evidence? Send them to reNeducation camps until their delusions of Republican honesty have been purged?

Everything they have reported in this matter is, to the best of our current knowledge, the truth. The media have no direct knowledge of whether or not Saddam and Bin Ladin were in cahoots, so what can they do except report the information that is available to them, namely, what claims who has made?

Well it sounds to me like the connection you are making is that it is the media's responsibility to turn ordinary street-level Republicans/conservatives into free-thinking authority-questioning sentient beings. If all of the GDP of Earth were put into education and journalism I doubt that would ever be possible (especially since we'd all be too busy starving ;) ).

But let's look at this case: Bush and his puppeteers strongly infered, via word and deed, that there was convincing intel that Saddam had Al Queida connections, and the media reported that they did. The Nine-Eleven Commission concluded that there was no evidence of such connections, and the media reported that. Rumsfeld himself recently said that there was no strong hard evidence of any such connection, and the media reported that. The percentage of Republicans who believe that such a connection did exist has actually gone up since the Nine Eleven Commission's report was released, and the media reported that too.

What would you have the media do? Insert their own undercover operatives into Al Queida? Interview detained Iraqi officials directly? Go door-by-door to the homes of every registered Republican in the USA and tie them down with their eyes fastened open a-la-A Clockwork Orange and force them to digest the evidence? Send them to reNeducation camps until their delusions of Republican honesty have been purged?

Everything they have reported in this matter is, to the best of our current knowledge, the truth. The media have no direct knowledge of whether or not Saddam and Bin Ladin were in cahoots, so what can they do except report the information that is available to them, namely, what claims who has made?

The problem is, now that's it's been proven wrong, nobody talks about it.

Well it sounds to me like the connection you are making is that it is the media's responsibility to turn ordinary street-level Republicans/conservatives into free-thinking authority-questioning sentient beings. If all of the GDP of Earth were put into education and journalism I doubt that would ever be possible (especially since we'd all be too busy starving ;) ).

But let's look at this case: Bush and his puppeteers strongly infered, via word and deed, that there was convincing intel that Saddam had Al Queida connections, and the media reported that they did. The Nine-Eleven Commission concluded that there was no evidence of such connections, and the media reported that. Rumsfeld himself recently said that there was no strong hard evidence of any such connection, and the media reported that. The percentage of Republicans who believe that such a connection did exist has actually gone up since the Nine Eleven Commission's report was released, and the media reported that too.

What would you have the media do? Insert their own undercover operatives into Al Queida? Interview detained Iraqi officials directly? Go door-by-door to the homes of every registered Republican in the USA and tie them down with their eyes fastened open a-la-A Clockwork Orange and force them to digest the evidence? Send them to reNeducation camps until their delusions of Republican honesty have been purged?

Everything they have reported in this matter is, to the best of our current knowledge, the truth. The media have no direct knowledge of whether or not Saddam and Bin Ladin were in cahoots, so what can they do except report the information that is available to them, namely, what claims who has made?

The trouble I have with that whole rhetoric is that it means the media doesnt go after leaders in power when they make poor, or irational decisions.
If just ONE major news source went to Bush and asked:

"Mr. President, now that even Donald Rumsfeld agrees that there is no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to Al-Qeada, and that there appear to be no evidence of Weapons of mass destruction, how was Iraq, enough of a threat to leave the job in Afghanistan, and invade them, worthwhile?
How can you justify over 1000 American lives, and the lives of ten thousand Iraqi civillians, when the reason for invasion was wrong?"

Not ONE network has asked him any such questions.

The trouble I have with that whole rhetoric is that it means the media doesnt go after leaders in power when they make poor, or irational decisions.
If just ONE major news source went to Bush and asked:

"Mr. President, now that even Donald Rumsfeld agrees that there is no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to Al-Qeada, and that there appear to be no evidence of Weapons of mass destruction, how was Iraq, enough of a threat to leave the job in Afghanistan, and invade them, worthwhile?
How can you justify over 1000 American lives, and the lives of ten thousand Iraqi civillians, when the reason for invasion was wrong?"

Not ONE network has asked him any such questions.
the trouble i have is that these same reporters and anchors and newsfolk had no problem asking Clinton every possible question about dress stains and cigars and blowjobs. yet nobody wants to ask our current president about blood stains and WMD and the self-felating behavior that this administration has engaged in at the expense of over 1000 American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.

"Mr. President, now that even Donald Rumsfeld agrees that there is no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to Al-Qeada, and that there appear to be no evidence of Weapons of mass destruction, how was Iraq, enough of a threat to leave the job in Afghanistan, and invade them, worthwhile? How can you justify over 1000 American lives, and the lives of ten thousand Iraqi civillians, when the reason for invasion was wrong?"

If they did phrase questions like this, the majority of the American people would stop watching them, concluding that they were simply far left of the majority, and rightly so. Just a few examples of why:

1. We didn't "leave the job in Afghanistan."

2. There is no evidence that anything closely resembling "ten thousand Iraqi civilians" were killed in the invasion.

3. Though the intelligence concerning Weapons of Mass Destruction was overstated, even the most recent investigations of this issue conclude that Saddam retained the capability to restart the programs to develop WMD once the invasion was over. In addition, a number of highly reputable sources ( including the Theatre Commander ) have concluded that Saddam had his chemical and biological weapons moved into Syria's Bekkaah Valley at the start of the war.

4. There have been a number of well-documented contacts between Saddam's government and other terrorist organizations.

5. Even a 50/50 chance that a rogue nation possesses WMD would, in my opinion, justify military action. The potential consequences are so dire that we must err on the side of caution. I think most people who have actually thought about this potential would rather see an invasion than a repetition of 9/11 ... or something far worse.

Now ... have at it. :)

The media failing to do it’s job properly is anything but new news.

Well it sounds to me like the connection you are making is that it is the media's responsibility to turn ordinary street-level Republicans/conservatives into free-thinking authority-questioning sentient beings. If all of the GDP of Earth were put into education and journalism I doubt that would ever be possible (especially since we'd all be too busy starving ;) ).

But let's look at this case: Bush and his puppeteers strongly infered, via word and deed, that there was convincing intel that Saddam had Al Queida connections, and the media reported that they did. The Nine-Eleven Commission concluded that there was no evidence of such connections, and the media reported that. Rumsfeld himself recently said that there was no strong hard evidence of any such connection, and the media reported that. The percentage of Republicans who believe that such a connection did exist has actually gone up since the Nine Eleven Commission's report was released, and the media reported that too.

What would you have the media do? Insert their own undercover operatives into Al Queida? Interview detained Iraqi officials directly? Go door-by-door to the homes of every registered Republican in the USA and tie them down with their eyes fastened open a-la-A Clockwork Orange and force them to digest the evidence? Send them to reNeducation camps until their delusions of Republican honesty have been purged?

Everything they have reported in this matter is, to the best of our current knowledge, the truth. The media have no direct knowledge of whether or not Saddam and Bin Ladin were in cahoots, so what can they do except report the information that is available to them, namely, what claims who has made?Here's the thing--there were massive holes in the Bush administrations's claims about Iraq from the very beginning, and there were a few media outlets outside the mainstream who were asking questions about those holes, but they were shouted down by the CNNs and FNCs and the big three networks and most people never heard a peep about it. Most people thought the media was doing its job and that the government was therefore telling us the truth about the situation. It wouldn't have taken inserting someone into al Qaeda to find out that Bush was full of shit. It would have just required someone willing to question the inconsistencies in the stories the Bush administration put out there--Dana Milbank of the Washington Post was one of the few who did it, and it's no coincidence that he broke nearly every major story about inaccurate statements made by the administration.

If they did phrase questions like this, the majority of the American people would stop watching them, concluding that they were simply far left of the majority, and rightly so. Just a few examples of why:

1. We didn't "leave the job in Afghanistan." We haven't left, true--but we diverted resources to Iraq before the work in Afghanistan had even really begun, and as a result, warlords control most of the country, opium production is as high as ever, and the Taliban is terrorizing people in the south again, posting letters warning people that if they vote in the upcoming election, they will be killed.

2. There is no evidence that anything closely resembling "ten thousand Iraqi civilians" were killed in the invasion.Actually, the current estimate is closer to 20,000, but the reason there's no "proof" is because the US military refuses to do an estimate of their own. Not can't--refuses. The 20,000 number comes from some of the NGOs in the area.

3. Though the intelligence concerning Weapons of Mass Destruction was overstated, even the most recent investigations of this issue conclude that Saddam retained the capability to restart the programs to develop WMD once the invasion was over. In addition, a number of highly reputable sources ( including the Theatre Commander ) have concluded that Saddam had his chemical and biological weapons moved into Syria's Bekkaah Valley at the start of the war.Bullshit.

4. There have been a number of well-documented contacts between Saddam's government and other terrorist organizations. What's a contact? I'm guessing that by your definition of "contact" a similar case could be made about the US having "contacts" with some terrorist organizations.

5. Even a 50/50 chance that a rogue nation possesses WMD would, in my opinion, justify military action. The potential consequences are so dire that we must err on the side of caution. I think most people who have actually thought about this potential would rather see an invasion than a repetition of 9/11 ... or something far worse.

Now ... have at it. :)
Except here's the thing--of all the rogue nations out there, Iraq was not the most likely to have WMD, and we knew that going in. Well before the invasion, plenty of people were asking about Iran and North Korea, pointing to them as greater potential threats. But Iraq had something those two countries didn't have (not oil)--a weakened military that would be able to put up little more than a show of resistance in the initial phase of the attack. Iraq had cannon fodder.

As to the 9/11 attack--remember, that attack didn't involve a WMD of any sort. And my bet is that the next one won't either--and there will certainly be a next one, a try at least, because we've gone after the wrong people and let the real enemy slip away and regroup while we've got our asses stuck in Iraq.

The problem is, now that's it's been proven wrong, nobody talks about it.

Well turn the dial... there's more than just FOX News. I'm seeing it on my TV so what's wrong with yours? Or maybe you want the anchorperson to say "our top story tonight: Bush has been proven to be a big stinky liar, and our sources tell us that his pants are on fire"?

The American media is controlled by men who are either Republican or Democratic. The media itself has it's own agendas, losing their own validities, and maintaining the bipartisan control over the United States.

The American media is controlled by men who are either Republican or Democratic. The media itself has it's own agendas, losing their own validities, and maintaining the bipartisan control over the United States.

No argument here, except I just do not see how Post #1 does anything to demonstrate this.

The job of the media has been to drive panick into the readers & find a way to blame the government 4 it

I hold the media responsible for allowing the Iraq flip-flop lie to foment. See what Kerry actually said on the day of the war authorization here: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=363622

Well of course they're responsible, Gymoor, because it's easier--and most importantly, cheaper--to parrot administration lines than it is to actually offer context. And they do the same for Democrats when it's convenient for them.

It's no surprise to me that the most consistently accurate and unbiased news coverage in the US comes from PBS and NPR--they don't have shareholders to answer to.