Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
adnoto
Published Letters: 1941
Hankest said in an earlier post...Actually, I never said how i feel. For the record,i feel the media helped Bush spread war fever. But, again, that wasn't my point. My point was on what basis can Mr Greenwald claim that a key reason behind the current high level of distrust towards the media in America is the lies spread prior to the Iraq war?
So, Hankest believes that the media "helped Bush spread war fever." Interesting. Now, I can only conclude one of two things from this statement.
1)Hankest is happy the media did this, regardless of whether the spreading of war fever was based on lies or not, and his trust in the media hasn't diminished due to this helping "spread war fever."
or
2) He is, in fact, unhappy and less trusting of the media because they participated in spreading the fever based on lies, but must believe himself to be one of "few" (rather than many as GG asserts) who are more distrusting of the media now.
Is there another explanation Hank?
I happen to count myself as one who trusts the media less given their complicity in helping "spread war fever" based on lies that they didn't bother to fact check. I agree with Greenwald. There are many. Not enough to my way of thinking but, regardless, "many" is an accurate term to use.
Oops I forgot one...
3) Perhaps Hankest believes the media is complicit and yet that fact really doesn't bother him all that much and hasn't diminished his faith in their reporting. (In which case he would be an idiot.)
PS. Hank I would go with option "2" if I were you. I think it is the only way you can possibly save any face here.
How WOULD a patriot act?Isn't there one single patriot within the Bush Administration who loves this country enough to try to save it?
-- SomeNYGuy
Hell no. You sound concerned/incredulous that this might actually be the case. Why? It is apparent, and has been for some time, that those that would serve in this administration at this point believe they are saving the nation - from you and me and all of the rest of "the people." The Constitution is just a god-damned piece of paper after all. They represent the antithesis of what it means to be "American." They are anti-patriots.... actually I believe the correct term for them is traitor.
.
GG said...They take the conventional Beltway wisdom they pass amongst one another -- all generated by their White House confidants and other right-wing sources who have long ruled Washington (and therefore "their world") -- and they mindlessly assume it to be true and then run around repeating it without any effort to determine if it is actually true (or they know it's false and repeat it anyway).
At what point do we simply call it what it is? Namely propaganda dissemination. Glen might be saying this in a round about way but, unless I missed it, the word propaganda is found nowhere in his post. I wonder if this elite pundit class would change their ways if they were called what they are? Words matter. Describing their consistent adherence to talking points matters but shouldn't we begin to actually use the words that most accurately describe them? That blockquote above amounts to the definition of propaganda dissemination.
prop·a·gan·da (prŏp'ə-găn'də)n.
1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.
WT,
This is why I have a problem with you. You often want to try to impress by digressing into the nuances of a subject and in the process you confuse the issue.
The fact is that these so called journalists and pundits are not bothering to fact check any of the power structure's assertions and thus they are disseminating propaganda. Whether or not you believe that the RNC, Karl Rove, and right-wing corporations that own the bulk of the media are equal to an "official" Soviet styled propaganda dept. is beside the point. These "journalists" and pundits don't bother with seeking any sort of truth. They simply repeat what the are told, often in the face of facts that contradict their assertions. They are guilty of propaganda dissemination. To my mind they are worse than the Soviet era "journalists" precisely because they are not being forced to comply on the threat of being disappeared. They are only threatened with limited access or perhaps losing their jobs. It's disgusting.
My girlfriend is Chinese (originally from mainland China) and she often laughs at us. She points out that at least in China the average person realizes that their media is pushing propaganda and thus knows to disregard it for the most part. I don't truly know or care whether there is a group of wingnuts sitting in a room writing up official propaganda. I think it is clear that something like that is happening but, again, that is neither here nor there with regard to the point I am trying to make. I care that many of our "respected" media personalities either don't care that a) they are being used and/or b) they are actively and purposefully disseminating lies. As a result, I think calling them what they are - disseminators of propaganda - might yield positive results. I think even the most dimwitted American knows: propaganda = bad.
.
There is another subject that requires a serious journalistic response; it is the appointment of a military czar answerable only to the executive branch.
Not to mention the fact that we alerady have a "military czar." You know... the "Commander in Chief!" that the wingnuts are always praying to? Who will they worship if he abdicates? Bush is such a wretched scapegoating coward.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
