I would like the FCC to reinstate the "Truth ans Accuracy' law in the media, and limit the number of markets one media group can own.

"Truth and Accuracy" being such fungible concepts I question how they'd be judged; plus which we're rather limited in the sort of sanctions that can imposed on the perveyors of crap (witness how long Rush, Mike Savage, and ilk have been polluting the airwaves).

On the other hand, limited market share sounds more practical and enforcable. The only trick would be to make sure the limits are strictly and comprehensively enforced; I have to wonder how this would be managed given the shambles the current Administration has left things in.

By the time an American adolescent graduates from High School, chances are, and statistics show, that unless he or she is very unusual (or has unusual parents) he or she has spent more time watching TV and movies than they have spent doing anything else. Most of what they think they know, they learned from TV and movies and let's just call it media. Where do you think boys get so much information on the two subjects they are sure to be expert in by graduation - the handling of women and the handling of guns in dicey situations?

This does have a bearing on what we are discussing. The media's main function in regard to government seems to be converting the information they get from their sources into narratives which are congruent with the contexts of the melodrama, the unities and verities of which have become our substitute for actually having a morality. Shit, or even a point-of-view.

But some people disagree with that.

The MSM is a dumb beast. Feed it and Beat it. McCain has figured this out and it is why he has caught Obama. This is how it works: 1) The MSM must be constantly supplied with new and palatable story lines to regurgitate (the simpler the better. The MSM responds by parroting the crap and demanding that Obama respond. This puts Obama on the defensive and he can't win that way. 2) Every time there is even a hint that the MSM is challenging McCain, complain hyterically that the MSM is pro-Obama. It's stupid, but it works.

But don't waste time complaining about the MSM as if that is going to accomplish anything. The goal for any sensible and decent American has to be to defeat McCain and the Republicans in November. At this point, everything else is noise. BTW: McCain is now 5 points AHEAD according to Zogby. Do you really want McCain to become president? If not, do something to help Obama win.

Please. Considering the shameful display of running away from Edwards screwing around on his dying wife story, the media is totally in the liberal tank. Tsk. Tsk.

Or, rather, the lack of both. Do members of the DC press continue to use anonymous sources that knowingly feed them mis/disinformation? Is it simply too gauche to bring up the fact that their friends in government are feeding them bullshit? Automatic unvite from the party circuit if you mention it? Do friends continue to print friends' off-the-record statements if they later turn out to be not only untrue, but were done so knowingly and willfully to deceive the public?

Meanwhile back in Georgia,

There are at least 56 songs with "Georgia" in the title. That's not one of them. How about "I Don't Want to Die in Georgia" (Brewer-Shipley)?

And what if the Muzzies allied with the Ruskis? What shall we do then?

Maybe the media could discuss the difference between McCain dumping his sick wife for Cindy and Edwards who dumped his lover for his sick wife.

We seem to have the same representatives and senators every year just like we have the same journalists...

Neither groups serves the public -- they serve each other to serve themselves.

The politicians convince us that should we replace them our place at the table will be farther away because the longer they are in power the more influence they have to serve us.

We somehow believe them and continue to reelect them in spite of all evidence of their service to the contrary.

Journalists use the same argument to stay in power. They have the connections to get the stories. A new reporter wouldn't have access to inside information.

Just like our politicians who take away "our freedoms" in the middle of the night when we're not watching. Or even when we are watching, these journalists never report anything we need to know and in fact obfuscate the truth quite deftly.

A new reporter wouldn't know who the "insiders" are and might actually dig to find out actual truth.

Regardless, we are still distracted by sports, entertainment and "news" of our heroes to pay attention to what really matters in our lives.

What is the answer?

Term limits haven't help us rid ourselves of useless politicians...

We clearly aren't buying newspapers and magazines as we once did -- has that taught the corporations who produce them to change their ways?

What are our choices?

Simply saying "But the US does it too" isn't sufficient analysis or consideration of Russia's actions within Georgia. Nor does it help to establish exactly what US interests in that region should be.

Wrong on Russia

by Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett

08.20.2008

In the wake of Russia’s military incursion into Georgia, too many current, former, and aspiring U.S. officials are caricaturing the Russian state that was shaped and is still guided by Vladimir Putin as a revisionist aggressor. For Robert Kagan, John McCain’s neoconservative foreign policy adviser, as well as for long-time Democratic foreign policy hands Richard Holbrooke and Ronald Asmus, Russia’s actions in Georgia are comparable to Hitler’s invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1938. For Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Russia’s actions are more reminiscent of the Soviet Union’s invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968.

But, in reality, today’s Russia is not a resurgent imperial power. In the post-Cold War period, it was Washington, not Moscow, which started the game of acting outside the United Nations Security Council to pursue coercive regime change in problem states and redraw the borders of nominally sovereign countries. In Russian eyes, America’s invasion and occupation of Iraq, including arresting and presiding over the execution of its deposed President, undermined Washington’s standing to criticize others for taking military action in response to perceived threats. And American unilateralism in the Balkans, along with planned deployments of missile defense systems in Eastern Europe and support for “color revolutions” in former Soviet republics, trampled clearly stated Russian redlines.

...more

http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=19606