It’s only limited by the ability to counter the disinformation. We live in a society of spin. That’s not going to change. Managing psychology and the neurolinguistic imprints of society are big businesses, and that’s a more fundamental level than simply managing information. We have factions seeking to manage HOW you think, let alone WHAT you think. There is no such thing as a neutral point of view in this context. Politics is as much about creating reality as it is about reflecting it. They are sharing the opinion they want you to have, it’s important to recognize this. It’s a matter of better critical thinking. We call them on their shit when they are wrong, but getting incensed that they are pushing an agenda is pointless. Everyone is pushing an agenda.
There is no such thing as an unbiased source.
In this case ‘the mark’ is the American public, not the networks.
The Pentagon didn’t sit down and say “Let’s fool the networks into presenting our viewpoint in the best possible light” rather they decided to “fool the people into supporting us without question”.
The networks are supposed to ask those questions.
Lest you think nothing comes of media exposes any more.
Exactly. The networks weren’t the marks. WE were the marks, the networks produced the smoke and mirrors.
I’d like to see the Times turn this analysis (such as it is - much of it looks like dressed up innuendo to me) on the thousands of talking heads on TV and in print representing all sorts of industry and interest groups nobody knows much about.
Name a topic - farm policy, education, energy policy, whatever, and the talking heads come out. Everybody knows why they do - anchors and producers know next to nothing about the stories they cover, and talking heads at least know their stuff. But I don’t know anyone who thinks these stories are sourced particularly well - it falls to eagle eyed people like us to spot biases and conflicts of interest and report them.
So the Pentagon talked to people who were actually going to be on TV? Big deal. A real scandal is that oftentimes these guys and a very few defense beat reporters are the only ones actually asking questions in the first place. I was just posting in another thread about awful Army barracks conditions - I found in no time a FY 1994 Army report saying they planned to have their barracks modernization done in 23 years. Now, did the press raise a big outcry in the mid-1990s over this fact? I never saw it.
So, if they didn’t make a stink about that, then they can’t say anything about this? Do you really think a scandal in the procurement sector rises to the level of propagandizing for war?