Yes, I think your media let you down. A story about some cartoons set half the world a-flame and was front-page material for a good many weeks, yet very very few American newspapers dared publish them and let the readers themselves be the judge of the nature of those cartoons or even just to enlighten the readers to as what the hell was going on, apparently not a single of the larger newspapers was among those that dared publish the cartoons, and none of those large ones that pride themselves on their courage and defender of liberty and democracy - like the New York Times or Washington Post. And none of the large TV news channels either, CNN had them pixeled out with a message that was worthy a theocracy. Yet it was so obvious that what was behind this sudden religious respect was nothing but fear. When push came to shove, they backed out and left the field. How can one even pretend to be a guardian of democracy and the people, when one buckles at the slightest sign of opposition? Yesterday twelve fairly noteworthy persons, among them Salman Rushdie, issued a statement decrying Islamism and standing up for freedom of speech. I find it curious that this apparently neither was found worthy for just a small mention by US newspapers. One should imagine they had an intense interest in all things to do with freedom of speech and the free press. But apparently not.
David Simmons: I guess I worded my question poorly. I was focusing more on the issue raised by the OP that there has been some degradation of the press in recent times. But I think your post does go to show that things aren’t really so different now than 40 years ago.
Of course, we have a lot more “noise” that susbsitutes for news, like talk radio and 24 hour cable news, that’s mostly commentary, not news. And perhaps that’s really the heart of the matter. Do we really expect Rush to give a fair and detailed assessment of the Downing Street Memo? Is the mainstream media any less of a Fourth Estate than it every has been, or are people just too willing to get their news for obviously biased sources?
When I was kid, my parents read the paper and wathced Walter Cronkite in the evening. That’s all there was. Now we’re bombarded with partisan quackery all over the place. But… the newspaper and Walter Cronkite* are still there. And even cable news has lots of good stuff available, not to mention the internet for anyone who just scans Yahoo news or CNN’s web page.
What would put this little episode to rest, of course, would simply be the White House giving permission to release all of W’s records, as Kerry and all others have. He’s the only one who continues to refuse to authorize release of his official record. That would end all the debate. I wonder why he hasn’t. No, I don’t wonder at all. The forged memo is a truly lamentable fact of this episode, since there’s no question that he weasled his way out of honorable duty. That document makes his detractors look like idiots, and it let him off the hook. The question remains and hasn’t been answered here for my money - why does the press, print and electronic, tend to side with the administration and abstain from pressing them with more probing questions and concerns that the public clearly has? The public opinion polls clearly show doubt and even distrust of many of the claims that this administration make. Why don’t reporters ask the questions that the people are asking?
I wasn’t at all sure of what you were trying to get at. Was it that news reports are unimportant in influencing how most people decide political questions?
John, I should have realized that the point of your question was not to see if there were instances where shoddy press coverage had led me to feel one way on an important issue before learning the facts, but rather to unearth a host of sidetracks to pick debates on. Suffice it to say: 1) I don’t feel like playing along; and 2) How can you sleep at night giving so much opinion without an objective fact in sight? Mr. Empirical, let’s see you support your arguments in a manner worthy of your standards.
I did want to note this as a fine example of Conservative (but I’m NOT a Republican!) thinking/argument:
So if you include a program in which American workers pay payroll taxes and are later supported in their retirement based on their work history, and if you include programs to provide medical coverage for the elderly along with welfare, well then it’s a huge problem. You know what - if you include programs to provide these bums with security and defense of their borders, basically welfare represents the entirety of the federal budget. We oughta just dissolve the government and let these indigents fend for themselves. Do you take sugar?