The modern media is lost. It’s been obvious to me for a while now, but it looks like other people are beginning to realize it – look at the backlash that’s being unleashed on the New York Times. Of course the ACLU will respond and the Times will circle the wagons. Within 48 hours I expect to see George W dressed in a Nazi uniform and sprayed across media of all kinds, including the evening news. Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Press, all that rot.
What really, really pisses me off is that through all of this debate and chaos, no one talks about the Responsibility of Freedom.
Does China have the right idea? Censor everything? Convert the Great Wall into a firewall and block what the government feels is subversive news? Does the Bill of Rights have the right idea? Freedom to say anything? Create a fire hose powered torrent of news and let people sip from it as best they can?
Those are opposite extremes. Neither are a good idea and in America we don’t have either right now.
The motto of the New York Times for over 100 years (maybe 200) has been “All The News That’s Fit To Print”. Right there, that tells you that there will be censorship, ranking, politicking and external influence at work from within the Times. What is fit to print? What makes news? What is vulgar? What is proper? In broadcasting, we have the FCC to “help” with that, at least for the free broadcasts. The thought is that the FCC can’t touch cable because it’s a paid-for/opt-in thing; same thing could be said for newspapers, I suppose, so a government agency wouldn’t be applicable. For years, they’ve be left to monitor themselves.
And therein lies another problem. Newspapers are failing. That much is certain: the availability of news in different forms is killing the paper-based media. Why go buy a USA Today for 75 cents, deal with black fingertips, and suffer from a lack of text searching? Especially since all of the news you find will be online. For free. On PC, phone, etc. So, if we agree that newspapers are failing, I think we can also say that newspaper companies don’t want to fail. They want to stay in business. To stay in business, they need to sell newspapers. What sells newspapers better than controversial and unique news?
So lets recap what we have so far: the media is never unbiased when it comes to news, newspapers have a vested interest to sell more newspapers, controversial news sells well.
Anyone else see a pattern here? Would you say that the most outlandish and controversial news source will have the most success? I would. The problem is how do we force the media to maintain it’s integrity while trying to expand their “business”.
It all started with Nixon, in the 60’s. Once the first “investigative” reporters broke the Nixon story, we were fucked. It was after that that airing dirty laundry became normal. Celebrated. Revered. Do you honestly think the American people wanted to know about Clinton’s affairs? Biological stains? I would have been a happier mammal if that whole debacle could have been avoided. The hardest part about letting a genie out of a bottle is how to get the genie back into a bottle. For just about 40 years, it’s been one thing after another. More and more sensationalism. More and more “we have the Freedom to do this” side stepping.
And now the Times has crossed a line. The question is by printing their article about our government watching wire transfers, what has been accomplished? Was it an illegal act? Maybe. If it was, why not take the findings to the authorities for prosecution? If it wasn’t, what good comes from publishing it? Does the public have a right to know? Does the paper have the right to publish it? I won’t get into specifics on whether or not it hurts the “war” on terror – this isn’t about that, really. It’s not!
This is about responsibility. Sure, the media has the right to publish whatever they want. They have the freedom to do this. But they also have to realize that they are responsible for their actions. That you can’t call fire in a room, claim Freedom of Speech, and expect to get away with it. Yes, you have the freedom to do so, but you are responsible to deal with the consequences. The Times has printed something “volatile” and they know it’s going to piss off people; they will now hide behind the Bill of Rights and act morally outraged that they’ve been questioned. They won’t take responsibility for it. They confuse freedom with “license to shameless do what you want and get away with it.”
Back in the day, there was always a collection of chatters constantly at add with the “hosts” of any given room. They were the people that maintained the belief that chat rooms would be better without sysops or hosts. I always maintained that that never worked. Someone had to force people to be responsible for their actions; that’s what the hosts were there for. In a grand experiment, Yahoo! Chat never had sysops. Within months they had to shut down the service: no one could chat there. Too many bots, run-at-the-mouth punks, and sexual predators.
What’s the point of that? In my experience, humans that have too much time and no reason to take responsibility for their actions will sink to the lowest common denominator of behavior. And I believe that’s where the media is heading. It depresses me, because what I’ve realized is that the media is one big chat room. Honestly, it’s disappointing. If things keep going as they are, it will only get worse, with sensationalism taking the place of integrity. If it hasn’t happened already. What’s worse is that it’s a problem that I don’t know how to fix… yet.
I’ve said it before: who’s supposed to police the media?
The media doesn’t make the news; they just inform the public of it. To think that they should be censoring any news is complete bullshit. I do admit that they embellish stories and make mountains out of molehills but people need to be informed. People have their paychecks butchered by the government and they are supposed to serve us. I would really like to know what the hell they are doing with my money. And I’m glad the media exists. So I know that I get taxed, so that thousands of innocent Iraqis can die for this administrations personal gain. I have a right to know that. I don’t like it, and I can’t do anything about it. But I’m glad I’m not completely ignorant about it.
“The media doesn’t make the news; they just inform the public of it.”
It doesn’t work that way; it should but it doesn’t. They don’t simply inform anyone of anything. When they make the biggest mountain out of the smallest molehill they aren’t reporting: they’re sensationalizing to get more viewers/readers/money. And they spin every single thing they release. They don’t simply report anything or even everything. Just what sells.
As to the taxes, you are ignorant about it. If you think all of your tax money goes to the war in Iraq, that’s your perogative. You’re just wrong. Taxes go EVERYwhere. Roads, education, wellfare, federal and state parks, trade programs, border patrol, the FCC and countless other programs both good and bad. If you want to be naive enough to think that your taxes are being used exclusively for the war in Iraq, feel free, but your taxes couldn’t even outfit a soldier for a year.
Also, FWIW, Saddam killed off about 100K more civilians than this war has, btwn 1982 and when the went into hiding… came up during his trial the other day. So, while he had more time to do it, I’d say that it’s still sucking a little less over there. If only a little.
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=192&Itemid=61
Nearly 5 billion this year already from Florida, 2.4 billion from you guys in Washington. I understand taxes go everywhere, but the vast majority is going to the military.
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/auxiliary/somePdfs/taxday2006/fl.pdf
Sure if you want to split hairs you can say my money is going to kill people in other countries are well, but one way or another, someone is getting killed thanks to me trying to support my family.
And I’m not debating taxes. It’s just that I find people automatically assume that their money is going to where they DON’T want it to go. And your taxes are but 0.001% of that. Besides, the question is how much is going back into FL. Given that there’s so much medicare going to FL, I’d say a good chunk is going back in.
Besides, taxes nor the war isn’t the point – as usually, the real point gets lost in the noise. The fact is that people put their faith in the media. Which is run by a company looking for nothing but profits and their back pocket AND aren’t answerable to anyone. At least in the government you can vote the fuckers outta office.
Just to add a thought, most of the large “news Agencies” are part of Entertainment companies. Unfortunately the reporting business is intertwined with the entertainment industry so I feel that the real news becomes partly entertainment and losses its message/punch. They ask what will be entertaining and grab people not, hey people really need to know about “X”. Also the wire transfer and other programs that the government uses that people are up in arms about are tools for our safety. Yes they need to be monitored so they are not abused. Turn it around what by keeping the tools secret keeps a terrorist from attacking the USA? Should we know? If all the ant-terrorist tools and activities where disclosed and an attack happened people would ask why was that made public. Can’t win.
I think the media serves its purpose. If people are foolish enought to believe everything they hear, so be it. Is one’s one responsibility to make out whats going on from all this mess. At this time people are to biased and will tell what they believe as ‘the facts’. People choose thier news source depending on what they want to hear, each channel has its own spin.
As for taxes, sure, my thousands of dollars might not be making a dent in the war, but as its clearly stated, the majority goes towards it.
what can I say.
If you don’t like the newspaper, don’t read it. If you don’t like the way people are being swayed by the news paper, sway them back. don’t complain about the media if they are pushing the country in the wrong direction. push the country back. if they make mountains out of mole hills resset the proportions to ones that are reasonable. if they don’t report news because it isn’t fancy enough then report it yourself. if people will only read news with a certain aw factor, then it doesn’t really matter, because why would you care where the humane race went if it was made up of stupid robots gravitating towards the most exiting news.
I think that the report was a good one in that I want to know if the government is spying on my wiretransfers so I can vote them out of office the next time around.
I also think that I should be allowed to donate to hammas, they are a very charitable organization. almost all their money goes to a good cause. their terrorist operations cost them next to nothing. (what does it take to build a bomb in your garage? not much money)
so if the government sees that I donate though watching my money and I go to gitmo. is that fare?
Also, you didn’t seem so happy about Washington’s ban on on-line gambling. what if they caught you gambling by watching your wiretransfers. would that be fair?
It really boils down to that the media that spins the stories, and the government that is most likely doing much worst things than we could even imagine, are both necessary evils. They check and balance each other. With out the media making the government look bad, we would be paying about 6 bucks a gallon, and have no idea what those fucks are up to. And if it wasn’t for laws to manage the media, everyone would believe in aliens and whatever crazy shit they could come up with and riot all the time.
Exactly.
So then I ask [again]: who polices the media? What I’m hearing is that they’re good for checks and balances. They are need to keep the govt honest. Necessary evil, and should be free to do what they want.
But what’s to stop them from spinning and twisting and misreporting?
We don’t vote for the media. We can’t control the media. They obviously answer to no one -except for maybe stock holders IN the event that they’re a public company. So we’re asking for a group of organizations that are out for their own benefit to police one organization, fine, but then what are THEIR checks and balances? Or are we saying that the popularity of policy as defined by the media is how we should be governed?
And that was the whole reason for the post in the first place. Not what the Times has done this time, but what’s to stop them from publishing other information that is obviously be damaging? If they found out what the Pres’ movements are over the next 48 hours, would it be OK to print them and point out key sniping locations? Their current publication is a gray area, but what happens when it starts to get more black and white?
As to the speculation of what would gas prices be like and what govt would be doing without the press, that’s speculation and strictly speculation. You can’t know. Look over history: before investigative reporting, the nation ran OK, neh? Gas prices rose and fell during the reporting era and certainly before it. We had wars before we had video. We had wars before we had a nation. 150 years before Watergate we fought and helped to win two world wars for feck’s sake and life went on with the government in place. But by all means speculate away.
(And don’t think for a second that I believe that y’all were so pro-media when they were beating the piss outta Clinton, Clinton, Kerry, Gore, or Dean. In fact, I remember quite a lot of “hey! That’s not fair” coming out when Dean was GRAAAAAR’ing all over the ‘net. It’s convenient right now, is all.)
@Tim – I’m not happy about WA’s ban for different reasons. For that one it’s about lobby’s at work and the fact that the govt is still trying to justify this law. It’s b/c they allow online betting of other kinds, just not poker. Especially because it’s legal to gamble in person, in WA. But for the record, if they caught me gambling online through ANY means, does it lessen a crime? Does it make me less guilty if the Fed caught me rather than the state? All of these liberals are cruising around prattling on about “wire transfers”. How about the notion that if you aren’t funneling money to terrorists, you don’t have to worry about the program in the first place?
Good idea tho, being allowed to donate to Hammas. You ARE allowed to do that. You are also allowed to donate to Neo-Nazi’s. And the KKK. And the New Black Panthers. That’s Freedom at work, for you. But are you willing to accept responsibility for the actions these groups do with your money? If you can live with that, you are certainly a different American than I am.
“If you can live with that, you are certainly a different American than I am.”
*Cough Cough* ahem, Im sorry I got caught in that cloud of egotistism. You okay Tim? .
…I guess smug storms really do exist.
*Cough Cough*
http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2006/05/29/hamas_leader_zahar_rejects_abbas_referendum_plan/
read the last line.
-Going off Subject-
Something I find funny is that the people of Palistine elected this ‘terrorist’ organization. And from the spin I hear on the media they suck and everyone hates em’, bla, bla, bla. If they were really so bad why would they have been elected, and by a landslide? You can say they were threatened, but I doubt that.
“If you can live with that, you are certainly a different American than I am.”
and that is the kind of thing that has this country all in the mess that we’re in. Different thinking makes anyone that dosent go with it “Anti-American”. C’mon.
one is not allowed to publish false or slanderous information.
one is not allowed to post information deemed confidential by the us government.
those are the rules of the media. anything more would be censorship. if the bush administration can prove that the new york times published confidential information then why don’t they bring them to court? so far they have been accused of treason. if it can be prooven that the information was confidential. someone will be convicted and someone will be punished. there you go, there are the policemen you wanted. now, what is to stop the government from setting all information aside as confidential?
@Violet
People are unhappy because all foreign aid was cut off from palestine when hammas was elected.
people like to eat the un’s bread when they have none of their own.
Yea. I know that, and thier reasoning to take it away was cause of what they deemed the government to be. Which in my opinion is wrong. We’re all about open and free elections, and in the countries that are doing it, when someone we dont want in government gets elected, we turn around and say they didnt make the right choice. So what the hell is the point?
@Obed – Um, since when does different imply better? Or smugness? I wouldn’t give a dime to most non-US organizations, no matter how much money I had. I’d rather fix the local problems, then the state problems, before going global. Sadly our government hasn’t been that was since 1941. If Tim wants to give cash to famanugaga, he’s different than me. What in the hell are you implying this time around?
@Tim – So? Doesn’t mean you aren’t allowed to donate as an American. Means our government doesn’t want people to; you can always get a Grand Cayman or Swiss bank to work with and the US can’t say Boo. As to the press stuff, since when? They can print whatever they want on Page 1 and then public a retraction the next day on Page 95. From what I’m seeing about the Times and this latest thing, they probably will sue. But how does that change the damange is done? Again, to use the fire in a room example: Screaming Fire and then “nevermind” doesn’t undo any damange.
@Vi – Look who Californian voted in as governor. Hitler got elected becuase he was a hellof a speaker and Germans wanted a strong leader. I’m not saying yay or nay for Hamas or anything to do with Israel at this point, but getting elected doesn’t also act as proof of goodness.
Its not a proof of goodness. Thats not really what I’m trying to express. But that we, as in the American government, were happy about the elections. As soon as the results came back, it was like ‘Fuck them’. Why? Cause it wasnt who we wanted? Big shit.
Nah – we’ve been anti-Hamas for years, but now that they’re in control of the nation, the nation loses support as well. Long standing political crap…
@Randy It is fine for you to condemn the Times for yelling fire. But why are you asking “Were are the police?” when they are here? Why is it that you condemn the times when the law goes, Innocent until prooven guilty? Is that not irresponsible?
why does this article say and Hamas if one is allowed to donate to them?
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/00398DE8-1C09-4F79-90A0-9FE5D7127CE2.htm
Come on Tim, everyone knows that things like “the truth” and “facts” are liberal biased. Back up your stuff with “truthiness” and maybe he’ll care.
Oh I care already.
The problem, Tim, is that the Times is acting like a whistle blower. Consider a woman that acuses a man of rape or abuse. Even if he’s found innocent, a stigma will follow him forever. Once an druggie, always a druggie. If what they printed was real or lawfully printed, then they can choose to sue them, but how does it un-do the damage they’ve already done? How can someone prevent them from doing this same thing in the future?
The big question: How are they going to be held accountable for what they’ve done? If the govt sues, the other media stations will spin it as a “Bush is censoring the paper”. If they leave it alone, the same thing can happen again. Where’s the checks and balances in those instances?
As to Hamas, you’re quoting Aljazeera? Whoo yeah, that’s not going to be biased. I don’t know anything about the case nor have I tried to fund Hamas. Maybe the better question is why do YOU care about it?
So who is the definative on news? Furthermore, is non US based news incorrect? Sometimes its good to see what other news sources have to say.
Other thing, what they did to the guys WAS wrong. Theyre not from the states, they extradite them here, and punish them under US law. Lets see an American citizen be treated the same way, there would be hell to pay.
@Obed You so just pwnd Randy!
@Randy What damage has the Times done? If Terrorists aren’t going to do wiretransfers, how are they going to move money? I think the Times hurt “The Terrorists” because they are going to start spending more resources on moving money around.
If The Times lied, than the bush administration will have no trouble repairing it’s image. If not and it turns out that info was confidential then back to my point a few posts ago which you never answered. “now, what is to stop the government from setting all information aside as confidential?”
I see no way this info could do overmuch harm.
over a million live’s have been lost for the freedom we have(which includes privacy).
there were only what a dozen? terrorist in 9/11, and look how much freedom and privacy they have taken away.
Randy. Why must we fight the terrorist in such a way that we defeat ourselves? If there is no solution to the problem, then what? you must take the path the causes the least damage. which is to let the media report it’s reputation away.
then we are left with the question of, were do we get our news?
@Vi – Actually, I trust the BBC more than the US news. We get a Canadian channel too here – they have an interesting point of view at times too. Aljazeera on the other hand, if I remember correct, is part of the Arab propaganda machine… I could have gotten the name wrong.
@Tim – You simply don’t get it. Way up there, I mention I have no knowledge of who did what to who with the Times. What I said was the Times has published information that the govt says is a leak. The impact on fighting terrorists? Who knows? I can tell you this tho: now that they know ppl are watching, they will be more careful. Even if they have to spend more, there’s now less of a chance of them getting caught.
But, this isn’t about this article or this instance – it’s about who makes the media accountable. And right now, I don’t see that anyone CAN.
This is about what if it WAS a leak? What if it WAS speculation? They publish it anyway? And cleaning up an image if it was a problem? Lemme clue ya in: media stands together and the hardest thing to change is perseption. If Bush defends himself the Times, the rest of the media will spin it as Bush attacking the Times. If he does nothing, who knows what they publish next? I’ve seen it happen both ways through five presidents. No disrespect but you’ve only seen one. Carter was one of our best speakers out of the last 7 and he’s best known for planting peanuts for feck’s sake.
On another note: How would YOU fight terrorists, then? Isn’t cutting off their money the best way to accomplish that? We have an enemy with no government to talk to, no boundries to attack, no arms to destroy. We have a group of passionate extremists that attack from shadows. We’ve never had to face that before, so I think going after the money is the first tactic, and robably a good one.
Benadryl roolz.
I would make city’s pedestrian only except for a few main drags barricaded off from the buildings. I would improve the medical system and make it so that all large buildings had warning systems to warn against a bio attack. how else can you attack the us? well you can take out a bridge. but that requires tons of explosives. hm. well how are you going to prevent someone like Timothy McVeigh from blowing up a bridge? Watching money won’t help, it wasn’t an expensive operation. and barricading buildings won’t help. We can’t have checks on bridges(traffic is to bad already). you could have separate bridges for trucks, but you would be better off investing that money in a cure for cancer(on a dollar for dollar basis it would save more money.)
so anyway
The media isn’t failing Randy. You still purchase a sunday paper religiously.
It’s more than a well known fact that each publisher slants stories in their own way. I like to listen/read their views and laugh. It’s a circus….it really is. Almost as entertaining as Jerry Springer.
Everyone’s been told to take what they hear with a grain of salt, whatever that means. If you’re another one of these people in an uproar about what an idiot editor felt was appropriate to release to the stupid and fearful masses, then maybe you’re the one that needs to be censored. With a gun. :D
@Anna – I do. And you know why I do: Fry’s, Circuit City, Best Buy, CompUSA, and Opus. I never actually read the paper – just the ads and the comics. And this isn’t about what one editor choice to print – this is about what happens to him IF he printed something he shouldn’t have. Not censorship – it’s about responsibility.
@Tim – So you would restict driving and travel? Do we get papers next? I’d rather have a censored newspaper than be told where I can and can’t drive, especially in a city or for work. And warning systems for buildings for biohazards… how do you contain it once it’s unleashed? For something like a subway, it’s not that it goes off in a station: it’s that it’s a sealed conduit for toxins to travel. So while you might be warned one went off, how do you contain it?
FWIW, they may as well have checks on bridges because OF the traffic: if you’re already stopped, may as well take a peak in the cab
And all of these are for the actual attacks. The goal of cutting off the money supply is to starve the organization. If fighting a hydra, you hack the body, not the individual heads. The thought is to fight smarter and not harder. With McVeigh, was he a terrorist or was he just a psycho? Was there an organization that blew up a building in Oklahoma City for political gain? For an agenda? Was he even part of an organization? I honestly don’t remember, but if he did it for his own reasons and not for any of the above, he’s a sick fuck, but not a terrorist.
but we aren’t fighting a hydra. we are fighting a virus. anyone can do a attack. it doesn’t require an organisation.
if McVeigh wasn’t a terrorist then there has only been one terrorist attack on the us in the last century. so terrorism should be ignored, and our freedom be preserved. because we really ought not make such a big deal out of the nations most minuscule killer when there are diseases that kill thousands a year.
where do you get your news anyway Randy? MSNBC and Reuters? do you do the google news thing?
Tim, Tim, Tim… *shakes head*
You’re not equiped to argue this. There have been at least four terrorist different attacks on the US in the last 15 years alone. Two on the WTC, one on the USS Cole, and one on one of our Embassies. The Oklahoma City bombing was as much a terrorist attack as Columbine was. In fact, I think Columbine held more sheer terror than Oklahoma City did, but neither were terrorist attacks.
As to where I get my news, either scroll up or answer the obvious question: what does it matter? I mean, how does where I get my news play into me wanting the media to be held reponsible for the actions they take under the safety of Freedom of Press?
the USS Cole was not a Terrorist attack. the WTC was one attack. my point is that terrorism is so minimal it would be like if the government were to start a war of these proportions on ms (assuming that ms was somehow incurable). would you compromise your privacy for a few people dieing of a rare disease?
also
“Aljazeera on the other hand, if I remember correct, is part of the Arab propaganda machine…” just as this blog is part of the white propaganda machine :)
Tim – I’ll be nice. Shup, now, before your prattle makes you look dumb – right now it’s only ignorance which is only the lack of knowledge… arguing a point that you already know to be true, well, that’s just dumb.
The USS Cole was attacked by an organization for political recognition. That’s terrorism. The WTC was first attacked in 1993 by a terrorist organization; again, terrorism. And since when does having a war or trying to attack terrorists have anything to do with disease research? I mean, that’s like saying “Hm, there’s a green car over there, so that means I can’t have a beer tomorrow.” The two are simply NOT mutually exclusive. To the best of my knowledge, the CDC wasn’t shut down to finance a war.
And when I said Aljazeera is part of the Arab Propaganda machine, I didn’t mean their world view. What I mean is that isn’t this THE news service that terrorist organizations use to get their video tapes and manifesto out to the world press? That to me implies that they are sympathetic to their cause. Same way I wouldn’t expect Out magazine to actively promote mixed-sex marriages as THE only way to be. I MAY have the wrong network in mind – hence the question – but I thought it was Aljazeera. Further more who said I was white? Who said I’m promoting propaganda? This blog isn’t promoting anything, aside from my software, which is free in the first palce. I’m stating MY opinion, as is clearly stated at the bottom of every single page, and don’t I have the freedom to do that? The difference here is that I take responsibility for what I make public (which is why all work related posts are triple checked before I hit “post”!)
Having said that, please realize the world existed before you were born and that some of the events that happened before your set dropped MIGHT be important to things going on today. Heh! Only one attack on the WTC… *snort*
who said you were white, who said terrorists where Arabs?
we are in much debt in the war on terrorism.
what I was trying to convie is that terrorism is such a small problem that it is as if the us were to take out this kind of debt to fight ms. it would be silly. but now are argument has gotten silly to.
o and arguing a point that you know to be true is called playing the devils advocate and it is a challenging intellectual exercise… not dumb. however I still disagree with you and am not playing the devils advocate.
I am happy this hasn’t become a flame war.
another thing is that I admitted I was wrong about the number of terrorist attacks in the last century. I should have used the words lethal attacks on civilians in the us for a political end. that would have been correct no?
That was me that said it. Not all Arabs are terrorist and not all terrorists are Arbas, but strangly enough, all of the terrorist attacks on us have been from Arab-based terrorists.
We are in debt due to all kinds of spending: the easiest to call out, and possibly the biggest, is the war, but we’ve over spent on all levels…
Of the four attacks, in the last 15 years, two were on our soil and those two claimed lives (WTC). An argument could be made that a US embassy IS our soil, but that’s splitting hairs. Going back 100 years, you could make a case for Pearl Harbor, but since that was sanctioned by a government that’s more of an act of war than terror. At least that’s my take on it.
As to Devil’s Advocate, I think of it as mental masturbation :) And it’s good and allowed here, but if less than accurate facts are used, most ppl pounce. On me, especially, but that’s why comments are still on, on this site in the first place.
This is the best tread ever, there’s masturbation, violence, and Randy getting pwnt. You will have a hard time out doing yourself on this one Randy.
Actually, there IS another one knocking around in my head, but it’s hardly political.
I agree with Tim that spending the kind of money that we are on ‘The War on Terror’ is retarded.
All the programs that have come out in the media upset me, wire taps, getting my phone and search records. For what? To find Terrorists? Bullshit. I never knew that just simple existince in this country made me a possible criminal. Does any of that really make you, or anyone else safer? Is it safer? For me the answer is No. When is the government going to stop, who can be held accountable for the actions taken against our freedom? You cant go to the courts, you cant go to the politicians, where does it stop, and who says so?
But going closer to the subject, what do you want the consequences to be for half true stories? I mean I think its crazy that a journalist can get in trouble for leaking sensitive information. Thats the governments problem for having agents that cant stay shut, not the journalist.
As to Aljazeera airing the terrorist videos, so what? Maybe they think that the people may want to know what those people are thinking. Hell I woild want to why theyre blowing shit up.
O and back to Randy’s original point of who’s to keep the media in line since the Bush Administration can’t do so without damaging newspaper sales. I ask, which is more important news paper sales or Bushes poll numbers?
See, this IS entertaining! *circus music plays in the background*
I guess. I kept saying the same things, people keep using new arguments and abandoning the old ones… got boring. There’s only so many times you can keep re-iterating the same stuff for ppl that aren’t going to listen to it in the first place :)
*wheee!*