Why does the Press print blatant lies?

Settle down....the tinfoil on top of your head is coming loose.......if it falls off, they'll read your thoughts.

I am a republican, and I have NO trouble seeing the Bush is by far worse than EVEN Bill Clinton when it comes to integrity/honesty. Disgusting.

HUH?

The truth in media is it reports what is sensational. It also reports what the editors approve. The individuals who sit on the executive boards of media companies also sit on other boards like Enron, Exxon and so on, I had a copy of who sat on which boards, I will look for it. Anyway the media board members who share interests in other companys will stifle news to protect thier interests. These companies rely on the government for legislation that helps them succeed so they are not going to trample on the politicians who help them.

As far as Stocula's statements, Not all Left minded people are against war. I am a registered democrat but have a hard time Identifying with them. At the risk of offending.. I dont give a frog's fat ass about the Iraqi's plight, suffering or oppression. Fuck'em, I am all about thinning the herd to some degree. I don't approve of the war for the most part becuase the tax money that we have to shell out for it could be better spent at home. It should have been a loan, period. Iraq is a oil producing nation they can afford their own liberation. I will believe we went in there for WMD as soon as they find them. I am tough on Bush and I was also tough on Clinton too.

The press is a business. Big business, these days (that's why almost all major media outlets are owned by large conglomerates.) While there are certainly some journalists who still believe they have a moral obligation to making sure our elected officials are answerable for their actions, the bottom line is now the bottom line. Monetarily speaking.

The press gives people what they want. They want flashy headlines, sound bytes, human interest nonsense and drama. If people wanted in-depth analysis of government and fiscal policies, that's what the press would cover. But they don't. And that's why the MacNeil-Lehrer report has about 1/1000th the ratings of Fox News.

The Bush administration knows this. Like all presidential administrations, they rely to some degree on their ability to manipulate the media. The Bush administration just happens to be VERY good at manipulating the media. They know that it's the new story that reporters want to hear about, so they're constantly coming up with new things to feed reporters. Corporate criminals getting off scot-free? Hey, we think Saddam has WMDs! Lots of American casualties in Iraq? Look, we just found Jessica Lynch, what a touching story!

An additional factor is that bashing the media has taken ever since the Reagan administration, who started the term "liberal media" and droned it over and over and over again until people actually started to believe it. It's become an insult. And so, in an effort to make sure that they can't be labeled "liberal," media outlets have bent over backwards to try make sure they have "balanced" reporting. So that's why to balance out the "liberal" notion of global warming, we're forced to hear quotes from the three scientists in the world who think it's fake. It's why we're supposed to believe that there are actually some economists outside of the Project for an American Century who believe that trickle-down economics actually work. That's why Hans Blix, the international expert on weapons development, was given as much or less time than some no-name colonel in the US military who was "convinced" that Iraq had WMDs ready to go.

Put these facts together and you've got a media that's very compliant to the wishes of George W. Bush and his policies.

fucking over achievers

To answer the topic header question...
Entertainment, and to sell more copy than the next guy.
I think that's just the press the world over. Why print the boring truth, when they can print interesting lies? Sure, they may get sued for liable, but all the extra copy they sold more than covers that
Besides, when half the stuff you read about is false anyway (moonlanding, Elvis' death, Roswell) who cares about The Truth (other than Fox Mulder)
Spike
PS Take the above with a huuuge pinch of salt, I'm in a sarky mood tonight...

Stockula: The reason the WMD issue matters is that Bush's argument prior to the war was that it was Iraq's failure to dismantle its WMD program according to the terms of the peace treaty of the first war that gave him a legal mandate to invade.

If you believe, as you well might, that powerful countries which do not have to suffer any adverse consequences for breaking international law have a right to break those laws, ie, that might makes right, then fair enough, I can respect that position even if I don't agree with it, and it's logically consistent to disregard the question of whether or not there ever were any WMDs.

But if you believe that international law, at least in principle, ought to apply equally to all countries, whether they are powerful or not, then the WMD issue matters.

I read Scott Ritter's book before the war, and to me it seemed he made a very, very strong case that Iraq had no WMD capacity. Not because Saddam was an angel who would die before telling a lie, but because the weapons inspection teams, despite all of the rhetoric about "ten years of evasions and deceptions, ten years of failure" had actually done their job. I read widely on the war, and paid attention to the right wing case, but I never saw anywhere a convincing rebuttal to Scott Ritter's case. I'd be happy to be shown one even now. But it seems very unlikely that you'd be able to find one, because to me it seems obvious that Ritter's view has been redeemed as being 100% accurate.

Should laws we have all agreed to be binding on us all? You can take whatever position you like on that question. But if you believe that they should, then the WMD issue is central.

What you said legionnaire
Especialy the part about conglomerates.Here in Canada the national media outlets are owned by two groups and they have actually told the papers they own not to publish any viewpoints they don't approve of.Very scary shit.

don't forget that coLon boweL's son runs the FCC...

I had a feeling this post was going to haunt me when I woke up, but at least Stockula actually answered some of my questions. I might not agree with everything he said, but kudos for giving an honest opinon. Oh yeah to eveyone else... the foil on my head is just fine, and the alians did build the piramids


[Edited on Dec 23, 2003 by low_life]

Rejcted ideas by the loony left:

Progressive taxation
Competative wages
The 40 hour work week
Social Security
Health benefits
Equitable infrastructure
Civil rights
Public Education
Pure food and drugs
The Space Program
The federal highway system
The GI Bill
Workers Comp
Unemployment Insurance
Land Grant Universities


Now I have just one question for you:
Who's your daddy?

You were on a roll right up to here.

I can certainly understand the gripe that the media prints blatent lies and what not... hey man.. it makes good press.. BUT, Yer completly off yer rocker (ie. INSANE) if you think that the press manipulation is biased in terms of supporting the current administration and the war on Iraq. The press is liberal and anti-iraq-war... and the only press we've had up till date is dead weekend warriors in iraq who didn't think they'd actually have to serve a day of real service in their life to pay for their college grant.

Scott ritter is a child-molesting non-credible son-of-a-bitch. He's a bigger failure than he'll ever accuse the usa of being. I can't make the leap of faith that he's credible simply because he wrote a book on being so. Irregardless.... I will justify the iraq without hinging the whole case on "WMD'... so ritter can go to hell where he belongs.

The media prints blatent lies.. since the damn of time... but nowadays they are leftist and the last thing they do is support the administration.. they present news juxtaposed to their own liberal slant.

He does have a point though. It's a viscious circle. What they say is lies, and what we say is lunacy. So given Stockulas well thought out, and written opinion which I thought was hard to dispute. Reprobate deserves the who's your daddy

I think we are confusing Liberalism with what has become contemporary Leftism here.

JFK was a "liberal" by the standards of his time, but a person with his take on foreign policy wouldn't get within shouting distance of a Democratic Party nomination today.

Put another way, the "Liberals" who supported the GI Bill and the beginnings of the Civil Rights movement were the same people who would later be called "Fascists" and "Racists" by their own (Leftist) children.

As for Chimpsky, I am amazed that there is anything left to talk about. The man is just an O'Reilly/Limbaugh type with a somewhat better intellectual pedigree.

Old Noam has been caught red-handed in his lies, evasions and hyperbole so many times... why even bother?

On the other hand, I do have fond memories of the time Chumpsky lied right to my face during a Q&A at Boston U. Fun!

Noam provides the Left with the same service that John Edward gives those grieving for lost relatives: an emotional hand-job.

perhaps the press is simply quoting officials...who tell blatant lies.

Regarding stockula's very sober and seductive argument for the war.

You covered the justifications well, but you evaded the primary moral question both liberal and conservative critics asked at the beggining of this travesty: When is it acceptable to attack a country that has done us no harm under the doctirine of "premptive strike" and would this set a dangerous precedent for other countries to adopt the same policy?

There are not WMD and OBL connections, so that justificatons has been spent. So what was this war really about?

I have yet to hear a good reason outside these boundries other that we want to scare the bejebus out of the Middle East and coax them to fall in line and lay off the Anti-Western/Israel polemics. It didn't work.

Also, the press has been "Soft on Washington" and most conservatives have a problem with a free and open press in the first place. And don't give me that look either. I've read Burke and Bork, and they make it clear that "the press exists to pormote the virutes of governement and also exists at its behest."