Just add legitimacy
Newsweek printed a retraction this week. In an earlier article, an unnamed source within the United States government claimed that interrogators at Guantanimo Bay flushed a copy of the Qu'ran down the toilet in order to get prisoners to talk. Now, following several violent demonstrations in Afghanistan and the Middle East, Newsweek claims their source "got it wrong".
Or did they?
Am I to believe that in Afghanistan and the Middle East, people choose to read Newsweek? I don't think so.
Here is what I do believe.
I believe that what was printed in Newsweek was not true. I think Newsweek was set up by their unnamed source. And I think the anti-American demonstrations in Afghanistan and the Middle East had absolutely nothing to do with the Newsweek article. In case you haven't been keeping up with things, there are violent, anti-American demonstrations all the time there.
Dan Rather paid for his mis-reporting of George Bush's military service record by losing his job at CBS News. Again, an unnamed source provided him with documents which later were claimed as being fake. Rather had to apologize on air and several staffers were fired for this "error".
Here we have two unnamed sources providing material to large media corporations. The media reports on what has been provided, and then the stories are picked apart until a retraction or an apology follows. In both cases, the sources have remained unnamed.
So what happened? I think they were set up to make the media look bad. And to keep them in line. Since George Bush unleashed his "you're with us, or you're with the terrorists" speech following 9/11, every news organization has reported less news and more propaganda. Which has been good for Bush and his friends, but hasn't been so good for the people. When large media outlets like CBS News and Newsweek report something that isn't positive for Bush, they end up paying a huge price. People no longer look to them for the truth, as they have been seen as unable to provide the truth after these incidents.
Both incidents, unfortunately, add legitimacy to what Bush and his friends are doing. All other media organizations are reporting on the good things that Bush is doing and keeping any deep, dark secrets behind the curtain. Trying to expose the truth and failing to do so makes it seem like Bush can do no wrong.
If you truly want nightmares, just imagine what isn't being reported.
Or did they?
Am I to believe that in Afghanistan and the Middle East, people choose to read Newsweek? I don't think so.
Here is what I do believe.
I believe that what was printed in Newsweek was not true. I think Newsweek was set up by their unnamed source. And I think the anti-American demonstrations in Afghanistan and the Middle East had absolutely nothing to do with the Newsweek article. In case you haven't been keeping up with things, there are violent, anti-American demonstrations all the time there.
Dan Rather paid for his mis-reporting of George Bush's military service record by losing his job at CBS News. Again, an unnamed source provided him with documents which later were claimed as being fake. Rather had to apologize on air and several staffers were fired for this "error".
Here we have two unnamed sources providing material to large media corporations. The media reports on what has been provided, and then the stories are picked apart until a retraction or an apology follows. In both cases, the sources have remained unnamed.
So what happened? I think they were set up to make the media look bad. And to keep them in line. Since George Bush unleashed his "you're with us, or you're with the terrorists" speech following 9/11, every news organization has reported less news and more propaganda. Which has been good for Bush and his friends, but hasn't been so good for the people. When large media outlets like CBS News and Newsweek report something that isn't positive for Bush, they end up paying a huge price. People no longer look to them for the truth, as they have been seen as unable to provide the truth after these incidents.
Both incidents, unfortunately, add legitimacy to what Bush and his friends are doing. All other media organizations are reporting on the good things that Bush is doing and keeping any deep, dark secrets behind the curtain. Trying to expose the truth and failing to do so makes it seem like Bush can do no wrong.
If you truly want nightmares, just imagine what isn't being reported.
Comments