Only eight years - true, but they can leave lasting damage.

The New York Times is constantly reviewing its actions, and their reputation took a hit from what happened, they will last more than 8 years, so theirs is a far greater responsibility.

What we are seeing is a new trend, now we have to believe that the government is, at best, deceiving - if not lying outright, when the President speaks you now see an imaginary warning label, NOT TO BE TAKEN AS TRUE, VIEWER CAUTION ADVISED.

That applies to all politicians and has been the rule and not the exception since ancient times.

thanks 20mm, I have seen that used before and never figured it out. anyway i agree with your assessment. i like having online debates sometimes as long as they are civial and cohearant. SimHQ community hall seems like a good place for some debates because while alot of members have different view points, most can agree to disagree and make pretty level headed comments

sorry for brown noising and hijacking the thread.

And it applies to those bastions of truth, the media. If you've ever had any direct involvement with them, you know, they get wrong at least the same or more often than they get it right. Sometimes it's because of time pressure, sometimes it's their built in bias, sometimes they're just flat lazy. Take everything you read or see or hear with that same grain of salt.

only if you believe that all politicians are the same, there are still decent people that want to be remembered for their principles as well as for their honesty and not have people rinse their mouths after their pronounce their names.

there is still something called Public Service and defending the Constitution of one's Country.

I am sure people still vote for a person supposing he is not only competent, but reasonably Honest.



true, but you buy a newspaper, not vote for it, and it can't take life and death decisions that will directly affect you.

I would say just as many people vote for the politician who they think will give them what THEY want.

referring to ThomasDW:

Ah, but does it? Not in the way a politician has control over your life, but it may influence how you think, and therefore, who you vote into office. Hence, who has those life and death decisions.

The power of the media to influence and sway and bend public opinion, and by consequence, the actions of public figures is not to be underestimated.

Some of you guys aren't getting it.

It really matters little if these guys believed in what they were stating publicly, but it is clear that many if not most of them knew:

1. They were being spoon fed information that the government wanted to get out through them. And stop and think about this a moment, why not just have another Pentagon Press Interview? Where a bunch of reporters sit down in front of a Pentagon public relations official and ask questions. No one watching that interview is going to think that they are getting an independent viewpoint are they? No, you are getting what the Pentagon wants you to know. Reporters if they are doing their job will do their best to extract information from the briefer that the briefer does not want to disclose or admit to. The pentagon needed surrogates who had credibility (see my earlier post on perceived integrity of military officers to be NON PARTISAN) to get out information which was contrary to what was coming out of reports from on the ground news agencies.

2. They had a pecuniary interest --- money . Their access to inside information regarding where the Pentagon was going with its next moves (contracting possibilities) is just what their clients (the defense contractors they were representing) were paying them for. So by putting out the Pentagon's point of view these guys (because they we're being dutiful surrogates) would continue to gain access to inside information that would not otherwise be available. This meant dollars for them and their clients through early insight into no bid contracts.

3. I'll say it again. The Army is held in high esteem because it does what it is supposed to do and is NON PARTISAN . It serves the country, whether that be a Democratic or Republican administration. These guys trafficked on that public perception to add credibility to their newscast statements that they were putting forth points of view that represent not just a military officer's experience and but a NON PARTISAN point of view. At no point did any of them state on the air or print that they were deriving the bulk if not all of their information from the Pentagon and that continued access to that information was predicated on sticking to the Pentagon's storyline.

They had at least two "conflicts of interest". They did not disclose they were restating Pentagon talking points (blowing perceived impartiality), and they did not disclose that their financial interests were predicated upon continued access to this inside information which in turn was predicated to "sticking to the storyline"

SB

I would be interested to know the proportion of positive to negative news stories about the war in Iraq. Anyone? It is discoverable, I'm just too lazy to do it. My guess is it's about 75% negative and 25% positive. How does that, assuming it's anywhere near correct, equate to the media being spoonfed by the military.

Second, of course they're being paid to report. The implication is that they get access to information others do not. And that may be true.

Third, the military is held in high esteem, certainly by me. But they have their own self interest to protect, and part and parcel of that is the war effort. Giving aid and comfort, via the news, is not in the military's self interest. Of course they want to influence the media. Be nuts if they didn't.

Last, again I say, if you doubt the traditional mainstream media, and you probably should, read Michael Yon. The guy scrubs by on a dime, takes donations to buy PPE and nightvision. Goes in with the troops on the ground, British and American. He is, IMO, a real American hero.

Good post Skullbiscuit.