When did it become the media's job to fight your battles for you?

[HEyHEY]

Just curious because so many blame journalists for not "Fighting back."
It's the job of the media to report what they know, it's your job to do something about it.

[benburch]

1. Amen, Brother!

Until the fight is personal, you are NOT in the fight.

[GirlinContempt]

2. Agreed... but

They aren't even doing their job

[HEyHEY]

33. Which media?

Canadian media is kicking ass. US media, not so much.

[GirlinContempt]

56. Yeah

I was referring to the american media...

The British media are doing a STAND UP job

[tanyev]

3. It is their job to tell the truth, the whole truth and

nothing but the truth. If they were actually doing that, there wouldn't be nearly so many battles to fight.

[ariellyn]

42. If they told the truth and nothing but, then battle lines would be drawn

accordingly. As it stands now, battle lines are drawn anyway but they are based on lies, omissions and deceptions. But you know that I'm sure--the author of this post should know that as well.

[dissent1977]

4. I have to take issue with you here

Journalists have a responsibility to give the full truth, not to give some "neutral" account that makes it appear as if a lie is the equivilant of the truth. The corporate media has been very weak in presenting the truth because they have been so cowered by the right wing and their corporate advertisers, and they pretend that neutrality means not questioning the acts of those in power.

While it may not be the journalists job to fight our battles for us, the reality is that they have not even been covering the issues important to us. They are a big part of the reason that fascism is spreading through America, and if they were to do their job I can assure you more people would be fighting back.

[lenidog]

11. Truthfully the only responsibility a journalist has is to their own

conscience and the people who owe pay their salaries. Its cynical and its not right but its the truth. Its YOUR responsibility to find out the truth.

[dissent1977]

15. I understand but...

the reality is that while I can go out and find the truth, many people won't. When the media does not do their job we all suffer, and how ever much we may try to get the truth out we do not have the ability to transmit our message into millions of homes around the country. They do have this ability, and when they don't use it to spread the truth but instead spread propaganda then I take serious issue with them.

[lenidog]

17. I don't know what to tell you

I don't have an answer for people's apathy and how to make them want to know the truth. AS to getting the truth out you are currently hanging out and posting on a place that is part of the answer. As to the media itself it has always been this way and sadly always will be. In the past it has actually been more powerful than it has been today in spreading propaganda. Read a book by the historian David Halberstam called "The Powers that Be." You will probably be sickened how the news media has led the people of this country by the nose.

[dissent1977]

25. I will check that book out

I realize that propaganda has always been around, but we also need to realize that it does not have to be this way. We need to open up the airwaves so that we can have DU television to compete with FOX News. We have the technology to put many alternative voices on the media, but the corporations have put a stranglehold on that technology. It is time to break that stranglehold.

[HEyHEY]

30. I don't think so

I think the typical attitude in the US is "Someone else will defend my liberty."

Thing is news services don't sping things the way the left wishes they would, hence fighting the battle for them. The right has the same argument.. again fighting the battle for them.... Both sides claim bias. Fact is if one side wasn't, then I'd be worried

[dissent1977]

35. It is not just that they don't spin things our way...

The problem is that they don't even report on many of the most crucial issues facing us today, and when they do report the important stories they flat out lie.

They don't report about peak oil, they don't report about the overseas sweatshops, they don't report on the war in the Congo that has killed more people than any war since World War II, they don't report on the UK memo that shows Bush and Blair were manipulating intellegence, they don't report on Jeff Gannon, they don't report on the Diebold machines, and they don't report that many of their stories are actually filmed by corporations that have a direct monetary interest in the stories being covered (read up on video news releases of VNRs if you don't know what I am talking about).

Then when they do report on issues such as Weapons of Mass Destruction they tell us that "everybody" thought there were WMDs, which is a flat out lie. Scott Ritter was saying otherwise before the war started, as were many others. They tell us that their is no difference between milk from cows treated with growth hormones, when in fact milk from cows treated with those hormones is often infected with cow pus. Yum. When a reporter tried to bring this up they were fired, when the case was taken to court the court ruled the media had no obligation to report the truth.

Just because the right claims bias also does not mean the media is fair and balanced. It just means that they want the news to reflect their agenda even more. Lets look at the facts and what stories are being covered and which stories are ignored.

[HEyHEY]

39. If they don't report this stuff, how did you find out?

[dissent1977]

43. From alternative sources

The corporate media does not report on these issues, but fortunately there are some strong alternative sources. The problem is they are underfunded, so most people will not know about them unless they have taken the time to seek them out.

[HEyHEY]

44. Which ones in particular?

[dissent1977]

58. There are many

A few examples are The Progressive, Mother Jones, The Nation, Z Magazine, Alternet, Common Dreams, Truth Out, Democratic Underground, the list could go on. I did not even mention any of the great books or documentaries that are out there. Now may I ask why you have been sticking up for the corporate media so much? You have made many vague statements yet I have yet to see any facts cited from you.

[hfojvt]

49. both sides claim bias, but one side is lying or crazy

Studies have been done comparing coverage of Gore vs. coverage of Bush. Somerby called the coverage of election 2000 the media's "war on Gore". See the Dailyhowler.com for much, much more.

In the run-up to the war, CBS's daily line was "Countdown to war". Funny thing about a countdown, they go 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, WAR!!!!
They spent far more time spewing Bush's lies than they did refuting them.
Truly, I think they love wars because it makes them important. They have a big story that everyone wants to know about.
I do not expect them to be at the front of the peace movement, but they could investigate what Bush said at least as much as they report it. They do not need to say "Countdown to peace" as their daily line, but they do not need to don cheerleader uniforms and yell "give me a W (or two) , give me an A, give me an R. What's that spell? - war (yah). Go team USA!"

[HEyHEY]

50. You gave me a biased media source to prove the other side is biased

Also, exactly what do you mean by "refute" argue?

Not being snarky, being serious.

"Truly, I think they love wars because it makes them important. They have a big story that everyone wants to know about."

I think there is alot of war correspondents that are in those terrible dangerous situation because they believe the story must be told, in order to help people. Not for personal gain.

[hfojvt]

55. I consider people like Krugman and Somerby to be more

investigative than biased. To write either of them off as biased is not a valid refutation of the claims they have made. That may just be my bias.

By refutation I mean to report the facts. As Krugman describes it, the media allows the Republicans to say that chocolate is vanilla. At best, they will report "neutrally" that some Democrats say that it is brown.

In matters where facts can be determined, the media can investigate and report those facts rather than just reporting it as a he said/she said story. It carries more weight if the reporter can report "Bush is lying" rather than "some radical fringe extremist partisans say, as usual, that Bush is lying". The lies are simply getting more air time and more print space than the truths.

[KitSileya]

66. "I think the typical attitude in the US is

'Someone else will defend my liberty.'"

Honestly, I am more and more leaning towards the opinion that any country where the poulation is unwilling (not unable, but unwilling) to fight for their freedom deserve what they get. The US has fallen mightily since Patrick Henry rallied everyone in 1775 with his cry of "Give me liberty or give me death." And one cannot blame the media - I'm sure the British controlled many a newspaper in Colonial America. The sons and daughters of the revolution got around that by publishing their own books and pamphlets - by meeting in secret, by word of mouth, by getting involved. A majority of today's Americans are letting the heritage of the Founding Fathers go to waste because of complacency.

[EnfantTerrible]

5. But do they report what they know?

I have my doubts.

http://www.rawstory.com/aexternal/conyers_iraq_letter_502

Where are they on this?

[Catherine Vincent]

6. "It's the job of the media to report what they know.."

And it's who owns the media, that tells them what to report.

[HEyHEY]

24. Wrong in many cases

Up here, I have never met a reporter who can say they've been told what to report. That includes pinnacle reporters.

[babylonsister]

7. Because the media aren't presenting an unbiased

account, with both sides of an issue represented, people no longer even know what the truth is. And not everyone has a computer to look it up.

[tigereye]

52. sadly I think that there is no such thing as

an "unbiased account." I think any media writer in almost any setting, etc. has some "bias." It is very difficult not to have bias.

And the effect of the "spin" that politicians use has created the perception that there is no Truth with a capital T.

[wurzel]

8. The fight is that the "media" does not report what they know.

When do you think the media began "reporting on what they know"? They must know about this leaked British memo. I see no reporting. They knew about Bush's "military career" And about who is to blame for that Iraqi prison. I saw no "reporting". They know the Swiftboat liars were lying. They know about Bush's drug and drinking problems. They know about his crooked business deals. They know Cheney is running the war to fill his bank account. At most these things have been "mentioned" between "reporting" about Jackson and the "runaway bride".

[lenidog]

9. I totally agree

Its our job to raise the red flag of revolution and storm the Bastille if we think the situation deserves it.

[Bouncy Ball]

10. The problem is, the US news media seem to think they are

the ENTERTAINMENT media.

Really, why do I need to know every detail of some chick who ran off or Michael Jackson?

Where are the hard-hitting stories? Where is the good investigative reporting?

Why are we not hearing about job losses, the staggering deficit, the 45 million Americans without health coverage and the millions more who HAVE health coverage and STILL can't afford to go see a doctor (because the coverage is so crappy)?

Why are we not hearing about the state of our schools and how to fix them?

In other words, why do we never hear about stories that really affect all of us?

How much does Michael Jackson affect the average American? Not one fucking bit.

Yet, the American news media seems to have decided they are to be escapist fare. Fluff. I can get escapist fare at the local cineplex.

From my news media I want REPORTING. I want FACTS. I want TRUTH.

And I sure as hell haven't seen it in years.

[lenidog]

18. Off topic question Bouncy Ball

Is that your dog or is a pic you found on the net. Because that picture is so cute. I had to ask because it has been bugging me.

[Bouncy Ball]

34. Just a picture I found.

[Maple]

12. It's the media's job

Always has been.

Most people can't watch everything the govt does, and be well-briefed on what all of it means.

It's a separate job in itself.

That's why we have guaranteed freedom of the press, and consider the media the 'fourth estate'

They are guardians and watchdogs for the public

http://www.australianpolitics.com/media/fourth-estate.shtml

[HEyHEY]

31. Canadian media has no special rights

And it is not their job to fight anyone. IT's the media's job to watch the government, not to fight them. REport as truthful as can be and let the people take action.

[bpilgrim]

13. the PROBLEM with the MEDIA is that they lie and distort the truth

i BLAME them for not informing weTHEpeople of what is really going on.

they are not supposed to just report what they 'know about' but they are supposed to INVESTIGATE and inform the public.

they have utterly FAILED and IRAQ and the current corrupt administration are just two of their recent and biggest disasters.

hope that helps :hi:

peace

[tigereye]

53. but if you look at media over history

i.e., newspapers in the US in various periods or radio - you will see that "the media" has often appeared to side with one party or another, one establishment or another, the status quo, etc. Although I do agree that when I watched the news as a kid in the 60s, it did seem much more serious. I agree with Bouncy that part of the problem is the idea that entertainment and amusement are more important that challenging information.

[bpilgrim]

71. Unregulated CORPORATE Media IS the problem.

without the FAIRNESS doctrine, we are screwed and that is a recent development which leads to all the things we witness today.

if weTHEpeople don't have some control of our media it will always favor the elite and lead to WARS, DEPRESSIONS, and RACISM.

the question is how to we hold the media accountable to weTHEpeople, that is what people are PISSED-OFF about.

peace

[tigereye]

72. I don't think that the media

cause wars, depressions or racism. I think they are way more complex reasons, sadly, for those. The media simply amplifies things that are in the culture and at the same time, sometimes promotes attitudes that make changes, for good or ill, in the culture. The media is regulated. We hold the media accountable through laws, the marketplace and the choices that we make.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

14. It is their job to report FAIRLY and not print propaganda.

To report both sides would also be nice for a change....

[Double T]

16. Their Is A Huge Difference Between The Facts,Faux Facts And Opinion......

....specially when the "FACTS" are being subsidized monetarily by the White House

[spanone]

19. All too often the 'media' report what they think, not what they know.

The Media answers to US in the form of listenership or readership. If they only reported the news that would be fine, way to often nowadays they editorialize the news. This is wrong. I don't expect the media to fight my battles nor do I expect the media to do what it too often does; fight the rights battle for them.

[EC]

20. If you are talking about TV journalists

it is absolutely their responsiblity to us, the owners of the "Public Airwaves" to provide the Truth and when someone lies and they know it to call them on it...And if the press is being controlled by the government in anyway it is against the Constitution: Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[BeFree]

21. Election 2004

Well, since the press supposedly works for us, and they are supposed to be trusted by us, then it is their job to at least lead us into "battle."

They should have said, without one bit of squirming: "Bush was Awol."

"Bush lied about WMD"

"In fact, most everything this administration has told you, the American People, has been a lie."

See what I'm saying?

[Debi]

22. Those bears look menacing

are you going to change them?

[Batgirl]

23. the Right Wing is really going to be pissed

when they find out the media is a non-factor....and after they wasted all that time and money to wrest control of it...oh, the looks of chagrin on their faces, almost like a Mentos commercial.

[HEyHEY]

26. Please point out when the media has lied

I know some stories for one reason or another aren't reported. But please point to a case when they've lied, fox doesn't count

[Batgirl]

29. a previous poster included a list of

lies of omission.

Unless you're referring to some other U.S. media. Maybe there's a media out there that doesn't focus on tabloid trash. You know, a media that pulled the camera back from the Saddam-statue-toppling, or from the Schaivo circus for that matter, to show the sparse attendance. That would probably be the same media that didn't serve as imbedded cheerleading hos for Shock and Awe. But then what do I know? I've been hiding in the root cellar for the past 6 years.

[HEyHEY]

32. There's plenty of media doing that

All you need to do is stop considering everything to be a lie.

[Batgirl]

37. I can't make sense of your comment

even after going back and rereading my post...

Suggested reading:
http://www.whatliberalmedia.com/

[HEyHEY]

40. What I'm saying is sometimes there's things

People want to beleive so badly, they consider everything to the contrary to be a lie/.

[Batgirl]

45. oh, you must be talking about how before the Iraq invasion

when Scott Ritter made the rounds being eviscerated, I mean interviewed by the various tv media personalities, about his views that Saddam didn't have WMD, he was treated like the insane Uncle that lives in the attic at best, and a traitorous leper at worst...

[HEyHEY]

47. I never saw him treated that way

In fact I'd say he was treated the opposite. Maybe fox treated him that way, or the New York Post.

[dissent1977]

59. Maybe this will ring some bells about how Scott Ritter was treated

Remember how right before the war began the media tried to smear him as a sex criminal? Here is a link about the story, but note when you read it this is the BBC and it treats him much more fairly than the American press did. Yet the very presence of a story like this raises doubts about his charachter even if it has nothing to do with the war.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2691013.stm

[SoCalDem]

27. Sorry, but it's the media's job to report the news.unvarnished and un-spun

When they DO that, the public stays involved. When the media REFUSES to cover "real" news or spins it like cotton candy to favor one side, the public either tunes OUT, or gets militant..

Modern news coverage is corporate-driven because there are few(if any) that are not owned by large businesses that have an agenda..


Today's coverage of CEO luxury apartments was a prime example. CNN DID cover it, but they did it in a joking manner when they refered to "their" CEO's LA apartment.. It was all. "ha-ha..we should just put him up in a hotel"".."does he even cook in that fancy kitchen"..joke joke joke..

"Back in the day", CNN would have been all over this story and pointing out how unfair it was for the company to pay $4K a month for a luxury apartment..

The public can get energized when they see HOW an event affects them, but when the media glosses over it and uses phony polls to "prove" that "everyone" thinks this is a great idea... people who oppose it and think there is nothing they can do, just tune out..

Look at the miniscule REAL coverage that the bankruptcy bill got, until it was TOO LATE..

[H2O Man]

69. Well said.

I can't think of anyone saying the media isn't fighting back; I think most of us agree the media is not doing their job.

[ProfessorGAC]

28. It Is Their Job, However, To Reveal Everything They Can. . .

. . .so that the people have the power of numbers. Today, they are just regurgitating what their told by the powers that be and a hundred million americans are ignorant of their abuses. Kind of cuts the power of the people by half, doesn't it?
The Professor

[countryjake]

36. Downplaying what we do is NOT their job!

It's not that they aren't "Fighting back" well enough, it's that they are fighting against us. They do not "report what they know" and even when literally thousands hit the streets to demonstrate dissent or unity, very little is ever mentioned by ANYONE in the media...deliberately. When thousands of us marched to mark the second anniversary of the Iraq occupation, in cities all over our country, did anyone see any coverage of it? Did any wise pundits discuss WHY all of these people felt it was necessary to get out and publicly demand an end to our interference in Iraq or that those actions ever even took place?

How about May Day this past Sunday? Did you see any mention of the Anti-Nuclear/Anti-War demo that occurred in NYC? Here, we saw footage of violent outbreaks in the German marches, but nary a mention of the important PEACEFUL action demonstrated by people from all over the world on the streets of Manhattan. Did anyone hear that over a thousand Japanese traveled here to represent their nation for this March? Did anyone discuss why hundreds of Mayors from cities around the world might come to NYC to demonstrate for an end to NUKES, everywhere? Does not the presence of 35 Hibakusha (survivors of OUR bombs) pleading for the respect of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, on our streets, merit some mention by at least one respectable journalist in our country?

If you take the time to register and read just this one article about that one event, you may get a sense of how frustrating it might be to actually be an activist, out doing meaningful things to change and improve our nation, only to have the media write such descriptions of the effort as this gem of a paragraph: "Still, as current as the nuclear threat may be, the march yesterday had an anachronistic quality about it, with ardent antiwar chants and dove-festooned peace banners that have changed little in decades."

Downplaying what we do is NOT their job!


Thousands Protest on Eve of a U.N. Nuclear Conference
by Kirk Semple Published: NYTimes May 2, 2005

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/02/nyregion/02protest.html

~snip~

In a merger of the nuclear disarmament and antiwar movements, several thousand protesters, including a group of survivors of the atomic bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, marched through Midtown yesterday and rallied in Central Park to call for the end of nuclear proliferation and the withdrawal of United States troops from Iraq.

The impetus for the event was a conference at the United Nations, scheduled to begin today, to review the flaws in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Organizers said they hoped the rally would help resuscitate the faded antinuclear movement.

"We feel it is important to continue our focus on ending the war in Iraq and strengthening our movement by making the connection to nuclear disarmament," said Leslie Cagan, national coordinator of United for Peace and Justice, which helped to organize the march with Abolition Now!, a coalition of nuclear disarmament groups. "Given that the Nonproliferation Treaty conference is going on, we thought it was the right time to make that connection and re-energize opposition to nuclear weapons."

While the turnout was a fraction of that of antinuclear rallies in the early 1980's, the event drew a diverse array of participants from around the country and the world, most notably a contingent of hundreds from Japan, including the mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and about 35 survivors of the atomic bomb attacks.

[hfojvt]

38. the media's job to fight my battles?

Did you ever read my LTTE?

"It must be tough to be Jayson Blair. His little lies were exposed and denounced, while larger lies are given a free pass. One would hope that journalism would stand up for Dorothy, the small and meek. Yet instead of exposing the "man behind the curtain, " the media acts as a propaganda arm for "the great and powerful Oz".
A case in point is the editorial from Connellsville's Daily Courier which was reprinted in Friday's Leavenworth Times.
First, there is the specious defense of Bush's latest tax cut for the wealthy. Bush throws a few nickels to the middle class to hide the briefcases full of hundred dollar bills that goto the wealthy. Instead of exposing this fraud, the Daily Courier defends it. "Pay no attention to Cheney's $40,000, look at the shiny new nickel you are getting."
Second, they re-write history to slander the Democratic party, blaming the deficits of the 1980s on the Democrats in Congress. Al Franken refutes this: "Over the eight years of the Reagan Presidency, the Gipper asked Congress for $16.1 billion more in spending than it passed into law."
Finally, there is the Blair-like assertion that the Reagan tax cuts increased government revenues. As a former teacher of college macroeconomics I know that is absolutely false. Here are the numbers on Government income tax revenues in billions of constant (1982) dollars. Starting in 1977 - 241, 256, 286, 287, 307, 298, 277, 276, 301, 304, 337, 333, 355, 355. It is clear that from 1981 at 307 until 1986 at 304 that there is no increase. Also, the jump in 1987 is no more impressive than the jump from 1978 to 1979.
People read the newspaper to keep informed. It does not help when the newspaper spreads mis-information."

Far from them fighting my battles for me, I seem to be doing their job - writing for free to refute the lies and hate that they pay people to spew.

[HEyHEY]

41. Okay my original post applies to everyone except hfojvt

[Strawman]

46. Good point

"Objective" journalists look to political elites who are seen as credible sources to frame their coverage of political news and issues. When you flip flop and triangulate and lead by following the polls, you let the other side set the agenda. Political elites who supposedly represent us (aka Democrats in Congress) can move political stances from the "sphere of deviance" to the "sphere of legitimate controversy" by advocating those stances. Then shit gets covered.

How many Democrats voted to authorize this war in Iraq? How many that aren't dismissed by their own party power brokers as being "too far out" on the liberal fringe? Hold those elites accountable first. I'm not convinced that they're not victims of biased journalism (Fox News aside) as much as they are victims of their own unwillingness to really lead and set an oppositional agenda.

There's alot wrong with the media, but I see it as part of a larger political problem. Who's going to fix the corporate media? The corporate whores in Congress? Without strong influential liberal leaders in the Democratic Party, CNN is not going acknowledge liberal views when they frame issues. They'll frame them the same cynical way all their savvy campaign consultants do.

[HEyHEY]

48. I find CNN can be good or bad

Depending on who's on the job. They seem to give their reporters free reign.

But I'm glad at least one person here saw my point

[Strawman]

51. it's hard to argue against the allure of the hostile media effect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_media_effect

Easier to believe that the Democrat you voted for would be a better, more boldly liberal, Congressperson but for biased journalism. Harder to say it's time to get rid of Senator so-and-so who shook my hand at the last Democratic fundraiser, but consistently sells me out in Washington.

[neuvocat]

54. They have to fight so we can know the truth.

[Jade Fox]

57. Now is we could just get them to 'report what they know'....

The power of the media to influence not only opinion, but what is
considered relevant cannot just be wished into the cornfield.

[Cleita]

60. That's the problem. The media is not reporting what they know.

The pundits are not making their political guests answerable to their out and out lies, like a real journalist would.

[October]

61. Excellent post, indeed.

[ultraist]

62. Reporting half truths is lying. Intellectual dishonesty is unethical

It's not so much that they aren't fighting our battles, it's that they are promoting Bush and his battles!

The MSM is horribly biased in the US. Failing to report on important stories, as pointed out, is a form of spinning reality. Reporting half truths or out and out lies also violates the profession's Code of Ethics.

http://www.spj.org/ethics_code.asp

Preamble
Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seek Truth and Report It

Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information. CON'T

[HEyHEY]

64. Almost 100 journalists died last year...25 in Iraq

Were they all risking their lives for Bush's lies?

[UdoKier]

63. False Question, A better one would be...

"WHen did the media become the exclusive mouthpiece of mega-corporations and stop reporting NEWS?"

[hunter]

65. Great post.

May 3 was World Press Freedom Day.

Question--

If you wanted to understand the people of the Middle East would you listen to ABC News and Paul Harvey or Al-Jazeera? Why?

I was poking around looking for links, and came up with this:

http://www2.rnw.nl/rnw/en/features/amsterdamforum/050506af?view=Standard

http://www2.rnw.nl/rnw/en/aljpressfree?view=Standard

It's nothing special, just something I grabbed off Google, but it's not the kind of thing you'll commonly see in the United States.

Like it or not, our news is a reflection of the people. If you don't like that reflection, you don't blame the mirror. If people didn't like what they were seeing on Fox News, or CNN, etc., they wouldn't turn it on.

[Is It Fascism Yet]

67. The problem is, they don't report what they know, so that not enough of us

know we have to do something about it.

[kentuck]

68. There is a lot of merit in what you say....

The media might report: Another day and the Democrats do not offer a newsworthy response....

[CJCRANE]

70. The media don't just report -

they can hold politicians to account. Whatever we think of Blair, for example, he has been attacked relentlessly in the UK media. The same happened to Clinton in the US. Neither of them were given a free pass, they both earned their political survival against all the odds.