For those who believe in the conspiracy, is the media complicit

[texpatriot2004]

since they went along with the propaganda of this administration? Does that make them involved some way in this?

[moodforaday]

1. Look at who owns the media

If a major media owner, General Electric, also manufactures weapons, you can't expect the media to give anti-war arguments serious coverage. No conspiracy here, in the narrow sense of the word, just plain old business thinking.

Check'em out:
http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/

Then there's the weaselship of the "don't rock the boat" mentality...

[zbdent]

2. Most of the Clear Channel employees

when you consider that the president of Clear Channel bought the Texas Rangers from W, and that they insist on packing the stations with Right-wingnuts . . .

[melody]

3. Carl Oglesby quote

No need to believe in conspiracy -

"Conspiracy is the normal continuation of normal politics by normal means."

Oglesby is a fairly mainstream historian.

I find it very strange that Brokaw retired, Rather was forced out and Jennings died in a very short frame of time. Quite possibly, the last was merely chance, but the first two seem awfully telling.

So, yeah, I think anything that involves this much money will necessitate controlling the media.

[Lars39]

4. Here's some links to keep you busy:

http://www.publicintegrity.org/telecom/

http://www.fairnessdoctrine.com/

http://www.nowfoundation.org/issues/communications/tv/mediacontrol.html

http://www.mediatransparency.org/

http://www.counterpunch.org/cnnpsyops.html

http://www.commondreams.org/views/032300-107.htm

[H2O Man]

5. At risk of

being viewed as a dottering senile fool, I will again suggest that DUers read Jerry Mander's books; "Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television," and "In the Absence of the Sacred."

[bryant69]

6. I don't know what is ment by the conspiracy

But of course this is one reason to doubt the conspiracy explanation of 9/11 (MIHOP) - the sheer number of people who would have to be corrupted is enormous.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Walt Starr]

7. No, and here's why

The media was duped just like the rest of us.

First of all, the media always has a honeymoon period with a new administration, giving them the benefit of the doubt for a period of several months as the new administration gets into the think of things. With this administration, I believe the media determined it should extend the honeymoon period due to the controversial way the administration came into power after the 2000 election. Mostly, it's a "good of the country" thing and the media chose to err on the side of caution.

Then 9/11 hit and the only frame of reference the media had for handling an administration was how things were handled after Pearl Harbor.

After Katrina, the administration had utilized all of its media related political capital, and this sort of a benefit of the doubt no longer really flies.

[depakid]

8. Oh, crikey

Clinton had ZERO honeymoon. The so called "mainstream media" hammered him from day one.

Fact is, these corporations have been whoring and equivocating for the far right (and covering their asses) since Reagan was elected.

And they got their payoff in the repeal of 60 years of rational public interest legislation.

[Walt Starr]

9. Nope, Clinton definitely had a honeymoon

his lasted about four months.

[AX10]

10. Bush's "Honeymoon" was much longer than everyone elses.

Only in the last 4 months have we seen the start of real critisism agains this POS occupying the White House.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. Yes

that was easy.

Look at who owns the media, for example MSNBC= General electric