The unnamed source is the scourge of true journalism, because it is an uncheckable rumor displayed as fact. And yet, in the permanent twenty-four hour news cycle,and it's unslakable quest for breaking news, the unnamed source has become the savior of the propagandist. Need to deliver a cutting blow to your competition? Nothing works better than an anonymous aide.
And if an intelligence failure is played out the world stage? Don't blame it on your agency. Fuck no. Blame it on the victim! Because if you can believe that the intelligence agency with the largest budget in the world was outsmarted, then you probably would believe that a slim majority of Americans support a military strike against Iran, if you were the type to believe that polls are nothing more than manipulated information used to create opinion and not reflect it. But hey, in their world we're more than halfway there! Never mind that in the rest of the world, the attempted bribe story is already out there, the rest of the world knew that reasons given for our invasion of Iraq were lies (France, anyone?), it just never made it past the gatekeepers of anonymous sources.
So while the egg on our collective face is discretely wiped off by the corporate media, and the blame is placed not on the criminals, but on their victim, maybe we should consider that another intelligence failure ( you know, like 9/11, Iraq's WMD, etc,) is to blame, we still keep relying on the intelligence gleaned from people who don't appear to be very smart.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
The poll was worded, "to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons". More likely an attack would encourage building nukes for self defense. And that, of course, is the purpose now. When a bellicose tyrant (Bush) invades your negihbors and calls you evil, what do you think the reaction would be?
Amerians really must love war. They actually prefer war over thinking for themselves.
And reality is not a factor. It's a propaganda drivin fear factor. Who says you can't fool the American public again?
USA Today 9/6/2003
"WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country.
Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it's likely Saddam was involved."
Tensions between Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney (from one of your linked articles) -- WTF could those two be arguing about? Unless she wants to try on his magic underwear.
re: Dave's comment -- Several years after we invaded Iraq, there was actually an increase in the percentage of Americans who believed Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks.
I hadn't even heard of the first polling firm listed in the Haaretz article, and Newsmax isn't the most reliable source of information either.
Dave,
All you really need are useful idiots (Fox News is populated with them) in the media repeating the same old lies and voila you have hooked the corporate idiocracy
Tom,
I think Sarah wishes she had some magic underwear of her own, some that wouldn't make her look so foolish when she refudiates something.....
libhom,
NewsMax unreliable? Next you'll tell me that the FreeRepublic is biased!
Post a Comment