"The contention that the media is controlled by "evil" conservative forces is laughable. With the exception of perhaps Fox and one or two others, the mainstream media is very liberal minded. "
I didn't say "evil"........what I implied was "self serving corporate interests......I would say that you were the one, like all right wingers that seem to place some good vs evil "valuation" on everything......and the reality that you and others like you seem to miss is that corporations, like people tend to work in their own best financial interests and consequently tend to have a much more conservative view of the world........they will tolerate more liberal views when it suits them but overall, the trend is WAY more conservative than liberal.
Take for example, General Electric which makes lots of money as a major defense contractor among many other things, why would they wan't to promote anything that is anti defense spending, for example, and consequently NOT in their own interests? Jack Welch, former CEO of General Electric was an avid Bush supporter........he also said, after firing those newspersons that did not fall in line with his marching orders and was criticized for it "I see nothing wrong with a corporation marshalling all the resources available to it to further its own interests" I take that to also include filtering and subverting the news that is reported to you as well by his own admissions and actions....and I will leave it to you to determine which of the "big three media conglomerates" that they own....MicroSoft, owner of MSNBC, was basically "let off the hook" on a major anti-trust suit by the Bush administration. The suit was started under the Clinton administration so who do you think that THEY supported in the election? Hint, they had "discussions" with the Bush folks before the election so they probably had a pretty good take on what the possible scenarios were. Obviously the Clinton administration was not leaning towards giving them a good deal. So why would you expect them to support the Dems?
We are all self serving to a point. The morality thing is only used for a matter of convenience because people in general are actually stupid enough to buy into it when it has nothing to do with anything that actually goes on. It has nothing to do with anything except persuading a rather ignorant general population with getting on board with the program--whatever that happens to be at the time and who is pulling the strings at that point in time. The problem is that people have been mindlessly parroting "liberal media" for so long that the mindless masses have just accepted it as "fact" without ever questioning as to what exactly qualifies it as "liberal?" So I guess that I get tired of people reading the "mainstream media" and assuming everything THEY print is a FACT like all the "official surveys" and never even doing enough thinking to wonder if maybe there might be some "other" reality out there or if what they are saying, ahem.........could be a little self serving or biased? And some of what they print might actually be completely fictitious? It would be nice if people even gave it enough thought to see if it even "feels" like it makes sense. But that is obviously never going to happen. So things continue as they are.
Oh, and just because the New York Times reported something about the type of rocket fuel supposedly involved, just how many rocket scientists do you think that they have on staff to properly evaluate that this information is even accurate before they printed it? Or did they just take it the way the propoganda types spun it from the White House? And why would I believe the New York Times? Didn't they also report all of the evidence that Bush cited for invading Iraq and never even bother to check out the stuff that is easy to find out like the contents of declassified UN inspection reports or even try to verify if some of the reports even existed? So if they didn't do even that level of work, why should I trust their supposed "expertise" on rockets/missiles or weapons of mass destruction.
You obviously are like most of the rest of this country You may not care what the entire rest of the world thinks about Bush's "obsession" with Sadaam Hussein but the facts are that inspite of all the heavy duty arm twisting, they clearly do NOT see this the same way as Bush, and you do for that matter. So that brings up the question, why is that? Maybe you should sign on line and read some of their news media and see what they have to say. One thing is for certain is that what you read will NOT even slightly ressemble what you see reported or DON'T see reported here. Some of the things that DON'T get reported here are actually quite shocking to be honest. But they do get reported consistently in many other countries. And again why is that? You could say the standard mantra that keeps you and the public at large from asking the right questions, or any questions for that matter--"oh well that is because they are all socialist pigs." The entire rest of the world is socialist? That certainly is news to me.
So I stand firm when I critisize you for calling the French hypocrites. "Never mind the sliver in the other person's eye when you have a mote sticking out of your eye." Sound familiar? In case you didn't know, a mote is a f*cking beam that is so big it totally blinds you to your own problems but somehow you can see someone else's hypocrasy with total clarity!!!