Not at all
wouldn't you think the media would be all over it if such evidence were presented?
I've seen the media at work first hand starting with journalism in college during the Nixon administration. One memorable occasion there were 5 teletype machines in the newsroom spewing out 5 different renditions of the protests going on outside, and each newspaper in the major cities chose the version that suited them, even tho' they were wildly disparate. One of the newswires (AP) even attempted to quash the Kent state killings of students by national guard, until it was clear the story would get out anyway. It's worse today, as far as concentrated editorial control of newswires and media for 98% of what is reported. Endless false stories are planted, but the way propaganda has it's greatest effect is by suppression. The government can suppress and discredit almost any story at this point, if it's considered important enough. There are a number of books on this subject which I can ref if you like.
Don't depend on "the media" as any comfort in protecting us from any nasty subterfuge that might occur. The only solution, short of full disclosure of public government operations, is to track multiple sources over the spectrum of opinion, and compare and investigate facts. And a healthy distrust of government and, needless to say, corporate interests.
That said, the facts are what matter and deserve debate.
What I thought made article worthy of debate were the issues that match observed facts that have come out over the past three decades. |
