Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (196690)	8/4/2004 3:00:49 PM
From: brian1501	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576322

I haven't seen it in any American source until now with your post of the article from the WA Times. Most, if not all the large American sources, had not reported the item at the time I made my post......and most have still not reported. FYI, I saw a report about this a week or so ago. It was either on Fox or ABCNews as those are the two I mainly watch. You must have missed it. Brian

To: tejek who wrote (196690)	8/4/2004 3:15:20 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576322

So the New York Times is "protective of the Whitehouse", while apparently the Washington Times isn't because it published the story. I can see three potential reasons why many American news sources haven't published the story. In order from most likely to least likely. 1 - The story is unsubstantiated, it might be false and at least has no evidence or credible source behind it. 2 - The story has enough to substantiate it to treat it seriously but many news outlets just haven't been doing their job well in this case. 3 - There is some sort of intentional distorting of the news by organizations like CNN, The New York Times, and The Washington Post to hide anything that could reflect negatively on Bush's Iraq policy. The first amounts to the idea that the story shouldn't have been reported because its about as reliable as an Elvis sighting. That isn't too unlikely. The 2nd is that they should have reported it but haven't yet, that is quite possible as well. The third, that these news orgs are part of some conspiracy of silence to benefit Bush is pretty crazy. A forth possibility would be that they have reported on it. The Washington Times reported on it. Reuters reported on it. I heard about it on the radio awhile back. Its likely that other sources did cover it. Its probably a combination. The story is considered unreliable so some news orgs sit on it and others bury it on page 30. Tim