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: TimF who wrote (196700)	8/4/2004 4:59:49 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1576851

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. In this instance, a fourth possibility may be that the American media is trying to protect the US's reputation. America's rep and credibility is at an all time low in the world. A story like this one.......that the American's hand picked Iraqi PM is beginning to look like another Saddam..........would only do further damage to our credibility. 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. I am hardly the only one questioning why more of our media has not picked up on the story. Here's still another article discussing the issue: <font color=brown>"Now, I’m not arguing that the Allawi story is true, only that the citizens of Australia, Britain, Ireland, Scotland, Canada and South Africa have a view of the Iraqi Interim Government that Americans do not share. "<font color=black> Our Media kills a Troubling Story that the Rest of the World Saw ccmep.org And here's the result of a google search that I did. It shows few links to the major American media outlets: google.com Its probably a combination. The story is considered unreliable so some news orgs sit on. I think that may be a convenient excuse. This kind of American media absense on important stories has been going on since before the war. To protect America's and/or the White House's rep in the world may be a noble reason [if that is the reason] but that should not be the role of the media. ted