Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [OT] the poetry of donald rumsfeld

[rdp]

> From: Tom Lord <address@hidden>

> Shh..  that's a secret.  I think the growing and overwhelming
> skepticism in the USian press, even if a bit naive, is very healthy.

I will grant you there are many skeptics of our press that are naive. 
But, I speak not from naivete but having a father that has worked in the
media since the 70s.  I know how it works from being around him and others
in the business.  The skepticism is more than a little warranted.  It's
healthy.  Here are a couple serious examples and a funny one as well.  I
chose ones from at least a decade ago to avoid tying them to anyone in
particular.

It is not uncommon for the various competing news agencies to get
together, informally, to determine how to spin something that is
embarrassing to the majority position of those in the press.  It happened
during the El Salvadoran civil war in the late 70s and early 80s.  I'm not
taking sides with either the Duarte presidency, the rebels or those that
preached revolution theology.  But an attack on some gun runners was spun
as a cold-blooded killing/murder of innocent people right out on the open
street.  Those killed were anything but innocent.  It was perfect from the
perspective of the press.  Instead of "their" side being embarrassed by
the truth coming out, the opposing side was made to look cold, cruel and
villainous.

For the most part those on the nightly news are in favor of gun control. 
Yet, when a local broadcaster was being stalked, the feds came in to help
with the situation and advised them to go out and get proper training and
purchase a hand gun.  You should have seen the looks on their faces. 
Until, they realized the feds were serious.  After that, many of the
on-air personalities and support staff carried concealed hand guns with a
license.  When they say "all guns should be banned", what they mean are
"_your_ guns should be banned".  One of them was asked if this meant
"their" gun, their response was, "Well no.  I need it to protect my
family."  When my father claimed to need his for the same reason they said
that was "insane."  "It's not the same thing."

How because they are a public figure and he isn't?

They are no longer the fourth estate, the guardians of democracy,
defenders of the public interest.  They see themselves as having special
entitlement.

Here is a funny one, if you have a twisted sense of humor.  When pit-bull
and rottweiler  attacks were all the rage on the news, there was a local 5
year old that was mauled by a dog needing I think a hundred or so stitches
on his face arms and chest.  (Not funny.)  It was reported as a Rott
before even checking it out.  When they discovered it was a Beagle, no
joke, do you think for a minute they published a retraction?  Of course
not.  On other occasions it would be a German Shepherd or what ever, but
was always reported as a Pit Bull or Rott.  Sometimes the animal had been
tormented and fought back, that was also not reported.  Their purpose was
to stir up public indignation on the subject.  Why?  A lot of the staff
wanted to see a public ban on Pit Bulls and Rottweilers.