Who decides what is and what isn't news?
 

On all the big news channels today the main story of the day was Ralf Nader.
The second big story: Cosby slams black youths.

The real story of the day:

More American soldiers facing murder charges for pushing 2 men off a bridge in Iraq one of which drowned.
The soldier's commanding officers were "reprimanded" for impeding the investigation.

There are more than 40 ongoing investigations into deaths of Iraqi detainees while being interrogated by intelligence operatives.

One Iraqi general was killed when they shoved him head first into a sleeping bag and smothered him to death.

Didn't hear much at all on any of the "news" channels about any of that today though.

What I want to know is:

Who the hell is in charge of this train wreck in Iraq?

And when the hell is Rumsfeld going to get it through his thick skull that he is irreparably harming America and just go away?

^what he said^

hi, R - nice to see you :WW:

Who decides what is and what isn't news?

The same liberal media that has decided for the last 20 years.


Like,

can u tell the diff between CNN and FOX? Have u ever watched FOX? Think they spin the facts? Think CNN is honest with their reports?


Hahahahahahaha, :BL: u suckers

If the US can nuke Japan and kill a few million people in WWII without irreparable harm then I don't see the big fuss over a few dozen prisoners; and Rumsfeld, no doubt, has a broader perspective as does the media since they're not as obsessed with this detail as you'd apparently like them to be.

Chill.

Where did you pull this 20 years figure from? Out your ass?

HAHAHA back at cha... :f:

p.s. the saying is "The proof of the pudding is in the eating".

its got to be in the pudding first tho..so really the proof exists in the pudding before any eating takes place...
the media is a sellout....i think it has always been like that.
the top mobsters in the capitalist mafia give it enough money to keep its mouth shut on the views
of people it dont like...

pilger, palast & stern & accociates

i thought rumsfeld ,powell and rice were good to go?

Sorry, it's the mouth that "proves" (tests) the pudding. Once the mouth tastes the pudding one can say the pudding is proved. Otherwise it is unproved and thus of dubious quality. :D

Fark

Haven't been there in quite a while.

A year ago I said that it would take a super huge screw-up by Bush to keep him from being re-elected to a second term.

I can't think of a bigger screw-up than his administration's response to the torture scandel:
All cameras of any type are now banned at any military detention area in Iraq or elsewhere.

I haven't changed my political stance.
I'm still a conservative; but, I no longer support Bush and do not plan to vote for him again.

I think he has about as much of a chance for re-election right now as an ice skate salesman would have in hell of making a living.

For one it's not just the liberal media. Both sides play this game. The media does put their own spin on facts, but so does the White House no matter who is in office. In fact they not only twist the facts, but they hide a hell of alot more facts. Any mistakes on any administrations part are either hidden as fast as possible, or manipulated to suit their needs.