Of course the US doesn't control the media. If they did, how would Monica Lewinsky have ever been a thing?
There are people who control the media. Rupert Murdoch, for example. And organizations which have undue influence due to advertising and ownership structures. But not the government.
Just because the US did something you consider wrong doesn't mean the media is controlled. And in fact there was lots of debate in the NYT at the time about the Iraq war.
You know what, I am guessing you are one of those people who defends China and Russia by admitting they are bad, but then falsely claiming the US is in no way any better.
Just because the US did something you consider wrong doesn't mean the media is controlled.
The opposition to the Iraq invasion was vast and loud. There were protest marches against the invasion all over the US, and in many other parts of the world. And yet the NYT editorial supported the war. How is this even possible? How can the NYT, this paragon of journalism, not see what the ordinary people could see, that the case for the Iraq war was rigged?
And by the way, it's not just I who consider it wrong; most of the world does so. You may relish the idea of killing innocent civilians, but most of us do not.
Comments
Of course the US doesn't control the media. If they did, how would Monica Lewinsky have ever been a thing?
There are people who control the media. Rupert Murdoch, for example. And organizations which have undue influence due to advertising and ownership structures. But not the government.
Monica Lewinsky is nothing.
When the drum beat of war in Iraq was happening, even the NYT wrote editorials supporting the war.
Later, in 2004, NYT had an article ready about how Bush lied to get us into the war. But, surprise! it was not published until after the election.
Just because the US did something you consider wrong doesn't mean the media is controlled. And in fact there was lots of debate in the NYT at the time about the Iraq war.
You know what, I am guessing you are one of those people who defends China and Russia by admitting they are bad, but then falsely claiming the US is in no way any better.
The opposition to the Iraq invasion was vast and loud. There were protest marches against the invasion all over the US, and in many other parts of the world. And yet the NYT editorial supported the war. How is this even possible? How can the NYT, this paragon of journalism, not see what the ordinary people could see, that the case for the Iraq war was rigged?
And by the way, it's not just I who consider it wrong; most of the world does so. You may relish the idea of killing innocent civilians, but most of us do not.