"...if you are responsible to the corporate boss and not your news director, you will naturally do what he wants...which tends to be less grounded in real news and more in sensationalism in an attempt to get ratings."
I'm sure you would agree there has to be some regard given to the national security aspect of news reporting and using the public airwaves. Allowing other foreign news organizations to gather our news for us might draw a parallel to relying on others (Iraqi exiles for example with an agenda) for intelligence about the post-war Iraq scenario: we need our own people on the ground. We disbanded our CIA human intelligence in the 80's and 90's, then disbanded our foreign news media intelligence. No wonder we were blindsided.
Ditto.
BTW, this is another gem from the book I found online:
"The book's instant headlines will probably come from "60 Minutes" commentator Andy Rooney, who tells Fenton there is "no question" the media are liberal and takes a swipe at Rather: "I think Dan has been -- I don't know why; he may not be as smart as they think -- but he has been so blatantly one-sided. . . . He uses little words that are absolute clues, giveaways to his political opinions. Like saying 'Bush,' instead of 'President Bush' or 'Mr. Bush.' . . . A couple of years ago I heard him refer to 'Bush's cronies.' Well, Jesus, 'cronies' -- oh dear!"
Could it be that Sydney Bloomingidiot and George Steponallofus, plus other Clinton operatives, were exerting pressure to keep the lid on things so Slick could control events?
Allowing other foreign news organizations to gather our news for us might draw a parallel to relying on others (Iraqi exiles for example with an agenda) for intelligence about the post-war Iraq scenario: we need our own people on the ground. We disbanded our CIA human intelligence in the 80's and 90's, then disbanded our foreign news media intelligence. No wonder we were blindsided.
See above. Any connection?