It's like the time mainstream meadia covered presidential candidate Walter Mondale's visit to a small town where construction was underway nearby for a nuclear power plant. Mondale had come out soundly against the nuclear power plant -- yet most of the guys building it were union members who wanted to support Mondale, but were extremely upset with his stand on nuclear power. They showed up by the hundreds to protest his speech -- the place was crawling with them. They were furious. I was there, a member of the small local media, up on the media stand crowded with dozens and dozens of "big" media reporters.
Local news reports of course covered the presence of the union members out-in-force protesting a candidate that they would certainly normally support.
But on the "Big Three" network's news reports, not only was NOT A SINGLE THING MENTIONED about the large presence of these guys, but because I WAS THERE and I SAW THE SCENE, I know that the reporters rather had to go out of their way to AVOID presenting it in any film of the event. From the "big" media, America learned that the campaign stop was unremarkable, standard, well received by local democrats, no controversy, just everything normal.
I'm interested that you seem to think there was so much "overwhelming" evidence of the National Guard story that the fraudulent documents were minor. Seems to me the evidence consisted of the memory of a very old secretary who wasn't the guy's regular secretary, and other "evidence" that looked damning until it was scrutinzed in a full context, at which it seemed pretty thin indeed. But there again, as they did with the Mondale campaign speech, the media simply ignored things that were, in reality, significant.
Going back to the Mondale speech, where large numbers of union protestors were for all purposes invisible to the news media, the story that the media sent to the nation was wildly, utterly, false in its true context. But ... did they LIE??? Technically, no.
Zee2, this is the thing. Media don't have to lie or even conspire to falsify a story. When the media is peopled with reporters and editors who lean decidedly toward one political persuasion -- and there is zero dispute that reporters and editors overwhelmingly describe themselves as Democrats -- they often fail to resist the temptation to simply LEAVE OUT the pieces of information that cast their favorite in a negative light.
By omitting key facts, are they lying? Who cares -- for sure they're presenting a false impression.
well heres a question to ask yourself, if they content of the memo was false, then president bush would have been able to immediatly say.."that memo must be forged because its contents
dont make any sense"
yet instead he kept silent..the only person to comment was laura bush who said "if the memo was forged thats awful"...
my question is..why was there any doubt in her mind, why did she need to use the word "if" she should have been sure the memo was forged.
BTW, im sorry the media misrepresented that event you were at..you must have felt quite betrayed by the media. And I do not doubt the media is capable of misrepresentation. But this sort of misrepresentation would be on a much higher scale, see how much media play this story has gotton.