[Spike Spiegel]

I can't see the payoff for them, given their known agenda and well-established patterns of biased reporting.

Although we here see the Democrats as the Party of Government, the bureaucracy itself sees itself as non-partisan. Controlling what the people know is more important than mere party politics. FEMA as an especially unaccountable bureaucracy, sees nothing at all wrong with manhandling the truth if it is in their plan to handle disasters on this scale.

The lack of candor we see here will only be multiplied if something with evil intent behind it happens. Do you think, for example, that you can trust the government if there is a bioterror attack?

The MSM all owe their existence to FCC licensing and government permission to be exempt from anti-monopoly laws. They WILL obey when told what to say and not say.

[George W. Bush]

The lack of candor we see here will only be multiplied if something with evil intent behind it happens. Do you think, for example, that you can trust the government if there is a bioterror attack?

No, I don't. But that is a public health situation of massive proportions and the possibility of massive panics can justify the government restrain itself. No one objects to the government keeping that kind of news quiet for a short period to avoid much larger harms or entirely unnecessary panics that might actually cause far more damage than the attacks themselves.

The MSM all owe their existence to FCC licensing and government permission to be exempt from anti-monopoly laws. They WILL obey when told what to say and not say.

I don't really believe this. They reported the Lewinsky stuff (opposing it all the way). They attacked Bush on everything you can think of during 2000 and the Battle for Floriduh. They rehashed a bunch of it culminating in Rathergate for 2004. Where was their fear of the FCC and the dominant party in government then? I just don't see the evidence.