I like your answer. I was just trying to form something similar myself. But, I honestly can't imagine authorities having any control over the MSM, so that is the baffling part. And I'm not buying it's all about hush hush and send the troops home, either. I think these looney MSM folks still just don't get the threat, and don't see the relevance. (Isolated case, dumb kid, bla bla).
They don't think like us; we see the evil right away.
Wrong, all it takes is a phone call from a certain agency to the editor to spike a story as a matter of national security and ot will be spiked. Takes a little longer with local media.
Thanks, clearly the adminstration does not control the MSM. But the MSM fears talking up such events would make people sympathetic to the adminstration. I promise if their is a succssful attack, the MSM will go back to all these events and say the adminstration blew it.
"But, I honestly can't imagine authorities having any control over the MSM, so that is the baffling part."
I think it is pretty clear that on national security issues the media defers to government on how to cover stories that haven't been blown wide open, or are still initial stages of manageability. There are a number of instances of clearly newsworthy events or aspects of stories either never been covered AT ALL or being initially reported and subsequented unoccuring or moving down into 'freak accident despite eyewitness comments we are no longer mentioning' territory.
There was a piece somewhere about a recent bilderberg conference where media and government coordination after a terrorist attack was discussed, since the media understood that the initial reaction to such an event in the media was very important - witness the current event.