[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.

[Spike Spiegel]

Where was their fear of the FCC and the dominant party in government then?

My point was that party politics takes a back seat to government goals when managing the press. Yes, you see political scandals in the press. When you see an accurate count of the number of illegal aliens, THEN you can say we have a free and independent press.

Or, look at it this way: How much of the nominally executive-branch controlled premanent government changes after an election? How much of our laws are actually policies formulated by this unaccountable permanent government? THAT is what the press kowtows to, not the Coke vs. Pepsi "political" battle.