Get thee to a nunnery.

And Saddam said, "What? You dare report that my regime isn't peachy? Off with your head you miserable little reporter scum."

Yes, to defeat Saddam we must become Saddam. It's so simple. How could we have failed to see this?

Thanks for the enlightenment. Let's do it. Hey, I saw a guy whose flag wasn't at half mast. Off with his head--the unpatriotic, treasonous maggot. The other day this lady looked like she was about to cry when she saw images of dead Iraqis. Off with her head! My dad said that he didn't like the idea of war. Oh, the squirrelly bastard. I'll have to report him to Big Brother.

Enough with my fun making. This post is absurd. It uses ideas of treason and head lopping off as a way to threaten people into a certain mode of reporting, a certain outlook. That is like trying to get your middle school track team to run faster by showing them images of dead bodies that were gored by the bulls at Pamplona. How do you potty train your kids? Show them pictures of the castrated penises of bed wetters? All we need are the thought police, or the Stasi, or some SS troopers. What the hell?

It seems to me to be very similar to the lack of reporting of all the planes landing okay; it's the bad news that gets attention. "If it bleeds, it leads" is still very much in effect in quite a few news rooms.

It's not treason, but it is bias. And it deserves mention.

It's an election year. The economy is improving. Kerry's only chance to win is if the media:

A) Buries all the good economic news

B) Buries all the good foreign-policy news (including positive news from Iraq)

C) Overplays the bad news in foreign-policy (especially bad news from Iraq)

A+B+C=Kerry winning in 2004. Which is what the mainstream media wants...

The corporate media wants Kerry instead of Bush. The media is only negative when there is a Republican in charge (I'm extending this from your comment, RJ). The press loved Bill Clinton. It all makes sense.

My ass! Clearly, the Democrats want the media to be negative when Republicans are in power and positive when Democrats are in power. The converse goes for Republicans. Ideally, the media isn't supposed to be biased--it's not supposed to flip one way or the other. Corporations own the media. Corporations love Bush. If anything, the corporate media is doing its best to make Bush look good. Why else don't they point out what a freaking moron he is? My first question as an interviewer would be, "Mr. President, you're stupid, aren't you?" Yah, it's biased. You all just want it to be ultra biased. You want to completely leave reality behind, Ministry of Truth style. Well, apparently a good portion of the American people aren't quite ready for complete and constant deviations from the truth. But if you threaten to cut of our heads, we might be more accomodating.

Dirtgrain,
Unfortunately, your kind of response was what I expected.

And Saddam said, "What? You dare report that my regime isn't peachy? Off with your head you miserable little reporter scum."

Perhaps you should re-read the entire post. Then maybe you'd see the last paragraph where I clearly defend the right of free speech in America and point out that we don't need a jingoist propaganda machine.

Thanks for the enlightenment. Let's do it. Hey, I saw a guy whose flag wasn't at half mast. Off with his head--the unpatriotic, treasonous maggot. The other day this lady looked like she was about to cry when she saw images of dead Iraqis. Off with her head! My dad said that he didn't like the idea of war. Oh, the squirrelly bastard. I'll have to report him to Big Brother.

See above.

This post is absurd. It uses ideas of treason and head lopping off as a way to threaten people into a certain mode of reporting, a certain outlook.

No, I used the idea of treason as a jumping-off point to emphasize the seriousness of (perhaps)unintended consequences. There is no threat implied anywhere in the post.

Ad hominem attacks, followed by building a straw man and attacking it, instead of debating what I said on the merits?

No, sir, I'm afraid it's your comment which is absurd.

Hello, my name is Jesus Christ and I do not approve of this message.

If George W. Bush doesn't quit using my name in vain, I swear to God, my Father, I am going to rapture his ass on the spot!

"The corporate media wants Kerry instead of Bush. The media is only negative when there is a Republican in charge (I'm extending this from your comment, RJ)."

The "corporate media" does seem to want Kerry instead of Bush. Sorry. Just because they are "corporate" doesn't mean they are Republicans. We all know that rich, white, powerful Dan Rather is a Democrat, for instance.

And the media, in my opinion, was anti-Gore in 2000. (They were also anti-Bush, but perhaps less so.)

The mainstream media has more power in this country than almost anyone will admit. They play a large role in deciding our elections. In this election, they seem to be intent on destroying Bush.

Scott said: "Perhaps you should re-read the entire post. Then maybe you'd see the last paragraph where I clearly defend the right of free speech in America and point out that we don't need a jingoist propaganda machine."

So, Scott, we are supposed to ignore every paragraph but the last? Excuse me for noticing what you wrote in the other ones.

As for your "jumping off point," I questioned it entirely, calling it absurd. So you did not mean it to be threatening--but that is how it reads to me. So, we just have a problem with message sent, message received. Then again, if you were expecting my "kind of response," then you must have understood that your piece would seem threatening. You achieved your "unfortunate" goal.

There is no ad hominem. I questioned your post--I did no attack your character or anybody else's character. Look up ad hominem.

I think you are labeling my sarcasm as a straw man tactic. The sarcasm was meant to point out the absurdity of your piece. That is not a straw man. Look up straw man. That I addressed your points about treason and head lopping off is not a straw man either--you chose to write about it, and I responded to what you wrote.

As for the merits of your piece, how about a question? If reporting the truth gives the enemy comfort, is that treason? It seems that you suggest that certain parts of the truth be hidden in place of certain parts of the truth that you claim are wrongly hidden. You argue to fix a supposed lie with another type of lie. I can't stress how wrong this is. We need the whole truth, good and bad.

By the way, do you know that it is illegal for the US to use propaganda on its own people? That has relevance in considering the government's role in telling the media what to report and what not to report.

RJ, you need to follow the money. Some corporations give money to both candidates, hoping to have pull no matter who is elected. And there are those, like George Soros who support Kerry (I have blogged about Soros on many occasions. He is an evil man. By the way, I don't like Kerry so much, but I like him better than Bush). But the majority of corporate money is going to Bush. Bush is all about corporate welfare. He cuts corporations' taxes. Hell, with these tax shelters, it seems like they aren't paying much in taxes at all. Bush is about deregulating. Let them destroy the environment and pollute without restriction. For corporations, Bush is more money, more money, more money. You want to know more about it? Look into the Carlyle Group (see The Ex-Presidents' Club and also Chronology: The Bushes And The Carlyle Group (this has links to related articles)). If you don't believe that Bush gets a lot more from corporations than Kerry, see OpenSecrets.org (click on the "Who Gives" tab at the top and then click "Industries." Here you can search by industry and economic sector). Corporations own Bush; corporations own the media. You do the math.