News Is Democracy Worth the Risk of Electing Terrorists?

[russ_watters]

Russ, Dan Rather originally used "a big step" ironically. By quoting him and removing the end of his sentence as he worded it, you take it out of context.

Taking it out of its rhetorical context was the entire point of editing it. Are you just being argumentative here? In any case, I didn't detect any sarcasm in his "a big step" But apparently, you didn't either:

You may think that aggression against a party is more biased than being in favor of it, but I disagree. "A big step" is just about on the same level as "destroyed," especially when you consider that destroying is exactly what they were doing.

So you're saying "a big step" was supposed to be ironically in favor of the Republicans? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

In any case, you could probably substitute "made progress" for that. Its not a major issue to me though.

"Restructuring" and "eliminating" also are two words highly favorable to the Republican point of view--"restructure" doesn't sound so bad and "eliminate" sounds like they're getting rid of something evil, instead of an actual social program. An unbiased way to say it is, "The new Republican majority in Congress cut funding today for social programs."

I put the other choices in there largely because I don't know precisely what that bill did. If it canceled a program, then "eliminate" might be the appropriate word.

In any case, I don't consider this a productive line of discussion. I've made my point.

 

[russ_watters]

Moonbear, whenever anyone says a "big step" they are either positive about the step, or using the phrase ironically (as Dan Rather did). It's not a neutral phrase.

You're just not understanding the issue (the grammar!) here at all. If someone has a goal and makes a lot of progress toward that goal, it is not showing bias to say they made a lot of progress toward that goal. What constitutes "a big step" may be subjective, but its not really emotionally charged.

'Auschwitz was a big step for Hitler's Final Solution' isn't saying anything ironic: it is probably true that Hitler considered Auschwitz "a big step".

 

[Bartholomew]

It's a matter of usage, not simple grammar. "Big step" is not used in a neutral sense. It always is positive (except in the case of irony). The fact that you didn't realize the positive connotation of "eliminate" tends to tell me you're no judge of what connotes what.

 

[Bartholomew]

And no, you haven't made any particular point. You should also notice that those quotes from Dan Rather are neither outrageous nor interesting. He happens to favor one point of view over the other (and ALL on the same broad topic of cutting taxes and funding to social programs). If that's the best that your Republican site could come up with, they don't have a case.

 

[russ_watters]

Arright, we're done here, Bart. Grow up. When you want to have an intelligent conversation, please do.

 

[Bartholomew]

Resorting to insults when rhetoric fails?

 

[SOS2008]

That is quite simply not true. The US never recognized the PLO because the PLO embraced terrorism and a policy of annihilating Israel...

There are two sides to the story regarding annihilation, but back to the topic... The PLO became more moderate over time, and Arafat was participating in peace talks. As I've said in another thread, Jimmy Carter has stated that the last agreement was not a fair one, and as we know, if Arafat had accepted it he would have been assassinated. Likewise, in another thread I posted a list of dictators the U.S. has supported. The point remains that the U.S. supports pro-American countries, and this is the primary variable--not the type of government or even atrocities committed. There are theories on this (stability via status quo, etc.).

Guerilla warfare and terrorism are not synonomous. The Arab enemies of the west have made their choice and are being treated appropriately in response.

Terrorists USE guerilla warfare tactics. Recently this topic was being debated via a panel and audience, and only one of the panel members shared your school of thought, while the others shared my school of thought (that traditional war against nation states is not effective against terrorism). There are many books, etc. on the topic if anyone wants to delve more into this.

...And how criminal dictatorships view the US simply isn't relevant.

I was referring to world opinion, not what dictators think.

My boss is to the right of Rush Limbaugh (seriously). He laments that Bush is too liberal. So to someone far from center on either side, the center is so far away, it looks like the opposite side.

Agreed. One could go on forever about which extremisms are worse (e.g., tree-huggers versus white supremest rednecks, or bombing abortion clinics, etc.)--both are bad.

Check again. The producer of the story (who wrote in a memo about the possibility the story could affect the election) was fired outright and forced 4 others out (including the top 2 executive producers of 60 Minutes Wednesday.

I don't want to continue digressing into this aspect of this thread, but my question was what happened to those who smeared Kerry's military service? The "Swiftie" stories were just as damaging to his campaign if not more. Also, that Bush did not serve his full time in the Guard was fully documented by other news agencies. The decapitation of Dan sucessfully over-shadowed what otherwise was a true story.

edit: just realized you misread: by "well established" I didn't mean that it was entrenched, I meant the media's liberal bias is well documented and not a subject for debate.

Everything subjective is subject to debate.

 

[russ_watters]

Terrorists USE guerilla warfare tactics.

While that's generally true, that's irrelevant. The point is that terrorists use terrorist tactics. If terrorists only used guerilla tactics, they'd be called guerillas and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Recently this topic was being debated via a panel and audience, and only one of the panel members shared your school of thought, while the others shared my school of thought (that traditional war against nation states is not effective against terrorism). There are many books, etc. on the topic if anyone wants to delve more into this.

Source? I'm not even sure what your "school of thought" is and I'm pretty sure you don't understand mine.

In any case, while terrorism is carried out as a matter of policy by nation states, then war against nation states will be useful in fighting it. Do I need to point out that this thread is about nation-states who practice terrorism, not terrorism in general?

I was referring to world opinion, not what dictators think.

Be specific. Who, precisely, considers the US a "rogue nation"? If you are talking about public opinion, you're mixing apples and oranges.

I know Il has made such statements, as have some Iranian leaders. Saddam did as well. France hasn't. Germany hasn't. The UN has made no such determination. In fact, France, Germany, and the UN in general (as I said before) agreed with our characterization.

...but my question was what happened to those who smeared Kerry's military service? The "Swiftie" stories were just as damaging to his campaign if not more.

So what? The swifties weren't reporters. There is no charade of impartiality there. They are a completely different animal. And besides - if you want to swing that stick, remember that the Democrats did several times more of that kind of 3rd party attack than the Republicans did. It just happens that the swifties struck a chord and the democrat's groups (MoveOn.org, for example) did not. It wasn't for lack of trying.

Also, that Bush did not serve his full time in the Guard was fully documented by other news agencies. The decapitation of Dan sucessfully over-shadowed what otherwise was a true story.Everything subjective is subject to debate.

That's how Rather justified it as well: if the general spirit was true, it doesn't matter if the evidence is fabricated. You really believe that? How does that work out in a court of law? How does that jive with the concept of "ethics"? Its pretty sick that Rather would claim to be ethical while holding that position.

Its ironic that it backfired, but it is quite right that it did. You cannot base a point on lies. Heck, if it takes a lie to prove a point, what does that say about the point? Perhaps its not that strong of a point. The democratic party still doesn't understand that you can't convince people you're right by lying to them. Seems self-evident to me.

 

[russ_watters]

More on what it means to be a "rogue nation":

Afghanistan is, to my knowledge, the only country ever taken down because of its support of terrorism, so it is of particular relevance to this thread. Below are exceprts from UN resolution 1267-1999 (about two years before 9/11).

http://www.un.int/usa/sres1267.htm

Determining that the failure of the Taliban authorities to respond to the demands in paragraph 13 of resolution 1214 (1998) constitutes a threat to international peace and security,

1. Insists that the Afghan faction known as the Taliban, which also calls itself the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, comply promptly with its previous resolutions and in particular cease the provision of sanctuary and training for international terrorists and their organizations, take appropriate effective measures to ensure that the territory under its control is not used for terrorist installations and camps, or for the preparation or organization of terrorist acts against other States or their citizens, and cooperate with efforts to bring indicted terrorists to justice;

2. Demands that the Taliban turn over Usama bin Laden without further delay to appropriate authorities in a country where he has been indicted, or to appropriate authorities in a country where he will be returned to such a country, or to appropriate authorities in a country where he will be arrested and effectively brought to justice;

[emphasis added]

This is what it means to be a "rogue state", SOS. Its not just some arbitrary, flippant remark made by an overzealous President to sound good in a speech as people like to claim. Its real and its recognized by the international community of nations.

So I ask you: who and on what basis would someone make the claim that the US is a "rogue nation"? In what UN resolution can I read such damning words about the US?

 

[Bystander]

I asked for sources re. "general agreement" a couple pages back, in reference to suppression of free speech, and SOS has provided sources. (This thread is growing too rapidly and wandering a bit --- hence the note to the casual browser)

This may belong under earlier threads on dissent from popular opinion, but aside from FOX News, and earlier threads about paid pundits, here’s more on the topic of suppression, most notably the umbrella company Sinclair Broadcasting Group (with around 62 stations):

http://www.never-be-silent.com/

“The Sinclair Broadcasting Group, one of the nation's most powerful television conglomerates, has a sad record of using its public license to promote Republican causes. Earlier this year [2003], Sinclair tried to censor an installment of "Nightline" on its 62 stations when Ted Koppel announced plans to read out the names of soldiers killed in Iraq.”

There is an entire list of litany regarding Sinclair, which continues…

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/03/gop_web_sites_s.php

“The owners of influential Republican Web sites, most notably freerepublic.com, lucianne.com, and townhall.com, have largely made discussions of immigration reform taboo, by banning any material from prominent Web sites and writers who call for the enforcement of America’s immigration laws.

…Although a large plurality of FReepers support immigration enforcement, Jim Robinson has little tolerance for that position. His computer software automatically blocks any posts linking to the premier anti-illegal immigration Web site, VDARE.com, and his moderators delete any posts of articles by prominent restrictionist writer Steve Sailer. When I once sought to post one of Sailer’s articles, Robinson threatened to ban me from the site."

The first amendment does NOT guarantee you an audience. The first amendment does NOT guarantee you that anyone is going to pay you for exercising your free speech right. The first amendment places NO constraints on coroporate policies. The first amendment HAS been interpreted judicially to strike various FCC regulations regarding language and other content matters in the broadcast industry.

Corporate decisions to edit/censor otherwise control content are NOT forbidden under the first amendment, NOR do such decisions count as "suppression of dissent."

It's a free country --- you don't like the content on Fox and want to change it, it's traded on Wall St. --- buy it and run the company the way you wish.

And while there may have been 48% who did not vote for Bush, there are how many "red" states compared to "blue" states? Sorry, but I can't boo-hoo about mistreatment of conservatives in this country.

Where'd this come from? Face it, you can't "boo-hoo" about treatment of libs.

Businessmen tend to be conservative. Reporters tend to be liberal.

You've mentioned that you're not a Fox watcher; it is intriguing to note the number of Fox staff who have migrated from CNN and other organizations --- it suggests that the bias is at more the institutional level than individual.

Getting back to Burnsys' original "yank bashing," it is worth noting that "imitation has been described as the sincerest form of flattery;" I'll submit that "yank-bashing is the most sincere expression of envy."

 

[SOS2008]

While that's generally true, that's irrelevant. The point is that terrorists use terrorist tactics. If terrorists only used guerilla tactics, they'd be called guerillas and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Various terms are used, freedom fighters, insurgents, etc., depending on who is using it.

Source? I'm not even sure what your "school of thought" is and I'm pretty sure you don't understand mine.

Aside from the many publications on how U.S. military strikes against Iraq do not meet the criteria of “just war theory” as commonly understood – e.g.:

Preemption and Just War:
Considering the Case of Iraq
by FRANKLIN ERIC WESTER
From Parameters, Winter 2004-05, pp. 20-39. –

“This article demonstrates that the use of military force by the Bush Administration against the regime of Saddam Hussein does not meet the ethical criteria for “preemptive war” set forth in the classical Just War tradition.”

Here are excerpts under the title “War on terrorism” from Wikipedia: First, in regard to the use of the term “axis of evil” -- not only is "evil" offensive but "axis" is inconsistent as “the three countries Iran, Iraq, and North Korea had no political links” and is more indicative of a “unilateralist war waged against certain foreign states." And to my point that the U.S. supports or is against states for other reasons, i.e., whether these states are pro-American. Second, and more specifically -

…Some argue that the term war is not appropriate in this context (as in war on drugs), since they believe there is no tangible enemy, and that it is unlikely that international terrorism can be brought to an end by means of war.”

With regard to "source," it is not my job to provide this for your school of thought.

...Do I need to point out that this thread is about nation-states who practice terrorism, not terrorism in general? Be specific. Who, precisely, considers the US a "rogue nation"?

Also under the title “War on terrorism” by Wikipedia -

Noam Chomsky has brought to light that the "terrorism" this war claims to combat does not obey the official definitions of terrorism, such as the one outlined in the US Code: "[An] Act of terrorism means any activity that [a] involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if commited within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and appears to be intended to intimidate or coerse a civilian population, [ii] to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coersion, or [iii] to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping." (United States Code Congressional and Administrative News, 98th Congress, Second Session, 1984, Oct. 19, Vol. 2; par 3077, 98 STAT. 2707. Indeed, by following this definition, many of the actions undertaken in the name of "the war on terror" could be seen as terrorism themselves. Instead, Chomsky concludes, this war combats only "terrorism by others aimed at ourselves and our allies".

And in this section it goes on to say:

The CIA, as a clandestine state actor, has occasionally been engaged in actions directly targetting non-combatants outside of war, e.g. Operation Ajax; under most definitions, this would constitute an organization that carries out acts of terror. Needless to say, declaring a "War on Terror" while supporting terrorism at the same time is hypocrisy, and this seriously undermines the "War on Terrorism" as seen by an ethical standpoint. See List of U.S. foreign interventions since 1945:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._foreign_interventions_since_1945

If you are talking about public opinion, you're mixing apples and oranges.

Because I address more than one source of view, it does not make it unrelated, or more to the point irrelevant.

So what? The swifties weren't reporters.

I referred to those who reported this, and that no one lost their job for reporting something that was not true.

Its ironic that it backfired, but it is quite right that it did. You cannot base a point on lies. Heck, if it takes a lie to prove a point, what does that say about the point? Perhaps its not that strong of a point. ?

The documents presented by Rather could not be proven invalid any more than valid. That Bush's failure to fulfill his entire term of service in the Guard was documented by other agencies is a very legitimate point, in that at least Rather's story was based on truth.

The democratic party still doesn't understand that you can't convince people you're right by lying to them. Seems self-evident to me.

Really? It seem to work really well for Bush.

 

[SOS2008]

So I ask you: who and on what basis would someone make the claim that the US is a "rogue nation"?

Reply above.

And once again as stated in an earlier thread, the idea of "reverse" domino theory (spreading democracy as opposed to containing communism), based on history of over-extension of super powers, the U.S. cannot sustain such a foreign policy. For example, let's start listing the "rogue nations" beginning with Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and then Syria, Lebanon, and add to this Pakistan, Yemen, the Philippines, Indonesia, Libya... Is our foreign policy to preemptively attack all these countries that we perceive as a threat to our interests (harboring terrorists)? And add to that the new twist, to then attempt to instill democracy and engage in nation-building all around the world?

Even if this could stop terrorism, it would cause the U.S. to collapse. And even if this isn't just a guise (which I believe it is), it is unrealistic.

 

[SOS2008]

In my earlier comment on complaints to the FCC about FOX New's tag-line, it was about false advertisement, not any amendment...

...it is intriguing to note the number of Fox staff who have migrated from CNN and other organizations --- it suggests that the bias is at more the institutional level than individual.

In regard to cause and effect, I'm not sure what that indicates. Maybe these individuals have become disgusted with FOX. Or maybe their migration to other agencies is creating another cause and effect of a media leaning more and more to the right?

 

[russ_watters]

You've mentioned that you're not a Fox watcher; it is intriguing to note the number of Fox staff who have migrated from CNN and other organizations --- it suggests that the bias is at more the institutional level than individual.

I tend to assume that the bias at Fox is institutional. Thats really the only way to have a bias that goes against the grain of typical media. And it makes sense that reporters sharing the ideology would gravitate toward it.

 

[russ_watters]

Various terms are used, freedom fighters, insurgents, etc., depending on who is using it.

Different words with different definitions, and only one is relevant here. Its the word used in the quote in the OP. I'm not going to play word games.

 

[SOS2008]

My bad -- I misread what Bystander wrote -- for some reason I thought it was the other way around. Some of the people in the media today should be “institutionalized.” As for the term "freedom fighter" -- that's how they refer to themselves. It's not a word game that I'm trying to play.

 

[Burnsys]

You're misunderstanding the way capitalism works - the way it has to work. If they lowered the price for every country that imported no oil, they'd have to raise prices elsewhere. In doing so, they'd lose business and eventually be forced to raise the prices in countries with their own oil as well. If they did this, which is what you want them to do, you'd actually end up paying more. There is no way around this and there is no malicious behavior here on the part of any oil company. The only body that behaves maliciously in causing high prices is OPEC.

if they lower the prices in the countrys that doesn't import oil they still will be making profits in those same countrys, at least that extracting the oil from those countrys cost the same that importing it. and also they don;t pay salaries at "International Price" here in argentina we have our currency at 1/3 of a dolar, and salaries cost them 1/3 that in usa...

 

[russ_watters]

if they lower the prices in the countrys that doesn't import oil they still will be making profits in those same countrys, at least that extracting the oil from those countrys cost the same that importing it. and also they don;t pay salaries at "International Price" here in argentina we have our currency at 1/3 of a dolar, and salaries cost them 1/3 that in usa...

What's your point? None of that changes the economics of what was already explained to you.

 

[Burnsys]

What's your point? None of that changes the economics of what was already explained to you.

The point is we can't exploit our natural resources to benefit our 50% poor people becouse of the curren economic model that the imf and usa has imposed on us... and becouse all our resources are in the hands of multinational corporations, who's only objectives are more profits..
We have a country who can feed 4 times its population, but we have 25% of it starving... we have plenty of natural resources but we can't use them, one of them is oil controlled in 90% by 3 foreing corporations from USA, Spain and england

 

[russ_watters]

The point is we can't exploit our natural resources to benefit our 50% poor people becouse of the curren economic model that the imf and usa has imposed on us...

Argentina is a sovereign nation, Burnsys. While its true that they didn't make all the rules, they can make the rules for doing business inside their country and they can even leave the game if they want to. Trouble is, there is more to be lost by messing with the game in country and even more by not playing (see: China before and after they started playing and North Korea who is currently not playing).

Being a capitalist, I'd say the problem is simply that Argentina wants to manipulate the rules and is finding they can't beat the game. If they'd work within the rules, they'd fare better.

 

[misskitty]

I agree with Russ's statement, because there is noway of geting around the basoc economics. A country can't suceed when the rules are changing all the time because then business owners are so busy attempting to meet all the regualtions that they never have the time to make any money. If they would stop changing the rules all the time trying to get a ahead of everyone the government would figure out they can get much further in the world by playing nicely with everyone else.

 

[Bystander]

In my earlier comment on complaints to the FCC about FOX New's tag-line, it was about false advertisement, not any amendment...

From "suppression of dissent" to "false advertising" --- what's Fox's line? "Fair and balanced news?" Something like that --- NOT fair and balanced commentary, editorials, analyses, panel discussions. Didn't really look too closely at your links --- they DO of course include the complaints to FCC regarding CBS's advertisements of Dan Rather as a newscaster rather than as an opinion caster?

In regard to cause and effect, I'm not sure what that indicates. Maybe these individuals have become disgusted with FOX. Or maybe their migration to other agencies is creating another cause and effect of a media leaning more and more to the right?

You have figured out that you managed to read this inside out and backwards --- my point was that CNN's lost two or three to Fox, and I haven't noticed Foxers jumping ship the other direction (there may be an equal number of Fox to CNN transitions). By "institutional" is meant that newsies in general are pointed to the left in school, and not too inclined to stray from that "institutional lean" once employed in the field, no matter what their personal inclinations are --- bad career move to fight the traditions of 70 years or so since Roosevelt, and Fox does present an opportunity to do news in a less "institutionalized atmosphere."

Rather presents fiction as fact, he gets the axe. Simple as it can be --- should have happened 35 years ago. Gibson presents an opinion as opinion. So what? "Swifties vs. Kerry?" Kinda missed the initial fuss --- medals over the fence, lip-lock on Jane's butt, Winter Soldier crap, and running as a war hero pretty well put the boy in the trash with the used kitty litter long before the "Swift boat brouhaha." Russ gave you the box score --- JK hasn't (newswise) stirred the fire under the people involved --- suggests more substance to the matter than your version, but he ain't a particularly interesting personality disorder to try chasing down exactly what did or did not happen.

 

[Burnsys]

Argentina is a sovereign nation, Burnsys. While its true that they didn't make all the rules, they can make the rules for doing business inside their country and they can even leave the game if they want to. Trouble is, there is more to be lost by messing with the game in country and even more by not playing (see: China before and after they started playing and North Korea who is currently not playing).

Being a capitalist, I'd say the problem is simply that Argentina wants to manipulate the rules and is finding they can't beat the game. If they'd work within the rules, they'd fare better.

In the 90' we foloowed the rules exactly as they said.. we even where an example for the reggion acording to us and the imf.. we opened our markets, we privatized everything, we become a free market economy, now here we are, even the imf admits his responsability, but of course. it was another "Mistake" those who cost thousens of lives.. and i can tell you hundreds of countrys "Playing the game" who are now so so poor you can't even think about it...

i reccomend you a movie russ: Life and Debt : http://www.lifeanddebt.org/

"Utilizing excerpts from the award-winning non-fiction text "A Small Place" by Jamaica Kincaid, Life & Debt is a woven tapestry of sequences focusing on the stories of individual Jamaicans whose strategies for survival and parameters of day-to-day existence are determined by the U.S. and other foreign economic agendas. By combining traditional documentary telling with a stylized narrative framework, the complexity of international lending, structural adjustment policies and free trade will be understood in the context of the day-to-day realities of the people whose lives they impact. "

 

[Burnsys]

I agree with Russ's statement, because there is noway of geting around the basoc economics. A country can't suceed when the rules are changing all the time because then business owners are so busy attempting to meet all the regualtions that they never have the time to make any money. If they would stop changing the rules all the time trying to get a ahead of everyone the government would figure out they can get much further in the world by playing nicely with everyone else.

The one who changes the rules all the time are the imf, they are always and i mean ALWAYS suggesting some new policy to be a little more a "free market economy". and our government of course always do what they say... But all this rule only benefits the most rich businesman.. just for example we had an antimonopoly law, but the imf make us eliminate it in the 2001.
And remember this. all the "Aid" the imf and the wb gives goes ALWAYS to the hand of corrupt politicians...

http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-07-99.html

"lack of money has not been Africa's problem. Rather, it's that foreign aid agencies have subsidized regimes whose policies have destroyed their national economies-a conclusion that even the World Bank itself admitted in a recent study "

"It is not a new insight to say that continued aid under such circumstances merely makes matters worse. The World Bank has recognized as much since at least the early 1980s when it began "structural adjustment lending" --aid conditioned on a recipient country's fixing its macroeconomic policies. The IMF has always conditioned its aid on policy change. But with few exceptions, it has produced no serious reform in the region"

 

[misskitty]

Why would you want to eliminate an anitmonopoly law? The economy functions better without monopoloies and its better for the people.

The econmy might also suffer from the occupation of the country. How does a long term occupation help the economy? I mean does the occuping country dictate the economic policies as wellas the government?

 

[Burnsys]

Why would you want to eliminate an anitmonopoly law? The economy functions better without monopoloies and its better for the people.

The econmy might also suffer from the occupation of the country. How does a long term occupation help the economy? I mean does the occuping country dictate the economic policies as wellas the government?

Of course the country works better without monopolys, but some corporations (especialy foreing) can get a LOT more of profits being an oligopopy... for example SHELL-EXXON-RESPOL , TELEFONICA-TELECOM, etc..
Do you remember when the fcc had that reform that alowed the media to merge even more? that's another oligopoly, the media in your country...


Acording to the WB: in 2003 of the 100 biggest economics in the world, 51 are corporations, 49 countrys...

POne of the ocupation´s primary goal is to shape the ocuped country economy so they can open it´s market to those corporations...

 

[misskitty]

Yes I do remember that...I was surprised.
Everybody is in it to make a quick buck. Even the occupiers. Its frightening what people will do for money.

 

[Anttech]

Fox is only an example, because it is ridiculously partisan, however to me the media in America is going to be Americas undoing. The Media should scrutinise the government not partner with them, and broadcast propaganda 24/7, and patriotic Red White and Blue bull****e because that is gets the ratings in?

 

[Smurf]

There should be regulations. News is not entertainment - make the companies know this.

 

[loseyourname]

However you may feel about Fox, as far as I know, they don't report anything that is untrue. I have to admit I almost never watch TV news, so I'm not well qualified to comment on this, but the problem with most news channels that I can see is that they don't have enough news programs and they have way too many commentary programs. These commentary programs are simply men expressing opinions, however, and regardless of how off-base you might feel they are, they are free to express it, and if there exists a market of people who agree with them and want to see them, they should be on TV.

I have to say, though, that I don't agree with your contention that the media should scrutinize the government. They should neither seek to scrutinize nor partner with the government or with any other entity. They should seek to report the news with no further ends in mind. They should report all stories of significance from every possible angle they can get. I should note, however, that I don't mean they should have those stupid roundtable of men arguing with each other. What I mean is that they should tell the stories of each party involved in a given story, without bias or ideological filtering. Nothing but the facts, to rip off Jack Webb.