Sunday, March 06, 2005
More Good Steals from AmericaBlog
There are two possible implications of the Jeff Gannon story:
A) Security at the highest levels of government was so incredibly lax as to be worthless. This implies that Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, everything done under Ashcroft, all the freedoms given up, were for nothing. It was a sham, and we are not any safer, just less free.
This also implies that the media that sold us war, homeland security, covered terror alerts nonstop, and promoted "a wartime president" that was "strong on security" has been deceiving us.
B) He was given a pass through the usual security because the government is engaging in propaganda. The news is fake, the media can't be trusted, and coverage of the White House especially can't be trusted.
Given those two options, the Jeff Gannon story carried to the furthest conclusions, does it really surprise you that they won't get it right? It's not "blogophobia", right-wing intimidation and guilt, or fear of handling the gay angle. Covering this story with any real depth sends a message that says, "We, the media, are not only completely full of shit, we have been intentionally manipulating your perceptions." There are two things the media doesn't want to do: tell everyone how the news is manufactured; and let the public feel stupid for believing them. The Gannon story's full implications could do both. That's why they really avoid it.
JAS Email Homepage 03.06.05 - 5:15 am #
A) Security at the highest levels of government was so incredibly lax as to be worthless. This implies that Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, everything done under Ashcroft, all the freedoms given up, were for nothing. It was a sham, and we are not any safer, just less free.
This also implies that the media that sold us war, homeland security, covered terror alerts nonstop, and promoted "a wartime president" that was "strong on security" has been deceiving us.
B) He was given a pass through the usual security because the government is engaging in propaganda. The news is fake, the media can't be trusted, and coverage of the White House especially can't be trusted.
Given those two options, the Jeff Gannon story carried to the furthest conclusions, does it really surprise you that they won't get it right? It's not "blogophobia", right-wing intimidation and guilt, or fear of handling the gay angle. Covering this story with any real depth sends a message that says, "We, the media, are not only completely full of shit, we have been intentionally manipulating your perceptions." There are two things the media doesn't want to do: tell everyone how the news is manufactured; and let the public feel stupid for believing them. The Gannon story's full implications could do both. That's why they really avoid it.
JAS Email Homepage 03.06.05 - 5:15 am #
# posted by Frank @ 12:57 PM 
