Is the money that the Media makes from selling news, what makes them
ask questions that can only benefit the enimy? If you sell your
country for money then you are a traitor. Today one of the reporters
tried relentlesly to get Flasher to give away the date the war will
begin.
Any member of the media who ask a question in public, that can benefit
the enemy, should be treated as the enemy.
Last week a reporter asked Rumsfield if we can handle two wars at the
same time, another enimy question, then when he said yes, it was
reported that "Romsfield said we can fight two wars at the same time. 
Is this not being a traitor and a mischieve maker.?

During the fracas in Afganistan, the media was constantly egging the
administration on to engage Iraq, then as soon as they turned their
attention to Iraq, it  now  seems that the Media wants the
administration to pick up the paraphernalia and take them to Korea.

The Media revealed the secret location of the Greenbrier hideout back
in 1992 and it seems that the culprit was not even punished.  The law
should force any member of the media who reveals the new hiding place,
to pay for the re-building of a replacement shelter.

Noboddy seems to notice that the media needs to be reigned in.  The
media is one member of the balance of power I admit, but no member
should be above the law.  Neither the Court, the Executive, nor the
Legislative bodies are above the law, and neither should the press. 
Any tyrant is still a tyrant, let's not forget how brutal the church
was when it was allowed to run wild.

---

Clarification of Question by toughlover-ga on 14 Jan 2003 16:35 PST

I see clearly NOW that my question should have read "WHAT MAKES THE
4TH ESTATE TURN INTO THE 5TH COLUMN, FILTHY LUCRE?

If you help the terrorist by coaxing sensitive information out of our
leaders you are a terrorist, even if you do it publicly and only for
money instead of idialogy.

Any idiot can tell that wars and deplomacy, cant be strategised on TV
for the benefit of comercial press and the country at the same time. 
There are questions that should not even be asked in public.  Like the
question that was asked of Powell "if India & Pakistan went at it,
whose side would the USA take"
Is that not like asking a mother in front of her two children, who she
would save if she could only save one from drowning?

Is this a serious question to which you expect an answer, or are you
using this service as a soapbox?

If you do want an answer from a researcher, what sort of answer do you
expect?

I am not trying to be rude. Just curious why you would post a diatribe
like this on Google Answers, when it appears that you are not really
asking anything. ;)

I too get frustrated when the media seems to be far more interested in
obtaining headlines that will improve sales than supporting the
government when it is doing the right thing.

Criticism of government isn't exercised just because the right exists,
it is used to make sure that the government does its job properly.
Remember, if war strategies and decisions are wrong, then the price is
the lives of ordinary people.

Besides, if you treat the media as the enemy when it asks these
questions or when they exercise their constitutional rights, then
what's the punishment? Death? Imprisonment? A one way flight to Camp
X-Ray? Even if all you do is prevent them from publishing their
questions and views then the USA becomes a little more like Iraq, and
Saddam wins a little victory without firing one bullet.

Yes Magnesium Flare, I am serious.
Unless you would be unreversably damaged to be reminded of soapboxes,
with profound timidity, I admit to your Soapbox characterization.
So I will venture a yes to your second question with pronounced
trepidation, not knowing if you will flare up against my having the
audacity to pay my $2.00 and take my chances.  Incidentally, when did
you first start experiencing pangs of hell at the thought of a
"SOAPBOX".  What terrible associations with SOAPBOXES engender this
incubus of fear or intolerance for same?

On your third question: also yes, I do expect answers and or comments
to my questions.  To your fourth question the answer is no, it does
not have to be from a Researcher.  To your fifth question:  a simple
yes or no with or without explanation will do.

Regarding your sixth question, I really am asking something, although
I must confess that my question should have been: "what keeps the
media from turning into traitors, money?

Ok under "diatribe" my dictionery reads: thunderous verbal attack. 
Well I don't know how to associate the thunder with my utterances, but
under attack I did note the definition: "intense adverse criticism". 
So since my attempt at freedom of expression, partially fits your
"diatribe" label let me sheepishly answer your seventh question, "why
would you post this diatribe..." the answer: because I enjoy debating
with other commentators, who are not dihard  cantnkarous contrarians. 
And furthermore you forgot to warn me never to do such things against
you "O" great one.  Forgive me for I have sinned...

Now that I have answered all your seven questions and cleared up mine,
will you answer it?  By the way my definition of a contankarous
contrarian is one who always takes the other side even to his own
side.

Incidentally do you realize that based on the definition of "diatribe"
above: "intense adverse criticism", you are also guilty of the same
thing?

I hear you JumpingJoe. Love your melody but not all your lyrics. Back at you soon.

Hello toughlover,

I must say that I have to disagree with you on most of your points.
(Which is why I made sure not to fill in the "Answer box" for fear of
retribution). I truly believe that you are underestimating the
relationship between government and media. If the government wants
something to slip out to the media, it happens... even though it is
reported as an "Exclusive" or a "Top-Secret Investigation" you can be
sure that in most cases the government wanted it leaked. Leaks are
given to news agencies that the government has good connections with.

As for Rumsfield saying that the United States can fight two wars,
what does this tell the enemy? Do you really think Iraq and North
Korea do not already know roughly what the American military is
capable of? Or what they are capable of? I think the point of
Rumsfield's answer was to show Americans that the United States was
ready if this was the case. If he wanted to say "no comment" or
ignored the question it really wouldnt have been a big deal.

You say that "Any idiot can tell that wars and deplomacy, cant be
strategised on TV for the benefit of comercial press and the country
at the same time. There are questions that should not even be asked in
public. Like the question that was asked of Powell "if India &
Pakistan went at it, whose side would the USA take?"

I think that you are saying here is that democracy doesn't work, one
way or another. If the press and people cannot ask such questions from
their government, then there is no free speech. Don't you see that if
such questions were disallowed it would lead to a secretive government
that would defeat the purpose of freedom that the United States holds
dearly?

Also I am curious what you think about Bush's "Axis of Evil"
announcements... What point did they have other than to move
discussions to other topics and bring international tension and war
closer? Since then the white house has focused on Iraq and what about
the other two?!?! "Diplomacy for North Korea" and what about the
third?? Anti-Americanism only increases with such announcements.

Overall, I do get your point, but I think that you underestimate the
control the government, (especially the US government) has on what
appears on the news and what stays off it. I also believe that the "no
comment" available and used too often by politicians is an adequate
response and that the media and people understand if it is used
sometimes.

tisme-ga

Response acknowledged & welcomed TisMe, I will be back at you as soon
as soon as I straighten out Joe before he jumps. I am not teasing you
that was just a word-play on JumpingJoe:)

I'll confess to a sensation of nervous anticipation :-)

By the way Tisme, if by "retribution" you are aluding to receiving a
poor rating from me because you disagree with me, that action would be
incongruous with my nondeplume.  If I am truly a ToughLover, I am
compelled to love your response even if I end up adopting your views.
Infact my Lincoln philophy is that your views shall become my views as
soon as I am convinced that they are truer views.  Your response would
qualify for my highest rating despite my plan to dissabuse you later,
of certain mis-conceptions.  Unlike Magnesium who flared up about my
presentment without first employing the reasoning tool, you
"attempted" to reason with me.  It is often said that even reasonable
men can disagree.  My corollary to that reads: but fanatics dissagree
without reasoning. This is not my counter-response, that's to follow. 
I was just curious about your "retribution" expression.

Ok JumpingJoe, your turn. I welcome your comment. Love the melody, but
I will attempt to put some better words in your mouth. But I promise
that if you succede in changing my views, I will accept it as a gain,
and not a loss.

I will only address your first paragraph in this stanza of my
response. Then I will try to tackle the rest later.

In your resposne you mentioned supporting the government when it is
right.  No part of my question nor clarrification suggest nor ask for
support.  Instead, my sentiment only expect that they will not do or
say things IN PUBLIC that UNDERNINDS the ciuntry for money.  Note I
did not say party nor even government, I said COUNTRY.

You did admit your "frostration", but it seems that you are willing to
through up your hands in frostration "in the dark" rather than attempt
to "light a candel"  I love the media and value the part it plays in
the balancing of the powers of each branch of the government, but we
MUST NOT allow eventhe venerable press to go wild.  As I have often
observed, even the church go wild if we stand by and do nothing.
Remember all it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do
nothing. Infact as I recall some angels in heaven once went wild. The
press should not be untouchable for fear of breaking it. No menber of
the balance of power should be above the law.  Please fix my spelling
got to run. be back at you soon.

In my opinion:-

It's acceptable to control the media when they print/display-

     - Libel - the printing of incorrect facts / criticism against an
        individual, group or organisation which causes damage
     - Invasion of privacy - such as stealing private correspondence,
covert
        filming, phone tapping etc. I mean this in as far as it
perpetrated
        upon 'celebrities' etc, where the disclosure is a serious
invasion and
        there is no realistic public interest argument to be made.
     - Offensive content, by which I mainly mean pornography, which
should be
        licenced. 
     - Disclosure of information that materially and significantly
compromises
        state security. The risk of disclosing the information (in
terms of
        damage to property and life) should be carefully weighed
against the
        NEED to expose military and governmental blundering and the
commission
        of atrocities.


The media should however be free to print/broadcast:

    - Private information where there is a public interest, or the
disclosure
       is to combat hypocrisy or lies. An example would be the private
       prosecution of a British tabloid by (I think) Naomi Campbell
when it
       printed photographs of her leaving a drug rehabilitation
clinic. The
       paper successfully pointed at her statements the week before
that she
       had never had any drug problem.
    - Criticism - the media should be free to criticise a country,
government,
       individual, or culture. It can print that the US is incorrect
to attack
       Iraq, it could print that the US is neo-imperialist, its
population
       are evil and ill-educated and that Saddam is 
       a holy martyr to the American anti-Islamic quest. None of the
above is
       necessarily true, but the media must have the right to print it
no
       matter what damage it might cause. A newspaper in Iraq would
probably
       be prosecuted for NOT printing the above - which is why I don't
want to
       see press control in the West, it's a slippery slope.

Money -

I agree that it's regrettable that editorial policy is set by money,
but by the controls of anti-libel / anti-defamation laws this can be
curtailed to prevent an abuse of the freedom of the press.

By the by, I assume you're based in the US where the freedom of the
press is protected by the constitution. Your perceived abuse of this
constitutional privilege is I suppose why you started this discussion.
You may be interested to know that there was no constitutionally or
legally based freedom of the press in the UK until the incorporation
of the ECHR in 1998, but that did not stop it being (largely)
respected.

...oh, and I'll read your response with interest, but after that I'm
afraid I may have to bow out of the debate. Busy busy busy I'm afraid.

JumpingJoe, you are 100% correct, except for just one miniscual point.
 You have employed a the wide-spread practice of confuting your own
inflection of my argument.  In other words, since you "regret", (as I
do)but think you can't remedy the corruptive effect the money has on
the press, you infer where I did not imply, that I was under-valuing
the vital part it plays in a free society.

Neither my question nor clarification, mentioned loyalty, political
bias, nor criticism of government, by the press.  Though my grouse
included treating the media like the enemy when they ask
enemy-benefiting questions in public, my cry for punishment was if
they secretst that puts our soldiers or nation at risk.  as in the
Greenbrier case.

Slippery Sloper's need to remember that the first amendment has
already been amended without the feared avalanche.  We go to jail if
we cry fire in a theatre.  The media could do much more to our country
by revealing our war secrets than anyone could by crying fire...

To my great relief, like prodigal son, you returned from setting up
strawmen and knocking them down, to address my question by "regreting"
the money influence in press publishing decisions.  This is very
promising.  Now my only remaining task will be to convince you against
your incubus of the slippery-slope, that we the people can fix this
conflict of interest without sliding down the slope to the total
abolition of the Invaluable Press.

I hope you are not a permanent member of the Slippery Slopers.  They
badly need to be re-educated.  They would prefer to be ruled by
Benladen than allow us to have a national identity card. or be
photogarphed by a public camera.  Slipery Slopers tend to be the
all-or-nothing type who is always in search of panaceas and think that
things are only black or white.  Dilemmas are the bane of S.S.ers.  In
a dilemma, one has to choose between the lesser of two evils, like
deciding to jump from the WTC rather than burn to death.  A S.S.er
would not jump because the bible says that suiside is evil, hence this
would set a bad example that thousands may follow.

Slippery Slopers would never allow us to keep secrets from our enemies
because this would cause us to become like the enemy.  And if we stoop
to the level of the enemy then "the enemy wins".  The S.S.ers probly
never herd the expression "stoop to conquer".  They probably never
herd that generals sometimes have to calulate loosing a battle to win
a war. S.S.ers never herd the expression that if one wants all, one
often looses all.  If America gets clobbered again by Benladen, it
will be nobody's fault but these confounded extreemest called
Slipprey-Slopers, they are just as detrimental to the survival of our
country as the press gone wild.

I will answer the other paragraphs of your first response and you can
review it at your own pace.  Thanks for the exchange...