|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
(note: I selected only to reply to you, hopefully the software will cooperate -
if not, my apologies to all others...)
Sir, As a military veteran of 27 years and having been on the inside - looking
out - for a couple of years working in a newspaper I will say that most of what
you wrote is true, and much of what you say the news media exposing 'dictators,
et al, in slipups' holds water, but there are quotes from news personalities from
Hearst to Jennings that are similar to 'we'll tell e'm what we want them to know
and when we want them to know it'. In other words, the media looks to themselves
as the gaurdians of freedom - but THEY will choose if and when to tell. There is
still much untold from WWII with companies like Standard Oil and others helping
'both sides' ($$$). Today, it is only after long years that our left wing
oriented media grudgingly picked up stories regarding Pres. Clinton, the DNC,
V.P. Gore and fund raising. Look at the news organization ( I think it was NBC)
that faked rear ending Pinto cars would cause them to blow up (with a little
explosives and modifications...). Granted they were found out. I can't tell you
how many times during the 60's when there were peaceable demonstrations going on
the TV crews showing up asked for a 'little more action' so it would 'sell' on
the evening news. (yes, I was present for 3 incidents back then).
Another incident during 'assault weapon' ban hearing in Colorado when a citizen
who was speaking said that if the elected officials passed the ban he was going
to vote against them that fall in the elections. I was there when one of the most
liberal state senators got up and berated the man for 'threatening' elected
officials, and he wouildn't stand for it. That nite, watching TV the actual
'threat' wasn't mentioned (voting) only the 'fact' that one of the pro-gun nuts
'threatened' the senators and how this senator courageously got up in the face of
this 'threat' and made this man 'back-down'.
in case you missed it, the man was never quoted or on TV, just the senator. The
reasoning for that ? We asked the announcer the next day before the hearing
resumed. He merely shrugged and said they only had time for a short 'clip' and
that was it. We told him that we knew they had lied in the way they presented the
information, that we had taped it and were going to make copies and spread them
around. and we were going to tell everyone we knew what they had done.
That nite they did a rebroadcast and showed both sides, but commented that they
'deplored even THAT threat' (of voting...?) Does it sound like they told the
truth to you? Also, every nite before reporting on the hearings they led into
them with sounds and sites of machine guns shooting - M16's, M-60's, Thompson
submachine guns etc. The ban was to be for semi-automatic rifles. We asked them
why they were doing so. "Er, no stock footage..." was the answer. We used grass
roots to call and complain about this misleading procedure. The next nite there
were 'clips' of semi-auto shooting and an 'apology' (I'm stretching it here...)
about 'misleading' the public. Again, did they tell the truth on their own ?
Yes, most of the press does well. Do we have to watch them ? Yes! Just like
anyone else they need to be called on their mistakes. Do they research and inform
us to be good guys ? NOPE ! They do it for money and power - just like many
politicians. Do we need them anyway ? YES! with the caveat mentioned above -
watch them and let them know their mistakes - so they know we're paying
attention.
Again, I agree with your reply and all the facts it contains. It was
certainly a well-thought out with much information. I wish we had more people
like you in our society.
Thank you very much. Wayne Walusiak
|