Media Corruption

By Rich Kozlovich

Everything we read in the newspapers and see on the news is a lie. Not necessarily lies of commission, although they have been guilty of that, but mostly lies of omission. What is even more disturbing is when they deliberately alter the events to give their lies solid foundations that appear as facts. I know the media are largely immune to libel laws compared to the rest of society, but you would think that they would at least make a stab at writing history correctly. I have concluded that they aren't very bright, very brave or very honest. Why? Two reasons! First they simply aren't....and secondly, they are hired by people who also aren't any better going back to the days of Hearst and Pulitzer, both of whom were contemptible in many ways. The foundation for newspaper corruption goes back to the founding of the nation. Hearst and Pulitzer made yellow journalism a science. The interesting thing is that due to the internet the media is probably better than ever in American history.

That's really frightening!

Thomas Sowell wrote an article recently, News versus propaganda, wherein he says:

"Since so many in the media cannot resist turning every tragedy into a political talking point, it was perhaps inevitable that (1) someone would try to link the shooting rampage at the Batman movie in Colorado to the Tea Party, and that (2) some would try to make it a reason to impose more gun control laws. Too many people in the media cannot seem to tell the difference between reporting the news and creating propaganda. NBC News apparently could not resist doctoring the transcript of the conversation between George Zimmerman and the police after the Trayvon Martin shooting. Now ABC News took the fact that the man arrested for the shooting in Colorado was named James Holmes to broadcast to the world the fact that there is a James Holmes who is a member of the Tea Party in Colorado."

This has been the pattern forever. Newspapers, just like politicians, lie....constantly. And they do so because they are corrupt, and largely immune in their corruption. If you were to go back to the presidential campaign between Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams and read the various newspaper articles from both sides you would be aghast:

 "By the time the votes were cast, both men would have wild stories circulated about their pasts, with lurid charges of murder, adultery, and procuring of women being plastered across the pages of partisan newspapers."

Although the charges against Jackson were largly true, and the charges against Adams were largly false, Adams lost. However, Jackson, who is still considered a great American hero, revelled in the mud slinging, the sleazier the better, whereas Adams was repelled by it. And the outright partisanship of the newspapers was amazing, even compared with the valueless claptrap spewing out of newsrooms today.

This is what we must take away from all of this. Everyone who writes articles leave things out. Sometimes it’s because their simply isn’t room. Sometimes it’s not part of the theme you are working with, and an article can’t be a book. However, sometimes it’s because they don’t want the correct information clouding the conclusion they are driving you to with the narrative they are painting for you. How do we overcome that? We must read both sides to see what the other side is leaving out and why. We must read books because a much broader picture can be painted. We must read history because the pathways of the past are the stepping stones to the future.  The pathways of the past are solid and immutable foundations giving us the confidence to step lightly into the future remembering that these stepping stone can't be a permanent part of the pathway until we pass them. Finally; we must keep this in the forefront of our minds.

Everything we are told should bear some resemblance to what we see going on in reality.

###