Reply #71: Two things : the Palast example proves my point & consider the logic of the various assertions

[tom_paine]

Palast's book on Valdez quite confirms what I am saying. Is much of Palast's investigative journalism common knowledge because Corporate M$M help amplify his investigations and "bust the cover up"?

NO! So, if effect, you have just reconfirmed my assertion about Corporate M$M being unable to perform the function designated it by our Founding Fathers. (if not Constitutionally, then from their various writings - further the Media is the only profession specifically mentioned in the Constitution other than it's immediate subjects - legislators, judges, etc.)

Greg Palast is NOT, and cannot be in any way construed, as M$M, let alone Corporate M$M. This is demonstrable and pretty much undebatable.

You're angle which states that "we are just trading blows" is nor germane to the logic of DLProf's assertion and my refutation.

He asserted that large-scale conspiacies could not have happened with being uncovered by the press I mentioned 3 of the many dozens, if not hundreds of examples that deny that assertion and simply said it wasn't true.

My refutation, therefore, does not imply that it isn't impossible for the MSM to ever do it's job nor that it has never done so, but that a blanket assertion of "large-scale coverups are impossible because the M$M would uncover them" is mistaken and false.

Think about it.