The corporate media decide which news is "fit to print," and the decisions they make tell us more about how they see their interests than about what is really happening. The do this mostly by lying by omission and by selective reporting, but outright fabrication is also used.
When they thought the extension of global capitalism into the middle east and gaining a strategic position against China and Russia (the PNAC plan) seemed like a really cool (profitable) idea, the media presented the populace with, if I recall correctly, 97 "experts" who promoted that option for every 3 "fringe" voices who said it would be the worst thing imaginable.
Well, the fantasy of the rich and powerful, that control over massive resources and sufficiently brutal methods will win every time, seems not to have worked out in the real world. While that belief and those tactics may have been successful in putting them at top positions within the corporate machines that they serve, real people have different criteria for what is good and worthwhile than the machine governed by the bottom line principal of maximizing the accumulation of capital and increasing the rate of expansion.
Now the machine is faced with a dilemma. For some parts of it, the war industry in particular, wars of imperialist aggression are always wonderful successes. For others, not so much. Every billion dollars that get spent butchering the people of Iraq and Afghanistan is a billion dollars not going into other industries. And the promise that they would soon expand their "markets" into the middle east isn't looking so good.
So now some of their PR operatives like David Gergen and Brzezinski are advocating against the PNAC plan and supporting some change of course. And the mass media has discovered, that unlike the earlier scandals around Ralph Reed and Abramoff and the endless lies
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1714474PNACers and so on, Vitter's toilet dance and Gonzo's lies (before and such are now worth reporting.
The question we face is how to use these divisions to advance common human interests and weaken corporate control over the state apparatus. I don't have the answer, but this is where we are, and it offers some slight hope of returning to (or creating) a democracy run by people rather continuing to live under a government controlled by coprorations.
Although framed a bit differently, this is the question and challenge posed by Ritter's BookTV interview on Cspan2 that was re-broadcast today, and the challenge we faced as presented by the excellent analysis by "Time for change:"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1714474Any ideas?