I've noticed that basically the media can't be trusted.
Lets take the Iraq War for example. Yes, there was the HUGE Iraq Oil War coverup in the media that Jon Stewart railed against while the media laughed and ignored him (I watched it live).
But besides the outright cover-up with it's obvious money connections there is this other thing which is even more dangerous than Corporations deciding for the people what they need to hear... it's the reporters/"journalists" themselves who are a threat as they keep making decisions 'for our benefit' while not doing their jobs in the first place. Frankly, I don't want journalists to think about what they should or shouldn't put out... THEY SHOULD PUT OUT ALL INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON A TOPIC AND NOT EDIT IT WITH THEIR BULLSHIT OPINIONS. (I think "shit" is now an allowed word on television and I know "Bull" is certainly OK). Judith Miller (below) held back important information for her ego as Maddow did for hers. Lets begin.
Lets take Judith Miller's interview with Jon Stewart as an example to set the stage for why the Corporate Media and it's egotistical and biased reporters are a threat to our country's Nation Security (not National Security as our Caesar Like Generals define it, i.e. "It's National Security secret if it exposes us & our treason" but REAL National Security where the country and it's people are the first priority and not some traitorous Generals reputation. BTW, anyone notice that what we did in Iraq in 2003 is exactly what we did with Iran in 1952?).
Judith Miller Pt. 1-Journalist and author Judith Miller delves into her reporting on Iraq's supposed nuclear program during the lead-up to the Iraq War in her memoir, "The Story." (5:27)
In this video, interestingly enough, Judith Miller argues FOR incompetence and in the next video Jon proves it.
Judith Miller Pt. 2 - Judith Miller discusses her coverage of WMDs in Iraq for The New York Times, which was used in part to inform public opinion in the lead-up to the Iraq War. (6:51)
Jon Stewart caught her well and good but she acts like Rachel Maddow in that she believes she is right and made the right decision when it was clearly wrong then and it has since then been proven to be almost treasonous in it's incompetence.
For some reason she left out confirmed expert analysis and exchanged it with 'divided intelligence community':
You can see she clearly believes the media did their jobs (must be a common belief cause their egos are so big). There is no evidence for this belief since one accurate story surrounded in inaccurate stories just creates the wrong context for any real analysis to even begin. So people just keep spouting nonsense on TV (see links at the bottom of this post);
Now you get to see how she manages (very badly) to explain away - mostly for herself - why she didn't do her job;
Giving up because she simply couldn't acknowledge a mistake (or rather a series of mistakes). At least we know what's wrong with the media. They're high school kids learning on the job and saying, mostly to themselves, for their own ego, which they - unfortunately - share with the rest of us; 'we're good. We know what we're doing, oh! Look! Party! For our great work!'
This has to be the silliest way to try and convince someone that they did thier job, i.e. by suggesting that walking back and forth and not using confirmed testimony was hard work;
The crux of her argument seems to be that she ignored confirmed expert testimony about an important issue but said 'the community was divided', i.e. she only talked about stuff the Bush Administration wanted and didn't go any further than that except to suggest there were others who didn't have the beliefs that she was writing about cause she felt it to be right;
Ultimately she did the same thing Rachel Maddow is doing, i.e. using Hillary Clinton's talking points as facts like Judith Miller used Dick Cheney's talking points as facts. The difference is the sex of the person they have chosen to defend without question for "our safety".
Summary Of Rachel Maddow's Judicth Miler Like Bias
On top of that, Maddow has the gall to insult the campaign that ISN'T lying and bully them like a GOP Establishment Republican. Clearly having a woman to defend for President is bringing out the worst in her or has just made her so stupid she's being righteous in her positions would all she SHOULD feel is shame.
Sanders lawyers threaten to disrupt DNC over committee members - Rachel Maddow shares the details of a letter from Bernie Sanders campaign lawyers to the DNC threatening to disrupt the national convention unless two co-chairs of the Standing Platform and Rules Committees are removed.
Maddow starts off telling us about how presidential debates
The next Presidential debate apparently didn't occur till 1976 and stayed with us since then. All of this she brings up to suggest we may not have Presidential elections this year because Trump didn't debate Bernie Sanders (an idea which was unprecedented to begin with). Basically, she is arguing for the party being it's own private organization that can do what it wants ('you are lucky the party gives you anything before deciding who should be President for the American people). I like to counter with 'that's EXACTLY what communist countries do'. Why has Maddow decided to help the Democratic Party over the American people? A woman is running for President and she got the hots for her as I explained here:
OK. Just some comments to close off this post;
BTW, at the start of the video Maddow said Bernie can hurt the party ... and hurt it he should,
My position on this is that the Democratic Party has committed treason and made decisions that benefited them over the people's interest and thus must be abolished (yes, I have the same position for the GOP as well - EQUALLY as they both cater to different segments of the population and lie to them in tandem when they can).
The Case To Disband The "Democratic" Party
I did a study on Corporate Media with Jon Stewart that applies here;
The Mystery Of The Media
I'll do an update to this list soon.