Date:   5/21/2007 11:27:25 AM ( 17 y ago)
Hits:   2,158
URL:   https://www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=875568

3 of 3 (100%) readers agree with this message.  Hide votes     What is this?

The same was done to Ralph Nadar in the recent past BUT this snuffing occured much later in the campaign LOOOOOOONG after the primary process. That particualr public snafu quite clearly revealed that the media itself has significant hooks into the decision-making process for how and who gets to debate.

Consider this particular, mammoth conflict of interest - it's now a given that the media possesses said hook, and the media also has forever been granted the monopoly massive resources to then continually beam & editorialize & indoctrinate & propagandize the masses into "understanding" why it is only fitting that it (the media) has been given said hooks to utilize as it sees fit. This is the same media that routinely instructs ....educates......informs......convinces it's mass audience that it (the media) is it's (the masses) "independent source & protector of the public trust". Does anybody else see a problem when a source - such as MSM, claims to be an independent source in a matter, and then follows up by providing a program, interview, poll and or the like - of it's self, conducted by itself, wherein it determined "ahh, yep, seee, these results confirm, we officially are in fact independent". With independents like these, who needs dependents?

Not that this should be any surprise to anyone with eyes & ears open. Surprise or no, that the media has acquired the influence to call some of the shots on censoring debates IS and should be considered an affront to anyone with eyes & ears open. According to them (speaking broadly - the MSM), they were unanimous in deeming it purely prudent, logical, and fitting that the debate be limited to only the one R and one D candidate who, in their opinion, was where the election really was to be decided. Translation: in media parlance, by that stage the election had already been partly pre-decided.... by them.... the media, so why should a pre-loser (Ralph) be permitted to debate something he'd already been pre-determined to not be a debate-worhty factor in?
 

<< Return to the standard message view

fetched in 0.03 sec, referred by http://www.curezone.org/forums/fmp.asp?i=875568