That sounds a lot more realistic... call me a conspiracy nut if you like, but I watched a 1995 documentary that paints a picture of American media and public opinion being totally corrupted and manipulted by conservative interests. And suddenly the friend's comment about 100% control of media by Liberals sounded like the doco makers had been close to the truth.
It says the American public had been convinced to believe a strong liberal bias exists.. when, in the opinion of Norm Chomsky, there is actually an incredible bias against liberal reporting that "should be glaringly obvious to anyone who actually looks at the facts"
myth_of_the_liberal_media.ram
I'm glad both ends of Oprano politcal spectrum seem to still have some faith in jounalistic integrity... maybe "they" dont have full control of everyones mind quite yet after all.
Slightly under armed on Dan Rather issue... but the little bit of the story i got to read left me wondering why the media was so intent on shooting the messenger.. no matter how the message was copied or framed.. did someone suggest the actual information he was brave/silly enough to talk about out loud isnt correct now? Or maybe I do need to start worrying about the US publics capacity to think for themselves again if you are trying to suggest Dan Rather's name is the one people should care about in that story.