If anyone says the Media is the enemy of the people.

[Eko]

Then they have proven themselves to be an enemy of the people.

[Grassy Knoll]

1. Dump Wants Cotton Candy And Unicorn Reports About Him..

..But He Promotes Assholism, So Thats What He Gets.

[Buzz cook]

2. I disagree

The media ran with any conservative lie during the 90's. The media carried bucket of water for the right during elections 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, and most recently 2016.

During the run up to the illegal invasion of Iraq the media only asked how big their flag lapel pin should be and just how glorious Bush was.

Global climate change is still a mater of she said he said, both-siderism.

The media's complicity and stupidity has cost tens of thousands of lives.

Trump calls the media the enemy of the people when they print facts.
There are facts that strongly indicate the label is correct, its just the reason that's wrong

[Eko]

3. Nope.

The media ran with any conservative lie during the 90's. The media carried bucket of water for the right during elections 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, and most recently 2016.
False.

During the run up to the illegal invasion of Iraq the media only asked how big their flag lapel pin should be and just how glorious Bush was.
False

Global climate change is still a mater of she said he said, both-siderism.
False

The media's complicity and stupidity has cost tens of thousands of lives.
False

Trump calls the media the enemy of the people when they print facts.
There are facts that strongly indicate the label is correct, its just the reason that's wrong
False

[Buzz cook]

6. Yup

The media ran with any conservative lie during the 90's. The media carried bucket of water for the right during elections 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, and most recently 2016.
False.

Maybe you weren't alive during the 1990's These books should be required reading. https://www.amazon.com/Hunting-President-Ten-Year-Campaign-Destroy/dp/0312273193
That I would find someone on Democratic Underground who is unaware of the media's complicity in the theft of the 2000 election, the voter suppression subsequently, the billions of free advertising given to Trump and the media's focus of buttery males; is gob smaking.

During the run up to the illegal invasion of Iraq the media only asked how big their flag lapel pin should be and just how glorious Bush was.
False

https://www.thenation.com/article/lap-dogs-press/ Perhaps you weren't around during the Iraq debacle this web site and many more were pointing out the media's complicity in real time.

Global climate change is still a mater of she said he said, both-siderism.
False

https://newrepublic.com/article/150124/medias-failure-connect-dots-climate-change

The media's complicity and stupidity has cost tens of thousands of lives.
False

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45338080

Trump calls the media the enemy of the people when they print facts.
There are facts that strongly indicate the label is correct, its just the reason that's wrong
False

Your assertions don't count as evidence. Don't let your fear of Trump affect your ability to reason.

[Eko]

7. Born in 73.

When anyone uses a blanket statement I can pretty much tell it's already wrong.
September 19, 2002
—The Washington Post publishes an article on page 18 headlined, “Evidence on Iraq Challenged; Experts Question if Tubes Were Meant for Weapons Program.”
September 11, 2002
— CBS reporter Mark Phillips refers to talk of war against Iraq as “the belligerent noises being made in Washington and some other places
September 6, 2002
— In a story entitled “Lack of Hard Evidence of Iraqi Weapons Worries Top U.S. Officials,” Knight Ridder‘s Warren Strobel and Jonathan Landay report that “senior U.S. officials with access to top-secret intelligence on Iraq say they have detected no alarming increase in the threat that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein poses to American security and Middle East stability.”
September 1, 2002
— In a Baltimore Sun column calling for the resumption of weapons inspections in Iraq, former inspector Scott Ritter points out that earlier inspections had been able to verify a “90 percent to 95 percent level of disarmament,” including “all of the production facilities involved with WMD” and “the great majority of what was produced by these facilities.”
September 27, 2002
—MSNBC‘s Hardball host Chris Matthews asks of World Bank/IMF protests in Washington, D.C.: “Those people out in the streets, do they hate America?”
-September 27, 2002
—MSNBC‘s Hardball host Chris Matthews asks of World Bank/IMF protests in Washington, D.C.: “Those people out in the streets, do they hate America?”
September 27, 2002
—Pacifica Radio‘s Democracy Now! reports that Senate offices are receiving an “overwhelming” level of calls from constituents opposing a war on Iraq. The show finds 22 of 26 offices that responded reported overwhelmingly critical calls.
October 8, 2002
—Knight Ridder correspondents Warren Strobel and Jonathan Landay interview more than a dozen military intelligence and diplomatic officials about the case for war:

These officials charge that administration hawks have exaggerated evidence of the threat that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein poses—including distorting his links to the Al Qaeda terrorist network— have overstated the amount of international support for attacking Iraq and have downplayed the potential repercussions of a new war in the Middle East. They charge that the administration squelches dissenting views and that intelligence analysts are under intense pressure to produce reports supporting the White House’s argument that Saddam poses such an immediate threat to the United States that pre-emptive military action is necessary.

October 21, 2002
—Robert Collier of the San Francisco Chronicle (“U.S. Attack Leans on Shaky Legal Support“) writes that the “numerous U.S. legal scholars” take issue with the claim that the UN Security Council resolutions from 1990 and 1991—which authorized military action to remove Hussein from Kuwait—authorize a new war against Iraq. That White House legal argument is often taken at face value in much of the media.

November 13, 2002
—The New York Post has a 67-word article titled “Effects of Iraqi War,” which notes that, according to the British group Medact, a war in Iraq could have “catastrophic health and environmental consequences.” The Post is one of the few major U.S. papers to even mention Medact’s report, which receives much more prominent attention in the foreign press.

—London Guardian columnist Simon Tisdall writes a piece entitled “Tricked and Bamboozled Into War,” criticizing the White House’s decision “to merge the elusive Osama and international terrorism with the familiar Saddam and the more easily targeted ‘evil axis’ states.” Tisdall goes on to note that rhetoric coming from the U.S. and Britain about not having yet decided on war is a fraud:

November 20, 2002
—In an article for Alternet titled “A Lesson in U.S. Propaganda,” Mark Crispin Miller writes that Bush’s reasons for war are “fabrications.” “There is no evidence,” writes Miller, “that Saddam Hussein works with Al-Qaeda, or that his weapons are—like North Korea’s—a clear and present danger, or that the president himself does not plan to attack in any case.”

December 8, 2002
—A CBS 60 Minutes report challenges many of the White House’s justifications for the war, pointing out the phantom IAEA report on Iraq’s nuclear weapons, and questioning allegations about Iraq’s aluminum tubes and Iraq’s alleged connections to Al-Qaeda.

December 31, 2002
—Under the headline “Inspectors ‘Have Zilch’ Thus Far,” the Los Angeles Times reports weapons inspectors in Iraq “have yet to find a smoking gun, a trace of radiation or a single germ spore.” Inspectors interviewed for the article explain that the “Iraqis have been obliging, even eager to please,” and describes the “acute pressure” coming from Washington “to find something soon.”

I could keep going.
https://fair.org/take-action/media-advisories/iraq-and-the-media/

Certainly doesn't sound like this is true "During the run up to the illegal invasion of Iraq the media only asked how big their flag lapel pin should be and just how glorious Bush was. " The media made many mistakes at that time but to say that they only asked how big their flag lapel should be and just how glorious Bush was is straight out false.

I could fact check your other things but I figure just doing this one should make any reasonable person step back and check their claims.

[Buzz cook]

9. Yes you can find individual articles.

As I said, this web site and many others were debunking the case for invasion in real time. But that which is on DU doesn't dominate the national media.We are after all not Matt Drudge.


But this editorial from the New York Times catches the spirit of the time better.
https://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/15/opinion/disarming-iraq.html

Mr. Blix and Dr. ElBaradei cannot be left to play games of hide-and-seek. This is not like Washington's unproved assertions about an alliance between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. There is ample evidence that Iraq has produced highly toxic VX nerve gas and anthrax and has the capacity to produce a lot more. It has concealed these materials, lied about them, and more recently failed to account for them to the current inspectors.

You can find individual articles in the NYT that question some of the evidence used to justify invasion. But it is the publishers and editors that set the agenda for what the NYT itself endorses.

The same is true of the Washington Post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2003/02/06/irrefutable/e598b1be-a78a-4a42-8e1a-c336f7a217f4/?utm_term=.e849e278026c

AFTER SECRETARY OF STATE Colin L. Powell's presentation to the United Nations Security Council yesterday, it is hard to imagine how anyone could doubt that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction. Mr. Powell left no room to argue seriously that Iraq has accepted the Security Council's offer of a "final opportunity" to disarm. And he offered a powerful new case that Saddam Hussein's regime is cooperating with a branch of the al Qaeda organization that is trying to acquire chemical weapons and stage attacks in Europe.

Need I remind you that in less than 24 hours every claim made by Colin Powell had been refuted? Yet you would be hard pressed to find any condemnation of Powell in the national media.

I also shouldn't have to tell you that "If anyone calls the media the enemy of the people..." is a blanket statement.

You haven't a clue what fact checking means.

Here read this and educate yourself.


On Edit. This is from the one article you posted.

Instead, less than a month after the analysis was published, when Secretary of State Colin Powell made his big war pitch to the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003, repeating claims about the Iraq threat that would be debunked in the coming months and years, the press largely accepted Powell’s claims at face value and applauded his performance (Extra!, 3-4/03). One of the few pieces to subject the speech to critical scrutiny: Hanley’s February 7, 2003 report, which began, “Iraqi officials on Friday took foreign journalists to missile assembly and test sites spotlighted in Colin Powell’s anti-Iraq UN presentation, to underscore the fact that the installations have been under UN scrutiny for months.”

Emphasis mine.

You have to read the "evidence" you post to avoid embarrassments like this.

[Eko]

10. Dominate the National Media,

and "The media only asked how big their flag lapel pin should be and just how glorious Bush was." are two totally different things.
Besides DU there was,
The Washington Post
CBS
Knight Ridder
The Baltimore Sun
MSNBC
The San Francisco Chronicle
The New York Post
London Guardian
Alternet
The Los Angeles Times
That is not "The media only asked how big their flag lapel pin should be and just how glorious Bush was." You could have qualified it with "The majority of the Media" and you would be correct. Oh yeah, "the press largely accepted " does not mean all like you have claimed with only . It actually backs my claims up. You should be embarrassed.
You made a general blanket statement that included all of the media and I have shown how that was not true. If you would like to talk about my blanket statement I would be happy to.

[Eko]

12. As if this is just listing some media outlets.

—The Washington Post publishes an article on page 18 headlined, “Evidence on Iraq Challenged; Experts Question if Tubes Were Meant for Weapons Program.”
September 11, 2002
— CBS reporter Mark Phillips refers to talk of war against Iraq as “the belligerent noises being made in Washington and some other places
September 6, 2002
— In a story entitled “Lack of Hard Evidence of Iraqi Weapons Worries Top U.S. Officials,” Knight Ridder‘s Warren Strobel and Jonathan Landay report that “senior U.S. officials with access to top-secret intelligence on Iraq say they have detected no alarming increase in the threat that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein poses to American security and Middle East stability.”
September 1, 2002
— In a Baltimore Sun column calling for the resumption of weapons inspections in Iraq, former inspector Scott Ritter points out that earlier inspections had been able to verify a “90 percent to 95 percent level of disarmament,” including “all of the production facilities involved with WMD” and “the great majority of what was produced by these facilities.”
September 27, 2002
—MSNBC‘s Hardball host Chris Matthews asks of World Bank/IMF protests in Washington, D.C.: “Those people out in the streets, do they hate America?”
-September 27, 2002
—MSNBC‘s Hardball host Chris Matthews asks of World Bank/IMF protests in Washington, D.C.: “Those people out in the streets, do they hate America?”
September 27, 2002
—Pacifica Radio‘s Democracy Now! reports that Senate offices are receiving an “overwhelming” level of calls from constituents opposing a war on Iraq. The show finds 22 of 26 offices that responded reported overwhelmingly critical calls.
October 8, 2002
—Knight Ridder correspondents Warren Strobel and Jonathan Landay interview more than a dozen military intelligence and diplomatic officials about the case for war:

Pretty sure I defended it very well, you on the other hand did not.

[pretzel4gore]

8. You're right

Obviously, contrarians can cherry pick otherwises but ....trump is a symptom of. media practised stupidity. doing a good job in any social context is hard enough w/out nudge wink scheming fukking every thing up! And foxnews is tip of iceberg!

[Pope George Ringo II]

4. Someday CNN is going to say it just to spite you. :)

But I'd qualify it as a free media just to screen out somebody's pet propaganda network. Russia Today is media, as is Fox.

[UniteFightBack]

5. "The media" ain't perfect but I for one won't outright trash them. Anyone who does that is helping

RUMP IMO. I see a lot of that on here and I steer clear of those threads.