Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hookers with machineguns
Assuming, as you say, that they are giving us the half-truth. What would you do with the full-truth? Are you saying that all Americans are collectively ignorant on politics and current events because of the information our media and government is holding back? Some information has to be held back; that is the nature of central intelligence. And, media has always selectively presented their news; that is the nature of journalism.
In this case, you're being "inconvenienced" by the media presenting an edited version of a extremist political statement made by a Hollywood entertainer. It's a nonpolitical fundraiser, not a forum for people to promote their extremist politics. It was appropriately edited, because it politicized a nonpolitical event. Think of it as a fortunate thing that entertainers at least have the opportunities to make bold political statemnents. Think of it as a pathetic thing that Americans actually care and are eating it up.
.
|
What I would do with the full truth ?
Are you serious with this question? I would have the possibility and all necessary information to make a concious decision.
In an earlier post there is the expample about the information regarding Iraks weapons of mass distruction - and the fairy tale that they can see by satellite that a truck came and the weapons were moved to another location - but they don't know where they were moved to. Do you remember these news?
There are so many satellites up there - there is not even space for new ones. And we will not be told, that they can see all very detailed - so nobody can tell me, that they "did not know where the weapons were taken to". Always assume that there were weapons of mass distruction. So if I have to base my decision regarding who I vote for or what I can and will support or not on the stories I am being told - the full truth would be defenitely better. Don't you agree?
It's like you have an employee which accuses another of wrong doing. What makes a good and fair boss ? The one who listens to one and makes a decision based on one story of one person, or the one who will hear both sides of the story and try to come as close to the truth as possible and then make a decision ?
I am not saying that anyone is collectively anything. It is strange to me that you are the second person here, which has as location USA and feels personally attacked. When I talk about media and governments I do not exclude any government or any media.
No country, race, nationality - or any group has a monopoly on either inteligence or stupidity, on being good people or being bad people.
We are all that - human beings and the planet earth should be ours to live. I have travelled too much and worked all over the world with up to 52 different nationalities in the same place, working together in peace - to believe in seperation by borders, colour, religion, gender etc.
Yes media has always done this - being controlled what to say and how to say it - to get people to believe what they are fed. So you can control everyone. (But it must be true and like this - because it was in the news)
If it is not in the mainstream news - well it probably is not true. This is the idea of most people, which is simply scary.
I have not been inconvenienced - i have not been told the truth. As simple as that. Kayne West has a right to his opinion, I would like to hear it and then think about it and come to my own conclusion.
But I don't want to be told what to think or believe.
I'll throw something else at you: If I tell you, that there was a plane crash, there was a lot of fuel in the tanks and the plane exploded. Due to the heat generated all was burned, passenger can not be identified by remains and also the blackbox was burned into ashes, which is designed to withstand extreme heat. But - one piece of paper did not burn and was found some meters away from the wreck - or what was left of it.
You tell me, do you believe me?