a thought occurred to me this morning, over a cup of tea.
and that is, why are there no news service "stringers" in iran. in every middle eastern country beside iran, the countryside is strewn with native reporters and cameramen, zipping hither and yon, recording this and that, which is dutifully reported by the euro or american media outlets as absolute verity. (and, if you will, almost every instance of "paliwood" that we know of involves these stringers.)
the fact that the stringers are sometimes less than reliable, does not deter the msm from utilizing them.
so, how come we don't have independents with cameras and recorder machines, zipping around iran, and fitting in with the indigenous population (because they are in fact the indigenous population), and providing us with coverage of what goes on in that country, under virtual news blackouts.
17 deaths during these demonstrations? what utter bullshit.
now, were this palestine or lebanon, every night on the news, they would be showing stringer produced footage, and dutifully intoning that such is reality, as reported by the stringers. this has, of course, produced some of the most blatant misrepresentations of fact every seen, but, as noted above, it does not stop the networks from running it, and verifying their authenticity.
al dura, anyone?
i think there is a simple truth here.
and, that is, that the news media do not report the news, and no longer even pretend to. they are driven by propounding agenda, just as surely as any political party, ... , which, as a matter of fact, they simply are. they are liberals. they don't give a shit whether something is factually accurate or not, so long as it propounds "truth" as they see it. an israel airplane bombs a building, and a child is killed? so what if it didn't happen where it was filmed, it had to have happened somewhere, now didn't it. france 2 still proclaims the "truth" of the al dura hoax, and will forever, because to them it fits in with their perception of reality, and "higher truths", as they believe and know them ideologically to be.
so, what does the absence of stringer footage from iran tell us? that there are no stringers in iran?
hardly, all the news agencies would have to do would be to give a fellow a cell phone, and tell him, go film stuff. some might get caught, more wouldn't.
i believe what is tells us in fact, is that the msm has an agenda not to accurately portray the events in iran, and not to portray a series of events in which people aim to wrest freedom from a brutally tyrannical regime. (you would think it the opposite, wouldn't you.)
no, the msm has an agenda not to do so, and its stems from two reasons.
1.)not to embarrass the obamanation, nor to hinder his "misbegotten" policy of "engagement" with iran, and
2.)to portray the events in iran as they are, and to report upon them as they are, would lend credence and support to the notion that george w. bush's policies in iraq and iran were correct, and that nascent democracy does exist in the middle east, and that it can be encouraged, fostered and nurtured.
in short the mainstream media do not report events on the ground as they happen in iran, because those facts and events do not fit in with the ideology of the msm, ... , in fact, they rather negate and expose the lie of most of that same ideological cast.
in short, the media suppress the news, because it is not the news that they want. they would support a tyranny in iran, before they would broadcast the truth. so, they sit on their fucking dead and fat asses in their offices in teheran, and say, "we are prohibited from covering this, so we report what the government of iran wants us to." i have never seen a more damning admission from an intellect: surely, it is the same as saying, "i am a fool."
cowardly fucks, in other words, is what they are.
they promote an agenda. this is not totally surprising, because so did anton chekhov when he wrote "the cherry orchard," and so did leo tolstoy when he wrote "the brothers Karamazov," and, for that matter, so did samuel clemens/mark twain when he wrote "tom sawyer" and "huck finn." and so did upton sinclair, when he wrote "the jungle." they wrote of ideas and a view of the world that they wanted to promote.
but notice something here, if you will. they avowedly and admittedly wrote fiction, (except of course, for sinclair, and i say that a bit tongue in cheek.)
the news agencies are professedly not to do this. they are supposed to report fact, and let the readership perceive it via all their little filters, prejudices and beliefs, and then decide the "ultimate truths" of the matter.
the simple fact is, the msm wants to skip the intermediate process describes above, and simply "tell" us what the truth is, in effect, of course, making them the ultimate arbiter of truth.
this is the ultimate truth of the matter. the media wishes to rob you of your independent powers of observation, reflection, and decision as to what reality is. and, for the most part, being the lazy farts that you are, you have abrogated this function to them, by putting up placidly, complacently, and passively to something that goes on before your very eyes. before you minds, and your capacity to think for yourselves. most of you are too lazy to care.
that is why there are not any stringers in iran, or their footage is not being run. because what they would portray is not the truth the media wants to spoon feed us, and it does not meet their liberal nor their foreign policy agendas, which of course, are the agendas of obama and his coterie of fools and sycophants.
a funny thing happened to me on the way to the forum, ... , i figured this out.
i thought that you might like to now, and share your thoughts. you know, have you decide for yourself, where the truth lies. if you can get up off your dead butts and perform the intellectual and mental functions necessary to do so.
john jay @ 06.28.2009