Who Profits?

It's worth noting that my recent complaint about the firing of journalist Peter Arnett was not completely informed. C-Los, thank you for pointing that out. There were concerns about his journalistic integrity. I don't know whether or not he accepted payola for his reports about the status of America's initial assaults. If he did take cash in exchange for misrepresenting the facts, he should have been fired at once.

We rely on the media to deliver the truth about places and events that the majority of us cannot see or get into first hand. There is an expectation that the media will deliver the truth. The nature of the editorial is to deliver opinions, and the public has to remember that while we hope for an objective truth, we're often getting a subjective report.

Were Arnett's statements biased as a result of his personal opinions or because of a pay-off? I don't know. What I intended to object to was the repression of dissenting views. If his stated view of events was different because of personal opinion, that's one matter, and we should question the people we're trusting to tell us the truth. But if he made those specific claims in exchange for money, then his view is no more deserving of respect than that of any other type of propaganda.

If we, as rational individuals, are going to make good decisions, it seems we're going to have to ask the same questions every time we turn on the news: Who profits? Who stands to gain from telling us these things in this way?