3 ms·
> They aren't in the same category, the Iraq ones were so much worse. They cost trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives. The death toll is still
by ctrl-j 10y ago
> They aren't in the same category, the Iraq ones were so much worse. They cost trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives. The death toll is still rising more than a decade on.
What? Am I missing something? I mean what exactly is the press supposed to do when the pentagon and the whitehouse are reporting on WMDs? There was conflicting information and it was terrible that they lied about that shit, but is that CNNs fault?
Seriously though, what would you have them do? How would you have them verify that information ahead of time?
And why do you think it's on the same level as completely false information that's easily refutable?
- flukus 10y agoMaybe they could actually investigate claims instead of repackaging government press releases? Pretty much everyone in the world knew how bullshit all those WMD claims were except for America and it's media (and to a lesser extent, UK and Australia). The media were essentially cheerleading the invasion and deserve their chunk of responsibility for the invasion and it's fallout.
- ctrl-j 10y agoI'll agree more in-depth investigation was warranted. The end-result fallout was/is still incredible, and if the media could have played a part in preventing and or mitigating the war in Iraq, it definitely would have been a definite good thing. However, on the "fake-news" front, do you really consider the government misleading the press in 2002/2003 to be on the same scale as the widespread adoption of the recent tabloid-quality news? From the studies and reports I've been reading lately, it sounds like the election was heavily swayed by the online equivalent of the national enquirer. Doesn't that bother you?