WI: Reagan's campaign was found guilty

Oh and I do not think it would do the Iranian regime any good at any time to admit this deal, if it happened.

I do not say that it did but the absence of any evidence from Iran is certainly not disproof.
 
American media doesn't like to rock the boat. They serve power.

Because we're not radically left-wing enough for your taste?

The right thinks the media is liberal and the far-left (Counterpunch and DU) thinks the media is conservative. They can't both be right.
 

Nikephoros

Banned
Because we're not radically left-wing enough for your taste?

The right thinks the media is liberal and the far-left (Counterpunch and DU) thinks the media is conservative. They can't both be right.

Dude. Stop. Right there. This is already political enough, we don't need this argument here.
 
I doubt much would change. It would be unlikely it could be linked to Reagan directly. So some aids would resign and and Reagan would likely be fine. Reagan would probally play it off as he was trying to get the hostages home, not that he was playing political games. Generally everything tossed at Reagan slid off like he was made of teflon.

This type of thing is not unheard of in American history.
Thomas Jerfferson himself did everything possible to help the French against America while Adams was president and occording to KGB files Ted Kennedy tried to work with the Russians during the 80 primary (against Carter) and again in 84 against Reagan.
 
Because we're not radically left-wing enough for your taste?

Dude, what's your malfunction? It's pretty damned clear to everyone that American journalism, never as reputable as it presented itself, is at an all time low.

The right thinks the media is liberal and the far-left (Counterpunch and DU) thinks the media is conservative. They can't both be right.

They're both largely mistaken. Studies of journalists and people in the media field suggest that most are socially liberal but economically conservative. ie, they're all for things like civil rights, as long as it doesn't cost anything. They're actually for balanced budgets, low taxes, fiscal responsibility, reducing welfare, cutting back on social spending, etc.

Of course, this sort of 'liberalism' leads to undue emphasis on boutique issues with no real economic consequences - gay marriage. This means that the lunatic right seizes on these airy, weightless, abstract causes and flogs media as being left wingers.

Things like equal pay for equal work, affirmative action, health care or social services either get ignored or get the bums rush as being too expensive for economic conservatives/social liberals. People with a brain notice this inherent contradiction, and flog the media as being hypocrites or merely conservatives in 'independent' clothing.

However, when you move from the bulk of journalists and media people, and look at the actual management structures and management personnel in place, suddenly, the media breaks steadily to the right in every respect and becomes relentlessly strident.

Even there however, they're not right wing enough to satisfy the lunatic right. Only guys like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh manage to cater to that pack of morons, and they do so only by foaming at the mouth.

Rather, people involved in ownership or management of media, ie, the ones who actually make the decisions, about what stories get done, who or what gets covered, what is or isn't news tend to be 'business right wing.' What's good for the corporate interests is good for the media.

Honestly, do you think the media did a bang up job on Iraq? How about this steaming pile of integrity - a major media outlet discovers that the President of the United States has undertaken an illegal spying program on American citizens.... and then sits on it for a year, because they wouldn't want to influence an election.

This isn't to say that the American media is completely incompetent or worthless. If some teenage white girl goes missing, well, let's just say that the coverage is extraordinarily thorough. And when Paris Hilton pees in a taxicab... we all get to hear about it.

As for the rest? Well, there's a reason America's newspapers are dying. It's called self inflicted injuries.
 
If you want to have a Republican President impeached, try Ike Eisenhower for lying about the Gary Powers fiasco. ;)

Why not just have Reagan be impeached for Iran-Contra? Which he should have been, IMO.
 
Rather, people involved in ownership or management of media, ie, the ones who actually make the decisions, about what stories get done, who or what gets covered, what is or isn't news tend to be 'business right wing.' What's good for the corporate interests is good for the media.

And how far down do they micromanage content? Corporate executives have actual jobs, you know. I've never gotten orders from On High to not cover a particular story.

How do you explain "Tailwind" if the media kisses "power's" ass on non-social issues? CNN claimed the US used nerve gas in Vietnam in an attempt to kill a group of Americans who'd gone over, something that turned out to be false.

The danger of corporate-dominated media is they'll do Paris Hilton stories because they're cheap. Think the news equivalent of reality TV.
 
MerryPrankster, the nerve gas fantasy was about a mission to rescue POWs, not to kill deserters.

Fun story, especially how they ignored the minor detail that every American, EU and UN group specializing in chemical weapons took turns spitting on their story.

Now, personally I would like to imagine American troops so tough that they can go through clouds of nerve gas without any protection but...:D
 
Top