And now he's famous, too. Good job, news media.

When did Wikileaks lie? Must've missed that one. Want proof, well, that's easy. Just go and read those reports, they are all open now.

http://wikileaks.org/tpp/

RT is Russia Times, yes. They are still news and blatantly lying don't fit to even the worst reputable news sources (excluding Fox, which which actually does lie on day-to-day basis). Not reporting, coloring the truth, exaggerating or down-playing, those are the weapons news media uses.

In Europe, we heard about this deal months ago but since it's literally on the other side of the world, we don't care enough. And we can't really do anything about it.

Skydivers make a living from their wrist and helmet mounted cameras, its already in their existing business models to sell footage....so why not to the news media?

News media has no free-will to program anything-all are mouthpieces for a failing machine. Government abuse = warehousing my emails and phone calls, installing cameras driven by facial recognition software, requiring a number generated at birth for me in order to facilitate livelihood then stealing a percentage to continually improve their global scam..etc, etc, etc.

Anarchy, then a sober epoch of repair and healing from the global mind-fuck humanity is now forced to engage in would be my choice for change....

I read somewhere that he sent an email to his coworkers the night before he died explaining that he believed himself to be under surveillance, that they should seek legal council if approached by any suits and that he'd be going off the grid for a bit chasing a big story. And then he dies at 4am in the morning in a crash nobody is saying anything about. it certainly reads like a scene from a hollywood thriller and I'm sure thats the narrative the news media would love to repeat.

It wouldn't at all surprise me if he was being watched given his history and all this NSA business. Maybe as little as a year ago I would have scoffed at the idea of him being killed...now I'm not so sure. I'd normally say the simplest explanation was probably the right one, but given the details of the crash that have been made public I've no idea what that might be. So no speculation from me, apart from to say that I think something stinks here.

Oh, and I'd love to know what that story he was working on was.

From the blog of David Simon (creator of the Wire)

07
JUN
Is it just me or does the entire news media — as well as all the agitators and self-righteous bloviators on both sides of the aisle — not understand even the rudiments of electronic intercepts and the manner in which law enforcement actually uses such intercepts? It would seem so.
–
Because the national eruption over the rather inevitable and understandable collection of all raw data involving telephonic and internet traffic by Americans would suggest that much of our political commentariat, many of our news gatherers and a lot of average folk are entirely without a clue.

You would think that the government was listening in to the secrets of 200 million Americans from the reaction and the hyperbole being tossed about. And you would think that rather than a legal court order which is an inevitable consequence of legislation that we drafted and passed, something illegal had been discovered to the government’s shame.

Nope. Nothing of the kind. Though apparently, the U.K.’s Guardian, which broke this faux-scandal, is unrelenting in its desire to scale the heights of self-congratulatory hyperbole. Consider this from Glenn Greenwald, the author of the piece: “What this court order does that makes it so striking is that it’s not directed at any individual…it’s collecting the phone records of every single customer of Verizon business and finding out every single call they’ve made…it’s indiscriminate and it’s sweeping.”

Having labored as a police reporter in the days before the Patriot Act, I can assure all there has always been a stage before the wiretap, a preliminary process involving the capture, retention and analysis of raw data. It has been so for decades now in this country. The only thing new here, from a legal standpoint, is the scale on which the FBI and NSA are apparently attempting to cull anti-terrorism leads from that data. But the legal and moral principles? Same old stuff.

http://davidsimon.com/we-are-shocked-shocked/

I read some interesting commentary from Divid Simon. (creator of the show The Wire and a fairly knowledgable guy on the subject of wiretaps.)

"Is it just me or does the entire news media — as well as all the agitators and self-righteous bloviators on both sides of the aisle — not understand even the rudiments of electronic intercepts and the manner in which law enforcement actually uses such intercepts? It would seem so.
–
Because the national eruption over the rather inevitable and understandable collection of all raw data involving telephonic and internet traffic by Americans would suggest that much of our political commentariat, many of our news gatherers and a lot of average folk are entirely without a clue.

You would think that the government was listening in to the secrets of 200 million Americans from the reaction and the hyperbole being tossed about. And you would think that rather than a legal court order which is an inevitable consequence of legislation that we drafted and passed, something illegal had been discovered to the government’s shame.

Nope. Nothing of the kind. Though apparently, the U.K.’s Guardian, which broke this faux-scandal, is unrelenting in its desire to scale the heights of self-congratulatory hyperbole. Consider this from Glenn Greenwald, the author of the piece: “What this court order does that makes it so striking is that it’s not directed at any individual…it’s collecting the phone records of every single customer of Verizon business and finding out every single call they’ve made…it’s indiscriminate and it’s sweeping.”

Having labored as a police reporter in the days before the Patriot Act, I can assure all there has always been a stage before the wiretap, a preliminary process involving the capture, retention and analysis of raw data. It has been so for decades now in this country. The only thing new here, from a legal standpoint, is the scale on which the FBI and NSA are apparently attempting to cull anti-terrorism leads from that data. But the legal and moral principles? Same old stuff."

The rest is here: http://davidsimon.com/we-are-shocked-shocked/

yeah I gotta agree with @yellowc. paying for a news site doesn't give news sites much more incentive to be truthful and more integrity.

This is the sort of thing that makes me in favor of state run media, but that has a completely different set of pitfalls and high potential of corruption. My only hope about state run media is that at least it would be answerable to taxpayers instead of shareholders. If we didn't have so many low information voters and we had higher voter participation, I'd like to think state run media could work but yeah, I acknowledge that I'm just being wishful and realistically it wouldn't work.

so private news organizations: susceptible to sensationalism and private agendas. State run news: susceptible to simply becoming propaganda.

So what's the solution? How do you incentivise being factual and removing bias, or at the very least identify bias easily. Even biased news can be useful IMO as long as that bias is clearly known and open to criticism and counter arguments.

The biggest pet peeve I have with media is the mentality that every issue has 2 and only 2 ways of looking at it and they're both equally likely because current news media thrives on manufactured controversy. One side typically has more evidence than the other, yet it's presented as if both sides are equally plausible.

If only we had responsible news media which would not slant the news to the left or right and just tell the people the truth. Then the people would realize that both sides ( Dems and Reps) are ruining this country by being self absorbed in gaining power and money.

It's not Fuck the Left/Right.... Its Fuck the FED

"guns" have replaced last year's "bully" as news medias buzz word.

kind of tired of this trend

If the interviewer had approached the issue honestly, he'd have likely gotten an honest answer. Tarantino has answered similar questions multiple times before in other interviews, even in relation to this particular movie.

However, it was quite obvious that he came to push an agenda. Like a lot of news media these days, he's attempting to goad his subject into condemning himself on tape. And Tarantino was smart enough to at least shut him down, limiting the damage.

Is it so wrong?? To let the herd cull itself ?? Johnny can't use his hammer correctly so he beat himself in the face and needs stiches. Ban Hammers.
Billy slipped on dish soap in his kitchen wearing defective non-slip soles, ban those, we're too fucking stupid to walk around in our own ki9tchen.
Little Timmy threw a rock and it entered the man's brain through his temple. BAN ROCKS.

This argument is as sound as any that have spewed from all on this subject with a fear of the unknown and a severe lack of basic motor skills and critical thinking-

It is wrong to rely on what is reported and what is not reported by news media, local blotters, etc. to shape one's understanding of the constitution and the history of the United States. YOU PEOPLE WATCH TOO MUCH FUCKING TELEVISION (in whatever country you're in) AND KNWO DICK ABOUT RECENT HISTORY, MUCH LESS ANCIENT.!! The fact that this shit is even up for vote, retooling, or added restrictions boggles, man. Short of a constitutional amendment, the shit reads clearly and plainly in the 2nd and 4rth-If you amend the 2nd you have fucked the thing up, which will consequently, screw the 4rth.

More laws for idiots and imbeciles, less for the operations managers of a realistic unfolding of our immediate future.

A fastidious child with an hour of training and two of practice could kill 100 people with a .22 pistol before the police come or someone wrestles her to the ground, be it school, mall, fast-food joint or post-office line.

Fuck, give morons a goddamn tattoo so we know who to keep sharpened toothbrushes away from

Wait, has it been established that the killer was an avid gamer? That would make him completely typical, of course, but still I hadn't heard that.

I honestly don't think that video game or Hollywood violence is to blame for this. I think REAL violence, glorified by the news media, has far more impact, because most mentally ill people can tell the difference between fantasy and reality.

I think the blame falls squarely on our inability to identify serious mental health issues and easy access to semi-automatic firearms.

Actually the number was closer to 47%, ( http://atlanticreview.org/archives/726-More-Americans-Believe-that-Saddam-Was-Directly-Involved-in-911.html ) that is less than 70% to be sure, and its unfortunate that Cenk gets this number wrong. I cant find the numbers now, but he may have been mistaking it for the republican % at the time. At any rate, it is still an insanely high number, and even after all the debunking of this claim, a sizable number still believed it in 2007. Even tho Cenk had the number wrong, his point still stands, when nearly half the country get such a well-established, crucially important, and highly relevant (at the time) fact so completely wrong, something is wrong. And if your claim is that the news media has no responsibility, whats the point of having them in the first place? They could might as well have reported that a couple of penguins flew into the towers.

>> ^deedub81:
It's not the media's job to "inform" people. The example about nearly 70% of people believing that Saddam Hussein had attacked us on 9/11 is laughable. If that stat is true (which I doubt), it's the uninformed American population that's the problem.

It seems like you missed the main point. Or that you're being willfully contentious to support your bias.

The point here is that the uninformed population IS the problem. And the only institution that can inform the population, that has a DUTY to inform the population, the vairous news media, is failing in their job. Hence...the uninformed populace.

I can't imagine how you can possibly claim, or hope to support, your position that it's not the job of the news outlets to inform the people. That's just patently absurd. But it does appear that the majority of news sources either agree with you or, at the very least, place that responsiblity low on their list of priorities. It hasn't always been that way though. There was a time when the presentation of fact was considered a sacred duty. Something's broken now though and there's only speculation on what the cause is or what the solution should be.