Re:
I agree with Vulpine on this one.
OUT of the total world's actual events they can report, they choose a specific grouping for their purposes, the purposes of their sponsors, and the purposes of a bigger picture we're too "in the dark to comprehend." Great news reporting brings more advertising fees. Anyone recall the News Channel that was going to expose Monstanto for putting RBGH into cows, getting them sick, and passing this infestation onto humans, only to have it pulled b/c the milk/dairy companies threatened pulling their advertising dollars?
News companies pick first and foremost what benefits them and what won't raise any of the FCC's attention. Objective independent news doesn't exist, because it can't. Capitalism prevents it. They go for the highest dollar while making sure they don't spook the public. And with only a few major sources out there, the same story is generally pandered. It's the "Water Boy Syndrome." The Water Boy wasn't stupid, or unsuccessful or ugly, he was just told so by his mother, or authority figure. It wasn't until he met people who were true, and unbiased, without any intention or purpose behind their message except to deliver that message as truthfully as possible that he grew up.
MOST people don't even know what exists beyond the news. For people to even 'comprehend' some of the crazy conspiracy plots here AT least alerts you to alternate thinking. But the thing is...all the stuff on 9-11 is quite large. There's alot there. And unlike those who spin the news stories...9-11 truth movement followers HAVE NO VESTED INTEREST BUT THE TRUTH. They're behinds aren't at risk, save the first amendment. They don't profit, except perhaps by the video or book they write, which is normally not distributed mainstream anyways. Why should it be? People want to get up, go to work, hop in an suv or overpriced leased car, pay up the arse for gas (though cheaper than other countries), watch the news, get a check, and go home. I'd submit that people coming here, successful or not, are in the very small margin of independent thinkers who want for more. Even if you don't AGREE with stuff people say, at least you're dabbling in another pond/fish bowl. Most people stay with the straight and narrow. And when they find one person who deviates from the norm...they usually tune them out. Unless of course it's someone they respect so highly they may "consider" what they're saying.
That's the other part. Our perception clouds the validity of information. Because the mainstream outlets are so big, powerful, wealthy, general, and we've grown up on them, it's all alot of people know, and that perception carries ALOT of clout. People inevitably gravitate toward that, for that fact alone. So it makes sense it's EASIER to accept that story, even if it isn't logically correct, or your BS detector goes up and flashes. Now, if the source of your info becomes credible in your own mind, then you reconsider it. I'm willing to lay down $10, that if anyone in anyone's life here who has your respect said something contrary to what you're used to, you'd reconsider your thinking on that item. For instance, if you're grandfather said "JFK was an inside job," whether or not that's true now, you'd rethink reality. The same as when, a husband divorces a wife, screws her over financially, and leaves the kids for nothing, that woman's perception changes. But it's hard. Our mind clings to SOMETHING as if it's ROCK SOLID FACTUALLY CONCRETE AND PERMANENT.
And that's a big reason why mainstream, biased news outlets have their way with the American people.
A-Unit
You guys are clueless about what the Middel East is really like. Less news and more travel.