In America, newspaper publishers have always been accorded high rank and special privileges in that democracy's class-less society. The idea that publisher William Randolph Hearst arranged for the Spanish-American war to happen is widely believed inside and outside the journalism industry. When famed artist Fredrick Remington was sent to Cuba to cover the war, he sent a wire saying nothing was happening and he wanted to return back to the USA. Hearst responded: "Please remain. You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war."
Americans, who refuse to believe that Fox News coverage of the Bush election in 2000, the events of September 11, 2001, the run-up to the war in Afghanistan, the Invasion of Iraq, the need for the Patriot Act, and George W. Bush's reelection in 2004 was anything other than fair and balanced, are quite willing to believe that Fox's owner did not make any effort to dictate America's political history or foreign policy.
Did William Randolph Hearst manipulate President McKinley into not opposing a Congressional move to start a new war? (Back then Congress not the President would start a new war.) If Presidents were manipulated in the past; can they still be "played" in the age of cable news that travels at the speed of light?
Did Rupert have anything to do with the British Prime Minister's invitation to America to join them in using oil rich Libya for target practice? Rupert doesn't just happen to have a few shares of BP stock does he?
The Hearst saga is echoed in the film thought by many critics to be the greatest movie ever made: "Citizen Kane." In the Orson Wells classic film, a fictional newspaper publisher, Charles Foster Kane, is portrayed as a champion of the poor and down trodden who cleverly manipulates the United States into the war with Spain.
The New York Times' lead story for their Sunday, July 17, 2011, print edition (written by Don Van Natta Jr.) asserts that (some) journalists working for the American citizen and renowned newspaper publisher (in Great Britain, the USA, and Australia), Rupert Murdoch, may have hacked some phones in their pursuit of the never ending fight for Truth, Justice, and the Murdoch way of life.
The New York Times story jumped to a full page inside Section One and was augmented by a sidebar story that elaborated the details of Murdoch's personal full, complete, and (should the qualifier "apparently" be used?) contrite apology to one crime victim's family on Friday.
The lunatic conspiracy drones have been galvanized into action this past week and are asking questions to raise new suspicions in all three countries. They hint that if the Murdoch employees in Great Britain committed some misconduct (they must be assumed to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law) in Great Britain, then the "bad journalism" infection may have spread (unbeknownst to Murdoch himself and upper management in the two other countries) to the other news staffs in the USA and Australia.
Have you noticed that if you ask the grunts in corporate America about their assessment of upper management's job performance, the folks in the trenches will be in unanimous agreement about the fact that the brass can't differentiate manure from shoe polish but when it's time for indictments to roll, they assume management "must have known" and the attitude suddenly changes to "Hang "em from the nearest tree!" Which is it? Only one can apply. Is it "the boss' job" to know what's happening or are they paid large salaries just for appearance sake?
If (subjunctive mood) some of Mr. Murdoch's employees did stretch the limits of ethical conduct a tad during the Bush era, isn't it obvious that in the three years of President Obama's term in office, he has done absolutely nothing about investigating possible journalistic misconduct and therefore he must assume full and complete responsibility for any potential current offenses?
In contemporary American politics, the responsibility principle now applies to President Obama regarding war, torture, war crimes, taxes, recovery, economic stability, ecological issues and home foreclosures, so why wouldn't it also apply to ultimate blame for the Murdoch scandal?
(Sixties cliche alert?) Journalists are a different breed of cat. Did the journalists reporting about how "carmageddon" failed to materialize seem disappointed?
Back in the early 80's when the Olympic Games were scheduled to come to Los Angeles, there were similar dire predictions about gridlock. When the marathon of sports competitions began the slight increase in traffic congestion was barely noticeable.
Are some irrelevant news stories used to distract the voters from other more important news items which don't fit the publisher's hidden agenda?
Los Angeles can survive fires, earthquakes, Olympic Game traffic, and world famous murder trials. With the ease that they handled the weekend closure of the 405, the folks in L. A. can take credit once more for shaking off a new challenge to their famous "laid back" attitude.
Speaking of diversions on GOP TV (AKA Fox News), will any of the jackasses who try to prove the existence of global warming be among this year's inductees for the Mad Scientist Hall of Fame?