Will the Gulf of Tonkin resolution be fifty years old this year? If so will the free press take a critical look at how the American voters got fooled?
Will the news stories about the century anniversary of the start of WWI tell Americans about how a little lie about the cargo on the Lucitania got them into a war thousands of miles away from the homeland?
How credible were the reassurances that the troops who took part in nuclear testing in the desert had no worries about long term effects?
A controversial topic can always be exempted from debate by labeling the issue a conspiracy theory and then all dissent must halt immediately.
The ecological damage done by Fukushima, any possible explanation of what happened to MH 370, and secret negotiations with Russia to avoid WWIII are all "off-limits" topics for journalists and so pseudo news is becoming a viable industry so that Americans can see something that can be extolled for providing an example of freedom of the press, which is always one of the defining examples used to motivate the poor and middle class to send their children off to war in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.
In a country that wants voters to be fully informed so that they can make well-informed decisions, giving controversies an automatic exemption from debate defies logic but since it is an American tradition, if you don't like it . . . go jump in the lake just like the fellow did in "The Manchurian Candidate."
Greenpeace has been asserting that the oceans of the world are littered with trash and the more false alarms that satellite photos generate for the people searching for the remains of the missing MH 370 airliner the higher the likelihood that rubes in flyover country will eventually come to the conclusion that the forecasts of impending ecological disaster could generate a preemptive response.
Part of the standard Conservative response to Liberals (including the "save the whales" faction) is to question their sanity.
Conservatives expect Americans to assume that the Oceans are pristine pure and that any time any satellite photo shows some flotsam and jetsam, people must automatically exclaim: "That must be from MH 370!"
The Greenpeace movement has been dismissed by Conservatives
as a bunch of whacko altruists who make absurd claims about seeing an island of
trash in the middle of various Oceans.
If there are too many examples of false alarms in the search for the
missing airliner then there may come a time when the Greenpeace assertions
Shouldn't a Greenpeace spokesperson be getting face time on the Network News to show satellite photos of the Island of Trash and predict that the debris from MH 370 may never be found? Would a humorous "we tried to warn ya" be copasetic? (Isn't that a Sixties word?)
If the Conservative News Nabobs aren't vigilant in their mass mind control duties, the curious incident of the transponder that didn't bark may wind up being the biggest factor in a gigantic spike in the performance graph for the ubiquitous Greenpeace fundraisers who solicit funds from High Street in Fremantle to Shattuck Ave. in Berkeley CA and beyond.
The fact that the nightly exercises of excellence in propaganda (AKA the Evening News) are not mentioning the Greenpeace explanation for the false sightings indicates only two possible explanations: incompetence or deliberate planning.
If all of the nightly propaganda programs miss the obvious through incompetence, the prognosis for democracy is grim. If the error is premeditated, then expecting voluntary preventive ecological measures is irrational.
When the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory disaster occurred, business owners raised economic objections to installing fire escapes. Expecting modern capitalists to increase production costs just for (hypothetical?) extreme long range goals is unrealistic. Greed will always trump altruism in a capitalistic society.