At any rate what I was trying to get to at the end of yesterday was that the American media have a very interesting way of burying stories that allow them to go back and claim the stories were not buried.
The first one I thought of was East Timor. We knew about and approved the invasion by Indonesia and did nothing to stop any of the horrors that were occurring there. It wasn't just some little country around the world, but it was a part of our foreign policy. We were buds with Suharto so we said ok. There were a few articles, but no real follow up.
Or for that matter the way Bush left Texas and the way he governed from the far right, yet he was not called on it at all.
Alternatively, Whitewater. There was nothing there, but there was a constant reportage of a non-story for months (years?) until there was an investigation. That showed nothing as far as the Clintons were concerned.
So our media can point to a few stories to show that they are not completely in the bag, but the real issue isn't that they may report a couple of times on something and then drop it into the memory hole. Nor is the issue that certain reporters may write books "exposing" corruption. All of these things sink below the horizon of the average low information citizen fairly quickly, if they ever see them.
However, the media (and I purposely refer to them in the singular) will find a story that it can use to prop up it's preconceived (generally reactionary not even conservative) beliefs. Then it beats that dead horse until it jerks so much from the beating that it appears that there is some fake life in it. Do this over and over. Finally, understand that I am saying that they do this almost only to Democrats. Not necessarily progressive Democrats, just Democrats.
I would guess that most people who read the newspaper or watch TV tend to accept what they read or see. Possibly they do not even consider whether or not the stories are true, but just accept them.
There you have where we are today.