Well, since I was around for the Vietnam war, let me explain my position a little better. Night after night Dan "I'd Rather be dead than red" (his words) Rather would hammer away at the unjust vietnam war. When Tet hit in 68 all the media was crying about how we had lost control of the country. Unfortunately, they were a little light on facts. Tet virtually wiped out North Vietnamese influence in the south, it was a huge defeat militarily, however Rather and his boys were able to spin it into an american defeat on TV. When Nixon started the bombing of the Ho Chi Min trail, this drove the north back to the negotiating table, as far as the news he was "expanding the war into Cambodia". When the US navy and Air force started the "rolling thunder campaign in the north (it took away restrictions on targets) the press said we were bombing non military civilian targets. After the war a northern general made the statement that he couldn't believe we quit bombing when we had them on the ropes, we did, thanks to the lib medias misinfromation campaign. Even after we pulled out in 75, the dems in congress refused to fund the South Vietnamese, shortly thereafter, the country was overun by the communist and a blood bath took place in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. But in the press, the dems saved the day by not funding the war and saved millions of dollars. I wonder what the cost would be in lives murdered.
That is why I think the mainstream press is a bunch of liberal scumsuckers.
If that's elitist your a lib.
I don't get upset because I wonder if the average American is able to resist it, I get upset because it's pure unadulterred bullshit.