Why is it politically right to mis-inform the masses when taking some important decisions?

Answer 1

Are you and I even watching the same CNN? I couldn't figure out the other day why regular commentators would wax philosophical about our great leader. I thought that it was a pundit until I realized he was a regular anchor.

Give me a SPECIFIC example where the "bad news about Bush" was trumpeted on regular main-stream NEWS. I have yet to see a single one that wasn't spun into some "no big deal" thing and then quickly disappeared into the air..."Here, have another dead white chick..."

Meanwhile we have these stories presented as "partisan debates" where there is none, like Al Gore and the global warming thing. 99.5% of scientists agree completely "Global warming is a problem" and "fossil fuel use is a major cause" (and the other .5% being scientists working for oil companies...no conflict of interest there). There is NO DEBATE...except on the news where it looks like a 50 - 50 split on the issue.

To answer the original asker, a transparent government that keeps as few secrets as necessary is an honest government. Our current administration is classifying everything as a secret which pretty much automatically means they are completely corrupt. It's never ok to misinform the masses, but some politicians see it as a necessary evil. When you LIE to the masses enough, you get the political situation we have today...those that believe the lies and those that seek their own truth...50/50.

Answer 2

The guy above who made the Bush-Clinton comparison is half right. The media did make a big sting about the Clinton investigations, but dropped it when it became very clear that Whitewater was a shady land deal, that victimized the Clintons, as opposed to the other way around as some would have you believe, so when did it become a crime to be ripped off? This President has had it much easier, yes a large number of his poor decisions are overly scrutinized, but with good reasons. The corruption in this administration isn't for some reason. Scrutinization of bad decisions comes with the territory, your inference that Clinton got off easy compared to Bush is true in that respect, as Clinton didn't make to many bad decisions, an was only caught lying about an affair. When Bush got caught lying, it was over far larger issues than an affair, again he reaped what he sowed. Lastly, Clinton was very affable with the press corps, Bush is very antagonistic to them, that my friend, will also effect things, it's human nature.

Answer 3

It may be politically right, but it's morally and ethically wrong. What you find in politics is a situation where someone makes a decision based on certain "information," but later if that information turns out to be wrong, the politician places blame on someone else by saying "I was misinformed." Of course, a lot depends on the politician. Have you noticed that virtually everything our current President says and does is scrutinized seven ways for Saturday by the mainstream media, but when our former President was accused of sexual impropriety, shady land deals, and other acts of corruption, the mainstream media barely even acknowledged the investigation and publicly criticized the investigator? BIG double-standard here. Why is it that one President's actions shouldn't be investigated but another President's actions should be justified and explained to the American people in painstaking detail? What's wrong with this picture?

Answer 4

I dont know....ask the mass media industry. They do it daily.

Answer 5

Your question is generally unclear and makes assumptions that are not valid.