The mainstream media showed, for example, no blood and guts resulting from the 9/11 attacks.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
The media and the rest of popular culture weren't recording people's reactions to 9/11; they were forcing made-up reactions down people's throats.
I'm saying that there's way more to 9/11 than mainstream media and our government have told us.
Both of our wars in Iraq were, on American television, largely bloodless.
The scenarios of biological or chemical warfare painted in detail by the American media during the months after September 11 only betray the inability of the government to determine the magnitude of the danger.
What you don't get in the mainstream media is so much of the background material.
Some people are probably scratching their heads and saying, How did that happen? That's because some of the media didn't give the public the full story.
There was no censorship of the press: in general, the War Measures Act could have been made even more radical.
There was no silver bullet that could have prevented the 11 September attacks. There was nothing demonstrating or showing that something was coming in the United States. If there had been something, we would have acted on it.
There were no weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein was not involved in the September 11th attack.
But, we didn't have all the media that we do today.
No opposing quotes found.