Manufacturing consent. Is that what Jon Snow was doing on Channel4 News the other night? Are we meant simply to accept that Private First Class Bradley Manning's fate is sealed and that his is a noble but necessary sacrifice to the corn deities which preside over our errant climate? Abrogation of responsibility is of-course far from uncommon (infact many at "MediaLens" -for instance-, would claim that such was de rigueur), in mainstream journalism, but such blatant collusion appears only to occur when certain stories become iconic and there is a presumed consensus within the mainstream media organisations. Interestingly some stories seem to qualify for this treatment not because of lack of sympathy (or at least that is what the "journos" themselves would have us believe), but because of a (feigned), acquiescence to a perceived zeitgeist . We are often being told as a nation what we think however the practice of using polls and public opinion surveys is only valid if the framing of the questions asked is an open and democratic process. The sectarian restriction of source material (such as that which lead to the BBC's complicity in the death of Dr.Kelly -whereby one individual is scapegoated because theirs is considered the only valid opinion-), that occurs in these organisations (as has been said many times), is often simply an indication of the presumed self-interest of the journalists concerned, therefore "media influence" need not require direct political manipulation of the actual source.
Private Manning's Counsel: "How are you today?"
Pt Manning: "Fine, but I think someone's scratched my arm."
Pt. Manning's Counsel: "Ah."
Pt. Manning: "What do you mean "aaaahhhh"!"
Pt. Manning's Counsel: "I think it was a sample."
Pt. Manning: ""A sample"?!"
Pt. Manning's Counsel: "Yes, you see (unfortunately), in your case the U.S administration believes that "Justice" should be seen to be done." (perhaps an even more subversive notion now that "Chelsea" has only been sentenced to 35 years!)