Hate to be contrarian but the U.S media backed the U.S war in Vietnam. Similarly, number or recent documentaries [see ‘war made easy’-which was aired on RT]- showed the relationship between the U.S media and Pentagon is deeply enmeshed and that this relationship has already transformed the role of media in the U.S. I think this is a point the author may want to address. If the U.S decides to invade Pakistan in order to “shed blood,” the tacit assumption is that it will not be U.S blood but Pakistani blood that needs to be shed with American drons and cruise missiles. But the Pentagon has been doing this already. So, what is called for is to increase it. This is the central point. Thus, the key revelation of this piece is that it illustrates, indirectly, that the New York Times call for “the shedding of blood-“ underscores the symbolic meaning of the ritualistic shedding of blood as the hallmark of all imperial powers. Another tacit point of this call for the shedding of blood is that it is always the blood of “the other” that fulfils the symbolic assertion of the imperial power of domination. But the imperial demand for blood always ends in destruction and mayhem. This is the moral lesson we need to grasp in this call for the shedding of blood and war.

Ridiculous. The media doesn't have the capacity to 'lead' anyone into war. Governments decide that. And, if you believe, as Mr Ahmadinejad, President of Iran, does, that the media is controlled by the government, or at least government interests, then it is an even more impotent medium. In other words: make up your minds, already. Have you ever thought the media might indeed be reflecting public opinion in it's purest form? The public opinion that is fed up with being terrorized by Islamic actions, and has decided to throw political correctness aside in favor of saying what it really feels? I believe that, more than anything, the media is starting to reflect that fact that the line between tolerance and imposition has been crossed, and that people are 'mad as hell and not going to take it anymore'.

That´s nothing new. Remember that it was Hearst, a media tycoon, the one who led the campaing to go to War against Spain in 1898.

I have become used to seeing agenda led reporting in the US media, which is to be expected because it is largly owned / controlled by individuals and or groups who have a specific agenda to follow. Over the last decade or so we have seen how these groups have used the media to justify war in the middle east, engender support for corrupt regimes, and talk-up the Iran threat. It is worrying that Pakistan is now being targeted for 'attack by media'. The US media should be careful in how they try to link individuals / groups / to a nation in order to - at best - embelish a story, or at worst pursue an agenda, as they may end up creating a media monster that may struggle to control.

Sure, that is correct that US media is leading America to another war! There are many reasons for that and I will list some of them: 1) War is generally a good business for the military sector of US economy. 2) US media are basically controlled by Jews which are instructed from Israel to keep pushing America in war in the Middle East and around it. Besides, those Jews who own the most influental media do also have a big share in the US companies that manufacture military equipment. 3) The crowd of regular US people is notoriously naive as to put their faith into a belief that the US economy will start recovering after the war vistory is gained. Many US citizens still remember that "no one was jobeless during the WWII" and many accordingly think the same could happen again. That is why many of US citizens still believe that a war engagement could resolve the ongoing internal US economic difficulties. that A carefull analyst will however come to a conclusion that whatever the development is to have taken place the US will only further deteriorate its position on the international stage.

Rockefelers are desperate for War on a larger scale in order to create chaos in the World and come up with solution from their textbooks robbing and depriving the nations of their rights and liberties.

Shows how ignorant the American people are. This is sad for the innocent people living there. Could this be a CIA ploy to start anther war? Is this guy real or he works for the CIA the supposed to be bomber... where is democracy gone. They should blind fold the statue of liberty, because America has no democracy any more.

@Dexter... you are right that things are getting bad. As for Democracy, it is also a horrible thing. It is a dictatorship of half a nations population. You are wanting what the founding father's of the US wanted, then it is a Constitutional Republic. Even Ben Franklin was quoted saying: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner." Those freedoms given to Americans are Constitutional, but the public is sold under Democracy and they are losing they freedoms which are inalieable and a right no government has the power to take away. The reason they are doing it is because, as you say, they are blind and don't fight for their rights. As for the news, they are 100% involved with the government. Not only that, if they ask the wrong questions at whitehouse meetings, they will be removed and taken away from the information. So there is a real interdependency built up through corruption and collusion between them. Investigative journalism from main networks is a laugh. Not to mention they all follow their nations policies to a mark. You think Western journalists didn't know Georgia started the war and actually believe Russia was invading as they displayed across their networks? You think they didn't know dead Tskhinvali residents were being displayed as Gori residents... They are deceitful in their motives. Yet many trust them. The Pentagon now trains the "inbedded journalists" and totally controls the war effort. One can go on Youtube and watch a bullet go through the head of an Iraqi and it is repeated through out the video numerous times and then put to slow motion. Yet, they will block any display of a US soldier being killed. The only one that passes is the ones already displayed by US news. Its all about control of information and power.

We must be realistic - any more ;) American people thought they had learned from the War in Iraq was that - realy power in Lies and Falsifications. Stripped and raped Iraq brought the U.S. a lot of fun.

The Christian Science Monitor is a US source, at least in so much as it was founded in the US and is owned by an US entity. But, although there are exceptions, I think the broader point stands. Albeit we were already involved in a war in Pakistan; I don't think there is much popular will for invading a place in the aftermath of the costs and humiliations past 10 years when we already have a government there that is doing a decent job of fighting the enemy and our drone attacks are successfully shaving off many of the enemies best men, along with many civilians... A recent CNN article, that I just read before checking RT today, headlined a Republican senator questioning the intelligence regarding the Taliban link with the times square bomber on the basis that the senator hasn't received, as he legally should, the intelligence that is the basis for these sorts of claims. The media is simply regurgitating what people are telling it and is not bothering to do the job of sifting through it for the people. Supposedly it hasn't always been this way; supposedly up until the time of Reagan the media pointed it out when politicians lied as a matter of due course, but then everyone got annoyed at the media for beating up on Reagan all the time because he was a very stupid but likable man who rarely got his facts straight even when he wasn't being intentionally dishonest, and so the media hasn't been so censorious ever since. This happened, if it happened, before I was even born, and I can't speak for it. As a rule of thumb in the US, you can't trust what you hear from politicians, pundits, TV ads/chain emails, or "experts"/anonymous sources. You have to look up the specifics to see whether or not what they say holds water. Of course most people won't. Democracy is better than the alternatives, at least if you, unlike the Chinese Communist Party, inherently greatly value intellectual freedom, but it definitely has major shortcomings.