Not that they haven't teetered on the edge for years now.
I wrote a diary a few weeks ago about Newsweek Magazine's abrupt reversal within the span of 13 days back in 2003, reporting the truth about the fact that there was overwhelming evidence Saddam had no stockpiles of WMDs -- to -- Evan Thomas concocting an article using the terms "when" and "which" WMDs Saddam would use against American troops in the event of an invasion. Truth is, they bought into the neocon hardline lock, stock and oil barrel.
Fast forward a decade and you now have another traditional [corporate] media outlet only too happy to pull their pants down and bend over in front of the neocons and MIC corporatists. (but I repeat myself)
In its current (March 11) edition, Time Magazine
enlightens propagandizes its readers with a panoply of reasons why President Obama is fighting a ticking clock on the window to invading Iran in order to disrupt and destroy their nuclear bomb making programs.
"The Path to War" (a whopping six-page report) has it all. You're welcome to peruse the article if you wish. (but I only included the link for purposes of reference not so they'd get lots of hits at their website)
F.A.I.R. (Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting) calls out the magazine that is, at this point, struggling to remain relevant in an ever-changing media world. (and F.A.I.R. deserves lots of hits BTW)
Nowhere does Time's Massimo Calabresi mention one rather inconvenient fact: There is no evidence that Iran is actually pursuing a nuclear weapon. Regular inspections have failed to turn up any evidence of that.So, it should be no surprise the point that Iran was a signatory to the U.N. Non-Proliferation Treaty and is therefore [legally] permitted to develop some forms of nuclear power is lost on most people in this country because of the fact that it's been under-reported (if reported at all) for years.
Moreover, the fact that the article's author: Massimo Calabresi never mentions the fact that there's still no proof of any proliferation attempts by Iran is inexcusable. Nor does he mention of fact that Iran has no history of attacking any of their neighbors. Where's the journalistic integrity of those [willful] oversights?
Facts are toxic to propaganda.
From the original Time article:
"Iran itself has slowed down its efforts, converting some enriched uranium to a form that can be used only in research, not in weapons." This is treated as evidence that Iran is heading towards its nuclear weapons more slowly.WTF? Wow, extrapolate much? Treated by whom, exactly?
The article goes on to deliver the warning:
"... time will run out"And it closes by noting that:
"Obama will soon face the hardest decision of his presidency."In my estimation, the biggest decision President Obama faces is whether to marginalize the neocons that are still firmly ensconced in the bureaucracy of our federal government. And, in contradiction to Calabresi's article, I think it's Time Magazine and their many co-conspiring competitors that face the hardest decision of all: whether to continue the path to irrelevancy by constantly toeing the corporate line; corporations who clearly have a massive conflict of interest problem in it's delivery of the real news -- or -- instead emulate (non-Murdoch-owned) European media outlets like The Independent, Guardian and others across the world like the Asian Times.
There are many great investigative journalists like Gareth Porter, Pepe Escobar and Greg Palast who regularly practice investigative journalistic integrity out there who would gladly come to work for media outlets in this country if only they were permitted to speak-truth-to-power, and then let the chips fall where they may. The trouble is most of these reporters are castigated and ostracized by the corporate overlords.
Thank god for reality-based communities like Dkos and the progressive blogosphere and independent news outlets. Someday, my hope is for these news outlets to become the "traditional" media, and the propaganda pushers are relegated to the dustbins of history.
One more piece from Time:
The Pentagon has launched the largest buildup of forces in the Gulf since the run-up to the 2003 Iraq war, and Iran has boosted security around its nuclear sites and is reportedly handing out shoulder-launched missiles capable of downing civilian airliners to loosely allied terrorist groups in the region. Senior congressional Republicans say they are expecting to be briefed soon on the options and consequences of a U.S. strike.When did "reportedly" become proof? It could be Curveball or Chalabi for all we know?
Come'on, they could have at least given us the title of the informant? Like, for instance: "White House insider" or "administration official" or even the trusty ol' standby "sources familiar with the situation..."
With a situation as somber and consequential as war -- before we take this nation to war -- is it asking too much for solid evidence of the need for it?
Totally self-indulgent rant over.