To comprehend the reason the media doesn’t ask such questions, it is necessary that one understand three important facts about the state:
- 1) The state is not held to the same standards of moral, financial, and professional conduct as are individuals and privately owned enterprises. The media accepts this dichotomy and never questions the obvious discrepancy. State individuals can continually be proven liars and cheats, yet the media still gives them credibility by quoting them and providing a forum for more lies.
- 2) The state creates its own reality. Just ask Karl Rove, who can explain it better than anyone- The media is complicit with this fraud by mindlessly parroting the false realities created by clever propagandists.
- 3) The state has its own language, carefully crafted to deceive and cover-up its criminal activities. The media uses this same language to deceives its readers and is thereby complicit with state-initiated crimes.
Property theft is "eminent domain."
Murder of innocent civilians is "collateral damage."
Withholding facts in a criminal investigation is "executive privilege."
To have lied is to have "misspoke."
Bribes are "campaign contributions."
Those who don't believe or agree with the state's interpretation of facts are "conspiracy nuts."
Being negligently uninsured is "self-insured."
A state created Ponzi scheme (illegal for individuals) is “social security.”
“Refugees” (usually created by some form of state aggression) are now labeled, “internally displaced persons.”
Again, the media is complicit with this deception by using and repeating the same dishonest language.
Yes, sometimes journalists do expose the fraud, waste, inefficiencies, murder, torture, abuse, and unfairness characteristic of state enterprises. I certainly applaud this fact. Yet, the proposed solutions listed in such an expose are always the same old, tired pabulum- more funding and/or reassignment/replacement of bureaucrats and apparatchiks.
The question not asked- "Why?" Why not abolishment? Why not private alternatives to this miserably failed state monopoly? How can enterprises so important to the lives of individuals (such as security) be allowed to be state monopolies, shielded from market forces? It is indisputable that market forces are the only accurate evaluator of any enterprise. The question not asked- "Why?"