People are people wherever you go. In every country in the world, you'll find good and bad, stupid and smart, greedy and generous. To think otherwise is foolishness, because we all know that in any group of people, you'll see a wide variety of personalities. To assume that everyone in a given place are all alike is ridiculous - we all know better.
News is a business like anything else. Because of that, more coverage is given to those things that will attract viewers/readers/listeners. More viewers = wider viewership due to spreading popularity = more profit and more power over others in the same field.
Let's go over what's been happening in the US, and see whether it's been fully reflected in the news coverage in other countries:
9-11 scared the bejeezus out of everyone - it was a shock to us that such a thing could even stand a chance of happening in our country at all. Up until then, terrorism was something that happened in other parts of the world, not here.
A barrage of announcements told us that more such attempts could be expected at any large city at any moment, which resulted in a sense of paranoia. ANY of us or our loved ones could be caught up in it at any moment. People were suddenly afraid to go to any large city for any reason, and many people commuted to work there.
Bush fed that paranoia - let's not forget that he was going to be up for re-election, and if he played his cards right, the actions he took could help to ensure another term. Other politicians who would be up for re-election stood to gain as well, and followed suit.
On the one hand, Bush acted immediately to reassure the public that things could be done to increase our safety, and that he was doing them. On the other hand, the government also barraged us with constant press releases giving the impression that the threat of such incidents was still hanging over our heads.
When election time came close, they played the danger card as heavily as they could. Bush had a proven track record by now as a "war-time president". We weren't all that sure what the other guy would do. Many people voted for Bush out of fear. So Bush was re-elected.
As we gradually began to lose confidence in why our troops were still over in Iraq, as well as why we'd already been over there for so long, the government fed us info through the media geared toward making us believe that it was necessary, and that they were also working for the good of Iraq as well.
And of course, as has been shown here in this very thread, people tend to believe the picture painted by the media. We're not aware of any other factors that we aren't being told. Fear of imminent threat glued us all to our TVs and newspapers, including those who normally paid little attention to it. Newspaper sales soared. Coverage of the threat and the war paid big bucks because that's what we feared and craved reassurance on.
Early on, little to no media time was given to anyone saying that our government was doing might not be a good thing. It didn't draw the big bucks. And the government was still doing all it could to focus our attention where it wanted it. That's politics for you, no matter where you are. People in power manipulate in order to keep that power.
As protests increased, some of it happened in our local areas. People became aware of it, and expected to see coverage in the news, and so the media gave us what we wanted. The more people heard about opposing viewpoints, the less confident they became in the way the current administration was handling things. We began questioning, and the answers we received didn't always work to satisfy us.
Today - and this is the important part - there are protests EVERYWHERE in the US. Pressure is being put on the politicians - get us out of Iraq or risk being replaced come election time. The majority of the citizenry are NOT happy with the situation. People ARE actively trying to do something about it.
Bush can't be re-elected because a US president is limited to two terms, so if he's unpopular, it isn't as crucial to him personally now. It IS just as crucial to those who so still have a chance for another term, so most politicians are now fighting Bush on this.
It is not a simple thing to remove a president. He hasn't done anything actually illegal that we could use against him. So we're basically stuck with him until his term runs out, like it or not.
So what should we do? Go kill the guy? Think it would be easy to just walk up and shoot a president? Would YOU really want to try it? Violence is wrong, right? And don't forget that if someone did, then his vice-president would assume office by default, and he's likely to want to carry out the same plans as his predecessor, because they've been on the same team all along. So then we're no farther ahead at all. We'd still be stuck with the same agenda until the end of the term, when we can elect a new guy.
So. Can we all stop believing the media is giving everyone a true, clear picture of where everyone stands on things?
Now... what we were talking about? Ah yes. Whether removing legal guns from the market would reduce violent crime. Completely different subject, yes?
