ya know, im really at the point where i dont imediately trust the prima facie case of any story i see in the news. its not quite that i think im being lied to all the time, its more like i ask 'why am i being told this story?' every time. as cynical as that mite sound, im pretty convinced that its the appropriate attitude for a news consumer. im not sure if it was ever thus, but certainly for the last 30 months, it seems that most stories have simply been wrong. i prolly only send u maybe a quarter of all the lies i come across. it so so pervasive. it really surprises me every day. in over 2 years, i really can hardly remember a 'true' story. every time anyone in the adminnistration opens their mouth, its literally riddled with at best spin. but often specific lies. every time. it sounds extreme but my best guess is that its true. literally. i can honestly not remember a time when they opened their mouths and didnt tell lies. to the point that i almost assume that the only time they do say anything, is to tell lies. theres almost never a press conference *unless* there are lies to disperse. its almost too hard to even consider how pervasive it is - but id back myself to be able to objectively prove that any speech by any of them is riddled with lies. thats an extraordinary fact. and an extraordinary reality.

ive literally been considering appending one of my recent emails with 'i hope there will be a bombing one day that i dont immediately put under a cloud of suspicion' but i figured that was prolly in poor taste - cos i hope there arent any more bombings. but it seems to be the case that every major story can be disassembled by me - or people like me - to the extent that the main premise of the story is demonstrably wrong. every story. thats an extraordinary state of affairs. and i dont think im exaggerating.

in terms of rating stories on a scale according to whether they are 100% or zero% tru, i agree that its difficult to navigate each one individually, perhaps the stance i take is that none of it is true, and therefore the facts need to prove the point they are trying to make. thats a difference vs if u trust the media and let the facts support the story. eg if u accept prima facie that the 14yo palestinian was trying to bomb israel, then u can accept the supporting facts that are presented. but if u ask 'why am i being told that a 14yo palestinian is trying to blow up israelis?' then u can come up with a different answer for why u are being told the story.

and i maybe feel like i have an understanding of the way language is used so that i can interpret statements, and praps identify exclusions or whatever in the way sentences are written. and i also have a lot of time. but that could only put me in the top 20% of the entire *population* at best. i certainly dont bring any new tricks to the equation - and i guess that my arguments are reasonably well constructed and possibly believeable - which means that any idiot can come up with the same answers. its not like i think i add anytthing new to the process - apart from an editorial function that anyone could perform. thats why i sound so rabid sometimes - its all seems so simple. its not like i have anything other than time and concern - my pr experience extends to once looking at an ex-gfs pr portfolio in hk and noting the similarities between the input and output in the media. i dont have any special tricks. or the slgihtest partisanship - ive never defended kerry or clinton. the problem is absolute.

maybe the thing that i brng to the table is the temptation to ask 'why all these lies?' - my concern is less about the specifics of the lies (which others seem to be continually drawn to) but rather the purpose of the lies? its horrible to use a mentally deficient 14yo palestinian suicide bomber - but why did they do it? its wrong to invade iraq for no reason, but why did they do it? these seem like obvious questions to me, but they arent often considered properly. and i think the repubs are expert at defining arguments. the real (yet very obvious) questions are rarely asked - the agenda has been completely hijacked. the eta/alq question in madrid is a great example. and once u can define the debate, then the detail is irrelevant - i said the same about the democrat race, and i make the same point re clarke and 911comm - the question is wrong, and therefore entering the debate is to be sucked in.

and in terms of determining truth - let me reiterate my basic premise - lying is difficult, therefore u dont do it unless you have to. and therefore even the most obscure of cadminsitration lies deserve attention. hence my ongoing questioning about the thnxgiving ba pilot lies. those things arent done by accident, and presumably theres a purpose. otherwise u wouldnt bother. thats where u peel back the matrix.

detail isnt importnat, but lies are.

separtely, im psotmodern (sic) to the extent that i dont belive in an objective reality - my entire worldview is based on horseracing type probabilities - but i reckon we dont really have a grip on 'reality' yet - but the cadminsitrations interpretations of events do not belong on a 'somewhat true' scale. they are mostly objectively wrong, to put them on a scale is an invalid assumption. many statements are absolutely wrong - and knowingly wrong. its not politics as usual. offering them a 'truth scale' is to misconceive the problem. the premise is not that they only partly tell the truth, but that they specifically intentionally lie as the base case. any truth that they tell can therefore only be seen in terms of amelioration of the lie. thats the only purpose of any truth they tell. i think we've gotta start undertanding them not from what lies they tell, but what truth they mite accidentally tell amongst the lies.

i really think its that bad.