I accept what you have to say, and what Geffa has said, particularly in the context of the following observation: "We can't bomb media sources because they broadcast stuff we don't agree with, or even if they broadcast stuff that might not be true".
The more pertinent point is that all sides to a conflict use media, public opinion and propaganda to their own advantage. Controlling the media is a way to controlling public opinion. All sides stand continually accused of this. Not just the West.
The other pertinent point is that the quality of our media reporting has declined with time. The investigative edge seems to have been lost and few, if any stories, seem to qualify these days from a Pulitzer perspective. 10+ years ago, a journalist was questioned by his or her editor on the veracity, accuracy and correctness of the story being published (sources used, etc). Not any more. Or so it seems. Just ask SEV and their payout in respect of a certain NSW case, etc!!!
In due course, like with anything, whatever is said, or reported (whether in the geo-political context, in a business setting, or in an investment newsletter /internet chatroom environment) must always be taken with a grain of salt.
Reason: The truth is out there, but not necessarily in what you have before you. As always, one's own judgement needs to be relied upon.
But we should not automatically jump to a particular conclusion (one way or another) because FOX News says so, or because Al Jeezera broadcasts so, or because the snap, crackle and pop -styled version of the TEN, NINE and SEV recycled news services' lead with this.
