Complicit Media, yet again

Yesterday I linked to a Digby post about the travesty of GWB signing the Military Commissions Act of 2006 into law. Today Glenn Greenwald does an excellent job of explaining how BushCo gets away with signing a bill which...

is replete with radical provisions, but the most dangerous and disturbing is that it vests in the President the power to detain people forever by declaring them an "unlawful enemy combatant," and they then have no ability to contest the validity of their detention in any tribunal. The President now possesses a defining authoritarian power -- to detain and imprison people for life based solely on his say-so, while denying the detainee any opportunity to prove his innocence.

But for those who rely on Fox News for their information about what the government is doing, not only do they not know that, they think the opposite is true.

Glenn then demonstrates how the despicable FauxNews talking heads lied to (or enabled guest liars to lie to) the voting public. Sometime ago, I wrote a post about "how it could be that there were so many people who were not as outraged as I was by the behaviour of BushCo". It seems that Glenn has wondered the same thing and his explanation is a complicit media (a conclusion I have reached over and over and over and over again).

Glenn:

I frequently encounter sentiments along the lines of: "how can any Americans, even Bush supporters, think that it's acceptable for the President to have the power to imprison people for life with no process of any kind?" A significant reason why things of this sort do not provoke more protest is because large segments of the Bush supporting public rely on the likes of Mort Kondracke and Fox News to tell them what is going on with their government, and the reports they receive are often extremely incomplete, misleading, or -- as in this case -- outright false, propagandistic defenses of the Bush administration. They simply don't know what the Bush administration is doing because the individuals on whom they rely -- including those, like Brit Hume, who hold themselves out as objective journalists -- are themselves ignorant or actively mislead them.