Regardless of these facts, the media failed to put arguments such as these on the front page of the paper because of the control the Administration had on the media channels at the time. It is rather difficult to say the extent to which the independent or small town media actually covered the stories, with its details and discoveries. The internet search can prove more useful, but for the aim of the sociological research, it is not relevant for the case in point, given the fact that the internet is yet to be spread around the world and throughout the U.S. This is why the written media has a more important impact on the population.
The impact and the message sent across were crucial for the U.S. And its president. It offered the legitimacy needed to go to war in Afghanistan and then Iraq. This is largely due to the fact that the public opinion in the United States is very powerful in the sense that it is well aware of the fact that once every four years the elected individuals can be held accountable. The actions motivated in this context often fail to take into account the right thing to do.
Another important aspect to be taken into account when discussing the role of the media in covering the actual story behind the official version of the U.S. is that related to the way in which the issue of lack of evidence came to surface. In fact it was the result of a journalistic exercise, and not that of a clear cut fully operational investigation. However, even in such a manner, the issue never made the headlines for the wide spread media. It is possible that for people who listen to the news regularly not to know about this information. It is rather difficult to speculate on the reason for such a limited coverage of the subject. However, evidence such as the recorded tape of Osama bin Laden more or less confessing the attacks was not widespread news.
There are various reasons for such an action.
One would be the authenticity of the tape, an issue the government denied. The other would be the falseness of the tape, which the government refused to support with clear cut evidence. In any situation, the widespread media should have ensured a better coverage of the story.
All in all, it can be stated that the controversy surrounding the participation of bin Laden to the 9/11 attacks was never confirmed by evidence presentable to a grand jury, nor was it infirmed by undeniable proof. However, while the government is limited in its affirmation and action, the media is split. In this sense, small public media deals with any type of speculation which could result in the Muckraker Report, whereas the widespread media tends to deal with subjects that are somehow connected to influential people in politics. The reason is not necessary that of the success of that story but rather the potential manipulation of this type of media. In any case, the issue should be sorted out and an official stand should become available, given all the speculations and uncertainties.
Haas, Ed. No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11 . 2006. Retrieved 24 April 2010, from ihttp://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_911_93.htm
Global Security. Project Bojinka. 2010. Retrieved 24 April 2010, from http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/profiles/project_bojinka.htm
Washington Post. Two Months Before 9/11, an Urgent Warning to Rice. October 1, 2006. Retrieved 24 April 2010, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/30/AR2006093000282.html
What really happened.com. Russia Warned Us of Impending 9-11 Attacks. 2010. Retrieved 24 April 2010, from http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/russianwarning.html?q=russianwarning.html
The National Commission on the Terrorist attacks upon the United States. First public hearing of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. 2003. Retrieved 24 April 2010, from http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing1/witness_kleinberg.htm.