What have I learnt about the media in the article ''Spilling blood with oil in Iraq'' in the way they present what is perceived over what is real?

I have learnt that the media does not have the autonomy to publish the reality, or rather; it has the absolute power to publish everything. It is a matter of choice that they preferred to control the information presented to the public. In this particular illustration, the article on “Spilling blood with oil in Iraq”, the ‘creative untruths’ that were reported by the US, British and were later published by the media had apparently proven that the media is influenced by the US administration. Hence, the media was ‘obliged’ to present what the US and British assumed it was.

However, that article “Spilling blood with oil in Iraq” has demonstrated that the media, in particular, the print industry has its freedom and rights to publish the truth. At the very least, it portrayed how exactly Iraq has been going through since the entrance of the US-British forces into the country. Nonetheless, this specific example is only one fraction of the influential media that showcases what is real. It allows the public, specifically, the readers to be educated, to have a real idea on how the situation in Iraq is really like, how Iraq is the real victim in this whole issue of her being the one that threatens the United States, for instance, using chemical weapons. Actually, it was the US that was the ‘invading forces’ instead of being the ones that were supposedly to assist in the post-war reconstruction.

Nevertheless, in general, the media, now in this alleged “democratic and free society”, which is deemed as enjoying the liberty to publish everything including the golden truth, is in reality, not exercising its privilege to the fullest, in terms of providing the true story. Instead, it makes use of its authority to print whatever they want, even when it comes to changing the reality, hiding the truth and controlling the public’s perception of the matter.