Domestic surveillance of American citizens by the NSA or any other governmental institution is against the law without the approval of a FISA warrant. For a long and drawn out dialogue about this see the discussion that Mex and I carried on at Christmas time in 2006. Warrantless surveillance was defended by the majority here under the guise of necessary for national defense to protect from the weapons of mass destruction that were anticipated to be launched by Sadaam Hussein.
Note: it is DOMESTIC surveillance that requires a FISA warrant, not foreign surveillance. I argued ceasely ugainst Bush's domestic surveillance without a warrant.
The argument died.
And now the shoe is on the other foot. Republicans screaming for protection of privatcy. The very protections they rode rough shod over with George W. Bush's blessing in 2006 under the excuse of extra legal powers in act of war. Horseshit..
To Maui's point, if the Media moved with one consort, with one goal, with one objective I would be much more afraid that the MSM could dictate the elections. BUT the wild card in this theory is that all the MSM will agree on a plan to dictate the terms of democracy to the Congress by brainwashing the media consumers. This supposes that the aims of each member of the MSM is the same. The fact is that ABC,CBS,NBC,CNN,MSNBC,FOX each compete for viewers and advertiserts. Accordingly if any of these MSM members lose advertising, the lose viewers and lose influence. While generally organized to be the conscience of government, thMSM does not act one unifying body because of the competition between its members. Did it occur to anyone than in those instances that the MSM acts as one consort, that what they agree on might be the right thing.