The Mean World Syndrome
For preview only. Get it at  #ad.

The Mean World Syndrome

2010, Media  -   53 Comments
Ratings: 6.22/10 from 37 users.

For years, debates have raged among scholars, politicians, and concerned parents about the effects of media violence on viewers.

Too often these debates have descended into simplistic battles between those who claim that media messages directly cause violence and those who argue that activists exaggerate the impact of media exposure altogether.

The Mean World Syndrome, based on the groundbreaking work of media scholar George Gerbner, urges us to think about media effects in more nuanced ways.

Mean World Syndrome is a phenomenon where the violence-related content of mass media convinces viewers that the world is more dangerous than it actually is, and prompts a desire for more protection than is warranted by any actual threat.

Mean World Syndrome is one of the main conclusions of cultivation theory. The term "Mean World Syndrome" was coined by George Gerbner, a pioneer researcher on the effects of television on society, when he noted that people who watched a lot of TV tended to think of the world as an unforgiving and scary place.

More great documentaries

53 Comments / User Reviews

  1. Celestia

    I'm in 8th grade and when they were fights last year, in school, people would just gather around and do nothing, now, yesterday this guy broke this guys' jaw at school and I was the only one who tried to help the one would help me.

  2. john

    Humans are just sh*tty overall. This isn't news to people who are the least bit awake. Every culture in all times of history. Humans love violence in one form or another and it's perfectly normal no matter what message this silly video is trying to send us. It was going on long before movies and video games. The gladiators right down to your pet football team. If you don't like it don't procreate. If you procreate then stfu about it as you are the cause. Now go back to sleep.

  3. CapnCanard

    We are all potentially influenced by the constant propaganda that is based on fear. Our very government is built on fear and we are fighting two wars because of fear, we ban illegal drugs rationalized with fear, the very foundation of government is meant to give us security. I am of the opinion that our fear is not much more than a self fulfilling prophecy.

  4. Sieben Stern

    interesting. I wonder what his take on the violence in the bible is? righteous violence with a happy ending? check.

  5. Pysmythe

    Same old cr@p: If it bleeds, it leads.
    I stopped watching the mainstream news broadcasts almost two years ago, and have felt better ever since. Too bad the money punks are so much more limited now in ways to reach me. But I cry real tears for them, I do, I do. Grit big large fat ones, too, that fall off my cheeks in slow-motion, like something out of a Ford truck commercial.

  6. KsDevil

    The media's existance depends on it's ability to provide content that creates a culture that will become self sustainable for the media. When subject exhaustion occurs, the media finds another subject to dramatize to keep the system perpetuating.
    So, along comes the internet where people are free to choose what to watch and what not to watch...what to believe and what not to believe.
    What now? Documentaries telling us how we voluntarily subject ourselves to paranoia by indulging in markets cultural just to avoid being bored or going out into that mean and dangerous world?

  7. Karl Hägglund

    I find it funny that at every anti-immigrant demonstrations in the US. You never see any native americans...sorry...I meant Indians. ;)

    1. David Foster

      Maybe that's because today we call them "Hispanics"?

    2. Jason P

      Why is that funny? "Indians" immigrated to America as well, and they fought and killed and lived by "survival of the fittest" just like those that defeated them. Besides, it was your relatives that did them all in. Lol. I'm assuming with that name you're Swedish. So are all the Anglo's more or less. From Sweden, to Britannia, to America. You should learn more about the world before trying to sound intelligently sarcastic.

    3. dmxi

      that made me laugh....cheers,for that one!

    4. wald0

      Chill out man, what did he say that was so horrible? Saying they are immigrants and that is why they are not there makes no sense, we are all descendants of immigrants. I for one don't think it makes sense to even apply that term to Native Americans because immigration implies moving to a country and applying for citizenship, which of course was impossible at this time as there was no government or country here. If we are going to call Native Americans immigrants then we are all immigrants originating in Africa and then immigrating to our respective countries. From that perspective you can’t distinguish who is Anglo and who is not, can you? Besides, the Spanish killed as many or more Native Americans as the Anglo cultures did, maybe you should read some history, huh?

    5. Jason P

      Besides that... how are you at every anti-immigration demonstration in the US? I would think with that attitude, you wouldn't step a foot in the States. I think anti-immigration protesters, are ignorant, selfish, fear mongers . However that's not going to stop me from calling out some Nationalistic ignoramus from across the pond, that thinks he's being clever, when actually he's acting just like the people he's calling out. Get a clue bro.

    6. Barzee

      He never said he was at any of them. Man you need to chill out. You made two comments to this guy and got all bent out of shape and as a result read stuff wrong and felt the need to belittle the guy, when you could of quite of easily took the same amount of time to educate him about the topic, help someone learn something and actually make yourself feel good for doing a decent thing, but no. So you can get off your high horse "bro"

    7. wald0

      No, I think you had it right the first time- they preffer Native American I think. Man its hard to stay PC all the time isn't it?

  8. Barzee

    fairplay to that Mexican guy for being there on his own. That American guy made a jackass out of himself by calling him a coward and even more so by being such a gullible sap with a brain like a sponge thats does/believes everything and thinks how a box in his living room dictates. If he or any of those people in that "protest" had any sense or where anyway decent people they wouldn't of been there. But it just goes to show you how much fear and bad ideas media can plant in people by preying on the irrationality.

  9. smackme420

    Well, at 54, I must say that the world IS getting "meaner". We never used to lock our door in our home. Home security systems, motion sensors, cameras, security guards, and so on were not even considered. Today, it seems we all our locked away in our own prisons- our homes. I am no scientist. I am not a social expert in any way. I just know TODAY we must be much more aware of our surroundings, our "friends" and people in general, why? because society is being forced to act in ways they never in their wildest dreams were even considered. So, what's the answer? Grow up and take charge at what's stealing your joy, your happiness, and safety. Then realize the truth! Our own Government is the MAIN reason we have to act as if our lives are in immediate danger. Because we are.

  10. richard wilmot

    Terrorist Humor
    In my research for my book Christian Terrorist Humor I've been concerned that terorists are terrorists because they have no humor... along with drug warriors, Prohibition/total abstinence scolds. speed freaks, racists, and Republicons... that's why we have Rush Limbaugh... ethinic & raciial humor and prat fall.

    I'm not the first to note the relationship between violence and the lack of humor:
    Lewis Black mentions it often and Steve Martin was one of the first to demonstrate that murder, and death and torture and rape cannot happen when accompanied by a banjo.
    Perhaps police should have banjos in their cars along with shotguns.

    We've all got to lighten up in order to enlighten.

    These two Christian terrorists had just planted a bomb in a Mosque and one says to the other: "The CIA made me do this." and the other one says: "Me too."

    1. pusspussbangbang0555

      Try the website Best Gore It contains real film of gang executions and cruelty that is unbearable to watch, this site is for real, do not visit if you have a squemish comportement, I did and lost sleep for several days

    2. wald0

      Check out Team America, I thought they did a great job in that movie making light of the subject of terrorism and America's reckless tactics of military intervention as well as dictatorship. Its halarious, you should check it out if you haven't already. I didn't really get your joke but, its probably me.

  11. Mercenarry ForHire

    I liked it >:D

    So many facts this could of easily been stretched out over 10 hours if we all the hows and whys are addressed. :D

    Love ,War , Pain , Peace. I truly love All of it, i would not change a thing if i had the power. :D

    Love or hate the Ups and Downs of life.

  12. GodmanEnki

    There are two TYPES of police officer. Nice people just trying to do their job, and all the rest of THEM. Most often, it is some person who was either beat up by his Mommie and Daddy, or beat-up by his peers. Oicked on when he was little. Treated-badly in some way, by SOMEONE. Too often by the military Industrial Complex, that is poised to take-over the United States, and at the same time, the ENTIRE WORLD. Do you doubt what I say? Then WHEN-IT-HAPPENS, I wont be hearing you complain now, will I? Oh it's comuing alright; and is already here. Right now. TPTB just are waiting for "A New Pearl Harbor" (As stated in the "New American Century") to invade Irac, now Lybia, and Syria, (who weren't even wrongly-accused of WMD'S, and take over the rest of the world, one dictator at a time.
    George Bush said, "It would be EASIER if there was a dictator, as long as I....AM THE DICTATOR!" AND THAT FRIENDS, IS exactly what GEORGE WAS. "THE CONSITUTION IS JUST A GOD DAMN PIECE OF PAPER." cam you believe THAT? The "President of the United States" would make a statement like that? Well, HE DID!
    BTW, "America" as we knew it, ceased to exist, thanks again to "little-boy-george" and the President of Mexico. Along with another Illuminati member, the "Prime Minister" of Canada. (Which, like America is controlled by Israel) It is a sad state of affairs in which we finfd ourselves. People who refer to "Americans" as "GOYIM." (Which means.......CATTLE) HAVE bought and paid for, THE CONTROL OF THE US.Wake up you beer=drinking, baseball-watching HillBilly's!

  13. GodmanEnki

    They are missing the point! Media, and tv were INVENTED for the reason of HYPNOTIZING THE MASSES. Always was, and STILL IS! It is "known as" PROPAGANDA!

    1. wald0

      Really, you really believe that? That whom ever invented television did so with the precise intent of it being used to "hypnotize the masses". Or are you just saying the powers that be immediately recognized the potential of media to advance their policies and jumped on board. I can buy that but, not that it was invented with this intention. In fact if you really study history you see that it was Edward Bernays that really introduced the concept of using the media to premote social and political ideals, at least in the U.S. Check him out, he is known as the "father of propaganda" and started his work with getting women to smoke in public, something that was considered very taboo at the time. He accomplished this at the request of a tobacco company and did so by convincng women it was a way to show they were liberated. It was a very successful campaign and soon he was working in politics, for advertising companies, writing books on the subject of propaganda, etc. His uncle was Sigmund Froyd and he used many of his psychological concepts to be a successful propagandist. He passed away in 1995 and has been the biggest influence on the way propaganda was and is still used in this country- but he had nothing to do with the invention of television. In fact the exact inventor of the televbision is in high dispute and always has been. It either was invented by Westinghouse, specifically a Russian-born American inventor named Vladimir Kosma Zworykin or by a Utah farm boy named Philo Taylor Farnsworth. But there were many other inventors that try to claim credit because their technology made the final working model possible. Its so complicated and ambiguous it would be hard to really say who invented it or what their intentions really were, other than to make money and a name for themselves.

    2. GodmanEnki

      I don't know how old you are, but TV USED-TO-BE-FREE! The "sponsers" PAID for it. NOW, "the sponsers" have you and I "paying-for-it." "Pay-TV" started........with Gill Cable Company, about 40 or 50 years ago!

    3. wald0

      Wow dude, you are a trip. I am 39 and remember broadcast television well, in fact it still exists. They now broadcast in digital signal but it’s still free. I watch local channels for the weather still, for free- everyday. But all that aside, what has paying for it or not got to do with you asserting it was invented to hypnotize the masses? Forgive me for saying so dude, I truly mean no insult, but you are out there- I have the distinct feeling there is a tin foil hat somewhere in your possession. Really it’s kind of cool though, I bet you never have a boring day do you? I can envy your spirit and imagination if nothing else. Do you have a blog man? I would love to check that out.

      P.S. love your nick name, from Gilgamesh right?

    4. harry nutzack

      actually, farnsworth invented electronic television with the intent of "educating the world". his utopian vision of his invention's potential was, of course, corrupted once "profit" reared it's ugly head as part of the equation. edison had similar lofty visions when he invented the moving image. marconi was a bit more mercenary, in that he saw commercial/military applications as the niche for his invention of wireless communication. the written word was just as effective as a "tool of persuasion", as evidenced by the propaganda campaign during the american revolution, the westward expansion of the US across the continent ("go west, young man"), even the debate over abolition of slavery. broadcast brought greater efficiency. roosevelt reached the nations populace more effectively with his "fireside chats" then he ever could have with print media. laguardia used the technology to endear himself to his constituency with such antics as reading the comics page to the children of NYC during a massive newspaper strike. voice broadcast brought "brilliant orators" into america's parlors. television brought in the "soundbite with visual aids". the technology was corrupted by the user, not by the fact of it's invention. the internet, on the other hand, was a wholly military product. it was released on the populace with the intent of becoming the behemoth of persuasion and data gathering that it has become. every byte sent into the aether here in the US is funneled through both NSA and DOD mainframes. it allows coalation of the populace into neat bundles based on risk, affiliation, sexual proclivity, and a host of other filters. it allows the setting up of both modalities of persuasion, AND assessment of efficacy of said modalities, in real time. another decade hence, it WILL be the ultimate form of persuasive media. the existance of sites such as this one are a boon for "the powers that be" (though i have no doubt that TDF is no less a "dupe" in the mix than you or I), in that it allows observation of impact of message, as well as full access to all debate by viewers over the message. it makes US the tool of our own befuddlement. it allows the fine tuning of persuasive content for maximum impact in ANY subset of user. it allows such things as the production of "homegrown terrorists" by careful use of propaganda site and specifically targetted agent provocateur. it IS the orwellian "view screen" of 1984 fame. television could never hope to be as effective a tool, just as radio paled in comparison to TV, and print in comparison to radio. even goebells would be impressed.

  14. Andrew Brown

    What about countries like S. Korea where the violent crime rate is low and people are comparatively fearless? The media seems equally focused on the "fear factor" there, too, yet I see children walking the streets unattended as late as 1 or 2am.

    Is "the mean world syndrome" more effective in the Western world than in the Eastern?

    I'll note that S. Korea is also ethnically homogenous, given a very small but growing percentage of foreigners (such as me). The fear is certainly there when it comes to the conceptions of non-Koreans.

  15. BetsMcGee

    people were meeting their quota of irrational fears and misguided prejudices long before television, If TV did not exist we would be picking up our dose stupid from somewhere else. I would like to see the survey questions they used to collect the data 16) have you or a loved one ever canceled a night out for fear of being mugged, physically assaulted or followed by man wearing only a trench coat?

    1. wald0

      "people were meeting their quota of irrational fears and misguided prejudices long before television..."

      I don't think that is true really. Yes people had fears and were prejudice, its human nature. But it wasn't anywhere near the state of paranoia we now face. People were not afraid to let their children leave the house and play in the neighborhood, they didn’t worry excessively about another country invading the U.S. or attacking us, and they certainly did not worry that some other religious culture would invade their country and change it from the inside out. Now in reality there was more violence and dysfunction back then than now but, people didn’t feel that way. This environment allowed us to retain our principles of due process, right to free speech, right to privacy, etc. Once you introduce fear though, especially in excessive amounts, it becomes very hard to retain your principles. This documentary does not blame television exclusively; it blames all media as a whole. No other entity has the power to shape our conscience like media does its how we form our perception of that which we cannot see and judge directly. So if we didn’t get this from media in general, not just television, where do you think we would get it from? I suppose religion could also play a part and probably was the biggest pusher of fear and division in the old world but, I don’t think it was as potent as media is today.

    2. CapnCanard

      wald0,I agree. There is also some the exponential population growth along with an exponential expansion of technology and these factors contribute to what I would call a dehumanizing of humans. We can only hope that our "consciousness" can improve, or all humanity will all collapse.

  16. PeSO821

    People who watch more TV are more afraid of violence. True.
    But that does not necessarily prove it is the violence on TV that made them more afraid - it can simply mean that people who watch a lot of TV were already more afraid violence and rather stayed home to watch TV.
    The cause and affect can be reversed and we still get same result.
    What I am trying to say - one needs to be super careful with statistical data - it can be interpreted in different ways.

    1. wald0

      Who needs statistical data, just apply common sensse and look at what is going on around you. Is it not obvious that we do live in a country full of irrational fears and misguided bigotry? It may even be a world of irrational fear and bigotry but, I don't travel so i can't attest to how people are outside the U.S. I know that here though there is no question about it, all one need do is look at the events post 9/11. Look how they were able to pass the patriot act, create a whole new bureacracy called home land security, start two wars against the people wishes and without the proper congressional procedures, and getting on an airplane now days is almost impossible. All of this over one attack, just one isolated attack that will most likely never occurr again. It goes deeper than that though. We have begun to condone horrible things that violate our own constitution and principles in the name of safety, like torture, illegal wire tappping, absence of due process, and violations of the spirit if not the actual rules set out by the geneva convention. To me its obvious fear and prejudice have driven our tolerance of these measures, we have sacrificed our principles for a feeling of safety. I remember when the Bush doctrine was introduced, you know strike first if you think they may strike you, its the eqiuvalant of a global "stand your ground" law. I knew then that fear had taken control. This country would have never approved of such a program until Bush and the neo-cons invented the war on terror and convinced us all that we were as good as goners if we didn't act first.

    2. Karl Werner

      However, if you look at another statement made in the video 'that those whom watch less news are less afraid of violence' then the statement that 'people whom watch more TV are getting their fears from the images they see' becomes a valid conclusion. If we all live in the same media culture then seeing a correlation between levels of fear and levels of TV viewing can lead us to isolate variables (such as TV viewing time) and examine whether or not people's fear levels are effected when TV viewing goes up or down regardless of the subject's fear level at the outset of the experiment. I agree with your point that statistical data can be used to support most any argument but I don't think that applies in the way you've pointed to here.

    3. GodmanEnki

      Don't "go-by" statistics. Go by what you see, hear, experience, and KNOW, is happening every day. Not only in the "North American Union" aka America; but ALL OVER the WORLD!

    4. John Gros

      Yes I see all the time news of a place being war torn and filled with bandits. Then I see videos from travellers showing a nice place and no hint of violence. I suspect our fearful leaders are trying to keep the herd together.

  17. Malchik

    I hope people can get past the first five minutes of this documentary to realize it's not about violent media making violent people, quite the contrary; the documentary -as suggested by it's title- is about today's media creating a fearful, bigoted populace who are willing to sacrifice their freedoms for a false sense of security.

    The world around you isn't nearly as dangerous as today's media advertises.

  18. wald0

    Great documentary in my opinion. I fully agree with the main point they make, that the overall picture created by media as a whole creates an environment of irrational fear and misguided prejudice. You turn on the news, a movie, television, read a paper, etc. and ninety percent of what you see is violence and dysfunction. Even though there is less of it happening today than say thirty years ago because it is now streamed into our consciousness via cable news programs, movies, television shows, the internet, etc. 24/7- 365 days a year we can’t help but feel there is more. What I don’t agree with is that they seemed to make it out like it was some plot by the powers that be or Hollywood to corrupt us good wholesome citizens when in reality these guys just put on TV or in their movies what we like and will pay to see. We have learned that we can live vicariously through the characters involved in these violent or dysfunctional situations and by doing so get to experience what it’s like without having to suffer the real consequences or be labeled as someone who would do such a thing. As the song says, “We all feed, on tragedy, it’s like blood to vampire… I need to watch things die, from a good safe distance, vicariously I live while the whole world dies, and you all feel the same so why don’t we just admit it? ” (Vicarious, by Tool). In my opinion it is this desire to experience the dangerous and exciting without having to pay the cost that drives us to consume gore and violence as we do. And as long as we are willing to pay for it to the tune of millions and millions of dollars every year, it will never stop. In fact I think as media/entertainment technologies get ever more realistic and spell binding we will see this problem explode. After all the more realistic it feels the more it satisfies our vicarious life styles.

  19. 123hello456

    Thank you for this, its about time someone said this stuff, its so true.

  20. RikG01

    Fascinating documentary. Well worth a watch. I've heard of this "syndrome" before, so far the evidence I''ve seen seems to support it. Could it actually be the world is safer than we think it is?

    If that's the case, what does it say about the ever more draconian laws we are allowing to intrude on our freedoms and ways of life?

  21. Jeremy Hughes

    My cousin that plays violent video games, with his little sadistic grin, is constantly getting into fights at school, yelling at his mom, ignoring their wishes, and generally acting like a total shyt. I did not have video games nor was I allowed to watch TV as a kid, I think I got into 2 fights in High School, and neither was instigated by me. So ya, I don't doubt it for a second.

    1. dmxi

      it baffles me,that this question can encounter any doubt,especially
      when democratic western states continuously cut education & social costs,forcing parents to multiple jobs to survive,which leave the kids without parental care &/or full attention!the TV is the cheapest babysitter & parents are devoured by slave-labour,how will anyone teach their children values?this missing time is filled with short-term excitement & films/tv-shows/reality-crap(which is an euphemism due to reality bears no resemblance!) & video games,all targeting the most negative instincts of the young adolescent mind!this has been exponentially happening the last 25 voila & we ask us this question now!?

    2. GodmanEnki

      Anyone AS OLD AS ME, will have to admit, we were mostly ALL subjected to different-forms of violence. My Father struck my Mother when I was 6 years old. BECAUSE OF THAT, I have never, ever, struck ANY woman. For ANY reason! Yet, 30+ years AFTER my divorce to my Christmas Queen/most attractive-senior-girl ex-wife, she filed a "restraining order against me," for sending her a letter! Then she told the Judge, "we were only married ABOUT a year." We ,IN FACT, were "together 6 YEARS and married 5, TO-THE-DAY. 2/1/75 to 2/1/80! Now, she actually PERGERED HERSELF, and yet.......she won! Now go-figure that one! I wasn't even given the "oportunity, by the Uncle-Tom-Judge to respond to her accusations! So WHY, was I "requiredx" to fly 1200 MILES to go to court, IF I wasn't to be ALLOWED TO DEFEND MYSELF? This aint over by a long shot! I've hired an attorney, and now I'll get it IN THE NEWS PAPERS!

    3. dmxi

      uncle-tom-judge??? i hope you meant that you're related ? 'mark' my words,if the judge hears that he will give you a
      res'twain't order! i hear that
      huckleberry is a good lawyer !

    4. KsDevil

      You had a very poor lawyer.

  22. Robert Butler

    This is a very interesting topic. Before computer scientists and neurologists first came up with the concept of neural networks and "training" I would've scoffed at such an idea that media could possibly influence one's behavior much as pundits argued in the past, "If someone is violent it's in their genes and there is nothing you can do about it."

    Well with findings of late with neural networks and the way in which we train ourselves to not only recognized patterns by repeated observation and exposure, I would have to question what the real effect of violence in the media is on individuals regardless of their natural disposition.

    1. wald0

      Actually this doc doesn't assert that watching violence causes us to act in violent ways .It only asserts that watching violence repeatedly causes us to form irrational fears and misguided prejudices. Fear because media has inaccurately convinced us that there is more violence now than ever and prejudice because they predominately show certain ethnicities as those responsible for the violence.

    2. harry nutzack

      scoffed at the idea? media sold folks useless junk by appealing to social anxiety since the advent of commercial broadcasting. once television became commonplace, the ability to deliver an effective "pitch" based on this principle skyrocketed. subliminal messages were LONG ago proven to be most effective at inducing involuntary behavior in our species. orson wells had half the country convinced that the impossible had occured (alien invasion) with just the power of radio, and the fevered imagination of the populace. the people of germany were convinced by media that a minority subset of the populace were so malignant in their culture that they had to be exterminated for the good of the planet. a couple decades earlier media of no greater sophistication than the written word convinced the american populace to engage in colonialist invasion ("remember the maine!!"), and war with one of the then "super powers". less than 2 decades after that the cry of "huns bayonetting belgian babies!" convinced the american populace to become entangled in a wholly european war. "the red menace" of the 50s was a media fed frenzy of self cannibalization. all examples of the mechanism at work long before "neural network research". people are most easily convinced to see boogie men under every couch cushion, a threat in every shadow, a "red" in every rosebush. it's how propaganda works. it's how they sell you toothpaste and deodorant. it's how they convince you to enjoy eating what would otherwise be low quality animal feed. it's how they get you to vote against your own interests. if an effective campaign could convince the germans of the need to "rid the world of the jewish menace"(so effective that it still claims minds to this very day), why would you need any more proof of the media's ability to convince you to distrust your neighbor's intent?

    3. dmxi

      right in the nutz,mate!very well elaborated.

    4. GodmanEnki

      "The impossible had occurred?" WHAT makes you believe "Alien-life" let alone "alien invasion" hasn't happened MANY times, in the distant past? BTW the "Main" was ALSO a False Flag Attack, as was the Cole, the USS Liberty, (they wanted to attack Egypt) and the Tonkin Bay attack, (so they could escalate the war in Viet Nam) Thank you LBJ. These False Flag Attacks, are ALWAYS DONE to EXCALATE A WAR, START A WAR, or somehow make a WAR possible. "We NEED an attack, Like a New Pearl Harbor." { "A New American Century} 9/11 was PERPETRATED BY TPTB, (AKA ISRAEL) So they could attack Irac.) Now, they are starting to USE PROPAGANDA, (so they can attack IRAN!
      Of course THEY will blame that on Al Queada, or Oswald. or maybe on Iran. Oh, no, THEY already had Jack Ruby squash the Kennedy-assassination- investigation. (Lee Hamilton was ALSO on THAT particular "ivestigative-body" and look what HE did there! 3 books FULL OF "LIES."
      Havig someone like LEE HAMILTON do an investigation of "governmental-wrong-doing," would be like hiring Al Capone to investigate the Mob!

    5. Brian Fraley

      Get life.