Right, so keep on watching US mainstream media for the “official truth” sanctioned by the White House. No wonder there’s an Iron Curtain of Ignorance surrounding the borders of the US. But I suppose right-wingers find it much easier to just dismiss news reports they don’t like rather than investigating the allegations for themselves.
:roll:
Methinks this translate to some points for Mr. Gilder.
Any facts to the contrary of the report in question?
Lemme guess - Fox has some.
I am not relying on the mainstream media either. I have investigated the facts to the degree I am able, and I don’t think the BBC’s version is credible. And just so you know, espousing conspiracy theories about “official truth” and “mainstream media” and “Iron Curtain of Ignorance” and the like rarely improves your credibility. Seriously, examine the facts. The U.S. undoubtably made some miscalculations in the war, but that has happened in wars since time immemorial. Xerxes thought crossing the Hellespont was going to be easy. Montgomery thought taking Arnhem would be easy.
Also, accepting at face value the word of one paper with an obvious editorial bias is every bit as closed-minded as you assume Americans are. And your assertion that all media in America is somehow controlled by the White House is as credible as Putin’s assertion that President Bush fired Dan Rather. Occam’s razor man, Occam’s razor.
How’s life in that “strictly black 'n white” world?
:roll:
That’s right… the sources were I get my information were right when it came to WMDs in Iraq, and long before Bush went to war over it. The sources I pay attention to don’t selectively leave out crucial information and only report half-truths. Anyone who only pays attention to US mainstream media is getting only a fraction of available information – and in many cases outright lies about what’s really going on. This has been demonstrated over and over again.
Anytime a news report squeaks by the news censor that contradicts the “official truth” put out by corporate-controlled media they immediately attempt to discredit the source. The White House uses access to people in high government positions as a tool to control what questions are asked and what gets reported. This is a big part of what keeps the US intellectually isolated from the rest of the world. Anywhere you go in the world people are befuddled by how ignorant most Americans are about global issues. What separates the way Americans perceive government propaganda and the way people in other countries that have government propaganda perceive theirs is that the people in most of those other countries know it’s propaganda.
An example of Americans believing government propaganda as the truth:
When Saddam’s statue was torn down in the early days of the war it was staged by the US military. Most newspapers around the world were reporting this very soon after it happened. It was never mentioned in US mainstream media even though the US military admitted to it over a year later.
An example of Americans not being told everything:
When I was in Ireland the Iraqi death toll reached 100,000 and it was in all the papers and news reports. It still has yet to be acknowledged in US mainstream media as far as I’ve seen so far.
Eye rolls = a sound argument.
Not.
My own personal opinion?
There was a humanitarian case for a war in Iraq. BUT - that case wasn;t made until after the fact. The rationale [NOT cause] for the war was based on either a) ignorance or b) deliberate deception. The fact that American conservative interests + business leaders have MUCH to gain from the war makes it smell like a dead fish. Tens of thousands of innocent people have died because of the deception/ignorance, the world is NOT more stable, and the primary mission of the war has not been fulfilled. Because it was impossible to fulfill from the get-go.
ON the point at hand, the bias inherent in media - who is more likely to distort the truth - the press in the nation leading the war charge, or the press in a nation dragged along for the ride?
Yes, all news sources are the product of a certain perspective. BUt my point remains - show us some evidence that refutes the claims made by the BBC article, and I’ll happily dissect it, and accept it if it appears legit.
So THAT’s what those US tanks were doing there! I always wondered about that! Gee, thanks for clearing THAT up!
:roll:
All the response it deserves. What’s the point in “arguing” with someone whose mind is made up?
Good point. Can I have a substantive response to the last two points please (As made by Jack + myself)
The contention is that the Statue thing was faked. To refute that provide some (ANY) convincing evidence that it wasn;t. THe ball is in your court.
Thank goodness that was only size=18, or else it wouldn’t stay secret.
As for doubting the BBC article: has the federal government denied these allegations of pre-9/11 plans for invasion and for teh oil? I would like to hear if they have any official response to this.
Caj
I think the people in Lebanon would take issue with ‘stability’ claims, as I think there’s plenty of evidence available for Syria bailing out of there and ending their illegal occupation speaks for itself.
Likewise in Palestine and Israel. Granted, it isn’t a matter of Palestinians and Israelis staging a hug-fest, but problems there have been reduced from the boiling point of late.
And speaking of the Israelis, ‘The Beeb’ has been under fire in the past year or so for some NYTimes like shoddy reporting practices (Jayson Blair comes to mind here), particularly vis-a-vis Israel.
But to jump from “you don’t believe the BBC” to painting anyone who doesn’t as a ‘right winger, must only watch Fox’ (hey, I admit, I DO watch “The Simpsons” is simply just too much, and quite frankly, not worth the time or effort.
Cheers,
Could you be more specific, maybe provide some evidence to support your assertion?
I’m not interested in what you think of me personally; I’m more interested in the facts. It would be helpful if you refrain from personal attacks. I think Dale might actually agree with me on this point.
The build up to the war had countless deliberate and intentional deceits from the US government. This deceit was reverberated in the mainstream media without the proper questions being asked. This was not only irresponsible journalism – it was dangerous and disastrous. Because most Americans are unaware of the fact that mainstream media today is basically corporate driven propaganda, they believed it and sent their sons and daughters into harm’s way for the wrong reasons.
Now you’re making assumptions about me without substantiation… careful now. Besides, you don’t have much room to talk considering how close-minded and biased your quote below is.
I love the part where you say, “news that might possibly damage the political successes of President Bush.”
(See my comments to IRtradRU?)
The fact is that the Bush Administration is representing corporations, and key government positions are being occupied by ex CEOs and others with strong ties to corporations. Outlets that make up what US mainstream media is are owned by the same corporations Bush represents. Maybe Bush didn’t fire Dan Rather, but the people Bush represents did.
What Do Americans Know? Not Very Much
by Danny Schechter
Millions of Americans accept what they are told and think they understand what they see. And what they are told and what they see is most often news as a manipulated commodity. But the facts that really count rarely reach a significant number of the public’s ears or eyes.
Also, most reporters know governments lie, mislead and deceive.They also know that the press is ostensibly there to keep an eye on governments, to dissect errors and omissions by offering more truthful counter-narratives. That was the role an adversarial media played during Watergate, during the Vietnam War, and even, if distastefully, during the Clinton administration.
Today, our media has abandoned this historic role, That part of the public that remembers the great journalists of the past knows it. Even journalistic greats admit it. Just before his death June 11, newscaster David Brinkley said of the medium that was his life. “Television news has become so trivial and devoid of content as to be little different from entertainment programming.”
But many in the public don’t even expect the media to be honest in its reporting. The Jason Blair affair at The New York Times was the tip of an iceberg. Major newspapers such as The Boston Globe and The Washington Post have, in the past, been humiliated by revelations that reporters falsified stories. Beyond simple credibility, today’s media system has fused news biz and show biz.
News understanding (and misunderstanding) is driven more by impressions and images than information. One recent Gallup Poll survey reported that 40 percent of the people believed weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq. An early poll found a similar percentage saying there was an Iraqi hijacker on 9/11.
In contrast, 44 percent of the public in England, where the media is more critical of the government, told the Daily Telegraph’s Yougov Poll that they believe their government and the Bush administration misled them about the threat from Iraq. At the same time, a CNN/USA Today Poll found that 56 percent of Americans said the war was justified if weapons of mass destruction are never found.
The general absence of comprehensive, thorough reporting is particularly regrettable with Washington under the control of an administration that has taken public relations into the realm of “perception management.” Its corporate-trained communications specialists have perfected a 24-hour spin machine while coordinating every official utterance. They’ve coined and tested repeatable catch-phrases to mobilize opinion. They want to ensure that we regurgitate their simplified phrases, and salute their patriotic stands. In their world, propaganda is passed off as marketing.
Granted, because of cable television and the Internet, the number of information sources available to the public has exploded. But “in-depth” television reporting is brief and ephemeral and rarely is retained in the minds of the audience. Cable outlets serve niche audiences. More diverse Web sites often have limited constituencies. Weekly and monthly opinion magazines such as The Nation, the Atlantic Monthly, The New Yorker or Harper’s may report in genuine depth on issues of consequence but mostly have relatively small circulations. Many appeal to an elite segment of the population that thinks it’s influential and numerous, but is neither.
When it comes to newspapers, probably a couple of million people a day read the nation’s best known daily - The New York Times. They think they are an influential, important group and they believe they have all the facts about everything that’s going on in the world. Indeed, for many of them, the Times is the world. But the Times makes hundreds of errors annually and its reporting is often influenced by its own agendas. More importantly, Times readers really are just a tiny segment of America.
All of the above represents a problem for our democracy. The most important day in America isn’t Christmas. It’s the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. There are more than 163 million voters nationwide. Only a tiny percentage of them could honestly be described as truly well informed and, therefore, they don’t amount to as much as many media mavens delude themselves into thinking.
It is context, background and interpretation that give information meaning. When that is missing, as it often is, so is understanding.
Danny Schechter is the editor of the Web site Mediachannel.org and the author, most recently, of “Embedded: Weapons of Mass Deception: How the Media Failed to Cover the War on Iraq.”
Copyright © 2003, Newsday, Inc.
Sheesh, no shortage of pablum here, is there?
Of course. Everyone knows that President Bush invented corporations, so that he alone could represent them!
Those nasty, evil corporations!
As for Dan Rather, he was employed by CBS, which is owned by a company called Viacom, which is headed up by a fellow named Sumner Redstone
For the uninitiated, a quick google of “Viacom” and “Clinton” and “Sumner Redstone” will tell you loads about where their political ties are, and to imply that they are “represented” by Pres. Bush is too hysterical for words.
“Don’t Bow to the ‘Beeb’”
excerpt:
But the collapse of the BBC’s facade of integrity is isn’t just a British story. The BBC is now widely available in the United States via satellite television networks and the use of the BBC’s World Service on National Public Radio affiliate stations.
For example, here in Philadelphia, NPR is heard on publicly supported WHYY-91 FM, an all news and talk station that is — like all NPR affiliates — subsidized by government aid and individual contributions from listeners.. Indeed, WHYY has recently expanded the BBC’s exposure to include not only post-midnight hours and the early bird 5 a.m. slot but also now the 9 a.m. drive-time niche.
NPR has itself come under fire for its slanted Middle East coverage, but the addition of BBC programs and the contempt for Israel that often borders on anti-Semitism, which is found in its content, raise concern about NPR stations to a new level.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0204/tobin_2004_02_12.php3
Army report confirms Psy-ops staged Saddam statue toppling
Jul 3, 2004 - An internal Army study of the war in Iraq has confirmed that the infamous toppling of the statue of Saddam Hussein in Firdos Square in central Baghdad on April 9, 2003 was stage-managed by American troops and not a spontaneous reaction by Iraqis. According to the study, a Marine colonel first decided to topple the statue, and an Army psychological operations unit turned the event into a propaganda moment.
At one point during the stunt Marines draped the statue of Saddam Hussein with an American flag. When the crowd reacted negatively to that gesture, the US flag was replaced with a pre-1990 Iraqi flag, missing the words “God is Great,” by a sergeant from the psychological operations unit. The Marines brought in cheering Iraqi children in order to make the scene appear authentic, the study said.
Allegations that the event was staged were made in April of last year, mostly by opponents of the war, but were ignored or ridiculed by the US government and most visible media outlets.
–Jon Elmer
:roll:
I guess you missed the sarcasm earlier.
So the downing of Saddam statues was staged.
Wow, stop the presses. Goodness, no one’s thought of this before.
Hey - here’s a news flash - so was the raising of the flag on Iwo Jima in 1945! Quick, someone call Dan Rather and get him back behind his desk, there’s a conspiracy afoot!
I’m just so glad we got you keeping us informed right here at the old Chiffboard. I don’t hardly need the news at all now. ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, CNN, FOX, BBC, bah! Alls I need is the McLaughlin Group and jGilder to explain it to me.