"BATTLE FOR BAGHDAD"

"NERVE GAS SCARE"

Can't be bothered writing anymore examples. The media makes me sick. Sensationalised bullshit. Looks like a sports report. Trading on fear and uncertainty, negativity and drama. They can create something out of nothing, and make something of value an irrelevant nothing. By creating the virtual village, a person can feel nonexisent if their world becomes the TV. Negative values are spread like a plague, and sensationalism is everywhere.

The US army has been "about to enter Baghdad" for ages. The descriptive language often depersonalises the humans involved, or overemphasises Americans lives as more valuable. ANY life lost is a tragedy, yet to the US media, the only ones with families and loved ones are Americans.

The only time an Iraqi death or maiming is shown, is with an anti-war agenda, like the one mentioned in another thread. Only showing the US bombing victims, not the Saddam victims.

And why the polarisation of views btw?

Can I be anti-war yet think that "no blood for oil" is the most inane, ignorant and pathetic mantra shouted by the protestors?

I was at the Union square demonstration to have a look, and couldn't believe the speculative nonsense being spouted. One spokeswoman knew Bush's motives! Knew what was next on his plan! How does she know? Is she in the f***ing CIA??

Can I be pro-war and yet believe that invading to prevent Saddam having WOMD is a crock of... hypocrisy?

The guitarist in my band is the son of Richard Butler. Head weapons inspector before Blix, and at one time the most hated man in Iraq. He's been vocal about Bush spreading lies and misinformation. That the WOMD thing is a furphy.

Iraq is surrounded by Iran and Turkey. It's not a peaceful neighbourhood, yet they can't protect themselves like Israel, who has nukes? So much bullcrap hypocrisy.

Even so, can I support the world taking down a genocidal maniac who abuses his own people?

Can I be angry at Chirac and the French companies who have all the contracts with Saddams regieme and pissed at the hypocrisy and political manouverings which, by giving Saddam political support, may have CAUSED war?

Can I also be angry with the lunatics who criticise the French as a people and a race, and make inane derisions on their military capabilities? "Freedom Fries" is a joke. Completely uncalled for.

And who publicised the shopkeeper pouring out his french wine? Some journalist selling papers. Who reports 4,000 Arabs going to help out Iraq and raise fears of Muslim/West world war? The media. Who reports on this war like it's a sports event. The media.

I'm sick of the pursuit of money as an end, without the checks and balances of a value system that holds human quality of life, and an individuals peace of mind as necessary. Sowing peace and life enhancement, rather than raking in the big bucks.

"You Furnish the Pictures, and I’ll Furnish the War"
William Randolph Hearst.
Newspaper Publisher
Lived: 1863-1951

This quote was from the time of the Spanish American war.. a war which had a generous helping hand in starting because of the newspapers of Hearst and the fabrications and distortions of truth he was publishing.

And now it's *proven* to be legal to LIE to the viewing audience! Have a look at this link :

Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie

In the past we could at least trust the media networks to tell the truth (abeit only one side of an issue) - but now they have the freedom to lie to their audiences...

And now it's *proven* to be legal to LIE to the viewing audience! Have a look at this link :

Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie

In the past we could at least trust the media networks to tell the truth (abeit only one side of an issue) - but now they have the freedom to lie to their audiences...</font>[/QUOTE]Unbelievable. R.I.P. truth.

I do not believe they can fire her for refusing to lie it seems insane.

Good post Hugh [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

Welcome to America.
You still have the freedom not to watch, listen or read.

Hugh mate, just want to say I missed seeing you around!! I hope you are OK my friend. As for your post, I agree 100%. I've seen a lot of what you describe on this forum as well and it nauseates me, frightens me and angers me. This war sickens me to the point where I sicken myself for being an escapist and closing my eyes to the horror because I can't bear to think about it. It is beyond human - or at least my - understanding.... but apparently not beyond human capability.
Yuck... gone all pessimistic and cynical again - hard not to be that these days but I keep trying ;)
Like I said, I missed you mate!! *hug* [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 04-07-2003, 06:40 PM: Message edited by: Melusine ]

I have always viewed the media as a mixed bag. yes, the want to sell papers. Yes, they will sensationalise, and yes - they will naturally have a tendency to view the lives of the soldiers of it's home country as somehow more valuable.

However, the nature of war is that it is dirty. Having the media there constrains the actions of our side, and to a point that is a good thing. 60 years ago, british and american planes turned Dresden into a firestorm, killing thousands and thousands of innocent civilians in a totally horrendous way. Londoners old enough to remember talk about "the Blitz" - the bombing of London by the Luftwaffe. Dresden resulted in far more casualties. What we did to Dresden far outweighed what they did to London.

No doubt we could do the same today to Bagdhad. Hell, the US army on it's own probably has enough weaponry to reduce every city in Iraq to piles of smoking rubble, but I believe one of the reasons they don't do this is the media. Nobody would dare risk the backlash of such an event in the sure knowledge that because of the all-pervasive press, practically everyone in any western nation would know all about it within hours.

60 years ago, you could toast an entire city, and few would hear about it. Those that did would be fed purely the government line.

The media is undoubtedly interested in sensationalism. Showing dead Iraqi soldiers on the front page and listing the honourable sacrifices of the americans on the inside will sell more papers than articles on knitting. Mankind is an innately violent race, and violence sells. Yes, it's sick and disturbing, but that's the way it is. The media is a necessary evil in some respects. It keeps a leash on forces that might otherwise run rampant.

I view the media as being like the US government on this issue. The US government in my oppinion couldn't give a damn about the liberation of the Iraqi people. The squalor they live in is of no importance to the US government. However, through the US government's actions, those Iraqis will have a better fiture ahead of them. The motives are at best selfish, at worst motivated by greed, but the results will be that a country of millions of opressed people will attain a level of freedom that hasn't been approached in decades.

Good things sometimes grow in questionable ground. The media is the same. Impure motives, sensationalised stories, but they are a big part of the reason that we are conducting this war in a manner designed to inflict a *minimum* of civilian casualties.

Good post, Bardan. [img]graemlins/awesomework.gif[/img] I think it's not just the media, but also the fact the sensibilities have changed. These days, we can't even bind prisoners hands without it starting a gripe-fest.

Yorick and Melusine, I think I can understand your positions, and respect them, though I do not share them. Thanks for posting. But, yeah, I do feel like we are being held to a higher standard than the enemy.

No I don't. I can be walking down a street minding my own business and a carefully positioned newspaper headline will rudly interrupt my thoughts with it's two-to-three word sensationalism.

And it's not just America. Otherwise I would have said "American media". It's a world problem.

Missed you too Mel. [img]smile.gif[/img]

What do we do if the article itself is lying?

Oh, I should have added, Bardan, good post [img]graemlins/awesomework.gif[/img] And, Hugh,good luck. I don't mind being ignored insuch an awesome cause. ;)

Sorry Attalus. ;)

No I don't. I can be walking down a street minding my own business and a carefully positioned newspaper headline will rudly interrupt my thoughts with it's two-to-three word sensationalism.

And it's not just America. Otherwise I would have said "American media". It's a world problem.</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, you do. The fact that you let it distract you is not the media's problem.
I see stacks and piles of different newspapers every day...the headlines go unseen unless I choose to focus on them...focus grasshopper...it is a conditioning of The Self that can be attained.

I extend a sincere apology for your misunderstanding of my "Welcome to America" remark. I didn't intend to imply that you meant it is just an American problem, I just know that on the streets of New York, one is more likely to be exposed to outdoor news stands than they would be in most any other American city...that still doesn't mean that you have to read them.

No I don't. I can be walking down a street minding my own business and a carefully positioned newspaper headline will rudly interrupt my thoughts with it's two-to-three word sensationalism.

And it's not just America. Otherwise I would have said "American media". It's a world problem.</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, you do. The fact that you let it distract you is not the media's problem.
I see stacks and piles of different newspapers every day...the headlines go unseen unless I choose to focus on them...focus grasshopper...it is a conditioning of The Self that can be attained.

I extend a sincere apology for your misunderstanding of my "Welcome to America" remark. I didn't intend to imply that you meant it is just an American problem, I just know that on the streets of New York, one is more likely to be exposed to outdoor news stands than they would be in most any other American city...that still doesn't mean that you have to read them.</font>[/QUOTE]Oh come on. "Position position position" is all about catching peoples attention. Billboards, subway entrances, windows, near food. You can't not live in certain civilisations and not see headlines.

The 'you're free not to read it' is a cop-out acceptance of a downsliding media. Is that the cop-out for American voters? "Oh well, if the pollies suck you can always vote for no-one"

The point is the media COULD BE BETTER. It doesn't have to be the way it is. It's about values other than profit-profit-profit.

The solution (if it's even attainable) is not a matter of withdrawing from society. Since when is a problem solved through escapism, withdrawal and denial? Will the problem go away if I move to Fiji and not read papers? Can the whole world move to Fiji?

[ 04-08-2003, 02:49 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

I solved most of my problem by de-selecting FOX off my remote control so it skips stright from Sky to CNN to BBC on the satellite now ;)

<font color=orange>I thought SKY and FOX were almost one and the same! Aren't both owned by Murdock? Is the FOXNEWS network you watch also the one we watch here in the US?

edit: Oh BTW, Hey Yorick! I see you decided to come to the darkside for a while and join us over here on the War Discussion channel! Welcome!!!! [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>

[ 04-08-2003, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: Sir Taliesin ]

Kinda agree with you Yorick. The Media is over the top, mass marketed, over commercialized .... something. R.I.P. = Rust In Putressance right? Maybee, like the WWF (World Wrestling Fedderation) being called "Sports Entertainment" CNN and the like should be called "News Entertainment".

This made me laugh out loud.. couldn't agree with this more and it is exactly what CNN and the like should be called.

The media has always been over the top.
I still read headlines, there is nothing close to "escapism" involved.
I just choose when to read them.

I just got back from the grocery store...you know all the gossip rags, magazines etc that they conveniently place around the checkout lane?
I couldn't tell you one headline or even whose face (other than Oprah lol) was on any one cover. (Oprah remark made because she is always on her own covers. ;) ).

Calling my method of choice a cop out and escapism when you're whining. tsk tsk. Throwing Anti-American rhetoric in doesn't help your side of the argument either. If you want to see ugliness in the world, you are going to find it; that doesn't make me or anyone else responsible for your misery.

<font color=orange>I thought SKY and FOX were almost one and the same! Aren't both owned by Murdock? Is the FOXNEWS network you watch also the one we watch here in the US?

edit: Oh BTW, Hey Yorick! I see you decided to come to the darkside for a while and join us over here on the War Discussion channel! Welcome!!!! [img]smile.gif[/img] </font></font>[/QUOTE]Not even close - the chanel I get is an Australian Sky offtake. You get a mix of British and Australian hosts, and you get a mix of NBC and CNN and BBC and FOX feeds. So it isn't FOX free, but it has a balance which works a whole lot better. My preferred station to watch when I want coverage has been the Beeb [img]smile.gif[/img] .

So, what news sources are reliable? Certainly the leftist and rightist independent news sources are more "propoganda" than CNN or CBS.

I prefer The Great Space Coaster for my news ....

Cause no gnews ... is good gnews ... unless it's Gary Gnu!

Just turn off the TV, stop reading the newspaper (except for the sports section) and don't click on google news. :D

The most reliable are Canadian newspapers. ;) no.. really..