DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Brassmask on February 06, 2007, 11:14:18 PM
-
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/02/04/rupert-murdoch-admits-manipulating-the-mediasurprisesurprise/ (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/02/04/rupert-murdoch-admits-manipulating-the-mediasurprisesurprise/)
While at Davos, Rupert Murdoch discusses the rise of the Internet and digital media, but tells us he used News Corp. to manipulate the news.
Asked if his News Corp. managed to shape the agenda on the war in Iraq, Murdoch said: "No, I don't think so. We tried." Asked by Rose for further comment, he said: "We basically supported the Bush policy in the Middle East…but we have been very critical of his execution."
-
While at Davos, Rupert Murdoch discusses the rise of the Internet and digital media, but tells us he used News Corp. to manipulate the news. Asked if his News Corp. managed to shape the agenda on the war in Iraq, Murdoch said: "No, I don't think so. We tried." Asked by Rose for further comment, he said: "We basically supported the Bush policy in the Middle East…but we have been very critical of his execution."
[/b]
Somewhere Brass must have missed the point that it's how the majority lean lib, while a token few, such as Murdoch's Fox News lean Bush. Could someone remind him please. Finding the one large news outlet that leans right Brass (and has been conceded as leaning right), in no way diffuses the vast majority of the rest that lean left. Try finding the same Bush favored shaping of news anywhere outside Fox, WSJ, Washington Times, and NY Post.
::)
-
Somewhere Brass must have missed the point that it's how the majority lean lib, while a token few, such as Murdoch's Fox News lean Bush. Could someone remind him please. Finding the one large news outlet that leans right Brass (and has been conceded as leaning right), in no way diffuses the vast majority of the rest that lean left. Try finding the same Bush favored shaping of news anywhere outside Fox, WSJ, Washington Times, and NY Post.
::)
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that having lived outside of the U.S. for 7 months now with only CNN Europe to watch... the entire U.S. media leans way right. So right they've fallen over on their side. That's comparative, of course, but really you haven't lived until you've watched news outside of the U.S. You see so much MORE on your television that sometimes you really have to just turn it off, and definitely make sure little kids aren't watching some of it!
Now I'm going to test some emoticons, which I know BT hates, but I'll try not to do it again. (Nice forum, BTW!)
:) ;) :D ;D >:( :( :o 8) ??? ::) :P :-[ :-X :-\ :-* :'(
-
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that having lived outside of the U.S. for 7 months now with only CNN Europe to watch... the entire U.S. media leans way right. So right they've fallen over on their side.
Interesting. Could you provide examples or explain further?
-
[Interesting. Could you provide examples or explain further?
Yes, and I should have done so to begin with. The news that I have been watching - CNN Europe, as well as other regional news - shows things that we would never see on our news, like an excess of dead and dying people. Or an image of a person being shot in the head by a soldier (anywhere, anytime - this is not just Iraq) and dropping to the ground. And not just quick glances at the scenes, but lingering ones. I think American news is cleaned up a bit - there would be quite a bit of outcry for various reasons. Or perhaps Americans don't want another reaction like the one after the Tet Offensive?
Another example, when Saddam Hussein was hanged, some of the cell phone images got out and were broadcast on the evening news. I mean of him literally hanging, not just of the noose being put around his neck.
I also have an Israeli friend (peace activist) who lives between Tel Aviv and Atlanta, and she does some work for CNN. One thing we see on the news (ALL news) on a daily basis is the demolition of Palestinian homes, as well as the Israeli peace activist groups who work to help rebuild their homes. She inquired in Atlanta about WHY Americans don't see this happening on CNN U.S., because, quite literally, it's an everyday thing. She was told that it is against FCC regulations to broadcast images of Palestinian home demolitions. (And no, I haven't done any research to verify this, all I can verify is what we see here compared and what you see there.)
Receiving regional satellite broadcasts is also very enlightening. There are 2 conflicting channels - one we just call "Hizbollah TV," which broadcasts anti-Israel, anti-Jew, pro-resistance all the time. The other is a right-wing Israeli channel which broadcasts anti-Muslim, anti-Qu'ran all the time. Freedom of the press in the most interesting manner, as both channels - both the Israeli and Hizbollah - are filled with horrible images and hate that are completely at odds with each other.
The news here is all the time anti-Bush, and quite often anti-American. People seem to be fascinated to see everything that is happening in the U.S., but only to complain about it. LOL.
Living here and watching these things has given me a different perspective and has made me a bit more patriotic, but I can't deny the culture shock of watching the world from a perspective other than an American one.
-
The U.S. media has not been liberal since the Communications Act of 1986. Since that time the conservative mineset has been centered on psychological programming, for the purpose of achieving a desired result. That has been the format for entertainment as well as news and information. The result of that is a philosophical bias. What we have seen happen over the years is the liberal welfare state mentality has given way to conservative authoritarian mentality.
Conservatives see communications, i.e. news print, TV and radio as tools of psychological programming. Liberals tried to condition the public with programs like "Father Knows Best. Conservatives are trying to condition the public with programs like "The shield" . This is how the general public are being condition to accept The police state mentality and the destruction of civil liberties and constitutional protects. The intent of programming is to habituate the public to the undesirable policies of authoritarian rule. The U.S. Media is far right wing conservative today.
-
I am curious as to why not showing as much violence is supposed to be an indicator that American media is so far "right they've fallen over on their side." In what way is that inherently a right-wing decision?
-
The news here is all the time anti-Bush, and quite often anti-American. People seem to be fascinated to see everything that is happening in the U.S., but only to complain about it. LOL. Living here and watching these things has given me a different perspective and has made me a bit more patriotic, but I can't deny the culture shock of watching the world from a perspective other than an American one.
Henny, it's great to see and read your words. Let's get to those words. I'm absolutely sure, that foreign news is much more anti-Bush/anti-American than here. So, from that perspective, it would seem that bias here leans right.....IN COMPARISON. However, from a pure domestic standpoint, which is my whole thesis, the vast majority of the media leans left, when you look & chroncile all the stories, all the op-eds, all the forms of "questioning" politicians & pundits. What you've described is kinda-like the "Bernie Goldberg phenomenon" Basically you get a large group of folks thinking the same way, and even if it's decidedely 1 sided, because everyone there is believing it, and they believe themselves to be of a perfectly reasonable mindet, they can concluded that their mindset is the norm (Hey, everyone's thinking my way", thus anything that isn't of that mindset is outside the mainstream. This is how he accurately can assess the mainstream news, having been a member for so long. They believe their biases are pretty much moderate, mainstream, thus anything to their right is "far right". Doesn't make it so, just their perception. Taken together though, it most decidely leans left, when you look at what's reported, and more notably what's not reported.
Yet, in comparison to the foreign news you've described, it would be perceived as leaning right. I suppose it's no shocker then when you have such international polls stating how negative they view America & Bush. If only there were a Democrat in the WH, things would be all better ;)
-
I am curious as to why not showing as much violence is supposed to be an indicator that American media is so far "right they've fallen over on their side." In what way is that inherently a right-wing decision?
Hey Prince,
I guess I was trying to show 2 different things in my post. First that the news here is simply different. Second that it is extremely liberal compared to U.S. media. The blood and gore, in general, is just different. But the fact that you are not seeing the carnage is Palestine or Iraq, or during the war in Lebanon, in full color - LIVE TV - takes me to the point about conservative persuasion, hence my reference to not wanting a repeat of the reaction to the Tet Offensive on the 6:00 news.
-
So, from that perspective, it would seem that bias here leans right.....IN COMPARISON. ...
Yet, in comparison to the foreign news you've described, it would be perceived as leaning right. I suppose it's no shocker then when you have such international polls stating how negative they view America & Bush. If only there were a Democrat in the WH, things would be all better ;)
Sirs, from this perspective, all of America leans right. ;)
As for a Democrat being in the WH making things better... piffle. Perhaps different foreign policy from any president at any time could make things better. And maybe that is in the works right now, but people are having "growing pains."
I thought I should mention that not everything is only critical of Bush. While inside Iraq there is an obvious... ummm... resistance to our forces and it may APPEAR that more troops are not wanted there, the countries bordering Iraq, in public opinion polls, would prefer Bush's agenda of sending in more troops to clean up the mess. Why? A sincere fear that the chaos is going to spill over the borders into other countries. So in that regard, you see "people" upset about some of the actions of the majority of Dems.
-
Henny, I'm so glad to see you posting.
I will read more later, I have to run, but the CNN International news is a bit different from most news I see. We get it during the day here on our regular CNN channel. But certainly no views of dead bodies.
-
Hey Henny. I'm glad to see you about once more. How are things?
Anyway, I'm still unclear as to why not showing more of the violence of war in the news is a sign of right-wing bias. It is not as if we got full and uncensored coverage of the conflicts in Kosovo or Bosnia, which surely would have benefited the political right during Clinton's administration. I'm not trying to make a "Clinton did it too" argument. I just think that perhaps the lack of graphic depictions of war in American media is a result of something besides political bias.
-
Hey Henny. I'm glad to see you about once more. How are things?
Anyway, I'm still unclear as to why not showing more of the violence of war in the news is a sign of right-wing bias. It is not as if we got full and uncensored coverage of the conflicts in Kosovo or Bosnia, which surely would have benefited the political right during Clinton's administration. I'm not trying to make a "Clinton did it too" argument. I just think that perhaps the lack of graphic depictions of war in American media is a result of something besides political bias.
Prince, things are good. How about you?
I see your point on that, and perhaps the news is just cleaned up. But I still think the reaction to seeing current wars on television, that are already in question in the States, versus Kosovo or Bosnia, which were largely uncontested, would cost the right a lot.
-
Things are progressing well here, Henny. At least, I'd like to think they are.
But I still think the reaction to seeing current wars on television, that are already in question in the States, versus Kosovo or Bosnia, which were largely uncontested, would cost the right a lot.
I thought the U.S. military efforts in Kosovo and Bosnia were contested. As has been pointed out elsewhere, back then the political roles were reversed. Republicans claimed the efforts were not in American interests and the conflicts were unwinable, while Democrats defended the efforts as completely necessary for things like region stability and preventing a wider war from breaking out. There was even debate about when to bring the troops home and what goals must be met to declare victory. Clinton got a lot of grief over not meeting deadlines to bring troops home and having goals that were too vague to prevent the conflicts from turning into expensive, military quagmires for the U.S. Seeing the violence there would have cost Clinton and his supporters a lot. Yet, we did not see in American media people being shot and killed in those conflicts. (In fiction, however, we did see a lot of deaths. Apparently people faking being shot and killed is more palatable then people actually being shot and killed.)
There may or may not be a right-leaning media bias in the U.S. I just don't agree that the level of images from the war is a gauge of that.
-
I just think that perhaps the lack of graphic depictions of war in American media is a result of something besides political bias.
I read your most recent post on the topic, but jumping back one and regarding the quoted statement, what do you think the reason is?
-
Hey, Henny, hope you and the fam are well!
Regarding bias and graphic images.
If there were more graphic images on the news in regard to what was happening around the world, a lot of conservatives would be less inclined to support Bush's imperial invasions.
It's one thing for them to think that the US is going in to build schools and let people vote and purple fingers and all that. It's quite another for them to see the realities of limbs in the streets and kids without arms and what the actual reality is. It is my opinion that those who still support Bush's war of agression and choice think of the war in terms of how "good wars" are supposed to turn out. They seem to think that all the realities are just the first few minutes of the "Saving Private Ryan" but they pass by quickly and then we get into how all the troops are Tom Hankses and their causes are just (even when they have absolutely no choice in the causes) and soon the smoke will clear and there'll be a new Jeffersonian Democracy in the middle east making things all-good for America.
That may not be how they think but their defences and actions indicate that is how they think.
-
Hey, Henny, hope you and the fam are well!
Regarding bias and graphic images.
If there were more graphic images on the news in regard to what was happening around the world, a lot of conservatives would be less inclined to support Bush's imperial invasions.
It's one thing for them to think that the US is going in to build schools and let people vote and purple fingers and all that. It's quite another for them to see the realities of limbs in the streets and kids without arms and what the actual reality is. It is my opinion that those who still support Bush's war of agression and choice think of the war in terms of how "good wars" are supposed to turn out. They seem to think that all the realities are just the first few minutes of the "Saving Private Ryan" but they pass by quickly and then we get into how all the troops are Tom Hankses and their causes are just (even when they have absolutely no choice in the causes) and soon the smoke will clear and there'll be a new Jeffersonian Democracy in the middle east making things all-good for America.
That may not be how they think but their defences and actions indicate that is how they think.
Hey Brass, we're doing well. Hard to believe the boys will be 3 soon... it seems like just yesterday when they were born!!
I'm inclined to agree with you on this, which was where I was headed to begin with. But Prince brought up a good point about not seeing graphic images of Bosnia or Kosovo either, which were under Clinton. So then what's the reason?
-
What a fabulous thread! Is this the Henny effect? It's so good to see you again, Henny. I trust all is well with the baby and your lucky husband!
-
What a fabulous thread! Is this the Henny effect? It's so good to see you again, Henny. I trust all is well with the baby and your lucky husband!
Domer! It's been a long time! Everyone is well here, and I hope the same is true with your family. :D
-
At its most basic levels, with detail left to illustrate the point but not define it, what we are talking about is "the social creation of reality," as I studied in college sociology. Different historical ages, and different political eras both embody and create a dominant view of the world. Hence, Renaissance Italy was different from Stalinist Russia. In a sense, the dominant view establishes a paradigm for thought, one believed to be most advantageous to its time. The Enlightenment, for example, untethered scientific inquiry from religious stricture, as confounded Galileo.
Ultimately, the utility of a given mode of thought determines its survival as a paradigm. In this regard, beyond indisputable "sheer" facts, the orientation of the media in America now, in my opinion, is most conducive to the fulfillment of the promise of our liberal democracy, as founded and as extrapolated to its best.
-
As a fellow European resident, and one who has also lived, worked and travelled in the US I would back up Henny's main point that news outside the US is simply more raw and honest. I think we get to see more honest footage of the more violent aspects of the Midlle East and trouble spots round the world. As Henny said, Saddam Hussein's execution....well pretty graphic. The distinction is narrowing in the internet age and I would daresay most people on this board access more than their own mainstream media so hopefully such national distinctions are becoming a thing of the past.
Henny: You also said: "The news here is all the time anti-Bush, and quite often anti-American. People seem to be fascinated to see everything that is happening in the U.S., but only to complain about it. LOL."
I agree there is a lot of interest in what is happening in the US and people here, as a proportion of the population, are more critical of Bush, but I disagree with the term 'anti -American'. Most of us here who are highly critical of the Bush administration's policies do not consider ourselves 'anti-american'. We are anti 'most, if not all, of the Bush admin's foreign policies'. 'Anti-american' to me always implies a term to which I and a lot of Europeans simply do not recognise.
-
Hey Brass, we're doing well. Hard to believe the boys will be 3 soon... it seems like just yesterday when they were born!!
I'm inclined to agree with you on this, which was where I was headed to begin with. But Prince brought up a good point about not seeing graphic images of Bosnia or Kosovo either, which were under Clinton. So then what's the reason?
(OMG, I know, Henny. It's great and crazy that they are growing up so quickly. We're in the midst of potty training and he's taking to it well. I had no idea that you had MOVED abroad.)
The thing about the graphic images from Bosnia and Kosovo is that I seem to remember seeing lots of pictures of starving prisoners and such and I wasn't even paying that much attention in those days.
Graphic images are unsettling and tend to lead Americans away from wanting to be at war as they should but with THIS "war" in particular and the way its been so horribly, criminally mishandled and was a "war" of choice, seeing death and mutilation and dismemberment and bloodshed would, I think (and would hope) lead Americans to convulse in agony over this whole mess and demand our immediate withdrawal and amends to the people of Iraq.
That would be disastrous for the Bush "administration" since it only behooves them for the US to stay mired in Iraq for the next two years till Bush can toddle off to clear brush on his farm and drink himself to death and Iraq is someone else's mess to clean up.
This is why the media here is biased for the (alleged) rightwingers in the White House, UP.
-
I agree there is a lot of interest in what is happening in the US and people here, as a proportion of the population, are more critical of Bush, but I disagree with the term 'anti -American'. Most of us here who are highly critical of the Bush administration's policies do not consider ourselves 'anti-american'. We are anti 'most, if not all, of the Bush admin's foreign policies'. 'Anti-american' to me always implies a term to which I and a lot of Europeans simply do not recognise.
IIRC, Henny has moved to the Middle East.
-
Henny: You also said: "The news here is all the time anti-Bush, and quite often anti-American. People seem to be fascinated to see everything that is happening in the U.S., but only to complain about it. LOL."
I agree there is a lot of interest in what is happening in the US and people here, as a proportion of the population, are more critical of Bush, but I disagree with the term 'anti -American'. Most of us here who are highly critical of the Bush administration's policies do not consider ourselves 'anti-american'. We are anti 'most, if not all, of the Bush admin's foreign policies'. 'Anti-american' to me always implies a term to which I and a lot of Europeans simply do not recognise.
Hi Lyndon,
I should clarify. I'm talking about the local satellite... Jordan and Palestine, etc. (I'm living in Amman.) There are some extremes here, but I should offset that by saying quite fairly that although I've met my share of vitriolic and angry people, there are a large number who do make the distinction.
-
(OMG, I know, Henny. It's great and crazy that they are growing up so quickly. We're in the midst of potty training and he's taking to it well. I had no idea that you had MOVED abroad.)
The thing about the graphic images from Bosnia and Kosovo is that I seem to remember seeing lots of pictures of starving prisoners and such and I wasn't even paying that much attention in those days.
(We're working on potty training too, and he thinks it's a great deal of fun. I will SO GLAD when diapers are over for good! And yes, we moved here last July... I thought I emailed you an update. Anyway, I just requested to add you to YIM Friend list, open it up when you have a time. I'm here a lot, albeit GMT+2)
That's the thing about it... I wasn't paying much attention in those days either. Gone are the rose-colored glasses...
-
Okay, thanks Ami and Henny. I much appreciate the clarification.
Cheers,
Lyndon
-
Regarding bias and graphic images. If there were more graphic images on the news in regard to what was happening around the world, a lot of conservatives would be less inclined to support Bush's imperial invasions.
Minus the added opionated qualifiers, the appropriate response is "well, d'uh". If we were receiving the same 24/7 "reporting" of WWII, especially after such events as the Battle of the Bulge, hell, even Normandy, support for Roosevelt's "overt misuse and overextension of our forces, and the slaughtering of thousands upon thousands of our boys" would surely have been near abolished, with cries that we must 'talk" to Germany & Japan, find out what they really want, and end this conflict ASAP
-
Regarding bias and graphic images. If there were more graphic images on the news in regard to what was happening around the world, a lot of conservatives would be less inclined to support Bush's imperial invasions.
Minus the added opionated qualifiers, the appropriate response is "well, d'uh". If we were receiving the same 24/7 "reporting" of WWII, especially after such events as the Battle of the Bulge, hell, even Normandy, support for Roosevelt's "overt misuse and overextension of our forces, and the slaughtering of thousands upon thousands of our boys" would surely have been near abolished, with cries that we must 'talk" to Germany & Japan, find out what they really want, and end this conflict ASAP
I don't think so because it was plain that Hitler and his buddies wanted to take over the world. Not because Roosevelt was insinuating it and then denying insinuating it. Not because, like Bush, Roosevelt claimed to know more because he had access to more intel than the regular Americans but because news was flying around the globe that the Germans were dropping bombs everywhere and had invaded Poland and Pearl Harbor had undeniably been attacked by the Japanese. It wasn't like a few guys attacked Pearl Harbor in a commercial plane and then Roosevelt tried to say in order to combat that group of guys who attacked Pearl Harbor, we have to go to war with Germany.
Our troops who were killed then were actually fighting bad guys and were stopping agression against neighboring nations by the Germans and Italy.
Iraq is nothing like WWII in reasoning.
-
Regarding bias and graphic images. If there were more graphic images on the news in regard to what was happening around the world, a lot of conservatives would be less inclined to support Bush's imperial invasions.
Minus the added opionated qualifiers, the appropriate response is "well, d'uh". If we were receiving the same 24/7 "reporting" of WWII, especially after such events as the Battle of the Bulge, hell, even Normandy, support for Roosevelt's "overt misuse and overextension of our forces, and the slaughtering of thousands upon thousands of our boys" would surely have been near abolished, with cries that we must 'talk" to Germany & Japan, find out what they really want, and end this conflict ASAP
I don't think so because it was plain that Hitler and his buddies wanted to take over the world.
So does militant islam and Islamofascism. And the point remains, if 24/7 viewing of the carnage of world war II were broadcast, including daily reports of the thousands of our soldiers, being lost DAILY, "support for the war" would have certainly degraded
-
So does militant islam and Islamofascism.
Wanting it and invading a country to do it are two different things that require two totally different responses.
And the point remains, if 24/7 viewing of the carnage of war were broadcast, including daily reports of the thousands of our soldiers, being lost DAILY, "support for the war" would have certainly degraded
That's conjecture at this point. Seeing tanks roll down the Champs de Ellyse (sp?) as men weep is a surefire sign that the US needs to be involved and invested in stopping the spread of Nazism.
Seeing poor video of bin Laden in a cave with a gun beside him is not a surefire sign that we need to invade Iraq "pre-emptively".
The cause was immediate and growing with Germany and the Nazis and Americans could look to that and know that the lives lost on our side were stopping a phenomenon of destruction, not a looseknit group of fundies who have some money. Germany was a nation with an army that Americans could see rolling across borders, killing as they went.
Saddam hadn't even tried another feeble attempt at invading Kuwait and had absolutely NO connection to the Saudis who attacked us on 9.11.
-
I just think that perhaps the lack of graphic depictions of war in American media is a result of something besides political bias.
I read your most recent post on the topic, but jumping back one and regarding the quoted statement, what do you think the reason is?
I think it stems mostly from our culture. I am not sure how this issue plays out overseas, but I know here in the U.S. there is a sort of "don't show me what I don't want to see" attitude in our culture. Nudity, violence, "revisionist" history, any number of other areas, are treated by various groups as taboos, something not to be seen. We have homeschooling on the rise here because some parents don't want their children exposed to being taught evolution or sex ed, or whatever. We have even generally liberal folks like Senator Clinton arguing for clamping down on violence in video games. In the case of showing war corpses in the media, it tends to be about not offending the viewers. Media outlets, rightly or wrongly, believe that to show too much graphic violence from a war would result in unfavorable controversy and lost revenue. We are not shown it because we don't want to see it.
I should add that I think there is another factor. No one, I think, wants to be seen as the newspaper or the news channel that starts to try to benefit from sensationalizing war. There has been a lot of criticism of the media sensationalizing various events. The phrase "if it bleeds, it leads" is sometimes held up as a description of the callousness of news reporting that attempt to gain viewers/readers by being shocking. I realize this seems to contradict what I said above, but I think they go together in the media's attempt to retain an image of respectability and yet to give the public what it wants.
-
So does militant islam and Islamofascism.
Wanting it and invading a country to do it are two different things that require two totally different responses.
If we were to accept your premise. I don't
And the point remains, if 24/7 viewing of the carnage of war were broadcast, including daily reports of the thousands of our soldiers, being lost DAILY, "support for the war" would have certainly degraded
That's conjecture at this point. Seeing tanks roll down the Champs de Ellyse (sp?) as men weep is a surefire sign that the US needs to be involved and invested in stopping the spread of Nazism.
But watching homicide bombers kill inocent men women & children, in the thousands to this point, beheading some on the internet, Isreal is to cease to exist, & pledging that everyone is to either convert to Islam, be subjugated to it, or die.....that spread Islamofascism is no biggie. No need for American intervention there
::)
-
So, from that perspective, it would seem that bias here leans right.....IN COMPARISON. ... Yet, in comparison to the foreign news you've described, it would be perceived as leaning right. I suppose it's no shocker then when you have such international polls stating how negative they view America & Bush.
Sirs, from this perspective, all of America leans right. ;)
That's kinda my point 8)
As for a Democrat being in the WH making things better... piffle. Perhaps different foreign policy from any president at any time could make things better. And maybe that is in the works right now, but people are having "growing pains."
alas, it's always easier from the back seat.
I thought I should mention that not everything is only critical of Bush. While inside Iraq there is an obvious... ummm... resistance to our forces and it may APPEAR that more troops are not wanted there, the countries bordering Iraq, in public opinion polls, would prefer Bush's agenda of sending in more troops to clean up the mess. Why? A sincere fear that the chaos is going to spill over the borders into other countries. So in that regard, you see "people" upset about some of the actions of the majority of Dems.
Interesting. Hopefully you'll also note (since you haven't been around a whole heck of a lot) that not "everything" I opine is pro-Bush either. Many errors in naivete, and likely stubborness, as it relates to the war in Iraq. Grossly wrong on immigration issues, and I won't even go into his massive increase in domestic spending & increased size in the Federal Government, that would make a liberal jealous. But he has been an excellent leader, IMHO, and appropriately pro-active in dealing with this growing threat of militant Islam. I had been giving him a marginal thumbs-up, with his leadership on the war and tax rate reforms, but his positions on immigration & complete lack of a vetoing over inflated domestic spending bills is tipping that thumb now in the southern position, I'm afraid
-
Israeli demolitions of Palestinian homes are not shown in the U.S. because of a very powerful Zionist lobby that funds both political parties and packs an enormous economic punch as well. There is a prevailing myth about Israel being the good guy in the Middle East, surrounded by bad guys, and that's a priceless asset, because it's what permits the AIPAC bribery of the legislature to work as expected - - as long as the American sheeple see the Israelis as the good guys, it doesn't matter that the legislators protect Israel in return for campaign contributions because they aren't doing anything that violates the sheeple's sense of right and wrong. BUT: fuck with the myth and you could inject a new element of tension into the equation - - the legislators still accept the AIPAC funding but the people get increasingly upset about what "their" representatives are doing, or not doing. At some point, all the campaign funds, perks and freebies won't produce the desired effect because the legislators won't want to stick their necks out and incur the wrath of their constituents. Showing the demolition of people's homes by giant Israeli bulldozers is dynamite - - even the dumbest of the sheeple can understand what it means to have your family home bulldozed to the ground and everybody knows that collective punishment is just plain wrong. This is bad for the myth, bad for Israel and therefore is just NOT going to be shown more than once every couple of years.
As for a failure to show the gore of war, this obviously benefits conservatives because conservatives support wars against Third World countries, any Third World country, and they can only get support for this by denying simple basic reality. Most normal, sane, decent people are NOT in favour of blowing up families, tearing children's bodies to pieces, roasting people to death in napalm or white phosphorus, etc. But unfortunately that is exactly what U.S. wars against the Third World are - - and in massive proportions since the cowardly U.S. military, afraid to engage the enemy in small-unit combat operations, prefers massive air support to keep down its own casualties. So hence the restrictions on reporting, unprecedented in the history of warfare - - embedded reporters, pool reports, etc. As long as they can control the flow of news to purple-ink-stained fingers, "elections," etc., they can cloak the talk of casualties in carefully manufactured language ("collateral damage," "friendly fire," and similar garbage) and all the morons can rush to justify the carnage cuz nobody actually sees the carnage and most of the morons who buy into it chatter away without real regard to the human costs. Actual images of what is happening will force people into a valule judgment: Hey it's nice if these guys can finally vote but that doesn't seem to be solving too many of their problems and here's what it really is costing; or is ANY form of government worth this kind of carnag? etc. Thoughts will develop based on actual reality (not neocon BS) and that will not work to the advantage of the Republocrat War Party.
-
Graphic footage is availible .
It is not enjoyable .
If this stuff was on CBS all the time people would watch ABC more.
http://www.thenausea.com/
Do not go to this website unwarned , it presents the uglyest war footage that they could find from all sorces includeing tortue , exicution and dismemberment.
-
Israeli demolitions of Palestinian homes are not shown in the U.S. because of a very powerful Zionist lobby that funds both political parties and packs an enormous economic punch as well.
And with all that, I have still seen the footage. It wasn't in the first five minutes of the newscast, but I saw it.
Saw Saddam's hanging as well.
Must be because I usually watch the cable news channels - they seem to show more. No FCC must have something to do with it.
-
But watching homicide bombers kill inocent men women & children, in the thousands to this point, beheading some on the internet, Isreal is to cease to exist, & pledging that everyone is to either convert to Islam, be subjugated to it, or die.....that spread Islamofascism is no biggie. No need for American intervention there
That does not translate into invading Iraq. You've moved from point A to point Z without taking the necessary steps in between. Furthermore, there have always been nutters in every part of the world, the evidence of "spreading" Islamic militancy is slim. Moreover, the trend of those killed in international terrorism has not shown any major significant increase. All in all it is a minor, nearly insignificant means of death amongst the many other methods of homicide.
-
<<And with all that, I have still seen the footage. >>
You've seen it because nobody is so dumb as to impose a total media ban on it and justify cries of censorship. The real trick in controlling the news is in managing the relative flow, so that the official story gets the most play and the opposition the least. How often you hear the official version, versus how often you hear the truth.
-
How often you hear the official version, versus how often you hear the truth.
Except, of course, when the official version is the truth.
-
First, I like Ami's approach to the media. I also draw information from numerous sources. It really helps if you can read in another language, the more you can do that the more possibilities you have. Still, there are a great number of media outlets available in English. Certainly enough to keep one occupied for a great deal of time. You can get vantage points from all across the globe, relatively easy thanks to the internet.
I like to read a smattering of the British papers (both left and right). I generally stick to the ones with more quality journalism (The Guardian, Telegraph, Independent, or Times come to mind). Occasionally I'll delve into the muck of the Mirror, Sun or Mail (very rarely the Express) just to remember why I read the others ;) . Actually, on occasion one of those papers will get a high quality scoop, but one has to always consider the source. It also helps to know just a little about the culture (e.g. a "public school" in Britain is not the same as a "public school" here in the states).
I also check out the BBC, news from Australia, New Zealand, all across Germany, Israel, Russia, Ireland, on and on. It depends how much time I have. The Christian Science Monitor is a good source as well, in my opinion.
Secondly, aren't a lot of people in this thread glancing over the glaringly obvious? While a great number of people chase down rather complex theories of media bias, is it so easy to dismiss America's system of economics? I mean, when it comes down to it don't newspapers need to sell copies? Doesn't the nightly news need to sell advertising space? Don't Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc need to sell advertising space and therefore need to increase viewership?
I'm not theorizing on some wild political bias, but instead saying that all of these media require viewers or subscribers. They need people to watch, listen, or read. For television that means shows have to be shows! Americans want to see conflict, arguing, sensationalism, excitement. I mean, are there reality TV shows about old balding bastards sitting around having sensible discussions and reaching a consensus? No. People want to see conflict and action. It isn't new. PT Barnum knew how to please an audience, the technology is just different now.
Bild is the best-selling newspaper in Germany. The Sun is the best selling newspaper in Britain. Look at the Bild and then find The Sun and turn to page three. Do you think if USA Today could get away with that they wouldn't? That's your media bias! That's how you sell copy. That's how you attract advertisers. Simple capitalism ladies and gentlemen. It isn't about political affiliations at all.
-
Bild is the best-selling newspaper in Germany. The Sun is the best selling newspaper in Britain. Look at the Bild and then find The Sun and turn to page three. Do you think if USA Today could get away with that they wouldn't? That's your media bias! That's how you sell copy. That's how you attract advertisers. Simple capitalism ladies and gentlemen. It isn't about political affiliations at all.
Actually, page two in Bild, IIRC. Been a while since I picked one up.
Either way, it's got more to do with government censorship anyway. Most locations in the US have blue laws that restrict stuff like that, and the FCC controls broadcast television. Note that those rules don't apply to cable tv, which is more purely based on capitalism.
-
Yes, it is Page 3 of The Sun.
Though I thought it was the cover of the Bild. Been quite some time since I've picked one up as well.
-
Though I thought it was the cover of the Bild. Been quite some time since I've picked one up as well.
Yeah, it could have been the cover. I just remember my father saying once "German girls are better looking than British girls, so we don't have to bury their pictures so far down in the paper."