|
United States12275 Posts
On May 27 2004 20:43 Arbiter[frolix] wrote: Show nested quote +and reporting more about American prisoner abuse than the WMD Sarin gas discovery A credibility-damaging comment, I am afraid. Prisoner abuse by British and American troops is a vital issue which the media should pursue vigorously. The difference between these acts and those of our 'enemies' is that we are directly responsible for them and can take immediate internal action to deal with them. They also impact directly on the credibility and moral standing of the 'coalition' which, after all, initiated the war in Iraq and needs to be above reproach.
However this was 7 out of 140,000 soldiers. Why focus so intently on the minority? Why damage the military's record publicly when steps were already taken internally to discipline those few?
The 'WMD Sarin gas discovery' was a complete non-event, surprisingly given the short shrift it deserved by the media. I was anticipating that the media would be all over it as being some kind of support for the invasion.
I agree that it's surprising that the media gave it a "short shrift" -but it WAS support for the invasion. They treat it like an isolated incident, downplay its connection to Iraq, and ignore that Saddam lied and that the coalition was justified in invading and removing him from power as a result of his refusal to comply with 14 U.N. resolutions.
|
United States12275 Posts
On May 27 2004 20:45 Tien wrote:
Excal, the media doesnt have a hidden agenda. Its all about ratings. They show what we want to hear so that the ratings go up.
We like to hear stories about prostitution, pedofils, violence, crimes, and war so that is exactly what it gives us.
I don't know about that. I think some crime dramas are pretty cool because they involve detective work and problem solving, which is constructive. However, to tie in prostitution and pedophilia? What is constructive about that? All it serves to do is desensitize people to true-to-life events.
We like to hear things like prison abuse more than Nick Berg's beheading so that is what they give us.
I don't like to hear about prison abuse. Even if that is information that we need to know, it doesn't need the exposure that it has received. Why did they bury the story of Nick Berg? That is as big a story, if not bigger, than the prison abuse scandal. That allows people to see the true face of the enemy, what they are capable of, and the means they will go to for their cause. The media apparently doesn't want you to know this, and doesn't want you to be outraged, but they won't spare a second from showing you the sexual perversion that permeates the minds of those 7 psychos at Abu Ghraib.
Americans are starting to doubt the Iraq war so they will give us more reason to do so, cuz thats what Americans want to see.
You couldn't be more wrong. Americans SUPPORT the war in Iraq. Look at the poll numbers over time. Each month, the support has been dropping since the media has constantly bombarded us with horror stories about Iraq and painting our troops as baby-killers. However, this support level has never gone below 50%, yet who is the media pandering to? The minority, mainly the left. Why are they continuing to promote these kinds of stories when the majority of Americans support the war effort? That alone tells you they have an agenda.
The higher the ratings, the more they can charge the companies that want to advertize their products on a particular show. What makes you think they give a fuck about what they are teaching us, they only care about the ratings so they get paid more. Its as simple as that.
That is true too, but it showcases how the media is becoming more and more politically correct and more and more outright in its promotion of perversity as the norm. For example, take 24. 24 is a very popular show, and it's always about terrorism against the US homeland. You've seen all kinds of terrorists on the show but not ONE of them has been of Middle Eastern descent. Look at all the sitcoms and dramas on today's shows - so many focus on sexual deviance and perversity, such as pedophilia and prostitution, that it is portrayed as normal when it certainly is not in the real world.
|
Excal, you are digging your self into a hole of rediculousness. For example, you say
Most of the information sent out by the media is driven by political correctness
You say this as a criticism. Were you not just a post earlier taking the opposite stands?
You say:
they really represent mainstream Muslims, why are they not the first ones to speak out against such a horrendous evil act?
Somehow america should not be the first to speak out about there own horrendous acts, but Muslims should hold this responsibility?
You say:
It's the media's job to report the news
then:
Why do they not support the American effort against the enemy?
So now they report the news and act on behalf of american forign policy? Do you not see your own mind-twisting logical fallacies? Then you say:
The New York Times didn't print the 7 pictures of the wanted terrorists (or would-be terrorists) from the FBI. Why would they choose not to do that?
You fail to mention the NYT recently admitted to there mistakes in reporting on Iraq in the pre-invasion time period. You also fail to mention that the administration says there is no specific evidence of a new threat.... and that 2 of the "terrorist" are already in jail... and that the organization that they apparently belong to, was declared a fake by the FBI months ago...
|
United Kingdom2674 Posts
I agree that it's surprising that the media gave it a "short shrift" -but it WAS support for the invasion. They treat it like an isolated incident, downplay its connection to Iraq, and ignore that Saddam lied and that the coalition was justified in invading and removing him from power as a result of his refusal to comply with 14 U.N. resolutions.
Your position now appears to be that a single shell, shown to be over 13 years old, supports a military invasion with all its consequences. If that is what you think I do not see how anyone can continue to debate rationally with you on the subject.
It is really just a question of whether it is your intellectual or moral credibility which is damaged more.
|
United States12275 Posts
On May 27 2004 21:10 TeCh)PsylO wrote: Excal, you are digging your self into a hole of rediculousness. For example, you say Show nested quote +Most of the information sent out by the media is driven by political correctness You say this as a criticism. Were you not just a post earlier taking the opposite stands?
It is a criticism, because it paints the world in such a way where it's not accurate. Where did I take an opposite stance?
You say: Show nested quote + they really represent mainstream Muslims, why are they not the first ones to speak out against such a horrendous evil act? Somehow america should not be the first to speak out about there own horrendous acts, but Muslims should hold this responsibility?
I sure did. I spoke out louder than anyone. Bush spoke out against it. Where were the Muslims to respond in kind?
You say: then: So now they report the news and act on behalf of american forign policy? Do you not see your own mind-twisting logical fallacies?
If they are going to report the bad, they should report the good as well. That's what I was referring to. They need to balance it. They have shown no interest in doing so, and would rather drive a partisan agenda. When was the last time you heard about American soldiers laughing with Iraqi children? Those stories are buried by the media because they'd rather report about American soldiers killing civilians and shooting at mosques.
Then you say: Show nested quote +The New York Times didn't print the 7 pictures of the wanted terrorists (or would-be terrorists) from the FBI. Why would they choose not to do that? You fail to mention the NYT recently admitted to there mistakes in reporting on Iraq in the pre-invasion time period. You also fail to mention that the administration says there is no specific evidence of a new threat.... and that 2 of the "terrorist" are already in jail... and that the organization that they apparently belong to, was declared a fake by the FBI months ago...
So what you're saying is that the NYT is not a credible news source.
They have the evidence. Human intelligence from multiple credible sources. Public statements of al-Qaeda. They just haven't made all their specific evidence public - why would they? To jeopardize the safety of their sources?
These 7 people are being sought by the FBI because they have connections to terrorists or al-Qaeda. Some are not suspects, some are just being sought for questioning.
|
United States12275 Posts
On May 27 2004 21:30 Arbiter[frolix] wrote: Show nested quote +I agree that it's surprising that the media gave it a "short shrift" -but it WAS support for the invasion. They treat it like an isolated incident, downplay its connection to Iraq, and ignore that Saddam lied and that the coalition was justified in invading and removing him from power as a result of his refusal to comply with 14 U.N. resolutions. Your position now appears to be that a single shell, shown to be over 13 years old, justifies a military invasion with all its consequences. If that is what you think I do not see how anyone can continue to debate rationally with you on the subject. It is really just a question of whether it is your intellectual or moral credibility which is damaged more.
First of all, it doesn't matter how old it is. It's not like "oh it's just a rickety old shell, couldn't harm a flea". "Oh those were just OLD Sarin gas components". It doesn't matter, don't you see? Sarin gas is Sarin gas. It's still just as deadly as if it were made yesterday, because of the way it was contained and because of the way it was designed to be dispersed. That one shell could have potentially killed 40,000 people if it was fired from artillery.
Do you not CARE that Saddam lied to the U.N. 14 times? Or do you just want Bush to be wrong so badly that it's irrelevant?
Let me spell it out for you once more. U.N. says "if you don't disarm, there will be serious consequences!" Saddam says "I have no chemical weapons, I destroyed them all!" U.S. is attacked by a Sarin shell from Iraqi stockpiles. How is this ALL? If he destroyed ALL his stockpiles, there wouldn't be ONE left! Now of course it's likely that there are more where that came from.
|
United Kingdom2674 Posts
Ok. So I have accurately summarised your position. Personally, I think it is ridiculous. However, now that we have it in black and white, others can judge it for themselves.
|
Braavos36402 Posts
On May 27 2004 20:51 Excalibur_Z wrote: Show nested quote +On May 27 2004 20:46 TeCh)PsylO wrote:
The Sarin gas has been shown to be from pre-1991 stockpiles. Surprised? Not really. That is irrelevant. Saddam said he destroyed ALL his stockpiles. That would include the ones before 1991. He lied.
he lied? what a dick...TATOR!!! hahaha
|
[QUOTE]On May 27 2004 20:31 Excalibur_Z wrote:
[QUOTE][B]On May 27 Everything I said is true and relevant to my point. Don't start with "what do you REALLY know" like there's some deeper meaning, because there isn't. This is it. The media DOES celebrate prostitution, pedophilia, and sexual perversion - they are reported constantly and are the subjects of many prime-time shows.[/QUOTE]
The gentleman said, essentially, "because the media reports prostitution and pedophilia, the media celebrates it." I suppose the media also supports terrorism and aids and killing jews as well -- all have been widely reported! Or perhaps your logic is flawed somehow. Wait, no, you said that everything you said is true! Oh, then I just don't know what to think! Either that is true, and logic ceases to exist, or ... YOU'RE WRONG SHHHH
|
It is a criticism, because it paints the world in such a way where it's not accurate. Where did I take an opposite stance?
You say the media should support the government. You should say that it should not report on prostitution and pedaphiles. That is being politically correct. You then criticize the media for being to politically correct. That is being hypocritical.
sure did. I spoke out louder than anyone. Bush spoke out against it. Where were the Muslims to respond in kind?
This is not about you, this is about the media. Besides, you criticized the media for talking about these things. How is america suppose to publicly condemn these acts, if the media does not report them? Muslims around the world did condemn the nick berg incident, Rush just didn't tell you that.
So what you're saying is that the NYT is not a credible news source.
No source is completely credible. Although, a source that corrects its own mistakes, and critisizes is own reporting, is far more credible than those that don't. You know, Fox has not been very apologetic lately...
|
This old post is unavailable due to an encoding issue. Please contact an admin if you would like this post restored for historical reasons.
|
as a general statement, i think america would do so much better if we didn't all just consider it a two party thing
The ironic thing is that Excalibur is talking about conservatives and liberals. What I don't think he understands is that is much differant than Republicans and Democrats. Republicans use to reject the conservative label. Democrats are by no means liberal.
|
On May 27 2004 22:15 TeCh)PsylO wrote: Show nested quote +as a general statement, i think america would do so much better if we didn't all just consider it a two party thing The ironic thing is that Excalibur is talking about conservatives and liberals. What I don't think he understands is that is much differant than Republicans and Democrats. Republicans use to reject the conservative label. Democrats are by no means liberal.
another thing he doesnt understand is that conservatives today are way more freakishly conservative than hardcore conservatives like then. nixon would be blasted as a liberal by today's standards ... being a conservative today is fucking ridiculous dude. the usa's so-called "left" is practically right of center by global standards. wah wah
|
MURICA15980 Posts
|
On May 27 2004 22:58 Klogon wrote:
European* standards
Good point.
|
|
|
[QUOTE]On May 27 2004 22:11 STIMEY d okgm fish wrote:
[QUOTE]On May 27 2004 20:31 Excalibur_Z wrote:
[QUOTE][B]On May 27 Everything I said is true and relevant to my point. Don't start with "what do you REALLY know" like there's some deeper meaning, because there isn't. This is it. The media DOES celebrate prostitution, pedophilia, and sexual perversion - they are reported constantly and are the subjects of many prime-time shows.[/QUOTE]
The gentleman said, essentially, "because the media reports prostitution and pedophilia, the media celebrates it." I suppose the media also supports terrorism and aids and killing jews as well -- all have been widely reported! Or perhaps your logic is flawed somehow. Wait, no, you said that everything you said is true! Oh, then I just don't know what to think! Either that is true, and logic ceases to exist, or ... YOU'RE WRONG SHHHH[/QUOTE]
I vote that he's wrong. 
|
wow, i wish i was here earlier, instead of taking a nap. Too much to catch up on now. But i shall bid Tech a few thank yous for keeping the air of intelligence alive by trying to paint the whole picture and show how just about anything bush says, or someone who supports bush says, is always misleading, one-sided, devoid of any attempt to be balanced and fair, and whos only purpose is to propagate ones self because OMG it would so suck to be wrong about something!.
Its as if a republican, or bush supporter, simply cant stand the idea of being incorrect on a single issue.
Tell me excalibur, is there anything wrong whatsoever with this war in your eyes? With this president? with this government? with anything at all that involves america and its leadership at the current time?
I have a couple of things i wanted to touch on from your reply to my initial statements, however im not sure you would even be open to the idea of true discussion or not, or simply just past them off as wrong with more biased statements that dont really reflect the true issues or bother trying to give insight into them.
|
Speaking of the media, Hannity is currently making an ass of himself. I find it interesting that someone like Hannity can call France, Germany, etc.. "corrupt", and says that there financial interest would not allow them to support the war, yet somehow these things do not apply to the US. Why does Hannity think that France and Germany let there financial interest effect there foreign policy, but the US does not?
Hannity says that the US "begged" the international community to support the war, and that they would not support the war simply becuase they were corrupt. The guest response to this:
"Well how did Bush's father do it?"
Funny how simple questions baffle such "prestegious" anchors.
Of course, next they put Oliver North on... Enough said.
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
ok, instead of blabbering on about conspiracy theories, lemme see some evidence about this media bias. Its hard to believe that most of the media today is run by left-wing anti-bush democrats. But please, provide evidence for your claim that it is. Give me names and proper evidence that proves the media is a bunch of left-wingers. I dont believe in conspiracy theories that are not based on evidence. Here is my interpretation (again) of the media agenda:
I believe the media only gives a fuck about its ratings. If you want some bullshit joe millionaire show, they'll bombard you with 20 more of them the next season. Thats the way the media works. America failing in Iraq is hotter news than America succeeding in Iraq. It all comes down to what type of news Americans would more likely watch. Also, before the war, did you see how many pro-war talkers there were on most of the news stations? The media had A LOT to do with supporting the Iraq war before it happened, and somewhat going against it when popular support begins to wane down. Why are they doing this? Cuz the ratings go up! more people are watching us, yay, more money!!!
This is just my oppinion about the media not backed up by any evidence. HOWEVER To me, tv ratings seems like a more logical explanation than consiracy theories and hidden agendas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
