Bronco Posted April 7, 2003 Share Posted April 7, 2003 (edited) trask said: BTW, notice we haven't heard much for that Korean pint of piss lately? hahaha That Tool got edumacated! Thanks to China, (finally!) http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=2476121 Edited April 7, 2003 by Bronco Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted April 7, 2003 Share Posted April 7, 2003 Sweet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted April 7, 2003 Share Posted April 7, 2003 Read this on the might BBC: BBC Link Here is a source I can recomend! Good Ole USA Let's Go Climbing! PP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted April 7, 2003 Share Posted April 7, 2003 an intersting piece about media spin: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ED03Ak02.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erik Posted April 7, 2003 Share Posted April 7, 2003 i dont know if anyone has mentioned this in awhile i but i certainly find it applicable to many things that we discuss here! NUKE GAY BABY WHALES FOR JESUS! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted April 7, 2003 Share Posted April 7, 2003 J-B thanks for the following: Quote from J-B reference: To conclude: Remember the following first rule of disinformation analysis: truth is specific, lie is vague. Always look for palpable details in reporting and if the picture is not in focus, there must be reasons for it. Hopefully the BBC will read your post as well! They seem to just be outright telling lies! , Gilligan had told World Service listeners that he was there, at the airport - but the Americans weren’t. Gilligan inferred that the Americans were lying. An hour or two later, a different BBC correspondent pointed out that Gilligan wasn’t at the airport, actually. He was nearby - but apparently far enough away that the other correspondent felt it necessary to mention that he didn’t really know if Gilligan was around, but that no matter what Gilligan had seen or not seen, the airport was firmly and obviously in American hands. It was important to the BBC that Gilligan not be wrong twice in two days. Whatever the truth was, the BBC, like Walter Duranty’s New York Times, must never say, "I was wrong." So, despite the fact that the appearance of American troops in Baghdad was surely one of the war’s big moments, and one the BBC had obviously missed, American veracity became the story of the day. Gilligan, joined by his colleagues in Baghdad, Paul Wood and Rageh Omaar, kept insisting that not only had the Americans not gone to the "center" - which they reckoned to be where they were - they hadn’t really been in the capital at all. Both Omaar and Wood told listeners that they had been on hour-long Iraqi Ministry of Information bus rides - "and," said Wood, "we were free to go anywhere" -yet they had seen nothing of an American presence in the city. From Qatar, a BBC correspondent helpfully explained that US briefings, such as that announcing the Baghdad incursion, were meaningless exercises, "more PR than anything else." Maybe, implied the World Service, the Americans had made it all up: all day long, Wood repeatedly reported that there was no evidence to support the American claim. Yawn… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted April 7, 2003 Share Posted April 7, 2003 What does the Skipper have to say about all this? And surely Mr. Howell is in a tizzy, which is doubtlessly distressing Ginger and Mary-Ann. Oh, heavens! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted April 7, 2003 Share Posted April 7, 2003 Of course there is always FOX Balanced and unafraid: Taken from their webpage moments ago! Iraqi civilians are rising up against Saddam Hussein's militia in Baghdad and Basra Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted April 7, 2003 Share Posted April 7, 2003 How about the LA Times! They ran a front page photo on April 01 (?) showing an American soldier aiming his rifle at a large group of civilians. .....Only problem was that the photo was electronically altered! In the original photo, the rifle was pointed at the ground. Not good for the LA Times' anti-America bias I guess. Since they've been called on it, the reporter has been fired. I say, why not fire the editor?No liberal bias? I think TV has done a good job showing us this war.. (ABC/ Peter Jennings the exception) But many major newspapers are still spewing their garbage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted April 8, 2003 Share Posted April 8, 2003 (edited) allison said: Hi, Am getting way tired of censored American news in the invasion. Would like to find source with more information and less pro-American Invasion bias. Anyone find anything on the Web, a foreign paper maybe, with these qualities? Give www.guardian.co.uk a try. Swerves about as far to the Left as the Wall Street Journal does to the Right in it's editorials, but this paper, like the WSJ has quite a few reporters on the ground all over the world and seems to break news related to Iraq very quickly. Edited April 8, 2003 by JayB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iain Posted April 8, 2003 Share Posted April 8, 2003 The Guardian is an excellent paper, particularly if you want to keep up on the latest bridge and cricket scores. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny_destiny Posted April 8, 2003 Share Posted April 8, 2003 erik said: i dont know if anyone has mentioned this in awhile i but i certainly find it applicable to many things that we discuss here. NUKE GAY BABY WHALES FOR JESUS! Mr. Erik, I don't know if Jesus would approve of that. I mean just because sexual chocolate is ...ummm, you know...its no reason to nuke him and call him a whale because of his weight problem. And from what I have read there are not many of the players on this board that don't end up in a argument with Ms. Allison. I have never crossed her "literary path" nor do I wish to as she gets too inflamed. I've thought of acting as a mediator when things get out of control but that thought is quickly squashed like a June bug under Aunt Edna's heel on the front porch while drinking Mint Julips. That is JD's thoughts without bringing too much of the religious element in. As always God Bless each and everyone of you including all the non-believers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 Just some more thoughts on Media Bias: But first here is another reason why Columbia sucks: Professor Said: "[Al-Jazeera has shown] the resistance and anger of the Iraqi population, dismissed by Western propaganda as a sullen bunch waiting to throw flowers at Clint Eastwood lookalikes ... The idea that Iraq's population would have welcomed American forces entering the country after a terrifying aerial bombardment was always utterly implausible ... One can only wince at the way weak-minded policy hacks in the Pentagon and White House have spun out the 'ideas' of [bernard] Lewis and [Fouad] Ajami into the scenario for a quick romp in a friendly Iraq ... pity the Iraqi civilians who must still suffer a great deal more before they are finally 'liberated'." Edward Said, London Review of Books April 17 From his bio is this revealing paragraph about media. What a joke. Although he occasionally writes opinion pieces for leading American newspapers, he finds overseas publications and radio much more receptive to his critical view of events in the Middle East. He eschews the “sound bite” mentality of the American television networks, in favor of the longer pieces produced by NPR and similar radio networks abroad. He views major U.S. publications as “ideologically hostile” to his viewpoint. “I’ve lost my taste for this type of forum,” he said. Columbia Link Some headlines: "U.S. Troops Sweep Aside Hussein Rule" Washington Post "An End to 30 Years of Brutal Rule" The Guardian "Saddam Defeated Militarily" USA Today "U.S. Troops Free Iraq From Hussein's Control." LA Times "Iraqi Government Apparently Breaks Down But Fighting Persists in Parts of Capital." NYT (early edition at least) These beauties where published yesterday – the day Saddam’s Statue was toppled. Note no hedging of bets or unnamed sources just direct attributable nonesense - or perhaps just poor media. "The huge psychological victory for the coalition produced by the arrival of US tanks in front of the media centre in Baghdad has not finished off the regime, even though this coup came so soon after their shock arrival at the international airport. A compilation of the military detail in reports from journalists in Baghdad and an ear for the changing spin from Centcom gives a less victorious picture of the battle for the Iraqi capital than is shown in the media. For example, for three hours on Saturday Centcom said the US was in Baghdad to stay, not on a raid. Then, after some armoured vehicles had been damaged and some troops killed and injured, it became a raid as the troops withdrew. The selective and censored TV coverage obscures a military reality that has been neither as successful nor as difficult as it has seemed. Now, reports of total victory may be premature." Dan Plesch, Guardian "It looked grimly like that scene in A Bridge Too Far, Richard Attenborough's epic on the Arnhem disaster, in which a British officer walks slowly up the great span with an umbrella in his hand to see if he can detect the Germans on the other side. But I knew the Americans were on the other side of this bridge and drove past it at great speed. Which provided a remarkable revelation. While American fighter-bombers criss-crossed the sky, while the ground shook to the sound of exploding ordnance, while the American tanks now stood above the Tigris, vast areas of Baghdad – astonishing when you consider the American claim to be "in the heart" of the city – remain under Saddam Hussein's control." Robert Fisk, Independent J_B recommended the great site Buzzflash.com which carried at least five stories about Iraqi civilian deaths yesterday and mentioned the jubulation in Fridos Square only once in a reference titled "Ah, Yes, Democracy. Iraqis Looting and Dancing in Baghdad." It carried more stories about Haliburton and Enron than yesterday's Iraqi celebrations. Plenty of bias there. PP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lummox Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 pp, your long posts lead me to think you ain't gotta life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 Well not much of one at least! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lummox Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 Peter_Puget said: Read this on the might BBC: BBC Link Here is a source I can recomend! Good Ole USA This is an especially stunning quote: SECRETARY POWELL: Europeans, especially Germans, should recognize the American record, our history. Our history is not one of getting involved in conflicts just for the sake of it. We get involved in conflicts because there are major issues at stake that have to be resolved, unfortunately, by force of arms. But when you look at our history for the last sixty years, every time we found ourselves in this position, we did not just get up and walk away. We did everything we could to put in place a better system, a better society, than that which we had to go in and fight. And we will do it again this time. Oh yea, we're the good guys - we've done those assassinations of democratic leaders for a "better society" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 Peter - I don't get your point. While most of the rags in the US are doing the rah-rah thing, you point to the NYT as bias because they note the facts of sporatic fighting going on outside the media circus around a stature being pulled down (by US troops). Don't see it. I would generally say that most of the US media is just pitching softballs over the plate for the war effort, with little critical analysis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 Peter_Puget said: Just some more thoughts on Media Bias: Some headlines: "U.S. Troops Sweep Aside Hussein Rule" Washington Post "An End to 30 Years of Brutal Rule" The Guardian "Saddam Defeated Militarily" USA Today "U.S. Troops Free Iraq From Hussein's Control." LA Times "Iraqi Government Apparently Breaks Down But Fighting Persists in Parts of Capital." NYT (early edition at least) What is your point here? Our own government spokesmen tell us that the war is not over yet, that bitter fighting continues, that they don't know where Saddam is, that he may retreat to his home town where we haven't been anywhere near, and that there may yet be some tough battles ahead. I'd say the NYT headline is more descriptive of the actual situation -- it is too early to celebrate the final outcome of this war yet. Is that your point?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 This war will continue through the summer at best. It ain't over till the fat lady sings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.