1
   

News You Are Not Seeing or Hearing in the U.S. Media

 
 
Stinger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Feb, 2003 01:08 pm
That about sums it up.

Although, as I have discovered recently, not everybody will agree with that sort of 'subversive' thinking. Some prefer to believe the illusion, rather than having to think for themselves.
0 Replies
 
Mr Stillwater
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Feb, 2003 08:25 pm
Interestingly the Iraqi opposition (that obviously expect to be in charge soon) are starting to make contracts to sell oil already. Guess that the business of implementing democracy is not as important as one thinks.

This would explain the objections that France has to an invasion. As part of their wheeling and dealing with Saddam in the 1970s to supply him with both conventional weaponry and nuclear power plants he cut them some very sweet deals on oil. Deals that a new government may declare invalid. But this is not a war about oil, now is it?
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Feb, 2003 08:36 pm
Well there is always some good with the bad. Being able to screw the French is a plus.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Feb, 2003 08:44 pm
Well, that sounds like an attitude that will help bring the French on side.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Feb, 2003 08:50 pm
The French are for the French. They have no loyalty or integrety.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Feb, 2003 12:17 pm
Au - Of course you know the French are no more of a homogenous group you can broadly label than are Americans. It may make things easier to talk about, but those kinds of generalizations just jump out at me.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Feb, 2003 04:58 pm
snood The core of French society is a homogenous group. They in no way can be compared to American society which is made up of immigrants and decedents of fairly recent immigrants from all over the globe. My experiences with the character of both the French in France and French Canadians leaves much to be desired.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Feb, 2003 10:39 pm
Journalists like to think of themselves as watchdogs, nipping at the heels of the powerful and guarding democracy. Progressive critics see them as lapdogs for the political and corporate elite. More often reporters are just tired old dogs asleep on the porch.

Take a recent Sunday morning adventure at NBC studios in Washington, D.C., where I joined a pack of these wet dogs taking shelter from a downpour in the NBC lobby. The NBC staff wheeled out a TV cart so reporters could watch "Meet the Press" with Tim Russert. Russert interviewed Richard Perle, chairman of the Defense Policy Board (a Pentagon advisory panel charged with overseeing military preparedness), and Rep. Dennis Kucinich, the Ohio Democrat who has emerged as one of the few strong congressional voices against war.

It's a Sunday routine: At the end of the show, reporters gather outside the front door and beg the guests for a few soundbite scraps.

Until then, they sprawl out on benches in the lobby, absent-mindedly watching the interviews. This is the state of American media, the free press: reporters and camera crews watching an interview on television as it takes place just down the hall. Journalists don't like the ridiculous setup, but they don't have much choice. They have to meet the demands of the corporate media conglomerates they work for, and to do that they have to play the game.

Some read newspapers. One takes notes. Another reporter talks on a cell phone to his wife. "Yeah, they're just bickering right now No, I don't know how much longer it will be."

They listen to Perle beat the drums of war. It leads to a discussion of democracy. He says that it would be good if Israel were surrounded by democracies. He says it would be good if Iraq were a democracy.

"Democracies," Perle says to Russert, "do not engage in aggressive wars."

The dogs awake.

"What? Is this guy smoking crack?" one reporter nearly shouts. Everyone laughs and nods in agreement. The reporter expressed the frustration and outrage that millions of people around the world know, and what many journalists understand, but almost never articulate.

As I watched the interview, I wondered if Russert was also thinking, "What is he smoking?" I hoped he would say, "Well, Mr. Perle, either the laundry list of foreign aggressions in U.S. history (covert actions like those in Guatemala in 1954, proxy aggressions like in Nicaragua in the 1980s, and overt aggressions including Vietnam and Panama) are make-believe, or the United States is not a democracy. Which is it?" Russert never questioned the core of Perle's arguments: his assumptions on democracy, power, and violence. He moved on to the next topic. His silence spoke volumes.

The dogs go back to sleep.

War and the Press
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Feb, 2003 11:19 pm
Yeah, Au- but those are just your experiences. If I went by some folks' experiences with Africans, or Australians or "Southerners", I'd never want to go to those places. We as human beings are ultimately more alike than different, and without fail, efforts to characterize a region or an entire people as all of one thing won't stand up.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Mar, 2003 08:10 am
snood
You have your beliefs and experiences and I have mine. All we can do at this point is agree to disagree and let it go at that. As the saying goes "You can't beat a dead horse"
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Mar, 2003 09:40 am
CNN's Iraq Tracker:

http://www.cnn.com/quickcast/iraq/

And the version I subscribe to:

http://www.takebackthemedia.com/spincast.html
0 Replies
 
Stinger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Mar, 2003 12:32 pm
Thanks for the link PDiddie

I live in Europe, but I am eh....lucky....(I think that's the word)....lucky enough to get CNN and CNBC on my TV, thanks to the marvel that is cable technology. While I'm waiting for en episode of Frasier or Becker on the Comedy Channel, I sometimes get a laugh from watching the news!

Obviously the content is a slightly different version at times, from to the US, but I think I've got a general idea of how the news is reported over there. One thing I noticed on CNBC, is a caption on the lower right of the screen. They very kindly remind the viewer, what state of alert (Threat from the evil baddies) the US is currently at. Although this could be a very civic minded service that one of your networks is providing, the cynic in me suspects it may be one way of reminding people that they should be afraid, rally around their leader, and prepare for war. If they didn't have something to fear, they may think twice about the need to wage war, and perhaps ask too many awkward questions.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Mar, 2003 12:39 pm
stinger; "and perhaps ask too many awkward questions."
i believe its the answers that may prove to be awkward not the questions. Wink
0 Replies
 
mamajuana
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Mar, 2003 01:01 pm
CNN is driving me mad. Everyone speaks in that same rushed, breathless tone, and Wolf Blitzer never sleeps.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Mar, 2003 09:50 am
More evidence the nation was woefully unprepared on September 11, despite repeated warnings and threats:

US Air Force commanders considered crashing fighter jets into hijacked planes on 11 September because of a lack of armed planes, a BBC investigation reveals.

In the immediate aftermath of the terror attacks US fighter planes took to the skies to defend America from any further attacks.

But, as a new BBC programme Clear The Skies reveals, the threat of an attack from within America had been considered so small that the entire US mainland was being defended by only 14 planes.


BBC
0 Replies
 
Stinger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Mar, 2003 12:36 pm
PDiddie

Was the bomb attack on the World Trade Center several years ago, insufficient warning for those responsible for security in the USA?

Perhaps it's just plain old complacency, incompetence, arrogance, or a mixture of all three, that produced the apparent lack of preparedness for a terrorist attack. But after the first terrorist attack, you would think that someone might have realized that a group, or groups, were intent on creating a terrorist 'spectacular' on US soil. An airborne attack somewhere in the USA, is hardly an idea that came from 'out off left field.' You have to wonder why a scenario involving an attack involving a plane, was not considered a significant enough threat, to ensure more resources were not allocated. Or why more preventative measures were not taken.

I know we have the benefit of hindsight, but come on!!!

Terrorists hijacking planes! Not exactly a new concept.

Terrorists willing to die for their cause. Let me think about that....emmm...fanatical Muslims....just like the terrorists who have already struck with a car bomb in New York, back in the 1990s.

Can anyone spot a possible connection? Terrorists on suicide missions. Previous attacks against US targets both in the US and externally. Numerous incidents over the years involving the hijacking of planes.

It makes you wonder if there is anyone awake at the wheel.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Mar, 2003 01:38 pm
stinger, Sen Hart and Luger completed and handed to the Bush admin a complete analysis of just exactly what happened and they (c. rice, g. bush, r. cheney) chose to ignore it.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Mar, 2003 08:43 pm
But even as intelligence agencies investigate the extent of Bin Laden's links with terrorist outfits around the world, the West is digesting quite a different image of the young boy through a family photograph, taken in the Swedish town of Falun in the summer of 1971.

The photograph, which appeared in several British tabloids, accompanies media revelations that not only was the young Bin Laden fairly Westernised before he embraced Islamist radicalism, he also had a close family link with American President George W. Bush.

The Times of India Online
0 Replies
 
Stinger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Mar, 2003 02:10 pm
That reminds me of another curious link to the Bush family that I read about....

John Hinckley Jnr - the man who shot President Regan. At the time, it was reported as having something to do with Hinckley's mental condition, and a fascination with Jodie Foster etc etc etc...

John's brother Scott, was due to have have dinner with Jeb Bush, the night after Regan was shot. Needless to say, dinner was cancelled.

The Hinckley's were in the energy business. John Hinckley Snr, was president of Vandebilt Energy.

I know I'm stating the obvious, but Jeb's dad was George Bush Snr, who just happened to be Regan's Vice President.


Urban myth or reality?

If it's a fact, is that relationship not a little strange / worrying?
0 Replies
 
Mr Stillwater
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Mar, 2003 10:01 pm
Federation of American Scientists' site of National Security Presidential Directives (NSPDs) and Homeland Security Presidential Directives (HSPDs)
FAS IRP. Unlike your latest reading at the library, most of these are still secret.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/01/2024 at 11:40:16