The old fashioned control of information to steer consensus...
Quote:The scale of UK casualties in Afghanistan has been under-reported, a British officer serving in the south of the country has claimed, condemning the Ministry of Defence's operation as politically driven. Major Jon Swift claimed soldiers were often patched up after being injured and sent back into the field without the injury being recorded.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,,1878609,00.html
Dartagnan wrote:BernardR wrote:Well, "cow", the reason I posted that last piece was to PROVE that poverty in America is not anywhere as dire as the left wing Socialistic left over superannuated hippies would think.
I do not, like some of the IGNORANT left wingers, make up statistics. I go to the sources. I do hope that the "cow" knows that even if I stated that( as my link said)"forty-six of all poor households actually own their own homes", my testimony would not, could not, and should not equal the findings of two PHD's who researched the subject.
If the "cow" wished to add to the conversation and perhaps teach some of us who may be IGNORANT about certain items concerning poverty, she might REBUT sections of the link I gave with evidence.
Alas, she does not do so, but only gives us bovine excrement!!!
Are you capable, even once in a while, of making your point without being obnoxious toward other posters? It would appear otherwise...
Maybe under his new guise of MarionT, he'll be a kinder, gentler person. But, jeez, I wish he would learn to follow a thread!
"I'm Not a Leftist, But I Play One on TV"
By Jeff Cohen
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Friday 22 September 2006
For two decades, I've been preoccupied with one issue above all others: that both ends of the political spectrum get their say in the media. One reason (among many) that I worked so hard to retire George W. Bush in 2004 was my nightmare that a defeated John Kerry would be hired by cable news to represent "the left" day after day on a TV debate show.
Fox News Channel often gets blamed for the standard format that pits forceful, articulate right-wingers against wimpy, halting liberals. Fox's pairing of righty heart-throb Sean Hannity with back-pedaling, barely left-of-center Alan Colmes is a prime example of this lopsided format - a mismatch depicted in an Al Franken book as "Hannity & Colmes."
But it's wrong to blame Fox for television's center-right, GE-to-GM spectrum. That format was firmly in place years before there was a Fox News. The real culprits: CNN and PBS.
Take Crossfire, started by CNN in 1982 as the only nightly forum on national TV purporting to offer an ideological battle between co-hosts of left and right. Crossfire's co-host "on the left" for the first seven years was a haplessly ineffectual centrist, Tom Braden, a guy who makes Alan Colmes look like an ultraleft firebrand.
In CNN's eyes, Braden apparently earned his leftist credentials by having been a high-level CIA official - ironically enough, in charge of covert operations against the political left of Western Europe. Braden was paired on Crossfire with ultra-rightist Pat Buchanan. During the Braden-Buchanan years, LSD guru Timothy Leary told a reporter that watching Crossfire was like watching "the left wing" of the CIA debating the right wing of the CIA." It may have been Leary's most sober observation ever.
I guested several times on Crossfire with the tired 70-something as my alleged ally. Once as I took my seat on the set, seeing Braden totally caked up with makeup, my first impulse was to reach over to take a pulse. My second impulse: flee the studio.
In a 1988 Crossfire appearance, when I criticized the conservative tilt of TV punditry and debates restricted to right vs. center, Buchanan could mount only a feeble defense of Braden: "What do you think is sitting next to me? What do you think this is, a potted plant?"
"A healthy Ficus," observed a Mother Jones writer, "would add more balance."
The taboo against genuine progressives as hosts was even clearer when Crossfire needed substitutes "on the left" and CNN chose Beltway centrists like Jodie Powell (President Carter's press secretary) and Morton Kondracke (yes, the guy now on Fox ... and no, he was no more progressive then). These were men who would never declare themselves to be "on the left" in real life; they seemed to wince when CNN made them say it on television.
On both CNN and PBS, one of TV's longest-running stand-ins for the left has been Mark Shields, even while his promo material denied any ideological leanings: "Mark Shields is free of any political tilt." When John Roberts became our country's chief justice, Shields wrote a scalding attack ... not on the right-wing judge (whom he actually praised) but on a feminist leader who opposed Roberts. Shields is a smart, articulate guy - but he's no more an advocate for the American Left than Mel Gibson is an advocate for reform Judaism.
Seeing liberals on TV backpedal night after night in the face of the Buchanans and Hannitys helps create a public image of the American Left as weak, evasive, lacking in values - and the American Right as clear, firm and moral. Pundit TV has defined not only a skewed spectrum of debate but a road map for defeat of liberal politicians. Ask Gore and Kerry.
Imagine if the American Right had been represented year after year on TV not by the Buchanans and Hannitys, but by Republican pundits allied with Christine Todd Whitman and Arlen Spector - moderates dismissive of their party's activists.
Now imagine that the American Left had been represented on TV not by the Bradens, Kinsleys and Colmeses, but by progressive pundits like Barbara Ehrenreich and Jim Hightower.
Neither scenario is easy to imagine - which says a lot about the real bias of TV news.
blueflame -- The piece from Jeff Cohen is telling. I think that he's absolutely correct. The interesting thing is that since 2000 -- when I became more active as the threat of george bush becoming president loomed larger and larger and finally became a six year reality -- I have become closer to people I have known for more than 20 years whose politics are left of center. One of the problems with these people is that they are all well educated and well bred: not the sort that shout their politics from the rooftops and from bumperstickers. The left is just too nice (ducking the brickbats poised to be thrown at me).
This piece represents only one of very many examples of how this administration functions. It is a classic case.
The two characteristics common in all these cases are:
- information control... release for public consumption ONLY that which forwards your administration or party's political goals and hide what might hurt your party's poltical goals, regardless of the integrity/responsibility duties of elected officials to keep those who elected them informed of what is true and what is real.
- act in support of large financial interests, rather than in the interests of the community.
Quote:WASHINGTON - The Bush administration has blocked release of a report that suggests global warming is contributing to the frequency and strength of hurricanes, the journal Nature reported Tuesday.
The possibility that warming conditions may cause storms to become stronger has generated debate among climate and weather experts, particularly in the wake of the Hurricane Katrina disaster.
In the new case, Nature said weather experts at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ? part of the Commerce Department ? in February set up a seven-member panel to prepare a consensus report on the views of agency scientists about global warming and hurricanes...
In February, a NASA political appointee who worked in the space agency's public relations department resigned after reportedly trying to restrict access to Jim Hansen, a NASA climate scientist who has been active in global warming research.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060926/ap_on_sc/hurricane_report
As we noted earlier, the new Katie Couric show on CBC has a segment titled "free speech" and on that segment there has not been a single voice from the left while Rush Limbaugh, Rudy Guiliani and other from the right have made appearances.
And there's this...
Quote:Monday, Sep 25
White House Communications Director Turns CBS News Political Consultant
"Nicolle Wallace, former White House communications director for President George W. Bush, has been named a CBS News political consultant," Sean McManus announced today. She starts immediately. She will "provide on-air analysis on a variety of political issues, including the upcoming 2006 elections," CBS says.
Wallace was the director of communications for Bush's 2004 campaign. She became an assistant to the president and the White House communications director in 2005, "serving as a primary spokesperson for the administration on national security, domestic policy and economic issues."
link
How the "leftwing media" help play the propaganda game...
blatham wrote:As we noted earlier, the new Katie Couric show on CBC has a segment titled "free speech" and on that segment there has not been a single voice from the left while Rush Limbaugh, Rudy Guiliani and other from the right have made appearances.
And there's this...
Quote:Monday, Sep 25
White House Communications Director Turns CBS News Political Consultant
"Nicolle Wallace, former White House communications director for President George W. Bush, has been named a CBS News political consultant," Sean McManus announced today. She starts immediately. She will "provide on-air analysis on a variety of political issues, including the upcoming 2006 elections," CBS says.
Wallace was the director of communications for Bush's 2004 campaign. She became an assistant to the president and the White House communications director in 2005, "serving as a primary spokesperson for the administration on national security, domestic policy and economic issues."
link
Lets see...
James Carville,George Stephanopolis,Paul Begalla,and many other Clinton WH staff members became political consultants for or got their own shows on either MSNBC,CNN,or some of the other networks.
Whats your point?
Well, let's see if you can stretch...
What are your thoughts on those Newsweek covers?
blatham wrote:How the "leftwing media" help play the propaganda game...
Which version do you think the terrorists are reading?
Well, aside from the related questions...how many can read English?...how many have a 7/11 down on the corner?... how many give a poop about (or have even heard of) Newsweek?
After all, tico, how many Americans read Afghan magazines? Do you wish to imply that them dusty fellows are so much more educated, sophisticated and desirous of reading international news and commentary than average Americans such that your question really makes any sense?
But even if it did....then wouldn't the more proper alignment of things be that the first three of those Newsweek covers carry what is on the American version and the American version carry what's on the other three?
blatham wrote:Well, aside from the related questions...how many can read English?...how many have a 7/11 down on the corner?... how many give a poop about (or have even heard of) Newsweek?
After all, tico, how many Americans read Afghan magazines? Do you wish to imply that them dusty fellows are so much more educated, sophisticated and desirous of reading international news and commentary than average Americans such that your question really makes any sense?
But even if it did....then wouldn't the more proper alignment of things be that the first three of those Newsweek covers carry what is on the American version and the American version carry what's on the other three?
How many terrorists give a poop about (or have heard of) Newsweek? I don't know ...
But I do know of at least one terrorist who read the Arabic version ...
Quote:Death of a Terrorist
The Americans had come close to killing him before, but he'd managed to escape. Not this time.
By Evan Thomas and Rod Nordland
Newsweek
June 19, 2006 issue - This time around, the Americans wanted to make sure they killed him. Again and again, Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi had eluded his many well-armed, high-tech pursuers. Now, U.S. commanders were sure, the terrorist butcher was holed up in a safe house about 30 miles north of Baghdad, where he had gone to commune with his spiritual adviser. A circling F-16C pasted the small building with a 500-pound bomb. Then, just to make sure, the warplane unloaded another 500-pounder. The two bombs, one directed by a laser beam, the other by a satellite, left nothing but a pile of rubble and twisted metal in a grove of splintered palm trees. Inside, two men, two women and a small girl were dead. Somehow, however, Zarqawi was still alive. When Iraqi and American soldiers found him, he was still breathing, barely, and muttering prayers. Lying on a stretcher, he turned away from his captors, imagining, perhaps, what awaited him in paradise.
Story continues below ↓ advertisement
The Americans examined the corpse closely, looking for telltale green tattoos and old war wounds. No less a presence than Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, chief of the shadowy Special Operations force tracking Zarqawi, looked down on the bloodied body of his adversary, dressed in black. There wasn't much else to see.
According to wire reports, soldiers found a few weapons, a skimpy leopard-print nightie, possibly belonging to one of Zarqawi's three wives, and the May 2 issue of the Arabic edition of NEWSWEEK (which featured a cover story on the Iraq war entitled "No Exit"). Nearby was a magazine photo of Franklin D. Roosevelt.
...
blatham wrote:Well, aside from the related questions...how many can read English?...how many have a 7/11 down on the corner?... how many give a poop about (or have even heard of) Newsweek?
You are much more naive than I thought, blatham. The answers to the above are probably more than you can count, and it may not be called a 7/11, but its down on the corner.
There are terror cells probably all over Europe in large cities, and probably in the U.S., and coffee shops with magazine stands nearby are everywhere. And have you ever heard of the internet, blatham?
The internets? Yes, I've heard of them.
I assumed tico was speaking of Afghani or mid-east terrorists given the photograph. And such is the example he just offered.
But my last question to him reflects the key issue.
blatham wrote:But my last question to him reflects the key issue.
blatham wrote:But even if it did....then wouldn't the more proper alignment of things be that the first three of those Newsweek covers carry what is on the American version and the American version carry what's on the other three?
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "proper alignment." One can expect Newsweek to do what it feels will sell the most copies. It's surprising it did not believe the first three covers would sell the most copies to target leftists in the US. They seem to be, by and large, interested in the same articles the terrorists are.
Tico,
Does that mean you prefer to follow the latest news about Jen and Brad since you aren't interested in politics like the leftists are?
blatham said
Quote:wouldn't the more proper alignment of things be that the first three of those Newsweek covers carry what is on the American version and the American version carry what's on the other three?
tico said
Quote:I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "proper alignment." One can expect Newsweek to do what it feels will sell the most copies. It's surprising it did not believe the first three covers would sell the most copies to target leftists in the US. They seem to be, by and large, interested in the same articles the terrorists are.
You proposed that the terrorists are more likely to read the issues with the jihadist on the cover. Your implication seems to be that Newsweek is irresponsible for carrying information which might embolden them.
So, my question proposed a reversal of who sees what cover...happy family goodness and victorious (American victories) propaganda for the jihadists but harsh truth for the American population. Seem better? It does to me, at least in the confines of the imaginary (and very unlikely) assumptions of readership and in the confines of either/or.
But I'm guessing you won't like that option either.
Bad news, re Iraq or Afghanistan, either can't be true or if it is ought not to be spoken of openly to anyone, citizen or not. Citizens ought to trust their leaders. Questioning those leaders sharply or doubting them openly or contesting their claims or revealing information which shows their claims to be false or deceitful is not the proper role of the citizenry.
The leaders are up at the top. The citizens are lesser. They ought to know their proper places and behave as supplicants or subjects.
Is that it?
Does one enter this information under "Bush Lied" or "information control"? Tough choice, being applicable to both.
Quote:The situation is getting much worse, says Woodward, despite what the White House and the Pentagon are saying in public. "The truth is that the assessment by intelligence experts is that next year, 2007, is going to get worse and, in public, you have the president and you have the Pentagon [saying], 'Oh, no, things are going to get better,'" he tells Wallace. "Now there's public, and then there's private. But what did they do with the private? They stamp it secret. No one is supposed to know," says Woodward.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/28/60minutes/main2047607.shtml
A fundamental strategy of the modern conservative movement has been the attempts to control information sources which may determine voter perceptions.
One key element within this strategy has been to "black PR" (to bring about negative notions such that the credibility of some target is damaged) the independent media.
Here is John Stossel, a rightwing spokesman who has previously made the claim (along with Bill O'Reilly) that the media is biased and that, in one particular case, that the website MediaMatters engages in "smears" and false information, when he is asked for exact instances of MediaMatters carrying even a single falsehood in its coverage of Stossel...
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_09_24_atrios_archive.html#115932725064159629
