Information control, or, How to get to Orwellian governance

In the event anyone would like to know what Roger Ailes (head of Fox TV) actually looks like

http://mediamatters.org/static/images/home/rogerailes.jpg

0 Replies

Quote:

Iraq Disappearing Off Most Papers' Front Pages, Research Shows

By E&P Staff

Published: September 27, 2006 10:00 AM ET

NEW YORK Is the media losing interest in Iraq? With much punditry in recent weeks making this claim, Eric Boehlert decided to look into it for Media Matters. He found a downturn in coverage on network TV, and relatively light play lately on front pages of many newspapers, with The New York Times and The Washignton Post two of the few exceptions.

A Nexis search, he writes today at mediamatters.org, yielded the following tally for A1 articles between Sept. 1 and Sept. 21 emerging from Iraq:

The Boston Globe, 0
The Charlotte Observer, 3
The Chicago Tribune, 5
The Columbus Dispatch, 4
The Hartford Courant, 0
The Houston Chronicle, 0
The Miami Herald, 6
The New York Times, 12
The San Diego Union-Tribune, 0
The Seattle Times, 1
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 0
USA Today, 1
The Washington Post, 17

Readers have taken note, he observes. "Where's the War?" a Seattle Times reader recently wrote to the newspaper. "How can it be that I couldn't find a thing about the Iraq War until page 11 in The Times?"

To those who charge that the media is merely reflecting the public lack of interest, he cites polls showing that Americans call Iraq the key issue facing the country.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E&P Staff

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003187145

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

blatham wrote:
How the "leftwing media" help play the propaganda game...

Which version do you think the terrorists are reading?

Ticomaya, I read through the American version, and in an article about Afghanistan, I quote Newsweek:
"You don't have to drive very far from Kabul these days to find the Taliban. In Ghazni province's Andar district, just over a two-hour trip from the capital on the main southern highway, a thin, young man, dressed in brown and wearing a white prayer cap, stands by the roadside waiting for two NEWSWEEK correspondents. It is midday on the central Afghan plains, far from the jihadist-infested mountains to the east and west. Without speaking, the sentinel guides his visitors along a sandy horse trail toward a mud-brick village within sight of the highway. As they get closer a young Taliban fighter carrying a walkie-talkie and an AK-47 rifle pops out from behind a tree. He is manning an improvised explosive device, he explains, in case Afghan or U.S. troops try to enter the village."

The article continues to explain the Taliban figures at the village and their stories in fighting against the Americans, etc. The article is not at all derogatory overall toward the Taliban, and in fact you get the distinct feeling the authors sympathize with them and think they will end up being victorious for all the reasons explained.

This causes me to ask:
Would this have happened 50 years ago? Do articles like this help the U.S. or hinder? Do these reporters care more about their profession than right and wrong? Do they like the U.S.? Are they traitors? Are the owners of Newsweek traitors? Lots of other questions come up but the above should do for now.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

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.

No, I did not propose that. You made that assumption.

Quote:

Your implication seems to be that Newsweek is irresponsible for carrying information which might embolden them.

That would be in keeping with all the other times I've made that implication.

Quote:

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.

Better in what sense?

But of course if Newsweek were to do that it would not be in keeping with the implication that they are interested in conveying information that would embolden the terrorists. So, given all that, and in the confines of the assumptions you are making, you should not be surprised at the cover decisions that were made.

Quote:

But I'm guessing you won't like that option either.

You seem to be doing a lot of guessing lately.

The other possibility, of course, is that I don't care too much about it one way or the other.

Quote:

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?

Leftists have a long history of questioning or opposing their government during times of war. It's what they do.

0 Replies

In the event anyone would like to know what Michael Moore actually looks like:

http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/617/michaelmoore2te7.jpg

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

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.

Wow! You know what interests terrorists? Does it take one to know one?
Europeans think Americans are pretty shallow and pretty green when it comes to politics. Maybe, Newsweek thinks the same thing.

0 Replies

Looking at those covers again raises a question: how much information control is going on in America?

And another question: What say does Newsweek have in the war?

And another: What say does Newsweek have in its own editorial policy?

And yet another: Is Newsweek an arm of the government?

And one final question: Are they giving us bread and circuses to shut us up?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
blatham wrote:
How the "leftwing media" help play the propaganda game...

Which version do you think the terrorists are reading?

Ticomaya, I read through the American version, and in an article about Afghanistan, I quote Newsweek:
"You don't have to drive very far from Kabul these days to find the Taliban. In Ghazni province's Andar district, just over a two-hour trip from the capital on the main southern highway, a thin, young man, dressed in brown and wearing a white prayer cap, stands by the roadside waiting for two NEWSWEEK correspondents. It is midday on the central Afghan plains, far from the jihadist-infested mountains to the east and west. Without speaking, the sentinel guides his visitors along a sandy horse trail toward a mud-brick village within sight of the highway. As they get closer a young Taliban fighter carrying a walkie-talkie and an AK-47 rifle pops out from behind a tree. He is manning an improvised explosive device, he explains, in case Afghan or U.S. troops try to enter the village."

The article continues to explain the Taliban figures at the village and their stories in fighting against the Americans, etc. The article is not at all derogatory overall toward the Taliban, and in fact you get the distinct feeling the authors sympathize with them and think they will end up being victorious for all the reasons explained.

This causes me to ask:
Would this have happened 50 years ago? Do articles like this help the U.S. or hinder? Do these reporters care more about their profession than right and wrong? Do they like the U.S.? Are they traitors? Are the owners of Newsweek traitors? Lots of other questions come up but the above should do for now.

You seem to have no idea of the function of the press in a free society. Providing pro-gov't prpaganda ain't it. That's how it works in totalitarian states...

0 Replies

The function of the press is to like terrorists and make them look good, is that it?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

The function of the press is to like terrorists and make them look good, is that it?

The function of the press is to make money. Don't forget for a second.

They do whatever they feel makes them the most money in the long run.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

plainoldme wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

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.

Wow! You know what interests terrorists? Does it take one to know one?
Europeans think Americans are pretty shallow and pretty green when it comes to politics. Maybe, Newsweek thinks the same thing.

Moo Cow Mamma, to Right Wingers reality has a well known Left Wing bias, and to them objective minds that use reason and facts are considered Left Wing.

0 Replies

tico

I am totally UNSURPRISED by the Newsweek choices in covers. The singular case where the cover was altered was to the US public. Whether the decision (and all those similar decisions made each day countless times by US media) is a consequence of economic concerns or political concerns or some combination, the result is entirely the same... information controlled and a stupider, less educated, less critical american public.

Quote:

Leftists have a long history of questioning or opposing their government during times of war. It's what they do.

Why on earth do you allow such cliched idiocies to reign in your noggin? Your lack of intellectual independence and courage is just the more depressing for how often the rest of us see this in American culture.
-Paste in countless quotes from conservatives questioning/opposing military action by democrat presidents.
-Paste in equally countless quotes from conservatives opposed to the Iraq war.
-Paste in yet more quotes from democrats/liberals supporting earlier military actions.
-And paste your integrity to the outhouse wall

0 Replies

The leftwing always opposes war? Does the leftwing exclusively oppose war? Seems like righties opposed the US entrance into The Great War.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Leftists have a long history of questioning or opposing their government during times of war. It's what they do.

Conservatives have a long history of questioning or opposing their government whether it's at peace or at war. Indeed, this is the most laudable tradition the conservative movement has going for itself. I wish it could resume this tradition as soon as possible.

0 Replies

Amen to that.

0 Replies

This ain't by chance.

If you can forward the idea that government (or America) is represented by a single exclusive ideology/party and that contrary or contrasting views are ahistorical AND dangerously traitorous/destructive, then it becomes, axiomatically, dutiful to support that ideology/government and traitorous/unAmerican to speak/act against it.

It is an authoritarian stance, whether or not that is understood by those, like tico, who hold it.

As the president of Iran recently expressed, "our universities have become too liberal and too secular."

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

It is an authoritarian stance, whether or not that is understood by those, like tico, who hold it.

That makes it all the more important to reconnect them to their roots and remind them of the wise words in Reagan's inauguration speech: "In this current crisis, government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem."

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

blatham wrote:
It is an authoritarian stance, whether or not that is understood by those, like tico, who hold it.

That makes it all the more important to reconnect them to their roots and remind them of the wise words in Reagan's inauguration speech: "In this current crisis, government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem."

But when your government is fighting a war, fighting the government is not the solution. US leftists are steeped in the tradition of opposing war and their government during a time of war, and of course Vietnam is the one that comes freshest to mind. My comment is true, and I'm surprised to see anyone bristle at its utterance. I've long thought leftists were proud of the fact that they oppose their government during times of war.

0 Replies

Quote:

I've long thought leftists were proud of the fact that they oppose their government during times of war.

Of course, this says much more of you than it does of any Leftist.

As I said in the other thread, it isn't difficult to impugn your credibility.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

I've long thought leftists were proud of the fact that they oppose their government during times of war.

How did it affect your conclusion that Lyndon B Johnson was a leftist? And how did it affect your conclusions that Johnson was also last American president who went to war on a manufactured casus belli, and who lied about this to the American people? In your view, does this merit a more nuanced view of the pacifism of "leftists", as you call them?

0 Replies

Information control, or, How to get to Orwellian governance

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know