Then maybe it's time to move this back to the real world.
Quote:
|
Think of all the big-ticket war issues that still are contested: WMD, aluminum tubes, uranium, the spurious Saddam-9/11 connection, the Iraqis whom U.S. officials said would greet U.S. troops as liberators, the good news that allegedly is being ignored by all those journalists who keep writing about the bombs still exploding, the bodies still falling.
|
There is an excelent example of propoganda. If one were to speak to the jorunalists who report on the casualties and the bombs, they would assure you that they are reporting on a part of the war that is seldom seen on the news. Their intentions are to give everyone the whole story so that they can, with as many facts as possible, make an informed decision aboyut whether they agree with the war in Iraq. If, however, one were to read the above statement at face value, it would seem as if the mear act of displaying video or pictures is somehow meant to distract the people from an apparent US success. That is propoganda. Taking away or controlling the flow of information in order to promote your adjenda or to damage your adversary.
The example given by Josh above of a public service reminder does not work to control information. It serves to provide information. I think that seperates it from the article above.