Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
I have to disagree with your "Jessica Lynch story" as an example, will....
|
I use it because of it's exposure and because bringing up the more brazen examples might start a threadjack about Iraq or the al Qaeda. The fact of the matter is that the reality of the situation, where Jessica's weapon jammed, she never fought back, she was treated with respect and care by the Iraqi doctors, and there was no armed rescue, was hidden and a Rambo from West Virginia was spread by the media and a congressman from West Virginia. That type of purposeful misinformation, intended to rally support for an unpopular war, is propaganda and should be considered illegal.
The story was misrepresented and sensationalized not only to improve ratings (and produce a shitty made for TV movie), but to change people's minds about the war. That behavior should be punished.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
The U.S. government executive branch insisted on "embedding" all reporters in Iraq, to insure that it would be possible for it to control the flow of "news", instead of the news correspondents controlling it, as they were able to do during the Vietnam war, and during other wars that the US military had participated in....this is the "official story", and the media had only two choices, because of the embedding and censorship constraints place on it.
They could "carry" (distribute) this....or not...
|
Yes, but it's not as simple as government bad, media good. I'm sure you watched Geraldo embedded acting like a complete ponce. That was not due to any action taken by the government. Liberal correspondents did do a lot to get information back about the negative aspects of the war. I'm sure if we were to ask Shakran, he could tell you how many of those videos of IEDs lifting US humvees into the air were left on the cutting room floor because people wouldn't want to see that level of reality from the ground. That's what I'm walking about. Keeping those videos off the air serves a dual purpose: coddling viewers so that they don't change the channel, and portraying the war as being much less dangerous and bloody than it really is so that people aren't as strongly against it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
I see nothing to "fine" the media for doing, in the above example. I see intentional, politically divisive, propaganda, in your example, coming from one political faction, and I see it as one of many examples that has deepened a divide that hampers discussion. The "middle" ground ends up being the mindset that does not see anything that has happened as any more unusual as "routine" politics.... and that does not lead to serious discussion....as in,
"discuss what"? or "same old, same old".....
|
It's not about the divide, it's about ammunition for the battle for real positive change. I can't tell people what to do with the information, they have to make the determination about what they'll do with it. They can stand up and say "no more", just as easily as they can say "same shit, different day". I recognize that most people are too comfortable to shed their apathy. I can only hope to get through enough to spark change.