09-01-2006, 07:46 AM | #41 (permalink) | |
Her Jay
Location: Ontario for now....
|
Quote:
Opps, I posted in politics, my bad.
__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder Last edited by silent_jay; 09-01-2006 at 07:48 AM.. |
|
09-01-2006, 07:48 AM | #42 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
host: thanks for doing the legwork on zombietime. it seems that the emergence of that article as news is a good example of the structural problems of information gathering in a context dominated by highly diversified large corporations that treat news like any other commodity and which outsource the actual gathering and checking of information.
so the problem the right complains about is the feature of news as hall or mirrors that they rely on to float their own infotainment. funny how that works. so clearly the real problem for conservatives is that they want to see only unchecked crap friendly to their politics of the moment. everything else is "terrorist-friendly". so when you get down to it, here as elsewhere, the category "terrorist" functions to designate everyone and everything that is not in line with conservative politics of the moment. and this functions without the requirement of anything approaching coherent argument, as ustwo continually demonstrates in this context. stevo: the article you posted at least tries to address the problem with the op article at the level of argument (that is, it tries to make an argument about systematic questions) but doesnt really manage it--the claims in it rest on (1) the separate area of aptn that serves arab states which sets up (2) a series of data-free inferences concerning bias--the argument can be reduced to being arab=being anti-israel, as if opposition to israeli policies/actions is a question of some kind of ethnic bias. this is the same non-argument that was floated in the pallywood video that ustwo bit a few weeks ago---it is not an argument that has any analytic power to it, but is one that deploys certain triggers and directs them--that is, it presupposes political predispositions and directs them in the usual way. in other words, the article seems to me to be preaching to the (conservative) choir. if you remove the choir, the article doesnt function.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 09-01-2006 at 07:50 AM.. |
09-01-2006, 07:54 AM | #43 (permalink) |
All important elusive independent swing voter...
Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia
|
Whoa, lack of a military or what-not is no excuse for terrorism. The issues must be separated. There is also a difference between targeting civilians deliberately and incidental or collateral damage to civilians (especially after warning them first).
|
09-01-2006, 08:12 AM | #44 (permalink) | |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
I would never excuse terrorism, but I am able to understand why they do it. Likewise I understand militarism, but I would never excuse it either. |
|
09-01-2006, 08:47 AM | #45 (permalink) | |
Rail Baron
Location: Tallyfla
|
Quote:
__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser |
|
09-01-2006, 09:02 AM | #46 (permalink) | |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
Militaries and terrorists both can actually be forces of good in the world, but only in their ends. The means by which each gain their ends are inexcusable. Haven't you ever heard the old phrase "the ends don't justify the means"? Also, if the world was full of peacenicks, there wouldn't be war. How could you possibly think there would be war if the world was full of peacenicks? Comon. |
|
09-01-2006, 09:13 AM | #47 (permalink) | |
Rail Baron
Location: Tallyfla
|
Quote:
__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser |
|
09-01-2006, 10:07 AM | #48 (permalink) | |||||||
Banned
|
Guys.....the evidence from outside the closed circle of the "conservative" universe, is that the premise in this thread's OP, and the opinions that it influenced, judging by the responses posted in defense of the OP, is that it is a "conservative" pundit driven Psy-OP....
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The "rest of us", understand that it is not Amnesty Int. or Red Cross that have changed. It is the official US attitude (and that of this administration's supporters) toward respect for international treaties that protect human rights and the provisions that demand the monitoring and reporting of observance of the provisions of these treaties, that has fucking changed.....FOR THE WORSE !!!!! Quote:
Quote:
It took a while....too long in this decade....but now, the majority of Americans do know the answer to the above question. Those who applaud Rumsfeld and Mr. Bush, have been relegated to the "fringe". |
|||||||
09-01-2006, 10:31 AM | #49 (permalink) | |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
As for conspiracies and assumptions, what about the WMDs and al Qaeda links? What about lie after lie coming from the highest ranks in government in order to allow a war that otherwise wouldn't have happened? I mean, that's what a conspiracy is. They assumed they could get away with it. |
|
09-01-2006, 10:43 AM | #50 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Fort Worth, TX
|
I dont know what Amnesty International has anything to do with this other than their obsurd definitions of war crimes. Is this because they accuse and want to persecute Israel for bombing bridges and power facilities? Nevermind that no country on earth considers that a war crime. Oh right, it's because they depserately want to believe the ambulance story so they can finally have their war crime trial. Nevermind that the evidence is obvious that this is a fake.
I would also like to take this time to quote a man I rarely do. Quote:
__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas |
|
09-01-2006, 12:21 PM | #51 (permalink) | |
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
Quote:
You and I know its some odd form of cognitive dissonance that goes on here with them, some sort of odd mental rearrangement that allows them to maintain their world view no matter what is presented. It would be nice if one of the tilted left just said 'Yea looks like a bogus story but since I support Hezbollah over Israel I don't care'. It would be a breath of fresh intellectual honesty. Instead we get weird tie ins with the WTC bombing, and moral relativism which has nothing to do with the concept of the biased reporting that this incident helps expose. So, now maybe I missed it, I haven't read every post in this thread as it prevents me from receiving cerebral blunt force trauma do to repeated impacts with my office wall, but will one of the tilted left, you know who you are just say.... "Yea it looks like the story was faked and yes the press covered it as if it were real but I don't care because I support Hezbollah." Thats all I ask, its a starting point for a dialog.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. Last edited by Ustwo; 09-01-2006 at 12:35 PM.. |
|
09-01-2006, 12:43 PM | #52 (permalink) | |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
But so say that Hezbollah is wrong for faking or exaggerating in the news IS hypocritical. It needs to be pointed out that American and British news organizations are guilty of the same media tactics as the Hezbollah, and on a far larger scale. To call out Hezbollah for this without admitting that we are guilty of the same thing is specious and ultimately self-decieving. I admitted that Hezbollah is probably guilty of media tampering and misleading people. Now I must ask you to admit something, in the interest of continuing reasonable, respectful dialogue: "Yes, the media in the US and UK are guilty of faking and exaggerating news, just like the Hezbollah probably are." |
|
09-01-2006, 01:29 PM | #53 (permalink) | ||
Deja Moo
Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
09-01-2006, 01:48 PM | #54 (permalink) | ||
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
Quote:
Quote:
But I ask of you, do you think that the coverage of Israel as presented in the US and Europe is intentionaly biased? My gripe is not Hezbollah faking news, these are people who target civilians on purpose and want the destruction of Israel by any means, I expect them to. What I don't expect is Western News agences to report their fake news as truth without investigation.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. Last edited by Ustwo; 09-01-2006 at 01:52 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
||
09-01-2006, 02:49 PM | #55 (permalink) | |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
That is when we come to the great divide between us: I think that the Western viewpoint on the Israel/Palestine conflict is warped because of favoritism or even possibly apologism towards Israel. That's not to say that Israel is always wrong and Palestine is always right, but there is a clear bias in my mind. Because that bias has existed for so long, and the Palestinian side of the story has gone unheard for so long, the media is now assuming that because no one reports the Palestinian side, it is untrustworthy. It's a rather odd and certianally unfair chain of events. Because the cries of Palestine go unheard by most mainstream media (Skynews, Fox News, MSNBC, and even CNN and the BBC), the slack is picked up by smaller, more liberal sources. I can't tell you how many times I've watched Democracy Now! talking about Palestine in the past few years. The problem is that Democracy Now! and such media outlets have a relatively small influence on public opinion. While the occasional story will leak through on CNN or BBC News, the vast majority of news stories about the Israel/Palestine conflict come out favoring Israel. So, to finally address your question: it's overcompensation. Because no one seems to trust the Palestinians or the Hezsbollah at all, and because the political arena continues to become so polarized, liberal outlets are likely to belive liberal sources, just as conservative outlets clearly favor trusting conservative outlets.* I cannot speak for you, so I have to ask: which Palestinains or Lebanese would you trust to supply their side of the story? *expanding on this for a moment, I would find it reprehensible if I found out that liberal media outlets were stooping to the level of the O'Reily's of the world simply to try and match the exposure. Shouting loud gets the attention of dumb people, whereas making valid points gets the attention of intelligent people. Part of journalistic ethics is being able to tell a truthful story whether it's popular with the administration or not, or whether it's popuar at all or not. Real journalists, and more imporantly real media outlets, are able to get past the bullshit stories intended to bring in viewers or readers (i.re. "YOUR CEREAL MIGHT KILL YOU!!! More information at 11), and get to the real stories. Last edited by Willravel; 09-01-2006 at 04:12 PM.. |
|
09-01-2006, 04:02 PM | #56 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
ustwo:
it is clearly a waste of time to take your posts seriously. i had more to say but it is not worth the effort.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 09-01-2006 at 04:07 PM.. |
09-01-2006, 04:23 PM | #58 (permalink) | ||
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
Quote:
Quote:
You didn't really answer the question. Do you think that the press coverage, from the mainstream outlets, is baised as presented by the mainstream media, in reguards to Israel? Also why bring up O'Reilly? His is an opinion type segment, yet when people bring up hard news bias, as in 'just the facts mam' the counter is to bring up someone like O'Reilly or Limbaugh? We know what side of the fense they play on, but a supposedly unbiased piece from a qualified journalist doesn't come with a liberal or conservative tag in the byline. But if this was in fact your answer So, to finally address your question: it's overcompensation. Because no one seems to trust the Palestinians or the Hezsbollah at all, and because the political arena continues to become so polarized, liberal outlets are likely to belive liberal sources, just as conservative outlets clearly favor trusting conservative outlets.* What is a liberal source? Is a terrorist a liberal source? Is the desire to help the poor 'underdog' so strong in the liberal mind that they are willing to believe anything fed to them by known murderers to advance the cause of the underdog? This is just why I can't get it. If anyone in the region are liberals its the Israeli's. Compared to the Islamists, the Israelis are pot smoking hippies. There is nothing 'liberal' about Hezbollah, the PLO, or Syria, so why trust them?
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. Last edited by Ustwo; 09-01-2006 at 04:32 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
||
09-01-2006, 04:50 PM | #59 (permalink) | |||
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
09-02-2006, 08:02 AM | #60 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
well ustwo if you feel cheated, let me fill in what i decided last night to take out.
you present arguments that have significant logical problems. in this thread, the op referred to a problematic source--zombietime--which presented a case concerning a particular news report that on the surface of it appeared to be compelling--that is before host has been able to do the legwork on the source and the background of the story and by presenting that information effectively demolished the story itself. in both this thread and in your pallywood thread, you had the same pattern: problematic anecdotal evidence was presented wrapped in ridiculous claims about systematic bias in "media coverage"--but in neither case was there anything like a coherent case presented that would have justified that move. in the op, even had the story turned out to be accurate, there was no basis for treating it as symptomatic of any wider problems. this linkage issue had been pointed out repeatedly. you have nothing to say. instead, your posts assume the linkage is legitimate--without your being able to say ANYTHING in defense of it--and what is more you shift to a ludicrous and incendiary "everyone who disagrees with me is either (1) an antisemite or (2) a fifth columnist supporting hezbollah." not content with these empty yet inflammatory moves, you then try to impute some kind of cognitive dissonance to folk who do not buy into your reactionary politics, dubious reasoning and inflammatory rhetoric. this is absurd, ustwo. a cynical fellow might say "i smell cognitive dissonance issues there, buckaroo" but that would be a cynical fellow luckily, i am not that fellow: i just think it is not worth the effort to take your posts seriously in this or related threads unless you change your approach and address critiques of your positions. it is time to put up or shut up, ustwo.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 09-02-2006 at 08:09 AM.. |
09-02-2006, 03:58 PM | #61 (permalink) | |
Getting it.
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
|
Quote:
It's the same media doing this whether it is in the west or in the Middle East. It's the organizations that present the lies and spin, the media just eats it up.
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke |
|
09-02-2006, 04:02 PM | #62 (permalink) | |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
|
|
09-03-2006, 09:42 AM | #63 (permalink) |
Asshole
Administrator
Location: Chicago
|
For me, the most interesting thing here is that everyone involved in this discussion seems to be ignoring the elephant in the room, so to speak. In my opinion, the words "news" and "propaganda" have been interchangable for at least the past 120 years when it comes to the American media. Left or right bias completely aside, the American public has been spoonfed what publishers/producers think we want hear in order to sell papers and advertising time. It's pretty much an historically accepted fact that the "yellow journalists" drove this country into the Spanish-American War ("Remember the Maine" anyone?) as well as World War I. The fact that celebrity gossip accounts for so much revenue alone should show you that we're only given what we want (or what they think we want).
Hezbollah, Hamas and the Israelis are only giving us what they think they want us to hear. And by "us", I mean the world at large, not just the US consumer.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo |
Tags |
fails, mainstream, media |
|
|