Mainstream Media Fails Again.. and Again - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

silent_jay · 09-01-2006, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

liberals just don't see it. there is no use. bye

I believe what you wanted to say was.....'Liberals just don't see things the way I see things, therefore they are wrong and I am right'.

Opps, I posted in politics, my bad.

roachboy · 09-01-2006, 07:48 AM

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.

jorgelito · 09-01-2006, 07:54 AM

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).

Willravel · 09-01-2006, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

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).

Terrorism is wrong, and militarism is wrong. I see neither as being justifiable, so therefore equating them in my mind works. Many people choose to think that terrorism only targets civilians. That's not true. Many terrorists target military instilations (not that I am excusing that at all, simply that militart targets are not civilian targets). Many people also like to believe that the only time militaries kill innocents is when they are collateral damage, or incodently killed when we are trying to kill the real bad guys. Well ask anyone in Iraq about how the military treats civilians (and I am speaking both of the former Iraqi army and the current US invasion and occupation), and they will sing a very different tune.

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.

stevo · 09-01-2006, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Terrorism is wrong, and militarism is wrong. I see neither as being justifiable, so therefore equating them in my mind works. Many people choose to think that terrorism only targets civilians. That's not true. Many terrorists target military instilations (not that I am excusing that at all, simply that militart targets are not civilian targets). Many people also like to believe that the only time militaries kill innocents is when they are collateral damage, or incodently killed when we are trying to kill the real bad guys. Well ask anyone in Iraq about how the military treats civilians (and I am speaking both of the former Iraqi army and the current US invasion and occupation), and they will sing a very different tune.

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.

Sorry will, but its just ignorant to claim militarism is wrong. Without someone standing up for what is good, and fighting with the use a military then evil would rule us all. There is an excuse for militarism and it is to fight and kill those that want to kill and rule us. If the world was full of peacenicks we'd all be dead.

Willravel · 09-01-2006, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

Sorry will, but its just ignorant to claim militarism is wrong. Without someone standing up for what is good, and fighting with the use a military then evil would rule us all. There is an excuse for militarism and it is to fight and kill those that want to kill and rule us. If the world was full of peacenicks we'd all be dead.

I think that it is ignorant to put blind trust in a military run not by brilliant military minds or men of good conscience, but a corrupt administration.

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.

stevo · 09-01-2006, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I think that it is ignorant to put blind trust in a military run not by brilliant military minds or men of good conscience, but a corrupt administration.

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.

you're right. there wouldn't be war, we'd all be dead. You have no idea what you are talking about. you do nothing but make assumptions and chase conspiracies. When you say things like "Militaries and terrorists both can actually be forces of good in the world" it makes me want to call you a bunch of names that are against forum rules. So maybe I'll come back tomorrow. who knows.

host · 09-01-2006, 10:07 AM

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:

http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-08-08-voa74.cfm
South Lebanon in Lockdown After Israeli Warning
By Challiss McDonough
Tyre, Lebanon
08 August 2006

......In a sometimes raucous news conference in Tyre, a paramedic from the local rescue squad practically pleaded with the ICRC chief for help in convincing the Israelis to let ambulances move freely.........

........To get to Tyre, the ICRC president had to walk across the Litani River balancing on a tree trunk. The last bridge over the river was cut by an Israeli airstrike on Monday, and south Lebanon has been essentially cut off from the rest of the country since then.

But Kellenberger said his first priority is reaching the surrounding villages that are even more isolated and more besieged than Tyre..........

Quote:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/from...0e9a7df952.htm
Lebanon/Israel: civilians pay the price of conflict
14 Aug 2006 18:09:24 GMT

The ICRC president, Jakob Kellenberger, has said that civilians have been the main victims in the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah. Mr Kellenberger, speaking at a press conference in Geneva following his return from a visit to the Middle East, called for access to those most in need of humanitarian assistance in southern Lebanon.

At the press conference, held hours after a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah entered into force, President Kellenberger welcomed the move.

......After recent incidents where Lebanese Red Cross ambulances have been hit, Mr Kellenberger said he had insisted during his visit that the medical mission be respected.

During his visit, President Kellenberger said he again reminded both parties to the conflict of their obligation to respect the rules of war as enshrined in international humanitarian law, in particular, those applicable to the civilian population.

In Israel, he met the families of the three Israeli soldiers captured by Hamas and Hezbollah.

The ICRC has asked that the soldiers be treated humanely and has requested access, so far without success.

The President said this demand would be pursued with energy.....

Quote:

http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0...2571CA0058C077
14-08-2006 Press briefing
Lebanon/Israel: civilians pay the price of conflict
The ICRC president, Jakob Kellenberger, has said that civilians have been the main victims in the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah. Mr Kellenberger, speaking at a press conference in Geneva following his return from a visit to the Middle East, called for access to those most in need of humanitarian assistance in southern Lebanon.
<img src="http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/lebanon-press-conference-140806/$File/XP0J0733_m.jpg">

.....The ICRC, in coordination with the Lebanese Red Cross, also continues to evacuate the sick and wounded and to collect the dead from beneath the rubble. After recent incidents where Lebanese Red Cross ambulances have been hit, Mr Kellenberger said he had insisted during his visit that the medical mission be respected........

Quote:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/...817099370.html
Ambulance attack evidence stands the test

Sarah Smiles, Beirut
September 2, 2006

AHMED Fawaz sits in a wheelchair in a sweat-stained hospital gown, smoking a cigarette in sweltering heat.

He was discharged from a Beirut hospital this week after losing his leg when a Lebanese Red Cross ambulance he was in with his family came under an Israeli air attack in south Lebanon on July 23.

The attack on the ambulance near the village of Qana left his 12-year-old son Mohammed scarred by shrapnel wounds to the head.

The attack on two ambulances ferrying mildly injured people from the village of Tibnin to Tyre was widely reported by international media, including The Age.

But Foreign Minister Alexander Downer has condemned press coverage of the incident, suggesting it was a hoax. He appears to have drawn his conclusions from right-wing US website zombietime.com that debunks all reporting on the incident using available press photos and television footage as "evidence".

An Israeli army spokesman told The Age yesterday that the army had not yet established what happened and the incident was under investigation.

"We were in a war," the spokesman said. "It takes time to find out exactly what happened and whose fault it was and why. We are not saying it was an accident or that we take responsibility. We only say that the incident in question occurred in an area used to fire hundreds of rockets into Israel … The army warned the population in the area to stay clear of rocket launching sites because we intended to operate there against activity by Hezbollah terrorists." It is believed that the Israeli army's investigation will rely on images and video footage taken by Israeli drones.

While some reporters wrote that an Israeli missile ripped a hole in the roof of one ambulance that was directly hit, the zombietime.com site argues a missile would have caused much wider damage. It argues the hole appears to be where there was an existing circular vent, with rust on some of the exposed metal showing that damage to vehicle happened before the reported time of the attack.

However, Red Cross volunteers manning the ambulances and Mr Fawaz insist the hit was caused by small weapons fired from unmanned drones that they heard circling above after the attack.

The Age visited the yard where the bombed out ambulances are now parked. This reporter saw the ambulance that Mr Fawaz was in. It appeared to have been hit by a weapon that punctured a huge hole through the back. The zombietime.com only shows the picture of the second ambulance that had a smaller puncture through the top where there was a pre-existing vent in the centre of the vehicle.

The holes in the ambulances, parked in the coastal town of Tyre on the Mediterranean, are now covered in rust.

Based on photos of the ambulance's exterior that do not reveal any blood, the site suggests that Mr Fawaz incurred his injury elsewhere and was "paraded before the cameras as a victim of an Israeli missile".

While the interior of the ambulance has been gutted, a Red Cross volunteer who was in the same ambulance as Mr Fawaz said he did bleed onto his stretcher, but not excessively as his leg had been cauterised.

At a speech on the Gold Coast this week, Mr Downer relied on the limited and selective images on zombietime.com to criticise journalists for poor reporting on the war in Lebanon.

"After closer study of the images of the damage to the ambulance, it is beyond serious dispute that this episode has all the makings of a hoax," he said.

For Mr Fawaz, 41, a mechanic from the village of Tibnin, life without his leg is no hoax.

Mohammed Hassan, 35, a Red Cross Cross volunteer in the ambulance with Mr Fawaz when it was hit, said three volunteers fled to a nearby building after the attack.

Mr Fawaz's elderly mother Jamila crawled out of the vehicle while the volunteers carried Mohammed, Ahmed's son, who was unconscious. They could not reach Mr Fawaz with rockets from drones hitting around the ambulance and the building they were in.

"If (Alexander Downer) thinks it was a hoax, he should come and see the ambulances himself," said Sami Yazbek, the head of the Lebanese Red Cross in Tyre.

"What, he thinks we lied?" said Mr Hassan in disbelief. He said he was saved by a helmet and bulletproof armour he was wearing that was strafed at the back. He said his helmet is pocked where shrapnel hit.

The Lebanese Red Cross and the International Committee of the Red Cross have confirmed that two ambulances came under Israeli air attack near the village of Qana on the night of July 23.

Lebanese Red Cross volunteers are certain the weapons were fired from a drone.

Mr Fawaz, who slipped in and out of consciousness after the blast, remembers hearing the sound of a drone whirring above him when he came to. "It sounds like a motorcycle."

Soon after, through the door of the ambulance that had been blasted open, he recalls seeing a second strike on the ground.

"It was a drone because if it was a warplane we wouldn't be alive," he said.

When he came to after the blast, he remembers reaching for his glasses that were knocked to the back of his head, adjusting them and then feeling a sense of malaise. "I put my hand on my leg and I couldn't feel it," he said. "I tried to take the cord of the IV drip to tie up my leg to stop it bleeding, but I couldn't manage it."

While the Lebanese Red Cross said that Israel had issued a "verbal" unofficial apology for the strike, ICRC spokesman in Beirut Hisham Hassan did not want to confirm it, saying its discussions with Israel were private.

The reader representative for The Los Angeles Times, Jamie Gold said she was aware of internet chatter about the story, but the paper had received no official complaint.

She also said the Israeli Government had not complained about the story, and they were not reluctant to point out errors.

The holes in the ambulances, parked in the coastal town of Tyre on the Mediterranean, are now covered in rust.

Based on photos of the ambulance's exterior that do not reveal any blood, the site suggests that Mr Fawaz incurred his injury elsewhere and was "paraded before the cameras as a victim of an Israeli missile".

While the interior of the ambulance has been gutted, a Red Cross volunteer who was in the same ambulance as Mr Fawaz said he did bleed onto his stretcher, but not excessively as his leg had been cauterised.

At a speech on the Gold Coast this week, Mr Downer relied on the limited and selective images on zombietime.com to criticise journalists for poor reporting on the war in Lebanon.

"After closer study of the images of the damage to the ambulance, it is beyond serious dispute that this episode has all the makings of a hoax," he said.

For Mr Fawaz, 41, a mechanic from the village of Tibnin, life without his leg is no hoax.

Mohammed Hassan, 35, a Red Cross Cross volunteer in the ambulance with Mr Fawaz when it was hit, said three volunteers fled to a nearby building after the attack.

Mr Fawaz's elderly mother Jamila crawled out of the vehicle while the volunteers carried Mohammed, Ahmed's son, who was unconscious. They could not reach Mr Fawaz with rockets from drones hitting around the ambulance and the building they were in.

"If (Alexander Downer) thinks it was a hoax, he should come and see the ambulances himself," said Sami Yazbek, the head of the Lebanese Red Cross in Tyre.

"What, he thinks we lied?" said Mr Hassan in disbelief. He said he was saved by a helmet and bulletproof armour he was wearing that was strafed at the back. He said his helmet is pocked where shrapnel hit.

The Lebanese Red Cross and the International Committee of the Red Cross have confirmed that two ambulances came under Israeli air attack near the village of Qana on the night of July 23.

Lebanese Red Cross volunteers are certain the weapons were fired from a drone.

Mr Fawaz, who slipped in and out of consciousness after the blast, remembers hearing the sound of a drone whirring above him when he came to. "It sounds like a motorcycle."

Soon after, through the door of the ambulance that had been blasted open, he recalls seeing a second strike on the ground.

"It was a drone because if it was a warplane we wouldn't be alive," he said.

When he came to after the blast, he remembers reaching for his glasses that were knocked to the back of his head, adjusting them and then feeling a sense of malaise. "I put my hand on my leg and I couldn't feel it," he said. "I tried to take the cord of the IV drip to tie up my leg to stop it bleeding, but I couldn't manage it."

While the Lebanese Red Cross said that Israel had issued a "verbal" unofficial apology for the strike, ICRC spokesman in Beirut Hisham Hassan did not want to confirm it, saying its discussions with Israel were private.

The reader representative for The Los Angeles Times, Jamie Gold said she was aware of internet chatter about the story, but the paper had received no official complaint.

She also said the Israeli Government had not complained about the story, and they were not reluctant to point out errors.

With JONATHAN PEARLMAN

Quote:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/amb...817099100.html
Ambulance attack victim's anger at hoax allegations

Sarah Smiles in Beirut
September 2, 2006

.........Mohammed Hassan, 35, a Red Cross volunteer in Mr Fawaz's vehicle when it was hit, said the three volunteers fled to a nearby building after the attack.

They could not reach Mr Fawaz with rockets from drones hitting around the ambulance and the building they were in.

"If [Mr Downer] thinks it was a hoax, he should come and see the ambulances himself," said Sami Yazbek, the head of the Lebanese Red Cross in Tyre.

Both the Lebanese Red Cross and the International Red Cross have confirmed that two Lebanese Red Cross ambulances came under an Israeli air attack near the village of Qana.

"There were no other aircraft in the sky flying during the war," said Ali Saad, the head of the Lebanese Red Cross's south Lebanon information office. "The ambulances were hit from the air - it has to be an Israeli aircraft."..........

The following will fall on the deaf ears of those who "eat up" the BS that is spewed by the folks who compiled and promoted across the internet the anti Red Cross "message" that we read in this thread's OP. It is similar to Mr. Rumsfeld's attack on Amnesty Interantional in his speech to the "Legion", just the other day. A few years ago, when it suited the purpose of the US State Dept. in it's criticism of rival nations, determinations of Amnesty Int. and Int. Red Cross were freely quoted to bolster official US propaganda.

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:

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?...&article=39720
Transcript: Rumsfeld’s speech to the American Legion
Stars and Stripes
Online edition, Wednesday, August 30, 2006

........ We hear every day of new plans, new efforts to murder Americans and other free people. Indeed, the plot that was discovered in London that would have killed hundreds — possibly thousands — of innocent men, women and children on aircraft flying from London to the United States should remind us that this enemy is serious, lethal, and relentless.

But this is still not well recognized or fully understood. It seems that in some quarters there’s more of a focus on dividing our country than acting with unity against the gathering threats. ...........

....And it’s a time when Amnesty International refers to the military facility at Guantanamo Bay — which holds terrorists who have vowed to kill Americans and which is arguably the best run and most scrutinized detention facility in the history of warfare — “he gulag of our times.” It’s inexcusable. (Applause.)

Quote:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/0...eld/#more-9932
Watch the video:
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Olb...ldOnFacism.wmv

......The transcript of Keith’s comments tonight is available below the fold.

The man who sees absolutes, where all other men see nuances and

shades of meaning, is either a prophet, or a quack.

Donald H. Rumsfeld is not a prophet.

We end the countdown where we began, our #1 story.

with a special comment on

Mr. Rumsfeld’s remarkable speech to the American Legion

yesterday. It demands the deep analysis - and the sober contemplation - of every

American.

For it did not merely serve to impugn the morality or

intelligence - indeed, the loyalty - of the majority of Americans who

oppose the transient occupants of the highest offices in the land;

Worse, still, it credits those same transient occupants - our

employees - with a total omniscience; a total omniscience which neither

common sense, nor this administration’s track record at home or abroad,

suggests they deserve.

Dissent and disagreement with government is the life’s blood of

human freedom; And not merely because it is the first roadblock against the

kind of tyranny the men Mr. Rumsfeld likes to think of as "his" troops still

fight, this very evening, in Iraq..........

....Mr. Rumsfeld is also personally confused, morally or

intellectually, about his own standing in this matter. From Iraq to

Katrina, to flu vaccine shortages, to the entire "Fog of Fear" which continues to envelope this

nation - he, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, and their cronies, have - inadvertently

or intentionally - profited and benefited, both personally, and politically.

And yet he can stand up in public, and question the morality and

the intellect of those of us who dare ask just for the receipt for the

Emporer’s New Clothes.

In what country was Mr. Rumsfeld raised?

As a child, of whose heroism did he read?

On what side of the battle for freedom did he dream one day

to fight?

With what country has he confused… the United States of

America?

–

The confusion we - as its citizens - must now address, is

stark and forbidding. But variations of it have faced our forefathers, when

men like Nixon and McCarthy and Curtis LeMay have darkened our skies and

obscured our flag. Note - with hope in your heart - that those earlier

Americans always found their way to the light and we can too.

The confusion is about whether this Secretary of Defense, and

this Administration, are in fact now accomplishing what they claim the

terrorists seek: The destruction of our freedoms, the very ones for

which the same veterans Mr. Rumsfeld addressed yesterday in Salt Lake City,

so valiantly fought.

–

And about Mr. Rumsfeld’s other main assertion, that this country

faces a "new type of fascism."

As he was correct to remind us how a government that knew

everything could get everything wrong, so too was he right when he

said that - though probably not in the way he thought he meant it.

This country faces a new type of fascism - indeed.

–

Although I presumptuously use his sign-off each night, in feeble

tribute… I have utterly no claim to the words of the exemplary journalist

Edward R. Murrow.

But never in the trial of a thousand years of writing could

come close to matching how he phrased a warning to an earlier generation of

us, at a time when other politicians thought they (and they alone) knew

everything, and branded those who disagreed, "confused" or "immoral."

Thus forgive me for reading Murrow in full:

"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty," he said, in 1954.

"We must remember always that accusation is not proof, and that conviction

depends upon evidence and due process of law.

We will not walk in fear - one, of another. We will not be

driven by fear into an age of un-reason, if we dig deep in our history

and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men;

Not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to

defend causes that were - for the moment - unpopular."

And so, good night, and good luck.

When you "buy in" to the "message" that the MSM and international human rights agencies, such as Amnesty Int. and the Int. Red Cross, are the "problem", that is getting in the way of the "security interests" of the US, or of Israel, where does that leave you?

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".

Willravel · 09-01-2006, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

you're right. there wouldn't be war, we'd all be dead. You have no idea what you are talking about. you do nothing but make assumptions and chase conspiracies. When you say things like "Militaries and terrorists both can actually be forces of good in the world" it makes me want to call you a bunch of names that are against forum rules. So maybe I'll come back tomorrow. who knows.

This is coming dangerously close to a personal attack, stevo. I suggest that you calm down, ignore me, or hit the back button. Terrorism, like militarism, is supposed to be a last resort because they are both morally reprehensable. I think we can all agree that it's wrong to kill people. Terrorism, while obviously a horrible action, can provide positive results. But, again and as I've said, the ends do not justify the means. Likewise the ends (a possibly democratic and epaceful Iraq decades from now, if ever) do not justify the means (massive full scale civil war that is killing our troops and is completly unnecessary) in many wars, ESPICALLY wars of aggression. Is it really worth it to you personally to pay taxes to fund the invasion of a country that clearly was no threat to us? I mean seriously, it's like the only life with value is American life to some people.

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.

Seaver · 09-01-2006, 10:43 AM

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:

...the particular case seems fairly clear-cut. if the ambulance in the photos is supposed to be the same ambulance described in the sequence of press releases, then yes, the claims are obviously false.

Ustwo · 09-01-2006, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

liberals just don't see it. there is no use. bye

You should have just quit at this post.

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.

Willravel · 09-01-2006, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

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.

Surely. It is entirely possible that the story was faked or exaggerated. I don't support the existence of the Hezbollah at all, because despite their intentions, their existence has proven detrimental to the Lebanese people. I don't quite understand why people think that anyone around here SUPPORT the Hezbollah. There is a marked difference between understanding someone and agreeing with someone. I understand that the Hezbollah want Israel out of Lebanon (all of Lebanon, including the spots under dispute), I understand that Israel is still holding Lebanese citizens from the occupation and Hezbollah want's them returned, and I understand that the occupation created hostilities that span whole generations of Lebanese people. I can understand why they are angry, and I understand why they attack. I don't condone it, but I understand it.

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."

Elphaba · 09-01-2006, 01:29 PM

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.

Or perhaps it is your singular view of anyone who disagrees with you?

Quote:

Projection: the attribution of one's own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people; the externalization of blame, guilt, or responsibility as a defense against anxiety.

Ustwo · 09-01-2006, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Or perhaps it is your singular view of anyone who disagrees with you?

No Elphaba its not, you can disagree with my opinion all you like, but when facts are twisted its no longer worth debate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

"Yes, the media in the US and UK are guilty of faking and exaggerating news, just like the Hezbollah probably are."

Ok now we are getting some where.

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.

Willravel · 09-01-2006, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Ok now we are getting some where.

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.

Well that's kinda complicated. As you've said before it is incredibly difficult to test the authenticity of Palestinian or Lebanese sources, moreso than it would be to confirm information from the US, the UK, or Israel, for examples. The big question in my mind when I think about that is: why? Why is it that sources from Israel are trustworthy when it comes to news, but only grassroots or liberal media in the US or UK are willing to listen to intelligence from Palestinians?

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.

roachboy · 09-01-2006, 04:02 PM

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.

Willravel · 09-01-2006, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

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.

I liked your unedited post better....

Ustwo · 09-01-2006, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I liked your unedited post better....

Oh what was the unedited one, I feel cheated!

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Well that's kinda complicated. As you've said before it is incredibly difficult to test the authenticity of Palestinian or Lebanese sources, moreso than it would be to confirm information from the US, the UK, or Israel, for examples. The big question in my mind when I think about that is: why? Why is it that sources from Israel are trustworthy when it comes to news, but only grassroots or liberal media in the US or UK are willing to listen to intelligence from Palestinians?

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.

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?

Willravel · 09-01-2006, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

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?

Yes. Israel is overrepresented and Palestine is underrepresented in the medias of the West. When Israeli soldiers are kidnapped, we know their names, the circumstances, and we usually get backround on Hezbollah or the PLO as a terrorist group. If Lebanese or Palestinians are kidnapped, it's a victory in the war on terror, as if to suggest that all Lebanese are Hezbollah and all Palestianians are PLO. This is, of course, absurd. MOST Lebanese are not Hezbollah, and before the recent conflict, only a small percentage of the population supported the Hezbollah. They found virtually no support in the North of Lebanon at all. Liekwise, the PLO and Hamas are only organizations in the Palestinian world, and most Palestinians abhore the violence, even agains Israel.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

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.

It mainly because I hate Bill so damn much that he comes to mind whenever I think of the pinnacle of evil in journalism. Eventually, there will be a Godwin Law for O'Reilly (was that statement a Godwin, I wonder?).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

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?

No the liberal is the one intervierwing the "terrorist", or rather the Palestinian or Lebanese. The "terrorists" are a wild combination of conservative and liberal, so much so that using the con/lib labels for them are really quite useless.

roachboy · 09-02-2006, 08:02 AM

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.

Charlatan · 09-02-2006, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Surely. It is entirely possible that the story was faked or exaggerated. I don't support the existence of the Hezbollah at all, because despite their intentions, their existence has proven detrimental to the Lebanese people. I don't quite understand why people think that anyone around here SUPPORT the Hezbollah. There is a marked difference between understanding someone and agreeing with someone. I understand that the Hezbollah want Israel out of Lebanon (all of Lebanon, including the spots under dispute), I understand that Israel is still holding Lebanese citizens from the occupation and Hezbollah want's them returned, and I understand that the occupation created hostilities that span whole generations of Lebanese people. I can understand why they are angry, and I understand why they attack. I don't condone it, but I understand it.

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."

This is exactly what I've been trying to say. With one exception. Your last line should read, "Organizations (governments, NGOs, etc.) are guilty of faking, exagerating and/or spinning the truth, just like the Hezbollah are."

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.

Willravel · 09-02-2006, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

This is exactly what I've been trying to say. With one exception. Your last line should read, "Organizations (governments, NGOs, etc.) are guilty of faking, exagerating and/or spinning the truth, just like the Hezbollah are."

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.

An excellent point. I should have also equated our governments, not just our media organizations, with the Hezbollah and Hamas in being guilty of substantial media tampering and manipulation. Thanks for your thoughts, and I totally agree.

The_Jazz · 09-03-2006, 09:42 AM

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.

09-01-2006, 07:48 AM	#42 (permalink)
roachboy 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, 04:02 PM	#56 (permalink)
roachboy 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..

09-02-2006, 08:02 AM	#60 (permalink)
roachboy 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..

09-03-2006, 09:42 AM	#63 (permalink)
The_Jazz 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

09-01-2006, 07:54 AM	#43 (permalink)
jorgelito 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).