Mainstream Media Fails Again.. and Again
 

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...006029,00.html

Well it looks like the Reuters photoshop is a blip on the screen when it comes to false reporting in the region. Adding in smoke pails in comparison to the blatent fraud that is being fed by the Associated Press.

http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/holeclose.jpg

I know 3 year olds that can both see the drilled holes and can tell you that a rocket would do a heck of a lot more damage than that. Yet all of the mainstream media were amazingly fooled simply because it is what they wanted to believe.

In my opinion this does infact proove severe bias in the AP and Mainstream media, as not one article appears to support Israel. You never hear from the victims of Hezbolla rockets, but the second a fake attack is planted the world press decries warcrimes.

If that is in fact the hole in the ambulance in question, there's been yet another fraud perpetrated on the world. Then again, Israel did drop cluster bombs on Lebanon, so they're not exactly innocent of all charges in this thing.

I must be blind but what freakin drilled holes?

Look primarily at the left side, where the aluminum is unpainted (a good giveaway). You can see holes drilled, then cut away, in obviously pre-measured distances.

http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambu...ars_iftar2.jpg

By the way, if anyone wonders how that hole really got there you can simply check out pictures of other Red Cross ambulances in Lebanon.

If you expect me to believe that a rocket hit dead center on the light, obviously vaporizing it, does not explode, with a miracle healer driver, no blood inside the ambulance, with the high explosive rocket not even touching the floor of the ambulance... well than you mistake me for an employee of the mainstream media.

I am shocked!!!!!

Oh wait. This is just another IDF (Jewish) plan to spread lies and disinforamtion.

Oh those crafty murderous Jews!

Remember there are two sides to every conflict, the truth and the Jewish one.
;)

Sever I'm not sure if I'm 100% ready to throw the liberal press under the bus as supporters of terrorists, at least not all of them. I think what the core is, is they are extremely lazy, they get a premade front page story supplied by terrorists, they go with it, and they are journalists, not the group known to study hard in college, they wouldn't know rocket damage from a fender bender. Later smart people figure out the story can't be true, and here they are looking like morons, again. Do you think they are going to say 'oh remember that horrible ambulance story, well umm we were duped.' no, they feel like the morons they are and they bury it. Remember Dan Rather, the king of liberal journalists, was snagged by something so obviously fake that it only took a few hours to get across the country as people figured out he was using fake documents. Sure he liked the story he ran with, but he wouldn't have run with it, if he knew it was such an amature forgery. Then after, did he say 'sorry my bad' no they tried to go with 'well perhaps the documents are not real but the story is, we just don't have the real documents' angle, only because they couldn't bury that one.....

Meh I can't convince myself of this, I tried but I can't. Yes, its not just bias but its intentional, one sided bias. We know how fast they would call into question any Isreali claims. Its an amazing combination of laziness, arrogance, and bias. I'm just surprised so many liberals, who like to think of themselves as educated, fall for it.

What do clusterbombs have to do with anything. I don't care if they were dropping anthrax spores dipped in mustard gas, this false story is totally unrelated to anything Israel did.

Clusterbombs have nothing to do with the OP, just an aside that neither side was particularly aboveboard about the fact that they targeted civilians as a matter of course. I feel sorrow for neither side. I complete agree that cluster bombs are a different topic, but I see a relationship between the blatant falsification of civilian attacks and the actual civilian attacks.

Lesson one in NeoCon 101: Only one side is suffering, and that side is our ally. If one of our allies is in a struggle with another country, organization, or group, our ally is alowed to do anything they want. The other side, however, cannot do anything to defend themselves. They must sit in their houses with their eyes closed and their finger in their ears, because any resistence is evil.

//threadjack

Even if the stories were faked, why is that a problem? The US media lies about US military and political stuff all the time, and recently it's mostly benifited the not-so-liberal side. Remember Jessica Lynch? Yeah, she was being treated by Iraqi doctors, and even recieved a transfusion of Iraqi blood. She was not rescued by brave soldiers defending her from evil insurgents or terrorists, she was escorted out by her Iraqi doctor, and there were no Iraqi militants in the building. She was not mistreated, and the rescue was staged. This is common practice. It's dispicable, and those who are guilty of fabrication should be punished, but it's commonplace. If we are to say, "Stop trying to mislead people via the media", we should pay closer attention to our own actions. I don't want to be a hypocrite, and I suspect that no one else does, either.

1. i would think it routine by now in this forum that links to sources be provided.

2. in the context of the zombietime blog, and restricting myself to that source (which is linked in the op and which provides a more extensive version of the op), 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.

but as usual, the inferences made on the basis of this case are wholly worthless: it proves nothing at all about any systematic bias of any kind because it presents no evidence concerning such bias---and you'd think claims like "the mainstream media is anti-israel"---which is preposterous in the american context---would require some type of argument, wouldn't you? and that argument would have to refer to evidence, and that evidence would have to symmetrical with the claims made about it....there is nothing of the sort in either the op or the blog linked in the op.

this is pretty basic stuff, folks, dont you think? i would find it astonishing that the conservative set here swallows this kind of argument and evidence free assertions concerning systematic bias compelling--this in the subjunctive because, well, ustwo is involved with the thread, and i dont ever see much consideration of either quality of evidence or argument in any of his posts. but hey, maybe i just pay too much attention to such trivialities as evidence and argument.

2. like will said above, in a war context there are fake stories floated all the time. by all sides.
duh.

3. there is however a problem that this piece does point to, but it has to do with the reliance on wire service stories by a vast range of news outlets that apparently do not check the fact in these wire stories independently.
most war marketing systems rely on this sorry state of affairs to get their "messages" across--the us government relies on it, the israel defense ministry relies on it, other groups/governments rely on it, etc etc etc.

this has much to do with the logic of vertical integration of media outlets, if you think about it: cuts in staff sizes, the elimination of independent news gathering capabilities in the interest of generating greater profits for the large corporations that dominate newspaper and television--and on the pressure this type of profit-oriented organization places on independent news outlets. it's capitalism in action, kids--the lowest quality that you can get away with that appeals to the greatest number--that driven not by a desire for accuracy, not by any belief that a functional democracy requires good information, but instead by the usual logic of increased shareholder value uber alles. so news is a commodity like any other, and lowering costs is necessarily a good thing for all concerned. this is a fine example of the way capitalism in its present form "floats all boats" aint it---so in the interest of maximizing shareholder profits, we get "news" that is drawn from the hall of mirrors of wire services, repeated without necessarily fact checking--why?--because it's cheaper than having staffs that do the work themselves.

Will: I don't think your point is a threadjack at all.

I've said this before, I don't know why anyone is upset to find out that the Hezzbollah are faking news. The only difference between Hezbollah and Israel (or the US for that matter) in the PR war is that Hezbollah's efforts have been pointed out. Make no misake, all war since Gulf War I has had more than a healthy share of media manipulation -- it's essential to a successful war. Essential.

Some are just better at hiding their tracks.


That all said, I think it sucks that any side would do this. Additionally, if you are blaming the media for not covering this you are barking up the wrong tree. They will cover this when it becomes something they can prove (much like they will cover the 9/11 consiracies when it is something they can confidently prove). I woldn't be surprised to find that there are journalists exploring this angle but it's getting shelved until more proof can be found (i.e. the editors and/or publishers are waiting for more information).

Sorry for not giving the HTML for the source, simply slipped my mind.

That logic does not stand up in my opinion. If the greedy fatcats cut their costs down to maximize profits they are digging their own grave. They know that public respect for their word are all that their paychecks come from. This should make them believe even stronger in digging for the truth, instead this is a simple case of wanting to believe it so bad they blind themselves.

If this was the only occurance of it I would not cry bias. The fact that the news reporters knowingly put the same people in multiple pictures clearly shows intentional deceit. The way I haven't seen a single photo of an Israeli house that was bombed, yet the same house in Lebanon is said to have been destroyed on 4 separate dates clearly shows bias. The way reporters around the world believe this obvious fraud shows negligence and bias.

I agree Jessica Lynch was a shameless PR stunt. What I'm trying to point out is not misleading statements by obvious political factions, it's the supposably unbiased neutral media which shows its true colors in situations like this.

1. no biggie on the link--i just wanted to know where this came from.


in many ways, i would agree with your argument here, except without the "if" at the beginning of the second sentence.

you had a parallel instance of the effects of news organizations reliance on a very narrow range of pretty much unchecked information sources in the first bush election fiasco in florida, in the premature and false claim that the election was already over before the count had really been undertaken. turns out that all the major television networks (in this case) relied on the same exit poll tabulation company for their information. you wouldn't have known this had the rest of the florida problems not followed. that reliance on the same information source was a big reason why television news treated the election problems as problems for themselves as well, problems of their own legitimacy.

if i have a bit of time to devote to it, i'll try to put together more detailed information about the changes in major american news outlets since the 1980s. it is a *real* problem. you should worry about it.

as for the rest of your response--1. your image of the "greedy fatcat" has more to do with cartoons from the late 19th century (taminy hall, the teapot dome scandal) than a world of publicly held corporations.---2. american business have a long and kind of pathetic history of trading away long-term interests for short-term gain---think about the american steel industry since 1945--if you can pin the decline of american steel on any one factor, it could well be the decision to export the then-buggy continuous casting process to european and japanese steel industries in the context of the marshall plan--batch casting was already up and running and american steel producers were good at that--but continuous casting eliminated the need for welds in big steel sheets and so could produce stronger steel--in the longer run, that is, after the process had the bugs worked out--so the americans exported the process and took short term benefits from the decision--it is hard to say whether the steel corporate types knew that continuous casting would play a big role in running them out of steel--but it did. where did u.s. steel go, for example? that's right, it's been "usx" for 20 years.

fixation of short term gain is a kind of self-defeating hallmark of american capitalism.
i could go on about this.
anyway, there we are for the moment.

I agree about the abandonment of the US steel industry. However in the same way we choose to ensure our future in the ways that the steel industry would have required such as the very heavy agricultural subsidies.

And I know how fatcats is a term from the trust-busting term. With the monopoly the AP effectively has on information drudging for the mainstream media it reflects very closely.

You know for once, just once I'd like to see something from the left side that didn't just automaticly equate Hezbollah with Israel or the US. When Israel or the US attempt to INCREASE civilian casualties for propaganda purposes then please, speak up on this. Until then I'd say their methods are far far different.

So you run a story based on the word of known terrorists, but won't refute it without 'proof'?

:lol:

The reason they won't run the 9/11 wack jobs is the American people would reject it and it would hurt them, I don't think proof has anything to do with it. We see what the left considers proof every time a story like this gets shown.

No, they are supposed to verify reports before spreading the word accross the world. That is their job, that is all they do. Get stories, investigate stories, if it's true report the story. Mainstream Media have forgotten step 2 for the last couple years.

I am more prone to assume they don't want to spread knowledge of their own incompetence than trying to investigate. For if they actually did some of that the stories never would have been aired to begin with.

Your own government has now decided to address the concerns of the "9/11 wack jobs", and the "answers" are ridiculous. The only three high rise steel structures ever to collapse after experiencing major fires, all collapse, just a few hours apart, on the same day, and the government agency with the principle mission of investigating such fires and the damage that they do.....decides <i>"not to hire new staff to support the investigation"</i>, resulting in the postponement of the investigative report of the most troubling building collapse, for at least two years.....and the folks who question the government response to these unprecedented events are..
...the "wack jobs"?
Contrast the bullshit delays and excuses coming from NIST with the NTSB TWA-800 investigation, which included the recovery of most of the wreckage of a 747 Jumbo airliner from the ocean floor, reassembly of that wreckage into a recognizable airliner fuselage, and analysis and determination of the mid-air explosion that brought the aircraft down, all in 17 months.....
Since at least 5-1/2 years will have gone by, from the time of the WTC7 collapse, until the earliest date of the availability of the NIST determination of the causes of that collapse, and considering that the delay in issuing the NIST report, originally promised in May, 2005, will be a longer period than the entire length of the TWA-800 investigation, and the possible risks posed to all constructed steel framed tall buildings that were built or designed in that five year period, from not having a timely determination of the cause of the WTC7 collapse, why is incuriousity and acceptance of the government "line", not "wacked"?
The article excerpted above was written nearly four years ago....it described what was supposed to be a two year NIST investigation, which did not even begin until a full year after the 9/11 WTC towers collapsed.

....aren't the real "wack jobs", the incurious folks who not only do not question the government's weird, obstructionist behavior and statements, in the face of such momentous and far reaching 9/11 events, but who make the time and effort to vehemently defend the government's record of obstruction, delay, and non-answers, by repeatedly attacking those who do challenge the "official line", or in this case, the oft postponed, and yet to be disclosed, "official line"?

I've thought the media was a failure ever since the run up to invading iraq. The media fails every time it quotes dick cheney without pointing out that he is obviously lying, that any third grader could do a google search and find proof that he is lying and that the fact that he continues to make such bold lies points to his deep cynicism concerning the intelligence of the american people(not that americans aren't easily spoon-fed what they want to hear).

If you think the media sucks covering foreign wars, you should see how bad they suck covering ones we are directly involved in.

Yes host, I think people who think that the WTC was destroyed by anything besides the identified aircraft flying into them is a wack job.

It also has nothing to do with another left wing media acceptance of terrorist propaganda as news, which is what this thread is about.


Oh they should be googling truthout, common dreams, daily KOS and DU and run with it? :lol:

Please, the press may be biased but they don't want to loose all crediblity. They have tried that before and it didn't work out so well for them.

YOU DO?!

Why the change of heart?

ustwo: perhaps you have difficulty reading some of my posts, so let me separate out one of the main points from above:

The article in the OP presents nothing like an argument for systematic anti-israel bias.
It uses anecdotal evidence to set up arbitrary assertions about systematic bias.
It provides no evidence of systematic bias, and therefore provides no proof of systematic bias and makes no coherent argument about it.

Do you have difficulty with the (rudimentary) notion that an assertion is not an argument?
Or are assertions the same as arguments for you?
When you evaluate an argument, is its relation to evidence not an issue?

Another way:
You seem quite convinced--based seemingly on nothing--that there is some kind of anti-israeli bias in the american press--the claim is preposterous---taking it at all seriously would requires some evidence and actual arguments related to that evidence.

Without it, the assertions of systematic bias are not even a joke: they are nothing more than paranoid statements you make because you find them aesthetically appealing.

If aesthetic appeal is the basis for your positions, why not simply say as much so I can stop wasting my time trying to figure out whether to take your posts seriously or not.

No, they should be googling the names of the people who actually know what's going on over there, like, you know, the generals running the show. The people who know that the insurgency isn't in it's last throes. The ones who recently testified before congress about impending civil war in iraq.

You don't need to visit any of the websites you listed to know that the administration is generally completely full of shit when it comes to any kind of statement concerning our current situation in iraq. I didn't think that you were so naive. What's funny to me is that you're so selective in your acknowledgement that wartime governments are liars.

Ustwo on hezbollah and the palestinians: Only an antisemitic liberal wouldn't acknowledge that hezbollah is deceptive and the mainstream media is complicit.

Ustwo on the bush administration: Only a cut-and-run liberal would imply that the bush administration might engage in deception. Only a naive liberal would believe that a credible mainstream media has a responsibility to question obvious falsehoods cheney et al put forth.

It's almost like you have some sort of ideological agenda and you choose only to pay attention to facts that support that agenda.

You should make up your mind. Either the media should report without question the information given to them by various sources like the bush administration or hezbollah or they have a responsibility to determine the veracity of the information.

Aside from the faulty intelligence, notice not a lie, when has he? He's been supposably quoted about lying how long the war would last or how long the insurgency would continue, but those are predictions and opinions.

I think that from now on we should refer to it not as "faulty intelligence", but as "convenient faulty intelligence that alwasy supports the administrations agendas and has repeatedly been called into question, and sometimes proven to be a lie". EX:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07...cuban_hookers/

How about this one?
To whihc Condaleeza responded:
Well, Condaleezaliesalot wasn't actually there, and the only two other people in the room with Dick confirmed that president Bush said, "'Iraq, Saddam - find out if there's a connection.' in a very intimidating way.

Lying is just one form of deception. There's the implied iraq/911 link, the wmds, the assertion that iraq could attack us with only 45 minute notice, the whole valerie plame fiasco, the whole we-don't-torture-but-we-will-oppose-all-efforts-to-criminalize-our-ability-to-use-torture thing. Really, the list goes on and on.

Do you honestly trust the administration? If so, how can you justify that trust.

At least John Stewart has his "outrage" priorities in logical order. No outrage by the folks who embrace the zombietime blog garbage, when it comes to the MSM failure to widely report the lies and misleading statements that led the US to invade Iraq:
http://www.overspun.com/video/DailyShow.cheneylies.rm
.....but plenty of indignation over this bullshit that affects no one in the US.
Seaver's OP is nothing more than a commercial for Murdoch's News Corp.

Your own, "fair and balanced", Murdoch controlled, foxnews Australian clone printed this, yesterday:
Since Wiki is a site comprised of articles assembled by the public, and anyone is invited to edit the content with "neutral", factual material, if you disagree with the articles on the two "wacks" who are the total basis for Seaver's OP argument, have at it!
Michelle is also pushing the "zombietime OP". When was the last time that she was correct about anything that she pushes?
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005802.htm

A small warhead Host? Honestly?

http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambu...cross_full.jpg

Funny, where's the fire or shapnel damage that would be caused by a rocket? Hell the "rocket" apparently didn't even have enough velocity to hit the floor of the van. Where's the blood from the severed leg? Where's the damage from the explosion... where's the rest of the rocket since it obviously didn't explode?

And don't feed me that crap that the rust appeared over 3 days. Even with 70 percent humidity rust does not appear that fast unless it had been left in the ocean.

Is it too early for this thread to be moved to paranoia?

Haha, just kidding.

So the ends justify the means?

I think others have listed quite well how the US has "spun" the media. But I suppose the thousands of civilians dead in Iraq were just in the way and don't count.


I think you miss the point that I wasn't defending them...

Someone will "uncover" this story when an editor decides it is "newsworthy". Until then, it will just be Internet rumour.

They will never decide it's newsworthy. Because that would entail that they were wrong. That would cause everyone to rightfully be pissed that "journalistic integrity" does not go so far as actually looking at a picture before sending it worldwide.

I agree with you Seaver. I think you just need to remember the media isn't monolithic. Some journalist out there is going to "break" this story.

It may take a while.


In the meantime, realize that this is nothing new. The US mainstream media is lazy. Much of what gets reported comes from press releases. They don't investigate anywhere near what they should (there are exceptions but generally this is common practice).

Some news organizations do apologize for mistakes. The BBC apologized the the Jessica Lynch stuff when the truth came out.

Back in March 2003, Bill O'Riely told the Good Morning America viewers that "if the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush administration again." Feb 2004, Still lacking any substantive explanations from the White House, Bill O'Reilly apologized on Good Morning America.

I've never been so pleased.

Rrrriiiigggghhhhhttttttt.......................

Does everyone have me on "ignore", or is the intent here to just keep posting "discussion"?

The following prefaces the article in my last post, titled,
Downer's unfounded faith in the internet
The Foreign Minister has been hoaxed by a callous blog, writes Middle East correspondent Martin Chulov
31aug06
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...307128,00.html

So....what's it gonna be, Seaver....Ustwo....are you going to accept the reporting....and re-checking of news correspondent, Martin Chulov, who reported from Lebanon and inspected the bombed ambulance and interviewed the victims....or a blog that is written by people who only looked at pictures, and who already held a known pro-Israeli bias?

Careful now....if you choose to believe the report on the "blog", you will be embracing a "conspiracy" theory, and you will become the "wacks" that you claim to detest!

If it means anything, I read your posts. :thumbsup:

BTW, if anyone here has host on ignore, you might as well add me to your list. If you're going to shield yourself from the world, don't do it half-a$$ed.

I do too. When I see you've posted, I make a nice cup of Earl Grey, put the dog outside, then sit-back and enjoy. The substance is what really gets me.

Host I read your earlier post, I just did not see it relevant to the thread and did not want it jacked.

Well at least I can agree with Downer.

Anyways Host I dont read zombietime, I in fact never heard of it until reading the article posted. I simply saw the photos and it says to me a fraud. If this is real I would like to know where the unexploded rocket went, where the blood from the severed leg went, or any of the other questions explained.

Just because we both believe it was a fake does not mean I actually believe any conspiracy, I just believe it shows the inherant bias.

And as you've pointed out, check your own source. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...9-2703,00.html Chulov was one of the origional biased/lazy journalists who bought this. Of course he's going to hold out, hoping, that the story is true.

Seaver, I read the zombietime story yesterday. I had thought you got these pictures and arguement from there as well. I'm not suprised to learn that you didn't.

For everyone else, here's an aside describing where the major media outlets get their news and some insight that might show anti-israeli bias is systemic in the media.

It came from littlegreenfootballs about a month ago. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/webl...l_TV_News&only

Charlatan this has absolutely NOTHING not one thing to do with the topic at hand and you know it. The US attempts to minimize civilian casualties, Hezbollah attempts to maximize them amoung their own people. There is no comparison to be made. And beyond that, we are talking about bias in the press twords one side, the terrorists side. Again your statements must be comming from another thread because they have nothing in common with this one.

You mean a baised editor, who ran the story on the word of terrorists in the first place, is going to wait for some proof from where? They didn't wait for indisputable proof to run the story, why not point out that it may not be accurate? It may just be an internet rumour but so far internet rumours have been more accurate than offical press coverage. The whole point of the OP is the people who decide what is 'newsworthy' are biased and promoting an agenda.

Quoted for truth. Ustwo, if you're going to insist on damning the Hezbollah or Palestinians for deceptive media tactis, and insist that the current administration can get away with it, you should simply admit your bias to the world and yourself. Admit your agenda. Admit your favoritism to one side, and admit your intolerance to the other.

Ustwo, the Hezbollah are equatable with the US exept for a few things: The US sits comfortably far away from the middle east madness, the US has a massive military, and the US has massive economic influence.

If Hezbollah has those things, do you really think they'd be firing rockets from fields and towns? Or do yo think they'd do what the US government does: plant warships far out in the ocean and fire rockets?

If Palestinians had a large military, do you think there would be suicide bombings? Or do you think they'd do what the US government does: invade unilaterally and remove the government? That is where the equasion reaches equlibrium.

The US thought that Iraq was a danger to Middle Easten investments, so we removed the dangerous government. The Hezbollah knows that Israel has been occupying Lebanon for 24 years (that's longer than I've been alive) and they know thousands of Lebanese citizens have been kidnapped by Israel (durring the 18 year occupation), so they continue to resist Israel and do everything in their means to remove Israel from Lebanon.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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....

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 !!!!!
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".

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.... :(

Oh what was the unedited one, I feel cheated! :lol:


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?

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.
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?).
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.

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.

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.

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.