Falstaff

the press sold the war to the american people]the american press sold the war the american public
A prominent reporter has published an article that reveals to some extent, based on his opinion or evidence that the war was sold to the american people via the American press. I disagree, everything I watched on television with respect to the motives of the coalition were decidely speculative and anti war at best...what is your opinion?

__________________

The_Neon_Cowboy

why is your link setup as an email adress????? and the link is not valid ... page not found....

__________________

ToshiroOC

THIS IS THE RIGHT LINK. I think fallang_jeff accidentally used the [mail] tags Interesting article... I must say that whole there might have been some anti-war sentiment in the media, there was very little rhetoric that was taking a complete and strong stand against the war, and overall very little of the media acted like the war wasn't going to happen... for whatever that's worth.

__________________
[img][/img]
Peace be with you, Joe.
Driverheaven Staff Member (Supermoderator)

bluelight

Its more a question of that the Us government managed to get the idea through that

"You are either with ...or against us" and of course the majority of US media does not take any chances since they are owned and run by "the bizniz" and must....move with the current.

If they dont...no advertisers.

The current said war..so....they didnt have to do much...to make media echo what they wanted themn to.

Funny thing is...how come this is obvious now...I mean this was evident long ago....

Falstaff

The american press, the american media has evolved to the point where the temporary suspension of disbelief has become more than an artform, it is a tool, to obtain support from Americans that are concerned about what is going on in the world and at home.
But in America, you can find dissenting views published by respected columnists in almost any magazine on a newstand. Americans are well educated, well informed, well fed, well intentioned for the most part, but we expect the press to sell us something. I believe Americans want to be sold on the next newest and best version of whatever there is, regardless of whether it is a product or the news. We are expected to adopt a position about everything. and indeed we do for the most part. But many of us are numb from this overexposure to information. So if the media make it easier and more palatable for our minds to eat, then we eventually have developed a conditioned response to what we see and hear in the news. It isn't a Pavlovian response, but we are hungry for more..
Since the Roosevelt years military actions and wars have been portrayed in such a way as to sell it to the american public, it has become sophisticated, almost an institution unto itself. I am not surprised that people object to the level of sophistication of the american media to influence public opinion here and the world over. They don't even have to tell the real story, a cover story will do. The entire machine, as it were, does depend on reader sponsership and advertising, and they are senstive to the idea that americans pay attention to who is paying for it. So it has become even more sophisticated than we imagine..

__________________

bluelight

Well medfia is funny..Yesterday i saw Saving private Ryan.An ok film.Steven Spiekberg.

The funny thing is...the one and single german in the whole movie is of course portrayed as ...first...an idiot......second...as evil by nature.......after that he has first been released and the is found fighting the noble americans again...Germnan soldiers are obviously not human....not even 60 years after the war....

That is what i call ...media serving....something....

Yet this is a film that is supposed to be authentic.....people look upon it as "authentic"...and to me it looses all of that...just because of these scenes that
are maybe three minutes long.

Another funny scene is when an American soldier is messing with german pow`s saying that he is a jew and laughing at the germans for theis reason....

Well in 44 nobody....and i mean nobody....bothered about the jews.

What had happend in Germany since 33 was something very few did anything at all about.....so an american soldier making jokes about this....hardly...

But....it gives a nice picture..of divined intents.


Bluelight

The_Neon_Cowboy

"The campaign to build support for the war with Iraq was ultimately presented as being linked to the war on terror, a response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, an attempt to enforce UN Security Council Resolutions ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and a divinely ordained mandate to topple a cruel dictator and spread liberty."

all true ...........

mobile chemial weapons labs, banned missles, undelared banned missles, terrorist traning camps, direct links to al quida, 1441 , small amountsa of serin, unenriched uranium, a zillion chemial suits all shiny and new .... etc...........


"When weapons inspectors challenged US information, in one case categorizing US leads as “pure rubbish and a waste of time,” they were ignored."

Well they were wrong and aparntly and quite clearly doing a inpection job...... expecially when they inpected barrels of un enriched uranium and found on problem with it... the uranium could be used to make dirty bombs or easly enriched (it's easy, hell i could do it) to make nukes ...


"When US intelligence analysts questioned the case established in Secretary Powell’s infamous UN testimony, they were dismissed. And when some leading members of Congress demanded that the White House provide the American people, in advance of hostilities, with best estimates of costs and the expected level of commitment of US forces in a war on Iraq, they were shunted aside. "

you can't estame a cost of war when you dont know how long it will last ... they threw around some numbers based on time but nothing on paper....


“"The scenario created by the White House handlers was a campaign manager’s dream. Mr. Bush emerged for the kind of photographs that other politicians can only dream about. He hopped out of the plane with a helmet tucked under his arm and walked across the flight deck with a swagger that seemed to suggest he had seen ‘Top Gun.’ Clearly in his element, he was swarmed by cheering members of the Lincoln’s crew. "

Mr. bush ? try president bush, you can clearly see the writers dis respect here.... and as opposed to what? once again the writer is NOT useing his brain sorry but you can land the huge air force one on a lowly short carrier... thinking is not this artical writers strong suit ...

"In his “victory speech” the president evoked many of the themes he had used to justify the war. Principal focus was given to the terror of Sept. 11 and America’s victory over tyranny. "

well they links to al quida links this to sept 11th ... but hey you leave that stuff out in an single sided anti us artical....

"Interestingly, the president only made passing reference to weapons of mass destruction and no mention at all of Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden. This war is now being cast as a continuation of “our war against terror” and our “fight against a great evil to bring liberty to others.” All reported without question. The fact that both Afghanistan and Iraq remain quite dangerous and unstable is not discussed. And no questions have been asked about what may be the broader goals of this continuing war. Success is not measured or evaluated, it is just reported as such. "

Well so? no mention in his speech ... wel stop the world ... thier was no need ... the links beween saddom and osama are clear ... as well a strong links to the higers up of al quida as qwell as traning camps for terroists.. or that the shy is blue thier alot not coved in speeches geeze talk about over crital and over demanding.. likr demanding 72 hours worth of info in a short speech .....


"Again, one can’t fault the White House for doing what the White House always does; but what remains troublesome is that so few are asking questions."

what questions they talking anout ? probublythe ones that have been answers 100 time oh ok.... they figure tier not asked becouse they disn' get the answer they wanted





"The major American media seemed more inclined to beat the drums of war than to investigate the White House’s claims. "

wich have so far been proven true ...

"During the war, this behavior did not change. One media critic noted that the major US networks behaved more like “state-run television” than a “free and critical press.” "

tel that to the networks they laugh thier heads off... war is big news big $$$ big viewership and extra advertieing money $$$


"The average day on one of the networks, he noted, consisted of: briefings from the White House, the Pentagon, the State Department and the Military Command in Doha; in-studio commentary by former generals and colonels hired as network analysts; interviews with the network’s own journalists who were embedded with the US military on the road to Baghdad; and live long-distance shots of bombs exploding over Baghdad while reporters and anchors praised the skill of the US military and their own coverage of the war. "

thats to be expected in any war ... once again big news! those who bing a larger picture and show more of the story get all thee veiwers and truckloads of $$$$$$$$$

"Only a few journalists have expressed their outrage over their industry’s abandonment of its role. In a recent address before a university audience, Ashleigh Banfield, one of the rising stars in US television journalism, accused news outlets of “wrapping themselves in the American flag,” shielding the American people from the horrors of war, and failing to probe deeper into the war and search for the truth. "

AW THERE WE FIND IT ANTI WAR PROAGANDA OH OK . Ashleigh Banfield is anti war ... they really shovel it with both hand in this artical... can we say was a riseing star was... now it more like crashing an buring...


"When President Bush spoke to what the media described as a supportive Arab American audience in Dearborn, Michigan, the media carried the address and portrayed it uncritically. The scenario was carefully crafted for US and Arab world audiences since it was carried live around the world. The president’s podium was set before a backdrop with Arabic and English writing. Behind the president were seated a small group of about 40 Iraqi Americans, some Shiites and some Chaldean. The audience was not seen, but the impression was created that it was an enthusiastic crowd representative of Michigan’s 400,000 plus Arab Americans."

what station did they watch? they showed them on mine and if it wasnt a world broad cast howed they see it in palistine????? mabe thier govermant cut down vesrions didnlt look right lol


"Cameras never focused on the audience, no one saw that the room was only one-third full — an estimated crowd of 300. The fact that the group was personally invited by the White House and was carefully screened to include Republicans and supporters of the president was not reported. Instead, the impression was created that the president was giving a victory message full of optimism and hope to his Arab American supporters. That was what the White House wanted to convey, and that was the story the media allowed them to uncritically convey. "

this persion know absolutly nothing about running a carmra and putting off an offical / proper look ............

of couse this wasnt the crowds adress this was the presidents adress... to watch the crowd would be as interesting as watching a turd float in the toilet.... the presidest speeches are boring enough without paning all over the room .......... at wich pint i asme its over and quckly change the channel

__________________

The_Neon_Cowboy

dude it a moveie is deighen to draw people and be intertaing .... you apear to hve been expecting a boreing doucumantry .....

__________________

Falstaff

__________________

bluelight

You did not understand the post.


Try again.


Bluelight

bluelight

It was agood film but i still portarys Amerivcans as humans and in the single case we see a german throughout the whole film...he is playing "monkey" to save his ass....and the he returns as "the devil"


I guess its what it takes to show that we are the greatest.

Apart from that i think that is an image of war that is a lie.


When to take it down into pieces...soldiers are not monsters.Anywhere.

They are tools and war transform some of them into monsters...


So the film is like most other films about WW2 conserving an image of Gerans in general as idiots..

Just like media does with arabs.

A journalist over here watched CNN for 48 hopurs in a row to check one thing...

He wrote down all the times Arabs were mentioned during the last gulf war.Each time there was a positive thing said he made a mark each time there was a negative thing said about arabs he made a mark...


There were some 100 instances arabs or muslims were referred to during tese 48 hours...

All of them without exception were mentionings with a negative frame...


That ,.....is in fact brainwashing and it is similar to what the situation was about the jews worldwide in the twenties and thirties and earlier.


When did you see an article about arabs that was positive last time? (that was not realted to americas victory in Iraq)

Bluelight


Bluelight

mike2h

you can choose to view it that way. i do not. he was scared & doing whatever it took to survive in the fist scene. i never thought of him as an idiot. he was still fighting for his life in the last scene only he had the upper hand. and spared the gi that saved him. i have no idea were you get this bad/evil thing from. he was portrayed as a german soldier plain & simple.

__________________

bluelight

Yeah he wa s supposed to ber scared.... but it didnt come through....to me it was like he was portrayed like a clown...

But then..films are seen different by people...

One thing i know for sure though is that Arabs are portryaed in "west" media in a negative sense practiacally always.
'

This...was also the case...with the jews....not only in Germany but all over including Usa in tne beginning of the century.


All periods have its "scum"....to blame everything on.

mike2h

i assume by west you mean europe/usa. unfortunatley you are right. also unfortunatley is that a large pecentage of 'newsworthy', arab realated items are negative. please do not interpret that statement as my opinion of the arab countries

__________________

bluelight

Well depending on who runs the media.....the exact opposite could be just as relevant....

For some reason...a society needs "thugs" in order to mirror its own citizens as good.

What is outside is bad and often even evil.

I thi k this behaviour creates more problems than necessary.

If we would look upon muslims as people who eat...sleep and drink....which we do not then i believe a lot would be achieved in terms of peace.

We look upon muslims as murderers although we murder even more people..but by other means.


The number of dead Palsestinians (2700 something)...and dead jews (700) the last two years and how we lay the blame for this....is a pretty good example of all this.

The arabs are the murderers and the jews (our friends) are not.

Peculiar.




Bluelight