Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In my view, there is simply no way that either the broadcast or print media can be excused for their duplicitous and entirely unenergetic coverage of Iraq, either before or since the invasion. And there are very few topics that are not Iraq where the very same complaints could not be brought. Desperate for ratings, crippled by cost-cutting measures, and overseen now by boards of bottom-line corporate types, particularly the broadcast media have lost any incentive or ability to function as sources of usable information, and the print media are only slightly less culpable on these same counts.
Criticizing the televised media is something nobody would debate, but the DoD has an obligation to get their story out. Others can refute it, and the news shows can develop other sources, if they so choose to do so.
So, if the media isn't getting negative points of view out about Iraq, either in print or televised form, the population is so negative about the war due to...?
The population is negative about the war due to the cost with no end in sight and the mounting casualties... and the allegations proved to be wrong, no WMD's were found. IMO the "tide" in the mainstream media did not turn for quite some time, because those factors could not be discounted anymore. Prior to the invasion, there were VERY FEW dissenting voices to be heard in the mainstream, and those that dared to speak out, were labeled "unpatriotic" or "for the terrorists".
Actually I view those that risked their reputations to prevent something that they knew was a mistake as the true heroes and patriots.
__________________
The price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for it. ~Henry David Thoreau
Criticizing the televised media is something nobody would debate, but the DoD has an obligation to get their story out. Others can refute it, and the news shows can develop other sources, if they so choose to do so.
I guess it depends on what you accept as the proper role of these folks. DOD is a public, tax-supported entity. Is it a part of DOD's legitimate role to develop manufactured intelligence and press reports for the purpose of deceiving and disinforming the tax-paying public? I wouldn't think so myself. I would see that as more of a form of fraud or breach of contract.
Over-the-air broadcasters at least are specifically licensed to operate in the public interest. Is it in the public interest simply to pass on manufactured news because that tends to maximize profits for a small group of investors? Again, I wouldn't think so myself. I would see such as a violation of the public trust for which more than a few of these licenses might very well be pulled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewToCA
So, if the media isn't getting negative points of view out about Iraq, either in print or televised form, the population is so negative about the war due to...?
Due to the eventual, inevitable, and entirely unmistakable collapse of the misadventure that the conspirators helped and allowed us to be drawn into to begin with. It's been more than five years. None of the things that were supposed to happen did. How many supposed "turning points" have come and gone now with no change at all in the overall situation. The work is hard. We are making progress. We need more time. Petraeus et al have been hawking that same line for almost four years. Still nothing to show for it. The question isn't why public opinion over the situation went south. It's how and why did it ever get into the north to begin with. Use the word "quagmire" back in 2002 or 2003 and what sort of reception would it have gotten you? Well, what the heck is this, if it isn't a quagmire?
They will produce whatever you consume. This leads to spin, plants and placements becasue you consume so much information it's become both a commodity and a strategic resource.
Once again, if we hope to solve problems in the US, we have to find a mirror.
As a retired military person, I have two rules for news:
- if a retired military analyst is speaking, turn it off
- if a politician is speaking, listen to find out what they're going to waste my money on
I guess it depends on what you accept as the proper role of these folks. DOD is a public, tax-supported entity. Is it a part of DOD's legitimate role to develop manufactured intelligence and press reports for the purpose of deceiving and disinforming the tax-paying public? I wouldn't think so myself. I would see that as more of a form of fraud or breach of contract.
Over-the-air broadcasters at least are specifically licensed to operate in the public interest. Is it in the public interest simply to pass on manufactured news because that tends to maximize profits for a small group of investors? Again, I wouldn't think so myself. I would see such as a violation of the public trust for which more than a few of these licenses might very well be pulled.
Prior to the initiation of the invasion, DoD didn't have a primary role to play, the information was based primarily on the weapons inspectors having difficulty obtaining access to sites, and the comments by organizations such as the CIA and State Dept. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, Scott Ritter and the CIA's former Anti-Terrorist Chief Vincent Cannastraro were frequently on the air stating their opposition, as was Hans Blix, UN's lead weapon inspector. I don't believe DoD manufactured any information prior to the war.
Since the war, I don't see how Government information has been effective in swaying public sentiment. The public tide turned rapidly against the war, within a couple of years of invasion. The truth of the matter as I see it is that the US public has a distaste for protracted military engagements, which is the frequent process in the Middle East.
I state this as one who specifically opposed the war prior to the invasion, and had stated such while still in DoD. Though personally agreeing with Blix and Ritter, I think that DoD didn't lie about anything to justify the war.
Regarding news broadcast, I have indifference to their coverage. Media has changed significantly from the years I used to watch Walter Cronkite and Harry Reasoner to learn about world events. We have multiple outlets today readily available to provide information, and folks have plenty to chew on (including blogs) to make critical evaluations.
Prior to the initiation of the invasion, DoD didn't have a primary role to play, the information was based primarily on the weapons inspectors having difficulty obtaining access to sites, and the comments by organizations such as the CIA and State Dept. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, Scott Ritter and the CIA's former Anti-Terrorist Chief Vincent Cannastraro were frequently on the air stating their opposition, as was Hans Blix, UN's lead weapon inspector. I don't believe DoD manufactured any information prior to the war.
Well, what all was going on down there in the Bat Cave? What were Shulsky and Michael Malouf's gang up to? Where did the substance of Feith's August 2002 briefing of Cheney and the NSC come from? It didn't come from DIA. It didn't come from CIA. How much of it came straight out of OSP and its related offices courtesy of Chalabi and the INC? Where did Judith Miller's fraudulent front-page WMD article in the NYT come from? Who fed her that info? There was quite a bit of fabricated intelligence in the so-called run-up to the invasion, this because of a critcal shortage of actual vetted info that would have supported the official cause. A good deal of that made-up stuff came from or through DOD...
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewToCA
Since the war, I don't see how Government information has been effective in swaying public sentiment. The public tide turned rapidly against the war, within a couple of years of invasion.
Yeah, after Stay the Course, things started to nosedive...
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewToCA
Regarding news broadcast, I have indifference to their coverage.
I don't watch it either, but I can hardly be indifferent to something that is so consistently providing inaccurate and incomplete information, thereby defrauding and debauching the society that it is supposed to serve.
Where did the substance of Feith's August 2002 briefing of Cheney and the NSC come from? It didn't come from DIA. It didn't come from CIA. How much of it came straight out of OSP and its related offices courtesy of Chalabi and the INC? Where did Judith Miller's fraudulent front-page WMD article in the NYT come from? Who fed her that info? There was quite a bit of fabricated intelligence in the so-called run-up to the invasion, this because of a critcal shortage of actual vetted info that would have supported the official cause. A good deal of that made-up stuff came from or through DOD...
The CIA and DoD both had analysis and reports before the invasion that challenged the ties between al-Qaeda and Iraq:
the CIA had concluded in June 2002 that there were few substantiated contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and Iraqi officials and had said that it lacked evidence of a long-term relationship like the ones Iraq had forged with other terrorist groups.
The CIA was not alone, the defense report emphasized. The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) had concluded that year that "available reporting is not firm enough to demonstrate an ongoing relationship" between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaeda, it said.
When war is declared, Truth is the first casualty.
It seems the Pentagon and our wonderful government have been caught red handed. Don't think the media isn't a tool? Don't think you can get people to see heaven as hell and paradise as vile?
Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse - an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks.
One can never lose a bet underestimating the American public.
Here is an interesting link in regards to your thread via "network villans" Consortiumnews.com
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
or "for the terrorists"
.
