We are in agreement that the media is basically a stooge of advertising interests and hype to gain audience. Some wave the flag and produce false info to inflame American proBush interests to get their viewers, while others wave the same flag and produce false info to inflame American and International antiBush interests to get their viewers, and others still spit on the flag and produce false info to inflame International antiBush interests to get their viewers.
There are also cases of poor judgement, which I think the Rather case was. I really do not believe he'd have gone ahead with false info or that which he thought was not supported. You have still not responded to my query that despite the forgery of the specific document, those involved have expressed that it accurately conveyed the man's feelings at the time.
This latest case was a bit of poor judgement and using antiBush material to generate viewers. I think we can both agree with this.
You were the one that suggested that Isikoff is then liable for the deaths that resulted, which I find a bit of a stretch. And I am not confident in the distinction you made between gov't and media...
The Government and News Media are 2 different animals. The Government(s)all acted on the intelligence that everyone had, and WMD was only 1 reason for Iraq. The difference is the News Media is supposed to report news...period.
I can agree that they are two different animals but frankly I expect the gov't to be more informed and held more responsible for its intelligence failures. Especially given the nature of modern media, which is beholden to corporate sponsorship, I expect more bias and mistakes to come from them than the gov't.
You are also not being clear in your argument above. The US networks were not reporting the news accurately and in support of Bush policies. This is pretty much fact. They squashed material that was available outside the US which refuted US positions, as well as portraying administration claims without adequate questioning.
I cannot say the Bush administration is responsible for controlling US media, as it may have simply been US media's errant sense of patriotism and caution in the post 911 environment.
The problem is that those in the gov't should have known better. You say all gov'ts acted on the info they had and the majority were against this action.
Some, including Britain, acted to support given that the US was going to go ahead and it would be better to support the US than allow it to go alone. That is similar to why I am not supportive of current calls for pullouts and wish more nations would help Iraq. Despite Bush's foolish moves, Iraq is not better off by people abandoning it. That goes especially for those that backed the invasion initially "to make things easier".
It is a bit disingenuous to portray international opinion as to be for the Iraq War, or behind the intelligence that the US said it had. The only common ground was that Saddam has intent to try and get such things at some point, and he might have some unaccounted reserves of material (nonnuclear). MOST nations opposed invasion.
The fact that you have quoted the list of the "coalition of the willing" in the past just goes to show your own acceptance of US gov't disinformation as well as proBush media spin.
As far as there being other reasons, it is quite clear that no other reason was going to justify invasion, including to the American people. Yes there were other reasons but none of them were sufficient.
Bush then pushed a policy which was not well researched, telling us it would be easy, and the result of
his actions were tens of thousands killed. If Isikoff is connected, I do not see how Bush gets off, despite their heading two different types of organizations.
Right, and is it kinda silly to get so upset over a book being flushed down the toilet? Not in my eyes. I'm a christian, but you can flush the bible or do anything you want to it. Its not the book, its what is written in it and how I apply it to my life that matter to me.
Not so with Muslims. Supposedly if you desecrate the Koran its an insult to all of them.
Wow, check yourself before you wreck yourself. First of all you can't portray all muslims as believing what you just said, just as you cannot bill yourself as the example of what all Xians will believe.
Most certainly some Xians will freak out if you stuffed a Bible down a toilet. Lesser things have been done (like putting crucifixes in urine or removing religious statues from public grounds) and people have gone berserk.
This is not to mention the fact that many Americans go nuts at the idea of people burning flags, because it supposedly insults us all. Bearing a nipple has supposedly stunted children and so now media are afraid to play Oscar winning movies as well as supporting long running popular media stars.
Ye Gods, ignorant ass Americans actually renamed french fries, and avoided buying them because France "insulted Americans" by not agreeing to an invasion (nevermind that about half of the US population was against that same invasion). These morons continued to do so despite the fact that french fries are not french and that fact was made public.
Suddenly a bunch of people getting riled up... because a false news story was errantly published of an insulting action, and in the context of other verified stories of aggression against muslim detainees... doesn't look as outrageous.
Although I still wanna know how/why these people were killed. Was it like the people that get killed at rock concerts, or like those killed at sports events, or were they actually targeted for some reason?
To sum up, we have enough of a PR problem without people making stuff up to inflame it further.
I agree, so do they. Why are you making up that all muslims are nutty and likely to go on rampages, or die during large commotions, that Americans or Xians are not?
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2
