It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iraq coverage not at the forefront anymore. Why?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 11:21 AM
link   
I have noticed a distinct lack of coverage in the last week or so from the gulf.

This might sound strange, but having my son and other people out there, i tend to do a lot of searching, probably more than most to find out what is happening.

The BBC in the UK doesn't seem to be covering it as much. IE, its not at the top of there agenda anymore. last week it was front page news.

Has anybody else noticed the lack of information by the leading news teams?

Maybe its because there is no news to broadcast, which can only be a good thing.

There are redeployments going on as i type this, so why is the world not being told?




posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 11:24 AM
link   
My "short and sweet" response, though self-admittedly not entirely the full answer, is that it is not seen or being utilized as a "political" mechanism, per se, as say it was prior to the US elections. (?)



seekerof



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 11:30 AM
link   
You could be right there Seekerof.

But having the amount of troops over there, and i am including all the other countries who have troops deployed, i would have thought that it would warrant some kind of coverage.

Maybe the news teams have been censored?
Only reporting what the controlling bodies want us to hear.



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 11:37 AM
link   
IMHO, I think that if the "news teams" were being censored, it would be near-headline material and the news outlets being censored would be quite vocal on the matter. As an example, partial-censorship was tried during Vietnam, Angola, and Bosnia, to say a few, and most of the then censored news media outlets vocalized their concerns and bitterment over such censorship.



seekerof

[edit on 28-11-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Media always had "short attention span" - there is no BIG news apparently right now to be A TOP story (besides Iraqi elections). If you want to have some fresh news check
here



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
My "short and sweet" response, though self-admittedly not entirely the full answer, is that it is not seen or being utilized as a "political" mechanism, per se, as say it was prior to the US elections. (?)



seekerof


I will have to agree with you on this one, but I got my own "conspiracy" theory, perhaps US is in the planning of some mayor offensive in Iraq and it wants to lay low until is completed or at least ready to be executed.



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 12:30 PM
link   
There could be a lot of truth in what you say marg.

My own opinion is that something big is about to happen, not sure what exactly, but the quietness from the front is strangely disturbing.



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bikereddie
There could be a lot of truth in what you say marg.



Well thanks, its just that after the Fallujah and the media reports of "incidents" I will not blame the military if they will want to keep them away of what is going on as to give our troops the reason of doubt for their safety.

I may be against the war but I am in favor of our troops no matter what the decisions they have to make when faced with no many choices is their lives in the line after all.



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 01:09 PM
link   
ya welcome marg


i suppose broadcasting what the coalition are going to do only plays into the hands of the insurgents..

Look at what happened to black watch. The news broadcast exactly where and when the were going to move. They suffered attacks every step of the way..

Keeping quiet is the best way, but there are some reporters with no scruples so long as they get their story.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join