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.

 

POLITICS: Propaganda Report Finds Bias in Iraq Coverage

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 12:25 PM
link   

as posted by soficrow
...So I really don't see how propaganda does anything but manipulate the public it's supposed to protect. While our enemies laugh.


Yes, Hitler laughed too, all the while using his forms of propaganda.
Stalin laughed too, while using his forms propaganda.
This can go on.

Apparently, you missed my mentioning and link to the 'Google' resources and topics on this matter and how it is applied and used during times of declared war and undeclared war.

Oodles of academic and scholarly research that verifies exactly what SkepticOverlord and I are indicating. If you wish to ignore them and continue to adhere and believe what you will, then is ignorance truly denied, as motto'd by this site?

IMHO, matters not to me. Govenmental propaganda and its use of goes back thousands of years. You can deny what I am telling you or others are indicating, but you can not deny History.




seekerof

[edit on 14-3-2005 by Seekerof]




posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow

I disagree, because by definition that notion precludes the legitimacy and importance of individual experience - not to mention anecdotal reporting. IMO - the truth of the human experience must be gleaned from humans - not some idealized all-inclusive de-individualized communistic over-concept.


I personally prefer trying to understand the system's functions as a whole. Individual lives are so, well, individual, there's little point in applying the findings from one subjective reality to the existence we all share. The more realities you consider, the more complete a picture provided of the meaning inherent in our interactions.

I don't see it as communism because it doesn't pretend, or rather I don't pretend, to include everyone while doing the opposite. I simply state my goal, and anticipated failure, and enjoy the path. The connotation of objectivity is in removal of oneself from the sphere in order to study it, I think that's a noble goal for someone such as myself, who happened to start off with strong subjective emotions, that like everyone else's, were not based on anything other than biological programming and learned prejudices.

I detach myself from the world more and more every day, and the farther away I get, to more of it I see, and the more intimately I understand it. The more intimately I understand it, the closer I get to it. It's a paradoxical explanation for a paradoxical situation, fitting don't you think?


Originally posted by soficrow
The standard rebuttal: The "current connotation" of "objective" is based on a fallacy - and is less accepted than promoted.

...The truth of the world is made from multitudes of "subjective realities" - and celebrated with inclusivity, not reductionist exclusivity.


I certainly understand this line of reasoning, that the world, or existence, is made up of countless facets which, both through individual value and common symbiosis, define the whole. I don't, however, feel that every human being is without choice in this matter. I believe the human mind is capable of anything, so why should it not be capable of sloughing off this rule like so much dead skin?

I also don't see my brand of objectivity as reductionist in the least. In this case the whole is most definitely greater than the sum of its parts. In a way I suppose my reasoning is reductive in that I can sum up everything we experience in two words; chaos and order. Life really is binary code...just not 0's and 1's.


Originally posted by soficrow
Not me. I think it's a crock. I admit out front that I can't cover all the angles and don't lie or pretend that I can.


Well hold on. I never said I was capable of perceiving all the angles. I'm simply not that talented. I accept my impotence in that regard. Since I embraced the Tao, the destination is meaningless to me, and the path is what I value. An unreachable destination is in fact the only acceptable kind. I understand the term objectivity connotes wholeness, but I think I qualified my usage of it already.

Communism pretends to care for ALL the people, when it clearly doesn't. Democracy does the exact same thing. Historically more successful forms of government like totalitarianism don't lie about their capability to account for each individual.

I hope that if I ever proclaim to know all the angles I get hit by a bus. That would be the height of hubris on my part, and unforgivable.


Originally posted by soficrow
I too collect information and viewpoints, and IMO do not "give in to complete subjectivity." But I have no illusions that I can provide an "objective" presentation without telling 6 billion stories and writing a 10,000 volume series.

Quite simply, "objectivity," even if it were possible, cannot be achieved in a 30-second sound byte or a 3 paragraph news capsule. IMO - saying it can be is a lie, or in other words, just more propaganda.


I agree with this, I usually never manage more than six viewpoints in a single thread. My fiction does a better job, and I've managed to write several pieces that incorporate the beliefs of every major world religion, but even that is a very small drop in a very large bucket.

The entire length and breadth of human experience is known only to our collective mind, or, if you prefer, death.


I'm sorry, I'm always drifting off topic. I'll wander away now like a good boy.



.



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

as posted by another member
Objectivity is something I strive for.



Your response, soficrow:


Not me. I think it's a crock. I admit out front that I can't cover all the angles and don't lie or pretend that I can.


As a reporter do you not think that you need to present objectiveness when reporting? As a reporter, is it not your responsibility to verify, check, and "cover all the angles"?





As you know, I routinely provide numerous references for my contributions here - unlike other 'reporters' who often use only one single link.

I am aware that the US mainstream media is owned by corporations, and represents corporate interests, as does the White House. I know that most mainstream "news reports" commonly publish White House press releases almost verbatim - and I don't consider that news.

When government produced 'news segments' are aired on mainstream TV, I don't have a problem calling it propaganda.







A journalist's mission is to present concrete, objective facts based on their experience in judging what is important to their audience. A journalist presents facts that anyone would see if they could stand in the journalist's shoes themselves. If the facts being reported are controversial, journalists are expected to report as much.


Yet it is not the job of the journalist to support particular beliefs. Journalists serve as the eyes and ears of their audience, but not their mind. It is left to the reader to draw whatever conclusions are appropriate from the news—not to the reporter.





My point exactly. I look for balance in the news - and seek a variety of sources, recognizing that most will contain some bias.






Every communications professor I have studied under at George Mason has argued that facts are not observable aspects of the world, but instead are consensually agreed upon statements about it. By this view, the mere perception of facts distorts them. Truth is not determined by hardnosed perception, but by committee.





So you're saying I have to accept the "committee" consensus, toe the line, and bow to the status quo? Sounds suspiciously like communism to me.






I understand that you are not paid or even a real reporter or journalist, but I assert, that even when those who have taken/accepted the title and responsibility of said reporter, that objectiveness still needs to be maintained and adhered to. Obviously, this can be argued, but there is no denying that the objective reporting is at the very heart and foundation of being a reporter and journalist.





By definition, 'objectivity' is unobtainable. And again, even if it were, it can't be done in a 30-second sound byte or a short 3 paragraph news capsule. ...The only news coverage I've ever seen that comes close to being objective is PBS - and they do it by providing time to 2 or 3 differing viewpoints.

If you're saying that every ATS reporter must do this, then I will certainly comply. However, I would also require the admission that this is not currently and never has been the policy here.

The following article was written before this one and like most ATS news capsules, offers NO secondary references, or larger framework, context or alternate viewpoints:

Government Approved Propaganda on ATS More than Balances Alternate News.


.



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 03:42 PM
link   
First of all is a problem when our media is owned by corporations, why? Because we all know that media reach almost every home in America . But by law “for profit corporations” and institutions have to put the profits of their investors first over other considerations.

What does this does to journalism? It makes it bias and exploitable.

Our major media outlets are owned by corporations, they are becoming larger and fewer because the biggest ones are buying out the littler ones.

When this happen is a tendency to have lest diversified media and the power of the ownerships are the ones pulling the strings.

How does this affect the media? Very simple as larger conglomerates keep buying out the media outlets they also hold stocks on other industries, and occurs whomever hold the highest amounts of stocks had the last say so on how things should be conducted.

It’s called conflicts of interest and it affects how the media is gathered.

Just like all corporations they are monopolists and this is a danger to our democratic society.

Who owns the media? This are the top corporations owning the media in the US.

First in the list, General Electric, in 2003 their revenues top 134.2 billion.
1. General Electric holdings include: NBC, Telemundo, Universal Pictures, Universal Parks & Resorts, CNBC, Bravo, MSNBC, and vast holdings in numerous other business sectors

Second is Time Warner, their revenues were 39.6 billions

2. TimeWarner holdings include: Warner Bros, AOL, CNN, HBO, Time Warner Cable, Turner (TNT, TBS), Cartoon Network, New Line Cinema, Castle Rock Entertainment, Atlantic Recordings, Elektra/Sire, Rhino, Time-Life Books, DC Comics, Fortune, Sports Illustrated, People, and Netscape Communications

Third one is Walt Disney, their revenues are 28.4 billion

3. The Walt Disney Company holdings include: ABC, Disney Channel, ESPN, A&E, History Channel, E!, Buena Vista, Touchstone Pictures, 10 TV stations, 60+ radio stations, ESPN Radio, Miramax Films, Hyperion Books, & theme parks

Four one is Viacom, their revenues are 26.6 billion


4. Viacom holdings include: CBS and UPN networks, over 35 TV stations, MTV, Showtime, Nickelodeon, BET, Paramount Pictures, Blockbuster Video, over 175 radio stations, Simon & Schuster, and vast billboard holding

This are just from 2003 so as today it some may have merged or buy each other. For more information link to.

www.freepress.net...



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 03:48 PM
link   
anyone remember the wonderfully entertaining Nuke propaganda films of the 50's/60's... (before my time, but have seen them)
Stop duck and cover! Nuclear energy is our friend...(pro nuke, anti commie)
they have since found that the information that was given was not only incorrect but was dangerous to anyone who followed the intructions in the film. geeee thanks US propaganda film company...


Originally posted by Seekerof

Yes, Hitler laughed too, all the while using his forms of propaganda.
Stalin laughed too, while using his forms propaganda.
This can go on.

Oodles of academic and scholarly research that verifies exactly what SkepticOverlord and I are indicating. If you wish to ignore them and continue to adhere and believe what you will, then is ignorance truly denied, as motto'd by this site?


[edit on 14-3-2005 by Seekerof]


so... let me understand this correctly?
Hitler used Propaganda!

Stalin Used Propaganda!

so we should use propaganda?

Ok, is America communist or Facist?
probably neither, so why would you advocate we do the same...?

and yes, we have done the same in the past, but at the time, communication was in the "caveman era", and information at the speed of light didn't exist...

If the internet had existed during those times, then FDR would have been HUNG shortly after he made his propaganda speech about "the US being forced to the war due to Pearl Harbor"... people would have already known the truth that FDR allowed Pearl harbor to happen.
aHHH the dangerous games our leaders play.

Propaganda depends on the lack of an opposing voice (or truth in some cases) to be effective, which is why it was the perfect little helper for hitler and stalin...

propaganda in the US has always depended on the voluntary cooperation of the media. If the government ever says anything the the media doesn't like, they can say different (until certain gag laws were put into place by the senior Bush)
propaganda has been neccesary in the past, but its time of use is now over...
the internet allows someone to look up an english version of almost any countries leading news source to know the "other side" of the story...

I think nowadays... Propaganda just makes the users look stupid, because the truth (or other veiwpoint) is usually easy to find.'
Bahgdad Bob was able to use propaganda with success because many of his watchers/listeners didn't know other sides of the story... no internet...
if half of Iraq had internet, he would have been laughed out of office (actually killed quietly)

I think that is one of the problems with the Iraq war... everytime a presidential spokesperson would say "we have almost found the WMD's"
and the embedded news reports would say "no one knows what they are talking about" it made the US look bad...

I understand the reason for propaganda in the past, but it is a waste of our money to use it in the future...
nevermind the obvious problems with the ethical issue of propaganda...


[edit on 14-3-2005 by LazarusTheLong]



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 03:55 PM
link   
The G.A.O. Report is the "no brainer" of the year to date.

Do we now say goodbye to democracy AND goodbye to accountability?

This morning some way away from Washington D.C., radio news reports were clearly stating that Congress itself has backed up these findings and censured the Bush administration. I have no link to that and it sounds infeasible.

I have said a few things about the thin veil of propaganda covering the deep-rooted lies and corruption of the Bush administration. It is their modus operandi, through and through. I will say some other things about it. Human beings should be true to themselves before they defend national institutions. For people who put country first and cannot fathom the level of criminality that exists in the Bush gang, conceiving it as impossible, cognitive dissonance becomes more and more of a taxing thing.

There is nothing at all "objective" in any news item sponsored for broadcast by the Bush administration, quite the opposite.

Bottom line: many Americans remain shellshocked by woeful economic performance and trickle-through ill feeling about foreign affairs policy. They are unlikely to care much about the findings of the "Government Acciuntability Office", because the "Department of Homeland Security" is a bigger brighter brand.



[edit on 14-3-2005 by MaskedAvatar]



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 04:00 PM
link   
The game continues...

You see "bias" if you're liberal and presented with information from a conservative source.
You see "bias" if you're conservative and presented with information from a liberal source.
When you're one of the two, all sources fall into one of the two, since if you're not with "us" you're against "us".
So... everything is biased.

Now what?



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 04:02 PM
link   
I see "fraud" and "criminality" when the government manufactures fake news items. These are way down the continuum from "bias".



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 04:05 PM
link   
I think there is so much disinformation on both sides that we will never know the truth about anything. Just remember McCarthy was correct when he thought there was a major communist movement going on in this country then and now. But the diffrence is that now they own the News and movie industry.



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 04:12 PM
link   
The discussion over precisely how to define objectivity seems a bit superfluous to me. It's not completely irrelevant, but in my mind it would come second to consideration of how important it is for a democracy to have completely independent news media. The heart of the issue ought to be simply this: Should it be illegal for the US government to take part in the production of any news presentation regarding its policies?

In my opinion, the government should be legally barred from taking any sort of directive role in the production of news reports. The government should be able to say whatever they have to say, pitch its programs and initiatives to the people, etc, but not in the form of news casts directed by the government. When the government is covered by the news, the interview/coverage should be independent and unrestricted (except of course with regard to secret material, etc).


On the other topic of objectivity: I don't always agree with Sofi 100%, but we all know that she has certain opinions and that her coverage of this government will often be adversarial. I can respect that because she's not claiming to be unbiased and she's not making up facts. She's presenting facts in the light which she sees them, and its up to us to view those facts and decide on our level of agreement with her assessment of those facts.

If you want to see real anti-American reporting, I suggest looking for the thread in which Zcheng claimed that American soldiers were using Iraqi civilians as human shields on their tanks. That was anti-American BS, where as sofi's often less than objective analysis of the news is just that. There's nothing wrong with being distrustful of the government. I for one think that every president since Nixon or Ford (possibly excluding Carter) was part of a massive globalist conspiracy which is became most evident under Clinton and Bush 43.

Edit to laugh at myself: Leave it to Vagabond to start out by saying something is superfluous and end by going on a big paranoid tangent.

[edit on 14-3-2005 by The Vagabond]



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 04:49 PM
link   
good point vagabond...

my news writting 1 professor in college told us that it is impossible to be objective as a journalist, you just have to be sneaky enough to not get caught...

Bias in news media is expected... how often has someone bashed a "christian science monitor" link even though it is considered a reputable news source...
but the word "christian" makes people doubt the objectivity...

Washington times and Washington post... how many times have you seen a link and said..."ohhh no wonder they say that"

facts are what is important... and the facts are not what propaganda is about.



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
The game continues...
When you're one of the two, all sources fall into one of the two, since if you're not with "us" you're against "us".
So... everything is biased.

Now what?


I always saw journalism's role with respect to government as holding them accountable and responsible for their actions. They report their investigative findings to the people who make the proper decisions.

But now, apparently, if a journalist does such with a republican administration, they are a crybaby liberal. If a journalist does it with a democratic administration they are a neocon fascist.

Oh well, I'm glad some people can see between the lines no matter how hard some of us here are trying to divide rather than unite. But I guess uniting the people in the face of government corruption is biased too.
Oh wait....


[edit on 14-3-2005 by Jamuhn]



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
The game continues...

You see "bias" if you're liberal and presented with information from a conservative source.
You see "bias" if you're conservative and presented with information from a liberal source.
When you're one of the two, all sources fall into one of the two, since if you're not with "us" you're against "us".
So... everything is biased.

Now what?





Leaving the "sources" and the labels out of it for now, what's verifiable?

It IS verifiably true that the GAO found the Bush administration guilty of producing and distributing propaganda. It's also true that much-publicized government directives to cease and desist have been overruled with a new memo telling departments to ignore GAO rulings, and that the Justice Department is seeking to circumvent existent anti-propaganda law.

None of this information is seriously in question.

The government's position seems clear: There is no propaganda but if there is, it's for a good reason.

So what's at issue here, on ATSNN?

Seems to me the big issue is whether or not we're allowed to talk about it publically. I provided 13 links to the story above - 5 of them respected mainstream news sources. Most ATSNN stories provide one link - yet somehow the focus is on my biased reporting? Triggered by a well-substantiated article about government propaganda and bias in the news? Hmmm.

We could be talking about the legitimacy of the government's meddling in news reporting, but instead, we've been redirected to consider my reporting bias and lack of 'objectivity.' Which raises some new questions:

How can we deny bias if we only allow one side of a story to be told? If we silence any and all dissent? If we disallow alternative independent sources - and uncomfortable truths? Why are we here and what do we want? A lockdown on alternative perspectives? One single "objective" truth that overwhelms the existence and validity of all others?

But okay. You are the pro ScepticOverlord - you've kept this community going and growing. Not a small feat at all. You tell me - Now what?

It's not a rhetorical question - I'm looking for perspective here, and maybe a small resolution.


.



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Am thinking this shoulda been obvious,no? I mean, of coarse our government is going to push that crap on us. Kinda like ATS somewhat...havta sort through the crap to find the truth.
Why wouldn't they wanna push some Iraqi guy or kid saying ' i love the U.S.' It suits their purposes and fulfills their needs......I'd do it



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by HardCore American
Am thinking this shoulda been obvious,no? I mean, of coarse our government is going to push that crap on us.





But there are legal limits - and this government has crossed the legal lines and acted illegally. So the question is - Do we hold them to anti-propaganda laws, or let them weasel out of it?

...And if our elected government doesn't uphold the law, why should anyone else? Should we just throw out all our laws? Or just certain ones? Who decides?






Kinda like ATS somewhat...havta sort through the crap to find the truth.





But government propaganda is funded illegally using your tax dollars. Are you sure you're okay with this? ...At the same time that the screws are tightening on the Freedom of Information Act and those doors are being closed too?

A big issue here is transparency in government. Like, the government acts in our name, with our money, but they're preventing us from learning about what they're really doing. Doesn't feel right to me.


.



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 06:05 PM
link   
I found this interesting bit and now I wonder, is it justified to blame the government? Or is it the media that we should be disgusted with?



White House Defends Administration Use of Video News Releases

White House press secretary Scott McClellan suggested the lack of disclosure was the fault of the broadcasters, not the government.

"Many federal agencies have used this for quite some time as an informational tool to provide factual information to the American people," he said. "And my understanding is that when these informational releases are sent out that it's very clear to the TV stations where they are coming from."



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 06:10 PM
link   
soficrow,

the whole transparency thing....I agree to apoint...not in military or national security crap..for obvious reasons

am i ok with them spending my money illeagly..if its to get one over on me(american citizen) no i guess i have a pretty big problem with that. if my money is used illeagly to hurt or kill them (terrorists and the like) no i don't have a problem with that.

I, for the most part, trust the government. I realize they do 'F' up alot and are in to some shady things, but I guess if it benefits me, my kids/neices/nephews in the long run....I guess I can turn the other cheek once or twice...know what I mean.





Edit... The Propaganda thing...am smart enough to see it for what it is (as are most people)...crap!

[edit on 14-3-2005 by HardCore American]



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by worldwatcher

I found this interesting bit and now I wonder, is it justified to blame the government? Or is it the media that we should be disgusted with?

"White House press secretary Scott McClellan suggested the lack of disclosure was the fault of the broadcasters, not the government. "





This is a separate issue from the cases where the GAO found "covert propaganda." ...It's very important tho, and is linked to government exploiting news budget cutbacks and understaffing.

...The NYTimes article deals with it well and is worth reading.


.



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
The game continues...

You see "bias" if you're liberal and presented with information from a conservative source.
You see "bias" if you're conservative and presented with information from a liberal source.
When you're one of the two, all sources fall into one of the two, since if you're not with "us" you're against "us".
So... everything is biased.

Now what?


deny bias. let facts be reported as facts, and opinion as opinion. it's quite simple, really, and has only been complicated by the penn and teller antics of the manufacturers of consent.


Originally posted by soficrow

Leaving the "sources" and the labels out of it for now, what's verifiable?


absolutely nothing, except that which is within your physical sensory grasp.


Originally posted by soficrow
It IS verifiably true that the GAO found the Bush administration guilty of producing and distributing propaganda. It's also true that much-publicized government directives to cease and desist have been overruled with a new memo telling departments to ignore GAO rulings, and that the Justice Department is seeking to circumvent existent anti-propaganda law.


you're obviously a commie
. you should know that we can't question the glorious leader and his horde of terrible dark angels.



Originally posted by soficrow
None of this information is seriously in question.

The government's position seems clear: There is no propaganda but if there is, it's for a good reason.

So what's at issue here, on ATSNN?


this is an increasingly important question to me, too.


Originally posted by soficrow
Seems to me the big issue is whether or not we're allowed to talk about it publically. I provided 13 links to the story above - 5 of them respected mainstream news sources. Most ATSNN stories provide one link - yet somehow the focus is on my biased reporting? Triggered by a well-substantiated article about government propaganda and bias in the news? Hmmm.


very worrying. it's like this anti-bias witch hunt has become what it seeks to avoid.


Originally posted by soficrow
We could be talking about the legitimacy of the government's meddling in news reporting, but instead, we've been redirected to consider my reporting bias and lack of 'objectivity.' Which raises some new questions:

How can we deny bias if we only allow one side of a story to be told? If we silence any and all dissent? If we disallow alternative independent sources - and uncomfortable truths? Why are we here and what do we want? A lockdown on alternative perspectives? One single "objective" truth that overwhelms the existence and validity of all others?


i noticed the polar opposite of this thread has had no complaints of bias against it by the spin 'fighters' here, even though the source of the story was a single organisation which was funded(indirectly) by an oil company. only one link to 'the project for excellence in journalism', which is CLEARLY biased to oil interests, recieved not a peep from supposed bias fighters.

there is a difference between disallowing opinions and disallowing facts.

you're article was from the new york times, for goodness sake. it's mainstream. it's bigtime. bias be damned. it's news, and it's true. attempts to try and squash the voice of reason are on the increase around here.



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

So... everything is biased.

Now what?


That is exactly the point I was making in another thread.



From: Bias

I see and hear that word thrown around at lot lately. Your source is biased. That fact is biased. You’re a biased liberal. You’re a biased neocon...

Can we all agree to at least one thing?

We all have our view of the world built up over years of learning, conditioning and indoctrination. If you think you haven't been manipulated or can't be manipulated you are in denial or are choosing willful blindness for selfish reasons.

Facts can be made up. Facts can be cherry picked. Information of all kinds is disseminated through mainstream media, the defense department, government, print media, and now the net. Photos can be doctored, video can be doctored, voice recordings can be doctored and the victors write History.

Everybody is biased.

Therefore…

Every source is biased...I’m biased... and you’re biased.

So…

What now?

We each choose a label, go to our respective corners and come out swinging?

That’s what’s happening…


"Objectivity" is an illusion (think back to Plato's definition of "truth") so the best thing to do is to strive for a consensus viewpoint supported by the facts. In law this is called building a case around evidence. There are always different possible theories that can explain the facts of a case and none of them are absolutely correct because they are all hearsay to someone who was not a direct witness or does not have access to "original" sources. How many times have you been witness to an event and the media coverage (both corporate and indymedia) have twisted the event to their own agenda? I have seen it happen more than once.

In this "information" age we are inundated with "facts" and different interpretations (note: information does not equal knowledge!). With the advent of electronic media and the ease with which it can be manipulated and the fact that disinformation is purposefully disseminated, I sometimes don't know what to believe anymore. I have to rely on personal and necessarily biased experience.

Each camp believes what they want to believe and defend their position to the death because the "other" camp refuses to accept any interpretation that does not fit their worldview. This is where willful blindness comes into the picture (as well as the lack of capacity to analyze and apply deductive reasoning).

So what do we do now that we have access to the biggest library of information ever devised? Fight over the validity of the facts?

What I don't see happening is consensus building on any level.

The government using YOUR tax dollars to "make/produce" the news is not helping matters.

That the alphabet media disseminates it without question and as a service proves that they are not "liberal" in the least.

That the government is paying people to promote it's agenda (and not YOURS) is corruption of the highest order.

That a government allows real prostitutes/imposters under fake names access to the White House press corps to figuratively do to Scotty what Monica did to Bill... well what do you call that?

Things are really...REALLY screwed up! I'm outraged at the lack of outrage and the defenders of the administration on this thread.

my 2 pennies.


[edit on 3/14/2005 by Gools]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join