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.

 

Who Here Would Support A War Against Terror?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 02:31 AM
link   
A ridiculous proposal. A free and unfettered press is a vital part of any democracy.

Reporting (sometimes over-reporting I'd agree) the facts about an incident and blowing the whistle on Dr. David Kelly's death, dodgy dossiers, Special Plans Group, Haliburton's 'war dividend' etc etc (facts Govts tried to surpress) are two sides of the same coin. Limit one, you limit the other.

Govts hate a free press - it's the duty of every thinking citizen to ensure that freedom remains unchallenged.

As we can see in USA the Govt control of the media leads to corruption of democracy and a lack of voter choice. Fox is a warning to the World of what a corrupt munchkin and a few well-placed cousins in the media can achieve




posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984


“We are not at war currently”
You’re right on the technicality.
But try telling that to George W Bush! I wonder what does he means when every time he mentions “war on terror”?


We are not at War.


Originally posted by Liberal1984
“Restricting the freedom of the press to report anything is wrong”
Oh so we will just let them print the access codes to our nuclear warheads then? For God sake man terrorism is about national security.


I believe you stated that you wanted to restrict the media from reporting on issues relating to terror. The press is already restricted from reporting on matters of national security, and I do not suggest we change that at all.


Originally posted by Liberal1984
Anyway I’m sick at all the distraction the issue causes from domestic which unlike terrorism we can do something about. What is it exactly that you as an individual can do about terrorism? But there are things you can do about poverty or the environment.


How much more important a domestic issue do want? Innocent civilians are murdered on the streets of our captial. How can you justify this over poverty and the environment.
The short term urgency of this issue overrides the long term effects of either of the two issues you mentioned.


Originally posted by Liberal1984
You also said the attacks on London had to be reported in an unbiased manor. Well I said nothing about imposing bias, only restricting coverage in terms of airtime and newspaper space. Big difference because the content can still be “pure”.


I should have been more specific. The attacks on London need to be reported on completley, thoroughly and in a timley manner. The should be no restricts on reporting on these events in the media.




Originally posted by Liberal1984
Also I would trade the liberties the government is taking from me right now, with the absence of some terrorist coverage any day!


Consider this statement very carefully, once these liberties are gone they will never be returned. Many poeple over the years have given their lives, and suffered to give us the freedom we take for granted today.

I will not support your proposal that we sould restirct the media in anyway. It is wrong, it is anti democratic, it opens the system to more abuse, it plays into the hands of those we want to defeat, it pushes important issues of the agenda, it allows politicians to avoid answering difficult questions and it leads to oppression.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Simon666 I not a fascist and I would know if I was one. In many ways restricting the Medias reporting of the murder of our citizens is anti government as it would prevent politicians from exploiting it; say to divert attention from other more pressing issues. At the same time it would deny what is in effect the theft of innocent life to accomplish a terrorist goal (the production of terror in our own people).
So why I deserve to be reincarnated in a country whose media is forced to support the government I do not know, especially when it is just for expressing an opinion which is probably sensible not fascist. Simon666 it’s a good job you’re not in charge of deciding who gets reincarnated otherwise mankind might call you a fascist!!!
If you call me fascist I call you a supporter of quite literally low life TV and a supporter of its calculated and intended use by terrorists to cause unrestricted terror.

Toelint regarding all things mass media the media is the only messenger so obviously it carries the most influence. Regarding the message of terrorism I have no objection to it been broadcast in an unrestricted manner, your right why shouldn’t we all get to know who our enemy is? Especially when informed decisions have to be made by the electorate. What I object to is the unrestricted reporting of the acts of terrorism, because it is they which are being used by the terrorist (just look at the chosen targets and times of attack). The message can do what it likes, but I'm against the theft of life by terrorists to cause terror. And I want there use of our media, and our medias use of the terrorists to make money to be restricted, but only regarding acts not messes of terrorism. Yes I would like Osama videos to be blocked too as I feel they are more of an act of terrorism, than a message as such. And what a message it is when everything in the video is so well scripted and staged by the terrorists?
However as far as interviewing people who support terrorists, or discussing what they would like to do to us I have no objection to even when it is in graphic terms. Nether do I have a problem with informing the public that a terrorist attack has happened killing x number of people. But by restricting newspaper space and airtime it is the near constant repeating we would block out.

Believe it or not I’m actually a Libertarian although maybe I should give user name "fascist1984" a go? But I hate our media being exploited by terrorists in the unrestricted manner it is being currently too much to tolerate it as a justified way of making money and delivering entertainment in the form of what I figure are “useless” pictures of slaughtered citizens.
Many people are accusing me of wanting to restrict the media, but shorly restricting the media from repeating itself is more a quality control issue, than a violation of freedom of speech? And if we deny the media from being an extension of the power of terrorism then we deny the terrorists logic, and maybe to some degree reason to kill. Its not just quality control issue, its national security issue too.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 02:45 AM
link   
In the proposal you put forward, who would decide how much air time or column inches are given to the issues surrounding the terrorist actions and threats to the UK?



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 12:57 PM
link   
An act of parliament would be needed to bring my proposal into force. The same act of parliament would include the daily word limit (for newspapers) and airtime limits (for radio and television) on all ACTS of terrorism against our citizens, or perhaps also all people where the target audience of the terrorists is our people.
Who the target audience is of a terrorist attack would be determined by the terrorist themselves, in the sense it would depend on whether the terrorist group responsible for the attack had made any particular demands on our own people-our government.

This way there is no room what so ever for politicians to manipulate the proposed legislation in their favour, unless of course bringing the legislation into place is doing just that. I doubt this as historically people tend to unite round their leaders in times of war, and more specifically common fear (it’s a well documented phenomenon, whose origins are thought to date back to tribal times).

Apologies for not stating this proposed mechanism at the beginning.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 02:52 AM
link   
So to clarify - Parliment would be given controling how much air time and column space was given to any situation where a British Subject is injured or killed by the actions of another person or persons, claiming to be from a paramilitary, insurgent organisation. Or by anyone known to have links to a terrorist organisation.

So how will decide what gets reported in the limited air time/column inches?

Will the same restrictions apply to the internet, radio, satellite channels?



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 03:34 AM
link   
Nice idea Liberal 1984, but IMO we are not going to make war on terror by passing even more laws and restricting broadcasting. IMO we have to use 'People Power' and exercise our rights to ignore the TV Radio and Newspapers in favour of the internet.

Those who want really positive action should smash up their TV's in public, perhaps at TV smashing rallies followed by a 'People's media Barbecue and Party'




posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Dear Expositor yes you’re right about your clarification. Regarding what goes into the allocated newspaper space or air time; this would be entirely down to whoever owns or runs the individual forms of media, and therefore whoever controls them already. After all I'm not against reporting acts of terrorism against our own people, or necessarily it is reported. Controlling these things is not my aim and all I want to do is restrict the terror of terrorism induced by the media.
Thank you for your good questions.

Thanks for the support Roy Robinson and I agree that television smashing rallies would be a great way to make a protest against the media (providing it isn’t a new one of course).
And I agree that the powers that be will not want to restrict the Medias reporting of terrorism in any way whatsoever. Not because they love freedom of speech or else the British government would not be planning to outlaw: supporting, advocating and justifying terrorism. After all though first two may be reasonable surely stating a fact such as "for every one dead Israeli there are at least another 9 dead Palestinians" justifying terrorism?
Neither do I think that they will be refusing to do so on grounds of national interest, as it is against the national interests for the fear of terrorism to be amplified by the media given the various economic problems this causes, and indeed encouraging murderous terrorism by my making it more successful as a means of delivering mass terror.

Rather they will not want to do it because of the way people usually unite around their leaders in times of fear, and because of the way terrorist attacks are pushing issues the voting public actually do something about off the political agenda (thereby leaving the government more capable of doing what it actually wants to do).

But of course regardless of what the government doesn’t want to do, we can only try by spreading knew ideas and making them understood and hopefully accepted or respected. And yes if there was ever the public support a television smashing rally would not just be a good way to protest against the media, but also to protest against what I view as the “treachery” of the media regarding terrorist issues.
But there are far too many people “plugged in” to the media, the fox news and all the other channels like them. So in the mean time we must work as best we can to get this somewhat “brainwashed” section of the public to support issues and solutions that will support themselves. Then though our democracy is not perfect the pressure will be such that the system will have to respond, and in historically such instances it always has, again not for what is right or what is wise but rather for reasons closure to securing the position of themselves. But from my understanding to get there things like television smashing rallies (and all ideas like it) have to be more than a protest but also whose issues the general public truly understands. Communication is the only Solution!!! (As no doubt we both agree).



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984

I'm not against reporting acts of terrorism against our own people, or necessarily it is reported. Controlling these things is not my aim and all I want to do is restrict the terror of terrorism induced by the media.

One of the key aims of the Islamic Extremists is the destruction of the Western media, the reason being it is free and open. Any restrictions placed on the media – including setting a time limit for air coverage – would be playing into their hands and advancing their cause.
Again I say I would not support this proposal, it is counter productive and restrictive. What is more it sets a dangerous precedent for the government to restrict further aspects of modern life they feel are detrimental to their cause.


Originally posted by Liberal1984

Thanks for the support Roy Robinson and I agree that television smashing rallies would be a great way to make a protest against the media (providing it isn’t a new one of course).


Here I think we are getting to the heart of the matter, it is not the amount of coverage but the way in which the media go about reporting it.
So we should be encouraging the media to report in an unbiased manner. The TV news channels seem to gravitate towards a sensationalist approach, and you are correct in your observation that they hype up the terror angle.
They would have you believe that Al Qa’ida is a global organization capable of delivering death at the flick of a switch anywhere in the world; and that our presences in Iraq is part of an ongoing struggle to free the world form this terrible threat.
When the truth is that there is no Al Qa’ida, merely a disconnected, disenchanted portion of the world’s population who all share the same ideas.

My advice, watch less television. Read the newspapers – avoiding the tabloids who think that we are suffering a new blitz and would like us all to put up Union Jacks and sing roll out the barrel – and identify the key issues. Do your own research into what politicians are telling you, check facts, think for yourself.

There is no need to fear terrorism, you are more likely to be the victim of a car accident than you are a terrorist attack. But what is important is that you stay informed, educated. You find your own viewpoint and make your own decision on where you stand, rather than having some one make the decision for you.



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 04:04 AM
link   
OSAMA: DESTROY MEDIA?

Thanks for the reply Expositor...

Officially the 3 aims of Al Qa’ida are as follows...
1. For America and its allies to stop supporting Israel
2. For America and its allies to stop supporting Russia over Chennai
3. For America and its allies to stop supporting corrupt Arab leaders.

Of course I heard this on the media (CNBC news). But I do not know of any credible evidence that terrorists aim to destroy the Western media. I have heard such claims on the media and I guess that's where you got it from too. But as far as facts are concerned their rubbish. However there has been a lot of talk by extremists on destroying the "Zionist media". What this means is destroying the pro Israeli media, and given that there is often more coverage on Israel than most issues; perhaps even the countries we are currently occupying (Iraq, Afghanistan) maybe the Arab extremists view of Zionist media would include virtually all our media. But never have I heard from them that they want our media’s destruction because it is free and open.
Maybe you think their cries against our allegedly Zionist media is a disguise for being against a free media. But that’s an opinion.
And I beg to differ not least because the Arab extremists often use the unbalanced aspects of our media to justify their call for an end to our “Zionist” media.

WAR ON TERRORISM…
Regarding the proposal surely placing restrictions on the amount of word space or airtime available to the media to report terrorist events would do nothing to advance the terrorist cause. Especially given that they often select public targets to exploit our media for their purposes of waging terror. Neither would it (as some people have tried to jump on) reduce the quality of reporting since my proposal says nothing about limiting what facts on terrorism should be reported. The only thing my proposal would reduce is the quantity of reporting, and surely that does not equal quality.

We both seem to agree that there is a general problem with media reporting and bias. I see nothing in my proposal which would limit that (apart from the bias of covering terrorism at the expense of issues the democratic public is more equipped to respond to).
But there is a lot in my proposal that would limit the fear of terrorism; and therefore dare I say the value of acts of terrorism towards terrorist ideology.

BIAS
So to solve the problems of media bias I think we need other proposals. Not least the limiting of personal-corporate ownership of the media.
Why should someone like Rupert Murdoch be able to own something in the order of 172 newspapers worldwide, and over 200 sky channels? Especially when virtually if not all of his news media openly supported the war in Iraq?
Surely it’s wrong that happened because he owns them.

We need to make it criminal for people who own media to do deals with politicians, and we need tighter laws against deliberate media bias. Right now everything except fabrication of the truth is legal and at least for that’s just not good enough.

TABLOIDS....
You say to read less tabloids and more broadsheet. Personally I read both. The only difference between tabloid and broadsheet is that in a tabloid the bias is so much easier to see. Of course broadsheets do give you more depth, but that’s by no means anti bias; of course not in the way they provide it to you. Because the depth they give, and most importantly don't give; always serves to back the general view of the world their editors want to project.
Look at the Sun and compare it with the Times. They are both owned by Rupert Murdoch and they both cater to different types of audience. But what they convey is much the same, just in different disguises. On individual issues they sometimes differ but as far as both cautiously saying vote Labour they shout yes! Just what the Sun newspaper said on Election Day in its "Sun Says" column: "we say vote labour but "no blank cheque".

A tabloid is often more outrageous than a broadsheet and its bias is easier to understand. But in my opinion the scary truth is that virtually every broadsheet is just as bit as biased as the tabloids. Even the Independent will try and make you a left winger although I think its depth of coverage (on what it covers) is quite good (at least for the moment).







 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join