Bush's tame U.S. media may yet have teeth

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Sep, 27 2003 @ 11:55 AM
link   
MIAMI -- I've long considered CNN's Christiane Amanpour an outstanding journalist. Last week, my opinion of her rose further when she ignited a storm of controversy when asked by a TV interviewer about the U.S. media's coverage of the Iraq war.

Breaking a taboo of silence in the mainstream media, Amanpour courageously replied, "I think the press was muzzled and I think the press self-muzzled. Television ... was intimidated by the (Bush) administration and its foot soldiers at Fox News."

Right on cue, faithful to Reichsmarshal Hermann Goering's advice to attack all dissenting views as treason, Fox accused Amanpour of being a "spokeswoman for al-Qaida." I felt for Amanpour, having myself been slandered by the U.S. neo-conservative media as "a friend of Saddam" for disputing White House claims about Iraq - whose secret police had threatened to hang me on my last visit to Baghdad.


www.canoe.ca...




posted on Sep, 27 2003 @ 12:00 PM
link   
You know, I can't disagree with anything you said here but there is annother side to this story,

did the other side tell the truth?

when in a conflict do you want to hand your opponent the ammo to deep six you?

would everyone agree with what was going on if they did say everything?

would more lives have been lost if complete disclosure was made?

was the UN and the opposing countries telling the complete truth (such as France, Germany etc.)?

should we tell the truth or the whole story when no one else is obligated to do so?

how could someone not be capable of seeing the quandry here?



posted on Sep, 27 2003 @ 12:28 PM
link   
hmmmmmmmmmm

Bush's media will never report this imho.

It was reported in the canadian media, not in the USA.

As long as BUsh is in office, they wont run with this.



[Edited on 27-9-2003 by mulberryblueshimmer]



posted on Sep, 28 2003 @ 11:20 AM
link   
uh-huh.... the time tested strategy---> divide & conquer



posted on Sep, 28 2003 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Um, NEO (freemason?)

Covering the truth of the Iraq war alot sooner would have helped push alot faster an end, and perhaps a quicker impeachment process.

Did the other side tell the truth? Who cares? We shouldnt have been there in the first place. Period.

Of course the opposing countries werent telling the truth, duh. We already know this. So? Our lying about the whole thing has created a deeper hole for us to try and climb out of. What the other countries do should not be nearly the concern as what our president is doing to us. We should have let Germany and France tie thier own noose with Iraq. Let them suffer the concequences of thier shady dealings. Why the # should we?

If no one else is obligated to tell the truth, which they always are, but never do, that does not make it a green light for us to lie and manipulate.

Had we had the truth outfront, this war could have been unpopular from the beginning, and the process of accusations and perhaps eliminating Bush could have been started long ago.



posted on Sep, 28 2003 @ 11:58 AM
link   
There is no way Neo is freemason. Neo isn't radical enough.



posted on Sep, 29 2003 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by THENEO
You know, I can't disagree with anything you said here but there is annother side to this story,

did the other side tell the truth?
HUH!?! We're talking about reporters....reporting!

when in a conflict do you want to hand your opponent the ammo to deep six you?
In the military, there are people who's job is to be nothing BUT a filter of possibly damaging information

would everyone agree with what was going on if they did say everything?
And you see a problem with disagreement? One of the tenants of Heir Goebbles brand of facist propaganda was to immediately label & damage any dissent with the heading of TREASON. (psst....learn from history)

would more lives have been lost if complete disclosure was made?
Lives would have been saved and actions brought into tighter scrutiny so that military men can make military plans....not the S of D

was the UN and the opposing countries telling the complete truth (such as France, Germany etc.)?
Operating under a media lens OR getting a bye via a complicit media....tell me the source more likely to tell the truth?

should we tell the truth or the whole story when no one else is obligated to do so?
See Above

how could someone not be capable of seeing the quandry here?
How can someone believe in a fantasy MATRIX, yet be blind to the one trying to ensnare those who chose the right color pill and are FULLY AWARE!?!?!






new topics
top topics
 
0

log in

join