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.

 

Will uncensoring the news from Iraq change our position?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 09:51 PM
link   
On the "O'Reilly Factor" this evening, Bill's opening criticized the BBC, CNN, the Egyptian press, to name a few, for their covering of the 2 soldiers missing since Friday and found late Monday evening. His anger (He was almost blowing steam from his ears) was about the details of the soldiers' deaths and how graphic the reports were.

First, let me say my heart is with the families of these young men. Nothing can truly be said to a parent, brother, sister, husband, wife, or child, to comfort them when loosing someone so young and while serving in the capacity of our country.

During the Vietnam "War", we had war every night in our living rooms. Some people ate TV dinners while watching. Children weren't told to "Go play in your room, this is adult stuff!" Our military was preventing the "Red" threat, communism, from spreading, the famous "Domino Theory" common jargon in most politician's speeches. We were fighting the good fight..............

And then we saw the choppers come in and pick up our wounded, the bodies of our young brothers, sons, husbands and fathers lying dead in the carnage of a recent conflict with the VC and NVA. People with common sense started asking themselves "Why?"

Some families found out of the death of their loved one on film on the nightly news, days before there was a knock at their door. Strong young men were returning in wheel chairs, minus limbs, blind, some carrying the effects of chemicals that would later turn into diseases and cancers, profoundly effect the mental and/or physical well being of their unborn children. People with common sense started asking their friends and neighbors, "Why?"

Washington told us God was on our side, and the United States would prevail. And people with common sense started questioning their priests, rabbis, pastors and the like, "Why?"

And we watched napalm and Daisey Cutters being dropped from planes. Our vocabulary broadened with words like "mortar rounds", "artillery fire", "body bags", "carpet bombing", and "gooks". Commanders told their troops,"Sieze this village", then "fall back" only to repeat the same a day later. And people with common sense started asking their government "Why?"

And we saw Americans with signs, mass marches and protests. Students being subdued by the National Guard. Now, the government, fearing it's own citizens, was asking itself "Why?"

And ABC, CBS, and NBC said, "Seeing is believing...", and Nixon became president.......

Our government has learned that censorship during war is a good thing. They must protect us from images that might disturb our fragile sensibilties. They give us "Shock and Awe", fireworks and explosions, soldiers, all clean and scrubed, proud to serve their country, imbedded journalists sending satelite images of camels, and the statue of Saddam being toppled.

If we were allowed free access to all the visual information, as we had in Vietnam, from the Iraqi arena, do you think your opinion of this conflict, good or bad, would change?

Do you believe our government has the right to censor our news, using the FCC to keep the news media on a leash?

And what are your feelings about our government believing they have better judgement then us to decide what we can or cannot handle in this internet age?

Or do we all just want our MTV?




posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 03:35 PM
link   
First of I would remind everyone that perhaps the biggest reason for Fox New's success is that it focuses on the entertainment factor. Maybe a script writer thought it would kind of ironic to put some more of that on the O'Reily factor? (Hence his apparent anger).

His argument is you shouldn’t reveal truth because the troops don't like it.

According this logic
1. So victim’s families are ether to emotionally traumatised to switch of the TV and give themselves a time of reflection.
2. They are so emotionally sensitive that they (at least on average) would rather ether press freedom or the truth itself was squashed for nation as a whole rather than to have to endure this themselves.
3. The end does not justify the means. The victim’s feelings are so important that they override whether or not we (as a democracy) make a fair and balanced decision on whether or not to keep the living ones in Iraq.

On reflection if only so many people (like perhaps 90 percent of Fox's audience) didn’t swallow it, perhaps it would be almost comical?

Second Point...
Do you ever marvel at how the media in general, but especially Fox News regularly fails to provide-propose ANY solution for the position they hold? (as in this case).

If the victims families views are so important; why doesn't fox news propose only broadcasting news in a detailed fair and balanced manor at certain times of the day?
In fact when anyone famous dies why don't they legislate to give the families peace from the press intrusion? From experience I know this is what annoys families the most, because unlike the TV you can't switch the press off (bastards follow you to the funeral, to your door step, and to family you go stay with in an attempt to avoid them).

I don't agree with all the above, but the point is they are examples of solutions to the positions that fox news apparently holds. However Fox News supports none of them. Hay could it be press freedom? Well they would say that but it’s quite a jump to go from not supporting reporting the truth because it upsets the victims families to suddenly supporting press freedom(s).

So what could this kind of c*** be about then?
Well think about it; all this reporting of some of the facts from places where journalists dare venture out isn't just harming troop moral. It does something far, far worse. It undermines the moral of the political soldier i.e. the seemingly forever remaining who still support this war.
This is why a TV station most owned by pro war Rupert Murdoch is pumping out the media rubbish.

Counter Point Three (is easy)...
Wicked Argument: "Everyone who doesn't support the war in Iraq is not doing our troops a favour because it undermines their moral"
Ok; So you’re saying it doesn't matter if they are fighting for a good reason or not because its not in the soldiers interests for the people back home to debate it?
If you were a soldier from a country that calls itself a democracy wouldn’t you want your people to arrive through debate about what could be the conclusion of your life’s fate? Or would you prefer instead if everyone supported you being there even if somehow it wasn’t a good idea?
What alternatives does your statement provide?
And if this is an unpopular war then do of why it is unjustly so. What is that puts your will or view before public opinion?
If you can't come up with any reasons could it be that democratic reality is making the public feel rightfully unhappy? If an effect of this is to undermine troops moral then isn't this a better argument for withdrawing them, than it is for not talking about it-them?

Point 4
Oh one last thing: Republicans blaming "left wing media" for "propaganda" is such a joke. Yes CNN is bad, both because its biased and because as ATS frequently shows there are many genuine anti war facts it ether completely or almost fails to broadcast. Mass media ownership is not party political in the shape of loyalty.
It's people like Murdoch and (amongst others their weapons supported media share owners) who support this war. Murdoch alone owns over 175 newspapers worldwide, 200 sky channels and much more. And as I’ve said before all 172 newspapers he owned at the time of the Iraq war supported it. Timewarner is not much different; but lacks such a long serving all powerful figure head who everyone can slag of at for what he is.
Basically nearly everyone who is anti war, is anti war in spite of mass media ownership and not because of it. And as ATS'er the sooner you come round to our side of the fence, the sooner you will come to realise. Call it whatever conspiracy you like but in the mass media there seems to be even more money in pleasing political investors, than their is in following profitable stories that uphold the truth (especially when marketing deception can be equally good at bringing the money in.

To see Murdoch’s 175 newspaper titles look here: www.ketupa.net...
(Link I’ve given before)



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Was just asking if uncensored news would change our opinion of the war.......I watch "Fox" news/O'Reilly more as a comic diversion. I mean, really, how can you trust any news media whose constantly reminding us of our "Terror Alert" status. I live in the boonies, am I supposed to believe that planes are going to drop from the sky and imbed themselves in draught ridden high desert and haggard range cattle?
I hear more about the soldier's morale from the "PTSD Alliance" and my close friend who did 15 over there.....
I don't have a clue as to where you're coming from, maybe you posted to the wrong topic.
Oh, by the way, I don't claim to be of any political party, labels tend to box you in, not just with the positive, but the questionable and negative. Blame it on my Swedish heritage. I make my own opinions.
And I know I didn't hear about any oppertunity to vote for or against this war........
(I do support our troops, but not the government or the reasons why they were sent to Iraq)
But, to get back on topic, would you like to give your opinion on any of the questions posed at the end of my topic?



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 08:40 PM
link   
Ok so you’re seriously not sure if uncensored news would change our opinion of the war? Ok that's a difficult one. I would say that because it's uncensored it would change our opinion of the war.

My Last Post in Brief
Gee now which way would it change? Well as that link I gave in my last reply shows a lot of the mass media is ultimately controlled by very people. These people tend to follow the political will of the investors who buy influence into their media networks (because otherwise) their networks share price would fall big time (because that's one of the major reasons why people buy into media networks).

Why do people buy into media networks?
Friends of Israel does it to support the American political party that it thinks is supporting Israel best. Companies similar to Halliburton will do it because there has always been a lot of money to be made in war (or at the very least excessive defence expenditure). In short there are many private groups that lobby the media, just as there are many profit based people-groups that lobby politicians.

Overall they all have a lot more to gain from a war in Iraq than they loose, after they never pay a penny it’s the taxpayer who does that and supports their interests (financial or political) because of it.
So the answer to the question is that public opinion would swing against the war as much as the censorship serves a purpose. The media would be far more critical of the war in Iraq because (on the face of it) there is more money to be made (ever heard the “phrase bad news sells”). In practice that’s not completely true because although bad news sells does sell; so too do the shares of lobbyist lobbying your media empire when you p**s them of.
END OF LAST POST IN BRIEF

I would not have given my first response if I had known you were not interested in looking into such a simple question very deeply. Instead I should have just let this thread fall (possibly unanswered) to the bottom as it was heading; and I am sincerely sorry for not doing this.
However because you criticised the use of what (amounts to propaganda in the O’Reily factor) I assumed you were discussing the propaganda (and not just its simple message). Maybe it’s not propaganda at all; but it looks like its trying to deceive a patriotic audience into not supporting discussing the facts of what’s going on in Iraq. As my first response points out the vehicle for this was human emotion (i.e. the soldier’s family’s emotions).

Just hope I have explained myself a bit better. P.S how can someone not think that uncensored news coverage will change public perception of the war?

I hope you have an answer because without an opposing position your question isn’t really debatable.

Also for your sake I would point out that Fox will affect you just by making you think about certain things. It’s criticized because it is state of art propaganda (correct me if I'm wrong but isn’t freedom of speech (and the nudity laws) its only legal regulator?



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Liberal1984,
I agree with everything you have posted. My intent was to bring out people that blindly believe the news and polititians. There are so many people who allow the media and government to spoonfeed them false or maligned information without question. Peronalizing the kidnapping and death of these 2 soldiers on the airwaves has made a lot of people question what is going on. Casualty numbers tend to depersonalize the individual human being, but put a face and name out there and people will take time to digest what they see/hear, and question the reasons why anything would justify the loss of human life.
Ultimately, the puppet masters believe that nothing else matters but the bottom line: money.
Sorry if I monopolized your time.



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join