The Media is Pro-Military-Imperialism Biased

When the Iraq war was first beginning, most had seemed to think that they were getting a somewhat accurate portrayal of the "reasons" we were driven to conflict. Because the media uncritically parroted the administrations every claims and fabrication, they were directly complicit not only selling the war, but US buying the war. From there, ensuring that people ar ejust content enough to be able to ignore or support the war.

When the war started, the media was right inside with military forces reporting "live" "from the scene". They reported mostly the same "view" we ever seen the media portray in almost any war. All they ever seem to show is the tank shooting, the jet shooting the missiles, the troops running and maybe shooting. They try their best to make it look like something we'd pay money to go see in an action movie. They don't show the other end of the things that are shooting.


They avoid mentioning that unexploded cluster bombs often result in civilians blowing their limbs off in later contact.


They refuse to mention how virtually all of the various munitions are made from depleted uranium, despite the fact that even the DOD admits that it's a highly toxic and partially radioactive substance.

This is why the U.S. Army prefers to use depleted uranium over
tungsten ammunition. If you look on the chart you can see that the depleted uranium is a material that has a characteristic that allows it to sharpen itself as it penetrates the target.
www.xs4all.nl...

It's critical that they don't spoil the DOD's avoid jail card, beause using it in most of the weapons platforms gives our military tremendous advantage, meaning less troops dying. Keeping the troops deaths extremely low isn't important merely for caring abotu the troops lives, it's about making sure that public support is easy to sway in all of the never ending global conflicts.

Then the war begins, and then it even "ends". It's never about actually leaving, it's about establishing military bases and economic and political control. Or re-establishing as is the case with Iraq.


Conservatives often believe that the Media in general has a Liberal bias because they don't show the good images like the soldiers playing with the kids:








Liberals on the other hand tend to believe that the Media has a Conservative bias, as they don't show the other side of the coin:







Then they still implicitly and explicitly help sell the current and upcoming wars.





Last night for the 5-16-07 presidential debate, the "Liberal biased' MSNBC even went to the 'sneaky' length of presenting Ron Paul, the only real anti-imperialist, in not only a terrible expression but even was the only one to be zommed out in his cameo image.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


The list goes on and on. Watch TV media news for the "medium" behind the message, and watch it happen for yourself.

[edit on 16-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

So not one single bite?

Here's some more with that Ron paul story:
Fox News, the ultra-conservative (ultra-imperialist) biased propaganda network, jumped all over "disqualifying" Ron Paul (the only outspoken Anti-US-Imperialist) from the "Republican" presidential debates for telling the truth about American Imperialism and 9/11 hatred:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Should we leave important issues debatable so that they'll actually be noticed?

[edit on 18-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

I'll bite to give this a bump.

Once again you have presented another
informative thread. I would have thought
by now the mods or whoever runs this
site would have given you your own
section in the "Conspiracy Masters" forum.
Very commendable work.

I can't find anything to debate really, you're
usually dead-on in your assesments.

"This tube is the gospel, the ultimate revelation. This tube can make or break presidents, popes, prime ministers. This tube is the most awesome goddamn force in the whole godless world, and woe to us if it ever falls into the hands of the wrong people! And when the 12th largest company in the world controls the most awesome goddamn propaganda force in the whole godless world, who knows what s*** will be peddled for truth on this network?!" - Howard Beale

It's not biased. It's just sensationalist. It reports what makes people listen.

Originally posted by aecreate
Once again you have presented another
informative thread. I would have thought
by now the mods or whoever runs this
site would have given you your own
section in the "Conspiracy Masters" forum.
Very commendable work.

Thanks. I don't think they're going to tho. I'm too controversial being an iconoclast, and I have a myspace blog that often shares reworked versions of many of my choicest threads. I think they expect to have the only version of a members story or something. I tried asking once but that part was ignored. I took that as a hint. Plus most people don't seem to have much interest in the 2 AI's: artifical intelligence and american imperialism (even though they're the 2 biggest conspiracies ever and they're not even theories), which are my biggest subjects.

Originally posted by Johnmike
It's not biased. It's just sensationalist. It reports what makes people listen.

Not biased?

The Media is dripping with bias.

There's the institutional analysis like above, which the Big 5 all share.

Then there's the biases of the people involved. The pundits and media personalities mostly seem to be politicaly biased, meaning they're virtual slaves to the status quo of their parties (don't even have to pay them off, they're already thought controlled). Most viewers seem to only notice and focus on the bias of the people giving the news, and then only percieve the "conservative" or "liberal" bias of the particular report and/or person giving it. It's best to have politically biased people in their because they're the ones who help teach US how to be thought controlled politically biased ideologues and irrational. They're de facto part of the national education system.

These pundits are still bound by the institutional military imperialism bias, at least until the war has been sold (by them) and bought (by US). Then the pundits who will are free to dissent to certain degrees, after it's too late and we're already in there, but they still have many limits and they wouldn't make it to their positions if they didn't fully understand the rules.

[edit on 18-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

It's blatantly obvious that "the media" isn't biased for imperialism. There are far too many reports calling Iraq a catastrophe for that.

Like I said, they just sell US the war, and afte rwe've bought it, it doens't really matter after that. But, they continue to only go so far with it, like the polar photos above of the true good and true atrocities there. It's all about US percieving political bias while not noticing the imperialist boas. Meanwhile they beging selling US the next war...
"Iran you're next"

It does matter, because a hostile Congress and president means that the war ends. If the media wanted to censor problems with imperialism, we probably wouldn't have a Democrat majority in Congress right now.

The plan is to never leave Iraq. It was annexation. They may eventually bring most of the troops home, but unless US Empire ends, there will be permanent military bases.

But US wars will never end in general. It's literally a permanent war economy. Even the money system it's addicted to war thru Dollar Hegemony. Gongress are stooges of American Imperialism, and that includes the "Democrats". People forget that the Dem's were just as guilty selling the war. People forget that Bill Clinton puppeteered the Bosnia/Kosovo conlficts during his entire presidency. Or the fact that LBJ was a Dem and took US into Nam. The list goes on. War is never ending, until drastic things change.

If the media wasn't imperialist biased then the entire concept wouldn't be so foreign to virtually everyone. There simply wouldn't be wars if the media weren't puppets, and this isn't a new concept either.

[edit on 18-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Why would anyone want to annex Iraq? Holding onto it now is costing us a fortune, how could there have possibly seen a benefit?

The cost of the war in Iraq is less than most would assume. It's only at about roughly $470B, which isn't that much considering the national debt goes ip roughly $1T per year.

But to answer your question, it's all about control and destablization. Even though it may seem "out of control", the permanent military bases (14 and counting) aren't scheduled to leave: ever. The idea is to have puppet regimes. That's what they thought Saddam and his boys would be when they helped them overthrow their government in '68. Boy were they wrong.

But it's abotu destablization in general: "we" do it all over the world. When when can't do it the quiet and sneaky ways, the military has to roll in there and force them "to be free". Iraq isn't much of anything new, it's just the latest example. If they take US back Iran, it will be to recolonize it. This is modern American Colonialism; that's all any of it is.

Superbly powerful and accurate post. The media cannot report in an unbiased way: they face powerful pressures from the Government and Goverbnment sponsored political/intellectual Institutes. Moreover, news is controlled by a handful of media agencies owned by relatively few priileged families. In addition, T.V. news is expensive to find. If you turn up to a Government Propaganda- sorry, Press Conference- it is far cheaper. Finally, T.V. needs advertising revenue and advertisers will ablate any non-consensual opinion. Chomsky has said all this before about Manufactured reporting but I will vote for your post as 'way above'.
Chomsky

Chomsky's been a major influence over the past 6 or so months.

Check out his film Manufacturing Consent I posted up:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

It charts almost specifically the imperialism bias that the mainstream media adheres to. Can't believe I forgot to link it.