This Is What's Wrong With The Media

[Crazy Canuk]

ah...canadian cynicism, it really brings a smile to my face, lol.

Thanks, but I dont think its cynicism just the way I see it

My view of Iraq isn't realy typical of most Canadians. I believed the US needed to go in mostly to save face then because of a real threat. Iraq was basicly setting the terms of what they were going to do while they were being punished and the UN was letting them.

It wasn't Canada's war so by not going in at the start we maintain the non agressor image and we can help mend the wounds later between Europe and the US.

After the US won the war with the Iraq goverment they wanted the UN to help but the UN didn't want to clean up the US's mess and have the US get everything they want in 'helping' form the Iraq goverment. The states wouldn't give up that much for the UN's help so they said no and inturn the UN said no. The UN was supplying some aid but it was not much. Then a couple of months later you have the food for oil scandle...which implicates the UN's leaders son...

Now it's all bruised ego's and no one wanting to deal with anyone else. Its like highschool on a global level but when this clicks feelings gets hurt alot of innocent people die.

[Joe 1320]

here is a classic example of what's wrong with the media:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060413/...a_zawahri_tape

based on this BS, no matter what the outcome of the middle east, these jerks have already positioned the islamic fanatics as winners. The message they broadcast is that The US wants to occupy Iraq perminantly. We know that is false. The message is that we are faltering and we should be driven out. That is something that we already want and due to media propaganda it does appear as though we are not in support of our government. When the time comes for Iraq to deal with it's own security issues and we can pull out, the Islamic fanatics will claim victory for kicking us out of Iraq. It certainly seems the media is far better at broadcasting the message of others rather than a message of unity from our country. it would be easy to edit that article and not give even the slightest bit of crediblilty to the Islamic extremests.

Due to the media, we've alreay lost the political battle, it appears if they had their way we would lose the war too.

[Steel2686]

that is true however, we cause a great deal of trouble ourselves. Sept 11. was an attack made by Al Quada > based in Afganistan > the country we helped in their defense against the Soviet Union > after which we immediately left the country > leading to their decent into chaos > which lead to the formation of Al Quada > a group that our CIA trained so's to help them fend off the USSR > training which was used against the United States on 9-11-01.

You're missing huge gaps of things that had since gone down with every one of these issues. We helped Al Queda fight the Soviets. At the time, we were entering a cold war with Russia. It's easy to say we just left and they fell apart, but a lot went down since then. The USSR fell... A peace treaty was put into place with Gorbechev... We didn't just "immediately leave the country". That's a great media trick. Leaving facts out that put holes in the story. It wasn't up to us to continue defending them. We HELPED them. That should have been good enough. Of course, we are the world's keepers.

Another issue was the "unprovoked" attack on Pearl Harbor by Japan; HOWEVER, the attack on Pearl was in retaliation to a US oil blockade between India and Japan. And as America did this we called ourselves "isolationists"!

First, blockade or not, this is no reason to sucker punch an entire naval base... Creating a second world war. There is much debate about that trade embargo with India and Japan. Some believe it was done to prevent Japan from building an even larger war machine. It was known they were a powerful military power with an itchy trigger finger long before Pearl Harbor.

And we have the nerve to get upset with France because of a few barrels of mustard gas, when many of the guns and training used to kill and execute soldiers and civilians overseas were given to these people by the United States!?! WTH!?!

Do you really think the US is the only country to sell weapons to other countries? Why are we singled out? At least what we sell to other countries is deemed legal in war. How about the illegal chemical weapons other countries sell? As times change, many of the original reasons we sided with one country over another can change. Regimes come and go, including our own.

The list goes on and on...

besides, most of the aid we provide is given through groups in no way related to the military!

i love america and all, but we can be dumb as hell!!!

Opinions differ and I respect yours completely.... Even if I don't share it in this case. That's America. We couldn't have this debate in Iran.

[Joe 1320]

Yet here is something that could be helpful:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12263326/

ya never know what is going to come out of the media.

Edit: and yet another example of the positive side of the media:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...041201947.html

[Jay 02 TA ws6]

How did you come to this opinion? Where did you get the information that leads you to believe this?

All you really have to do is open your eyes, ears, and mind all at the same time in order to realzie it...

Take a look at this:

Generals demand Rumsfeld quit over Iraq
Friday Apr 14 14:22 AEST

Two more retired US generals have called for Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to resign, saying the chief architect of the Iraq war and subsequent American occupation should be held accountable for the chaos there.

As the high-ranking officers accused Rumsfeld of arrogance and ignoring his field commanders, the White House was forced to defend a man who has been a lightning rod for criticism over a war that has helped drive President George W Bush's public approval ratings to new lows.

Retired Marine Corps General Anthony Zinni told CNN Rumsfeld should be held responsible for a series of blunders, starting with "throwing away 10 years worth of planning, plans that had taken into account what we would face in an occupation of Iraq."

The spreading challenge to the Pentagon's civilian leadership included criticism from some recently retired senior officers directly involved in the Iraq war and its planning.

Six retired generals have now called for Rumsfeld to step down, including two who spoke out on Thursday.

"I really believe that we need a new secretary of defence because Secretary Rumsfeld carries way too much baggage with him," said retired Major General Charles Swannack, who led the Army's 82nd Airborne Division in Iraq.

"Specifically, I feel he has micromanaged the generals who are leading our forces," he told CNN.

Retired Major General John Riggs told National Public Radio that Rumsfeld had helped create an atmosphere of "arrogance" among the Pentagon's top civilian leadership.

"They only need the military advice when it satisfies their agenda. I think that's a mistake, and that's why I think he should resign," Riggs said.

But at the White House, the 73-year-old Rumsfeld drew unflinching support.

"Yes, the president believes Secretary Rumsfeld is doing a very fine job during a challenging period," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters.

Major General John Batiste, who commanded the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq before his retirement, urged Rumsfeld on Wednesday to resign.

Retired Marine Corps Lieutenant General Gregory Newbold and Army Major General Paul Eaton have also spoken out against Rumsfeld.

The out came as opinion polls show eroding public support for the three-year-old Iraq war in which about 2,360 US troops have died and Bush is struggling to bolster Americans' confidence in the war effort.

Rumsfeld has offered at least twice to resign, but each time Bush has turned him down.

Pentagon spokesman Eric Ruff said Rumsfeld was ignoring the calls for him to quit and they had not been a distraction.

"Has he talked to the White House? The answer is no, he's not. And two, the question of resignation: was he considering it? No."

Ruff added: "I don't know how many generals there are - a couple thousand, at least. And they're going to have opinions."

Critics have accused Rumsfeld of bullying senior military officers and disregarding their views.

They often cite how Rumsfeld dismissed then-Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki's opinion a month before the 2003 invasion that occupying Iraq could require "several hundred thousand troops," not the smaller force Rumsfeld would send.

The White House pointed to comments supportive of Rumsfeld from Marine General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and said criticism was to be expected at a time of war in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

"We are a nation at war and we are a nation that is going through a military transformation. Those are issues that tend to generate debate and disagreement and we recognise that," McClellan said.

[thomas]

You know im not very political or know exactly whats going on over there but i can tell u this. A good friend of mine just came home from over in iraq(marine) and he was the type that just didnt give a sh!t about anyone but his own. He just walked into my office a little while ago and we started to talk about what was going on over there. He told me and I was caught by surprise but he said yes there are alot of bad things still going on over there but he told me a whole bunch of stories of him helping particular people out. Like just walking an old lady down the road to the other side and her turning to him and saying thank you for everything that u guys do here. He said the general populatation for the most part is so greatful and is so happy to be able to hold there heads up going down the street. he said we have affexcted so many lives is such a good way that he wants to return there and continue doing what he beleives is the right thing. I for one am not for the war and the killing but to hear of such things and just thinking about the feeling of selfrespect over there and the way alot of these soldiers feel is just pretty darn American. It may not be the best thing to do but at least there doing something. Well im not good at this debating stuff so thats it

[thomas]

Oh yeah the media sucks on so many levels

[Maverick_82]

You're missing huge gaps of things that had since gone down with every one of these issues. We helped Al Queda fight the Soviets. At the time, we were entering a cold war with Russia. It's easy to say we just left and they fell apart, but a lot went down since then. The USSR fell... A peace treaty was put into place with Gorbechev... We didn't just "immediately leave the country". That's a great media trick. Leaving facts out that put holes in the story. It wasn't up to us to continue defending them. We HELPED them. That should have been good enough. Of course, we are the world's keepers.


First, blockade or not, this is no reason to sucker punch an entire naval base... Creating a second world war. There is much debate about that trade embargo with India and Japan. Some believe it was done to prevent Japan from building an even larger war machine. It was known they were a powerful military power with an itchy trigger finger long before Pearl Harbor.



Do you really think the US is the only country to sell weapons to other countries? Why are we singled out? At least what we sell to other countries is deemed legal in war. How about the illegal chemical weapons other countries sell? As times change, many of the original reasons we sided with one country over another can change. Regimes come and go, including our own.

Opinions differ and I respect yours completely.... Even if I don't share it in this case. That's America. We couldn't have this debate in Iran.

As i do your's, its a terrible thing when there is no opposition. but i see the US is singled out because we make ourselves heard more than others, so the more good u hear, its only reasonable the more bad u hear. and we place ourselves in the middle of so much, when the mudslinging begins, it comes from all sides, lol. and as for the intentions of other nations; a theory by G W F Hegel stated that we live in a world where not only good and bad colide to cause trouble, but also the good intentions of one colides with the good intentions of another can lead to tragedy.

And the US isnt just singled out, we watch US news so most of our news will be about the US, and the media likes the US to be a hero, but loves it when it's a villain. lol

and i dont rely on the news for my info, i knew the media was bias when i was in kindergarden, lol.

also, the afghan incident started as a civil war, and the US interfered, providing CIA training, about half a year before any Soviet involvement!! then the USSR provided military advisors to the Afghan governement. then when the Afghan gov asked the USSR for more aid, troops were sent in. the alliance of the US, UK, China and other countries sent in troops and eventually Soviet forces withdrew from Afghanistan. but the civil war continued. later when the government was established in the mid 80's, it then collapsed in the early 90's. Afghanistan was more of a pawn in a USSR v. US chess game. however, the demoralizing this loss did to the USSR helped in its collapse.

3 TIPS FOR THE TRUTH
1. look it up urself
2. dont trust graphs, look up the actual numbers
3. listen to small facts, and elaborate on them.
i.e.: three soldiers die in Iraq (two are shot and the other drunkenly drives his jeep into a building) actual data!!!

QUAERE VERUM!!! (seek the truth)

[Steel2686]

As i do your's, its a terrible thing when there is no opposition. but i see the US is singled out because we make ourselves heard more than others, so the more good u hear, its only reasonable the more bad u hear. and we place ourselves in the middle of so much, when the mudslinging begins, it comes from all sides, lol. and as for the intentions of other nations; a theory by G W F Hegel stated that we live in a world where not only good and bad colide to cause trouble, but also the good intentions of one colides with the good intentions of another can lead to tragedy.

And the US isnt just singled out, we watch US news so most of our news will be about the US, and the media likes the US to be a hero, but loves it when it's a villain. lol

and i dont rely on the news for my info, i knew the media was bias when i was in kindergarden, lol.

also, the afghan incident started as a civil war, and the US interfered, providing CIA training, about half a year before any Soviet involvement!! then the USSR provided military advisors to the Afghan governement. then when the Afghan gov asked the USSR for more aid, troops were sent in. the alliance of the US, UK, China and other countries sent in troops and eventually Soviet forces withdrew from Afghanistan. but the civil war continued. later when the government was established in the mid 80's, it then collapsed in the early 90's. Afghanistan was more of a pawn in a USSR v. US chess game. however, the demoralizing this loss did to the USSR helped in its collapse.

3 TIPS FOR THE TRUTH
1. look it up urself
2. dont trust graphs, look up the actual numbers
3. listen to small facts, and elaborate on them.
i.e.: three soldiers die in Iraq (two are shot and the other drunkenly drives his jeep into a building) actual data!!!

QUAERE VERUM!!! (seek the truth)

Good post and words to live by. I agree we put ourselves on a perch for the whole world to take shots at, but as Jeff stated, we almost have to when no one else is willing to help.

Quick example... The media loves to bring up the fact that 9/11 happened during GWB's tenure. However, most fail to report that the planning for this attack started during Clinton's term... Right after the '94 WTC attempted attacks. G.W. was only sworn in on January of '01... Just eight months prior to the attacks. These facts tend to slip the minds of the mass media.

Also, it should be noted, we are a relatively young country. Especially when compared to the European nations and the Middle East. Those countries are thousands of years old, and we're a paultry 231. We were bound to have some growing pains early on, but it amazes me how much more "mature" we are compared to some of these other countries.

[Maverick_82]

Quick example... The media loves to bring up the fact that 9/11 happened during GWB's tenure. However, most fail to report that the planning for this attack started during Clinton's term... Right after the '94 WTC attempted attacks. G.W. was only sworn in on January of '01... Just eight months prior to the attacks. These facts tend to slip the minds of the mass media.

Ah the Bush family . put them in a room with food and their are bound to have an embarressing moment. G B Jr. choking on a pretzel. G. B. Sr. vomitting in the lap of the japanese prime minister, lol. and the prime minister seemed ok with it!?! as if it happens everyday. lmao

[Jeff_in_Atl]

Ah the Bush family . put them in a room with food and their are bound to have an embarressing moment. G B Jr. choking on a pretzel. G. B. Sr. vomitting in the lap of the japanese prime minister, lol. and the prime minister seemed ok with it!?! as if it happens everyday. lmao

"their" should be "they're" short for "they are".
Everybody has their moments. Bill Clinton had his share. He fell jogging and busted his a$$.

I don't see the point in this except to bash.

[DeWynter]

"their" should be "they're" short for "they are".
Everybody has their moments. Bill Clinton had his share. He fell jogging and busted his a$$.

I don't see the point in this except to bash.

I think the point was to lighten the mood. I think everyone makes mistakes and the bushes had some funny ones. I don't see it as bashing until some one does it in a rude and demeaning way.

[Maverick_82]

"their" should be "they're" short for "they are".
Everybody has their moments. Bill Clinton had his share. He fell jogging and busted his a$$.

I don't see the point in this except to bash.

cut me some slack, im not the best typist and im multi-tasking with this, one other site, and 1 college open learning course. lol.

and as for clinton, he was rock'n w/ the sax! so i can overlook a trip or two. lol

[Jeff_in_Atl]

I think the point was to lighten the mood. I think everyone makes mistakes and the bushes had some funny ones. I don't see it as bashing until some one does it in a rude and demeaning way.

When it's only bashing one side and not both it looks like it's a political attack. Bash both sides and it's not a problem.

cut me some slack, im not the best typist and im multi-tasking with this, one other site, and 1 college open learning course. lol.

and as for clinton, he was rock'n w/ the sax! so i can overlook a trip or two. lol

Oh I didn't go to college. LOL
Well at least Bush didn't let the person who planned an attack that killed 3000 people slip through his hands because he was on a golf coarse so I can cut him some slack. There are all kinds of ways of looking at things aren't there.

Sorry about the grammar thing. That comes from someone who failed English several times in high school. The older I get the more bad grammar bugs me. (I only failed because I have a crappy memory and can't remember how to spell anything. But I made them up in summer school. I got to see some nice cars then. One guy had a GTO judge. One guy had a 68 AMX. That was a cool car.)

[DeWynter]

When it's only bashing one side and not both it looks like it's a political attack. Bash both sides and it's not a problem.

I guess I can agree on that front to be real honest I dont even know who is the opposite side I haven't quite wraped my head around the two party system and I don't really know who or even if you have an oposition while in office in the US I haven't really thought about it ever, I'm off to do a search on the ruling system in the USA

bicameral Congress consists of the Senate (100 seats, one-third are renewed every two years; 2 members are elected from each state by popular vote to serve six-year terms) and the House of Representatives (435 seats; members are directly elected by popular vote to serve two-year terms)
elections: Senate - last held 2 November 2004 (next to be held on 7 November 2006); House of Representatives - last held 2 November 2004 (next to be held on 7 November 2006)
election results: Senate - percent of vote by party - NA; seats by party - Republican Party 55, Democratic Party 44, independent 1; House of Representatives - percent of vote by party - NA; seats by party - Republican Party 231, Democratic Party 200, undecided 4

so if I want to pass a new bill who gives it the go ahead? the house ofrepresenatives or the senate? and is the house of represenatives and senate mixed between the two parties? and to pass do you require 50% or better than that to pass a bill?