Sayonara Posted February 14, 2003 Posted February 14, 2003 I've been keeping an eye on CNN.com this week, and I have to say you guys aren't getting half the coverage that the UK is getting on Iraq type issues. That strikes me as being a little... odd. You did have a fantastic front-page world news article on Tuesday though that regailed the world with news of N. Korea's new killer missile of doom and completely failed to mention that they don't actually have a warhead for it yet. Is this propaganda, or bad journalism? Discuss.
Aardvark Posted February 14, 2003 Posted February 14, 2003 No one is quite sure whether they have a war head or not. The Foreign Office suggests they may have 2 crude nuclear warheads. But then again maybe not. Its a very mysterious country.
Sayonara Posted February 14, 2003 Author Posted February 14, 2003 The foreign office saying "these people we want the nation to resent may have two crude nuclear warheads" is another way of saying "don't object to our policies or you'll all die". Which in turn is another way of saying "if the wind changes you'll stay like that."
Aardvark Posted February 14, 2003 Posted February 14, 2003 I'd agree, except the Foreign Office doesnt appear to have any policies concerning North Korea.
Sayonara Posted February 14, 2003 Author Posted February 14, 2003 Is that the same as Iraq not appearing to have any WOMDs? Because if it is I'm going to need the address of the FO and a large invasion force, quickly.
Aardvark Posted February 14, 2003 Posted February 14, 2003 Sign me up. Thats one act of regime change i'm all in favour of.
RED FIRE COW Posted February 14, 2003 Posted February 14, 2003 Originally posted by Sayonara³ You did have a fantastic front-page world news article on Tuesday though that regailed the world with news of N. Korea's new killer missile of doom and completely failed to mention that they don't actually have a warhead for it yet. Is this propaganda, or bad journalism? Discuss. [/b] It is propaganda to answer your question, because their is no reason to be making needless mistakes about such an important subject. Here in the US their is so much more competition to sell a story that people just write what they think will get the peoples attention; even if it means getting people to believe lies. This could also be republican journalism so that it gets people fired up to go to war if we have to. When you read the news or watch it on tv here in the states only 50% is true.
Aardvark Posted February 14, 2003 Posted February 14, 2003 Do you mean that half of all news in the USA is made of of verifiable lies? I'd be very interested to hear of some examples.
RED FIRE COW Posted February 14, 2003 Posted February 14, 2003 well they are more like little white lies that if applied the wrong way could cause war. But the real problem is that news has been turned to entertainment in the US. for instance one of the biggest media sellers is racism. we make something a racial thing eventhough it isnt in reality just so people can tune in. But they dont have any regard for the seeds they plant in peoples heads. Its the normal everyday people that have to deal with the Bs entertainmet news that is out there. If you wanted another example just watch tv and see how its all crap, why the hell do we have to hear the reporters personal comments also, they should just get paid to deliver the news as they get it. Im just an angry individual when it comes to the Bs media that is destroying this country.
fafalone Posted February 14, 2003 Posted February 14, 2003 CNN is notoriously biased. Personally I get my news from at least 10 difference sources. I even read Al-Jazeeras news site (with the help of a translator of course)
Glider Posted February 15, 2003 Posted February 15, 2003 As was once said (can't remember by whom) "There are lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics". The problem with statistics is that they can be made to say (or strongly imply) whatever you want them to. The media know this, and use it to maximum effect. It's a way of implying whatever you want, without actually lying. By the way, did you know that over 90% of people in high security prisons are bread eaters? Moreover, the same proportion of criminals caught for committing a violent crime were found to have eaten bread earlier the same day?
Sayonara Posted February 15, 2003 Author Posted February 15, 2003 I think you misunderstand. I am well aware of how careful language and statistics can be used to sell a half truth or even an outright lie. but that's not propaganda - that's marketing. What interests me here is the fact that somebody is deciding what gets reported to the US public, and what doesn't.
aman Posted February 15, 2003 Posted February 15, 2003 I was in the Canal Zone during the early 70's. At that time drugs were coming up through South America to Panama to the U.S. and The Canal Zone treaty was coming up for renewal with the U.S. The General Omar Torreos of Panama used his military to put all his competition out of business with plenty of arrests. Meanwhile he still moved tons of "Panama Red" (yeah, that was his) to the states and tons of cocaine. Then he called U.N. inspectors down and showed them all the arrests and how he had cleaned up his country and petitioned to get the Canal Zone back from the U.S. I was there when Kissinger flew in and signed it over. What was reported in the papers in the states didn't resemble what we knew in Panama. P.S. Later Torreos's plane was shot down and Manuel Noriega took over. As far as what really goes on in the world, ya gotta be there. Just aman
Glider Posted February 15, 2003 Posted February 15, 2003 Originally posted by Sayonara³ I think you misunderstand. I am well aware of how careful language and statistics can be used to sell a half truth or even an outright lie. but that's not propaganda - that's marketing. I'm not sure I see the difference. What is propaganda beyond selling a concept and providing misleading, incomplete and biased information in order to back it up? What is the difference between (for example): 1) Selling the idea that drinking alcoholic beverages is very cool and likely to get you laid and result in a significant elevation in your social status by association, whilst conveniently neglecting to mention in any obvious way the real reasons they think you should drink it (to increase their income), and the facts concerning the number of deaths, diseases and destroyed families that occur as a direct result of drinking. 2) Selling the idea that a war (that as yet the majority don't want) is just and righteous and necessary and likely to result in a significant elevation of your international status by association (with the winning side) whilst conveniently neglecting to mention in any obvious way the real reasons why they think we should have a war (probably to increase somebody's income) and the facts concerning the numbers of deaths and destroyed families that occur as a direct result of fighting a war (remember the disparity in reported deaths that occurred as a result of bombing last time?). Personally, I have nothing against having a beer or nine of an evening, but you could just as well substitute eating contaminated beef, or subjecting your child to the MMR vaccine, or the building of that damned millenium dome, or any number of half-arsed government endorced courses of action which place economics and/or political expedience over the welfare of their own (or other) people. The government want to achieve something, but before they can take direct action, they have to sell the concept to the people first. In order to do this, they have to decide which angle 'the public' are likely to be most sympathetic to, identify with and support. So in each case, a bunch of people have to sit around and decide exactly what (of all the information that exists on a topic), gets reported to the public and what doesn't. That sounds exactly like marketing to me. If political propaganda and marketing are that different, then it must have been simply a stunning coincidence that members of the Thatcher government employed Saatchi & Saatchi to handle their propaganda.
Aardvark Posted February 15, 2003 Posted February 15, 2003 We are told what is convienent for us to know and what will distract us. Anyone living under Blairs spin machine has experience of that. It just disturbs me that with so many competing outlets of news and information this is able to happen. Any ideas?
blike Posted February 15, 2003 Posted February 15, 2003 I agree with what was said above me. I don't think it is the government "screening" news or telling them what to report; its more as a result of competition. CNN vs FOX vs MSNBC vs ABC.
Aardvark Posted February 15, 2003 Posted February 15, 2003 You think it might be the result of chasing viewers by telling them what they want to hear and avoiding boring complications and explanations? Thats a depressing viewpoint but i admit it seems to have some validity.
Radical Edward Posted February 15, 2003 Posted February 15, 2003 I think alot of it is that the US seems to suffer from having a media run government, as opposed to it's enemies, who have government run media.
PogoC7 Posted February 15, 2003 Posted February 15, 2003 The ignorant are those who only watch CNN or other News Channels. I hardly watch the News Channels (they have become so popular after Sept. 11, that they always need a story), I watch to maybe get the jist on some Celebraty news or watch ignorance argue (and laugh), but I've converted to the getting my news off the Interent about 5 years ago. Plus, the news channels are not influenced by the government at all. When I watch the U.S. news channels I can easly see their bias, they also have many "characters" who argue different ponits all the time. Only the points seem to be very broad and they do not like to get very detailed because it will confuse the viewers; who will just turn the channel. Personally, I believe that those Characters have such BIG HEADS that no one will change their views and all we watch are pointless yelling matches. I mostly listen to NPR http://www.npr.org/audiohelp/hourlynews.html news when I'm in my car or search the interent on a issue. I've also got a question about a site (mostly odd news). This used to be one of my favorite news site. http://www.NewPower.org --- Its NOT UP anymore (closed 3 years ago), but I was just wondering is anyone else knew that site. Plus, whats you favorite news site?
Sayonara Posted February 17, 2003 Author Posted February 17, 2003 Originally posted by PogoC7 I've also got a question about a site (mostly odd news). This used to be one of my favorite news site. http://www.NewPower.org --- Its NOT UP anymore (closed 3 years ago), but I was just wondering is anyone else knew that site. Plus, whats you favorite news site? ForbiddenYou don't have permission to access / on this server. This usually means there is no default or index page, probably no site there. However a simple net trace shows the domain is still registered and hosted, although apart from pointing to NewPower.Org no registrant's details are recorded. The host is http://www.Zenon.net - email them and ask what happened to the site. Although I should warn you they're based in Moscow, so you'll want this URL http://www.zenon.net/en.html
Sayonara Posted February 24, 2003 Author Posted February 24, 2003 UK Unveils 'timetable to war'. Strangely there's no sign of this on the US news sites I looked at. In fact the lead Iraq stories on US sites are from last thursday/friday.
fafalone Posted February 24, 2003 Posted February 24, 2003 There's no information on that page (other than specifics of British troop movements, but we have details of American troop movemoents) that hasn't been on the news here. We've known that March is the target date for war since January.
blike Posted February 24, 2003 Posted February 24, 2003 http://www.foxnews.com/ "Britain to Submit 2nd Iraq Resolution Today" From BBC: "The statement suggests that, should Iraq fail to comply fully with the UN following the tabling of the second resolution, the country could face military action in the middle of next month" From FoxNews: "Quick approval by the Security Council of the American-British resolution could set the stage for war by mid-March."
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now