Slashdot Mirror
Pentagon Manipulating TV Analysts
gollum123 notes an extensive article from the NYTimes on the evidence that the military, since the time of the buildup to the Iraq war, has been manipulating the military analysts that are ubiquitous on TV and radio news programs, in a protracted campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration's war efforts. "Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity of military analysts on the major networks, is a Pentagon information apparatus... The effort... has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air. Several dozen of the military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members, or consultants. Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse — an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks. ...[M]embers of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated. Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access."
Did Winston Smith get these articles?
Now, if you knew of some way to stop it......
As much as the Pentagon and the analysts are scummy liars, the real blame lies with the media outfits. Surely there are enough retired officers and enough military historians to use as a counterpoint. I mean, the news agencies had guys on the ground that, even with the limited access the Army gives them, knew from the beginning the problems with the Pentagon's story.
Perhaps one cure to this is to report any particular ties that any given "analyst" has to the Pentagon or the Administration; ie. "Retired General Glubby P. Chummy is employed by Kill Them Bastards Inc., a firm with several contracts with the Pentagon".
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
And nobody was surprised.
Soldiers coming back from Iraq are constantly complaining that the war that is being described by the media is not the same one they're experiencing in the field.
Bill Hicks was an optimist :-(
Barbara Felden claims prior art on the flip phone, sues Motorola, Nokia.
Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I've talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House....The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.
Ok, honestly. Who didn't know this? Just watch Fox News people, 'freedom of press' has been history in US for long, long time.
Now THAT should be discussed in election debates, but no.
Is that the NYTimes did this analysis and published it. They had been as much a cheerleader for the war as anybody else.
Have you noticed that none of the corporate mass media outlets that are fundamentally condemned by the research results in that report have talked about it at all, even though the cat is now out of the bag?
That sound of crickets is the strongest proof that the corporate mass media is totally broken, and far worse than useless. It helped lie us into a catastrophic war, it helped distract us first from destroying our real enemies in the Qaeda, other terrorist networks, and their soulmates in office in this country, and now continues to lie and distract as we finally get another chance to pick a new government to lead us out of this valley of death.
But who cares, if someone, somewhere, isn't wearing a (made in China) lapel pin?
At least there's some coverage of this epochal story, on the Web. I wish the corporate mass media would hurry up and die already. It's blocking the view of the wreckage it's wrought.
--
make install -not war
So the military is trying to counter the traditional anti-war bias found in the mainstream media? How is that suprising. The media has been shaping hearts and minds here in the United States for decades. It is not unfair for the military to want a piece of the action.
Viral software licensing is not freedom, it is in fact GNU/Socialism.
These people (the analysts, that is) aren't idiotic sheep. They are mostly retired generals and such. It's not that the Pentagon/Bush/whoever is controlling them: they spread this information because it either
1) benefits them (financially, they are usually contractors)
and/or
2) they really believe in the message
(truth is probably a bit of both)
However, in the media's defense, who else will they go to for subject matter experts? It's good to hear all sides of the issue, just keep in mind that no one is TRULY objective...
The techniques have improved since Robert McNamara, but the game remains the same.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Oh well, it might balance out the anti-war bias in the media. Who gives credence to the mainstream media anymore, anyhow?
News media are very careful to keep onside with the Whitehouse, Pentagon etc. If they don't then they get poor treatment from the media relations people. Instead of having their reporters embedded with frontline troops sending home eye (and advertising) catching footage, they get embedded in the transport depot and they get to film grunts washing trucks.
Instead of getting confirmation for some scoop, the staffers return their call an hour too late, making them miss a deadline.
For that reason, the news companies keep their reporters in check and fire those that do any true investigation. Look what happened to Peter Arnett: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Arnett.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
I would have replied to this sooner, but my irony meter collided with my paradox prevention device, creating a HUGE mess.
Look, Mr Barstow, you're trying to sell a story about the media being used to paint a false picture to the American public, yes? But you, yourself, are a member of the media? Reporting on a topic that paints a picture of the picture-painters to the American public? In an election year?
Please, for the love of all that is good and logical, STFU. Or at least have the good sense to blog anonymously about this stuff like everyone else...
The next story, if the media is up to it's usual games, would be to present a count of how many times Mr Barstow's own organization has used these same experts to sell it's own rags to the masses.
Why do you all hate America so much?
There has not been the "appearance of objectivity of military analysts" for about a hundred years (I would say earlier, but I think it's not so clear-cut to extend the concepts of mass media and propaganda much before WWI). These days you can actually get the news from the horse's mouth. Things like Afghanistan and Iraq clips from liveleak.com and declassified and leaked information on cryptome.org and wikileaks.org, among many others, means we don't have to depend on massaged information from obviously biased sources. Who has depended on the usual television network sources for reliable war information for the last several decades anyway?
It's not the military's job to shape our hearts and minds.
Their job is to fight and win wars. (hopefully wars that are just) and nothing else.
She loves me: 09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0 She loves me not: 09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688BF
The media is a business. If celebrity gossip and privacy abuse proves anything it proves that the media has absolutely no ethical boundaries. Every ethical boundary that appears to exist is already the product of someone putting up the money to put it there. You can pay them to say anything, and if they deny you, it simply means someone is paying them more already to say something else.
A system of collective intelligence will emerge that will tap directly into the sources of news. The media as we know it will die. We care about the truth.
If you want to understand why righties think it is treasonous to protest an ongoing war, imagine what would have happened if, during the Vietnam war, we had been treated to television pictures of massive protests in Hanoi, with huge crowds demanding that the North Vietnamese government end the war, and high government saying it was impossible to defeat the US. Do you think it might have bucked up our fighting spirit, just a tad, to think that our enemy was near surrender?
I really don't know where to start when analyzing the opinion of someone who seriously thinks that statement is possible.
Don't get me wrong, I think we'd all like to see real objectivity on TV, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is, if you've turned on a TV anytime in the last... well hell a long time, and expected to see objectivity (especially from ANYTHING related to the military), then you wouldn't be the first person I'd talk to about the subject.
I'm sorry, I may just live a sheltered life in Seattle, but aside from some cable news stations I have yet to see any 'pro-war' media and the veil of objectivity seems very thin. If they are being paid off to be pro-war then they are doing a very bad job.
The summary is another one of those "OMFG THE GOVERNMENT I OUT TO GET ME" so common on slashdot now... but really the problem here is that the media allowed this to happen. I would be disappointed if the government didn't try to leverage its position to get favorable news. God knows, everyone else on earth would do so or already does so (remember hearing about how so many of these canned "news" reports that appear on local news around the country are really corporate agendas).
The media are the ones who are wrong here, not the pentagon.
Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity of military analysts on the major networks, is a Pentagon information apparatus...
Duh.
When stuff like this passes as surprising... we have become a naive, dumb people.
orly?
How do you explain Judith Miller then? She was deeply embedded in the Whitehouse propaganda machine and was one of the number one cheerleaders for the war. NYTimes pumped her shit out non-stop, and then years later gave a half-assed non-apology apology.
tm
Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
I have yet to see a smidgen of pro war media. Every tidbit of news I have seen has been condemning the war: making remarks about how Bush manipulated the data to get us into a war, how marines are dropping like flies, we're on the edge of a complete break down, billions wasted, how things are no better than they were five years ago, any number of other doctored facts. If this is government manipulation, I may in fact, regain a little bit of trust in the media.
This will continue so long as our media engages in a 24/7 fight for the eyes of a country that only pays attention to things that are colourful, shocking, and don't make them think too much. We're letting them off the hook, and articles like this - years after this war should have been stopped - are simply too fucking late.
Let's stop dilly-dallying and just change "-1: Overrated" to "-1: Disagree" or "-1: Doesn't Subscribe to Groupthink".
I never found any appearance of objectivity - at least not from the likes of Fox News and their cohorts. Are there really people who got fooled into thinking Fox and others were being objective? If so, then it is a sad day for the relative IQ of the U.S. populace...
And no, I dont watch Fox News (when I dont have to), but someone in my house does... I keep telling him it's more like the Fox Comedy Channel and that he can get a more accurate portrayal of news events from watching Comedy Central.
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
Keep this in mind the next time a dittohead tells you the media has a liberal bias. If it was ever true, it's certainly not true now.
The Decider.
1. The enemy of every state are it's own people, since they carry the power (dictatorship or not) to remove them from their position of privilege.
2. In poorly regulated capitalist countries with huge war (now called "defense") industries, there are always increasing needs to fight wars to fund the industry.
3. Once the media is profit based, it's in their interest to keep access and sell fear by helping to advance government/corporate goals.
Notice the drastic difference in public discourse in Britain where the BBC is taxpayer funded but not owned by the interest of any corporate entity, and America where the truth comes second to the dollar. In my opinion, as long as state-owned industries are open and easily reformed by the populace, they are far superior to the closed door dealings of private corporations.
No one has a "right" to what I would call obscene wealth - making 300 times your average employee for no reason other than the board is stuffed with your friends. And whether this wealth is possible only through human suffering matters very little to the robber barons at the top. It's not their kids losing limbs and lives over there, it's the economic draftees who are given the choice between getting shot at by local criminals or having a gun themselves to shoot back at "terrorists," who, as every other citizen of a civilization has done since time began, do not wish to be bound by foreign chains.
In a PBS show about Rudyard Kipling's son going off WW I call My Son Jack, Rudyard was in the British Propaganda Bureau that routinely manipulated the news.
Nothing new under the Sun int he the 21st century.
Now, if you knew of some way to stop it....
people react to this revelation as if there was some sort of mythical time and place where the media was pure as snow and that the arrival of gw bush has somehow corrupted it
folks, this is standard operating procedure, always has been, and ALWAYS WILL BE. here's a story: war hawks trump up a lie about military activities in a country they want to invade. 2003? no, 1898:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism#Spanish-American_War
people need to realize the media has always been corrupt, always has been ideological, always had an aggressive agenda, and always will be, and people need to have a better appreciation for the value of a robust bullshit meter
the proper response to this story about pentagon manipulations is not "how can we clean up the media", because you can't, but "what was wrong with me when i thought the media could ever be pure?"
the ideal world is not a fair and impartial media: this is a ridiculous fairy tale beleived by naive fools. the ideal world is openly ideological media, OF EVERY IDEOLOGICAL STRIPE. then let the viewer pick and choose what he or she thinks is true based on his or her own proclivities
the danger is a country that tries to systematically shut down right-leaning media, or a country that tries to systematically shut down a left-leaning media, or only has a state controlled media. no: give us fox news, and give us cnn, and msnbc, and give us anyone else who wants to play the game, and let all of the ideologies screm all of the manipulations and propaganda they want as loud as they want
and thereby train the general populace to have a muscular bullshit meter
that is the best you can do, and its not the worst case scneario, its the best: you don't get a healthy bullshit meter in an environment of no propaganda. you only get a healthy bullshit meter by being exposed to ever increasing toxic doses of propaganda, until you are immune
think about it: a "pure" media would spawn a general population with weak, flabby minds, blindly trusting whatever the media said. meanwhile, a corrupt, vicious lying media with screaming propaganda and subtle outright manipulation everywhere would breed strong distrustful minds. the caveat being of course, is that both the left and right be allowed to play this game, that there be more than one media outlet
(sidebar: if you believe all media companies are pretty much the same, with the same ideological spin: congratulations, you're a fringe character. you are either so far left or so far right, you can't tell the difference between mildly left or mildly right, it all looks the same to you. in whcih case, being on the fringe, you simply don't matter)
so those of you who grieve at the rise of fox news: celebrate it friend: all diseases need an innoculation. consider fox news a vaccination against propaganda. turn it on, let your mind soak in it. its not poisoning you, you are building resistance to a disease
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Someone manipulating the news? And the NYT complaining about it? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.....
If you RTFA, you should know the difference between military analysts, most of whom had ties with military contractors, had access to information granted by the Pentagon, and exempted from the same ethical rules set by the networks that hired them, and other journalists.
and Good Luck. A movie that all Americans should see.
Consider Britain during the Thatcher era. Britain lacks strong constitutional free speech protections and so the government imposed a ban on broadcasting the speech of Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams (of whom I am no supporter BTW). But the media had a culture of free speech regardless of the law and found ways to work around it, eg. by dubbing video of Adams. A strong culture will trump laws. Unfortunately, Americans are sitting on their laurels and taking their free speech for granted. It's not good enough to be written into law if Americans don't work at it.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
If they want to be knowledgeable, they should go over and see firsthand what's happening. Michael Yon, Bill Rogio, J.D. Johannes, Austin Bay, and Michael Totten are five who do. Neither do they hang out in some Green Zone hotel for two weeks taking "stories" from whomever can shmooze them with the smoothest lines that fit their preconceived notions.
The poster just doesn't like the fact that the war isn't going according to the old Vietnam war playbook. Which was full of lies anyway.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
This just in: it turns out Bush's administration has been using underhanded methods.
Later tonight we'll delve into rumors that the world is round and kittens are cute, but now for the weather...
... that there are people who don't know this?
Or that its time to fess up to what the public already knows.
"Clear Channel" yeah buddy!!!
Sorry forgot to login last time.
If you RTFA, you should know the difference between military analysts, most of whom had ties with military contractors, had access to information granted by the Pentagon, and exempted from the same ethical rules set by the networks that hired them, and other journalists.
Put another way, the price of oil in Euros isn't up nearly as much.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Interestingly enough, Arnett's daughter Elsa chose to study journalism, went to Harvard, and is now currently married to John Yoo, Bush's legal counsel who pretty much sanctioned torture by the executive branch.
It's a small world...
A little bit harsh, and your post misses the point of referential integrity. It's ok to rebroadcast Pentagon propaganda if you want, as long as you cite the source. We know that the Pentagon will have a bias towards itself and against its enemies. To otherwise re-write, wholesale, Pentagon propaganda then pass it off as their own findings. Therein lies the really hideous part: fabrication.
Bias detection, bullshit meters, and other healthy skepticisms are great-- tainted by the concept that some organizations actually go out and get the news with real references, where others are willing to swallow whatever without alerting the populace/readership that there might be bias from the source. Hence journalism's odd standards. There are some of us that believe in them, and believe in sources, and believe in referential integrity. There are those that only want to listen to what they want to hear.... and some that re-write for the public consumption, just that.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
WOW! An organization tries to present itself in a favorable light! And military analysts have ties to military-related organizations! Unbelievable! Apalling!
Next you'll be telling me that every other large organization in the world does the same thing, and that subject matter experts in every field generally have ties to relevant organizations...
I like the part where you imply that most people think deeply about the news.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Spare us this insanity from the New York Times, already. They have a pretty good record of outright fabrication..
Here's how I bet they came to these conclusions... these guys have 401(k) or some kind of retirement plans that have mutual funds that own stock in these defense contractors. Therefore, they have some vague "business relationship" that somehow influences their public opinions...
If you really want to read about the Pentagon/media issue, read this:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/boot/3466
When Microsoft or MacDonalds feed biased "news releases" to the press, we call that "advertising" or at worst, public relations. When the Pentagon does it, suddenly it is a dark and sinister campaign of deceit. They're just doing what a Republican administration wants the whole government to do - operate like private industry. Cheney has said that he wants to contract out the enlisted ranks so that his buddies can be making a bigger profit off the war. Only Democrats think that public service should be motivated by selfless altruism and operate above suspicion. For Republicans, the Armed services, like the rest of the Government, are just a conduit to put tax dollars into the pockets of the rich where they "belong". The more efficiently any given branch of government transfers tax dollars to the rich, the "better" it is operating. Protecting the public, or providing services to them, is merely the sugar coating on the pill. Something to fool the public into thinking that their 35% tax burden is going to something more noble than enriching the board of directors of LockMart and Huge Aircrash. Back when my Grandaddy got his ribs broken by management goons for joining the Union, people recognized how corrupt Republicans were. They had a name for them - "Robber Barons". It is time for liberals and conservatives alike to realize that the "family values" smokescreen is a false front and a scam. The Republicans are returning to their evil money-grubbing roots and throwing the pretense of representing "values" of any sort to the dogs. It is time for all decent hard-working people everywhere to rise up and throw the stinking bums out in a landslide.
I'm tired of links to notoriously biased news sources on politics on Slashdot. Aren't there enough political "news" sites and blogs out there already? Do we really need links to these other sites, their liberal or conservative or whatever biases aside? I could understand if this was some intriguing article in Scientific American that people might otherwise not have noticed or something, but it's freakin the NYTimes -- like the freakin biggest "news" web site on the web. Do we really need to be linking to Bush conspiracy, war is awful, etc articles to it like every day? Is that what Slashdot exists for -- a mirror site for giant political "news" sites.
I'm not even a Republican let alone really give a damn about politics. However, if I did, I just go to the NYTimes site myself. I'm just sick of it and it's time I said something. Bring back the old Slashdot. This Bush-hating, NYTimes loving one is just sad.
so you're kind of like the dodo or the passenger pigeon then?
"There are those that only want to listen to what they want to hear.... and some that re-write for the public consumption, just that."
and so welcome to slashdot! microsoft can only do evil, google can only do good, the greatest evil is the riaa and the most prtessing need is patent reform. enjoy your drudgereport, your shrill partisan blogs... this is the future friend. ideological fiefdoms, enclaves that don't recognize each other's validity, that snipe at each other and decry the other's venom and say "who me?" when confronted with their own venom
the acrimonious and grwoing divide between left and right in the usa is but the start of this fragmentation. in the future, all media consumption and production will be cliquish, everything will be manufactured, reality will be determined by partisan preference. what will be huge on fox news won't be mentioned on cnn, and visa versa. and the consumers of one or the other won't even notice the discrepancy. this will apply to all newspapers, radio shows, websites
the future, is the past
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
a wise history professor of mine taught that no problem is monocausative. it's true. putting blame on one single entity and piling on the shame ignores the other contributing factors to the problem, and allows them to continue unabated.
/. stuff like:
of course the media outfits share some of the blame, but to say the "real" blame lies with them does not hold the Pentagon, Bush administration, and the American people accountable. They all share the "real" blame, and the ACTUAL people who are lying (aka the generals) get the lion's share of that blame. It's their words first and foremost.
"the media" isn't one entity. The propaganda machine described in the NYTimes article is primarily for TV News. Standards and practices vary wildly between types of newsmedia. I, like many, hate the jerry-springerization of what has in the past been thought of as "tv news". Fox News is #1 on this list by a mile...it just isn't journalism in any traditional sense. But, it gets high ratings.
Notice I didn't say "alot of people watch". Ratings are a survey of a (supposedly) representative sample. Neilsen and others do a horrible job of providing information to advertisers about what people actually watch. This is an ancient problem of perception in TV that pre-dates cable, CNN, etc. Ratings in their current incarnation simply do not accurately reflect what people watch and why, and it skews the business decisions at the top of the news companies and for the advertisers.
Yes, the american people share in this blame. American government was intended to be advanced government. To work well, the electorate has to be on its toes, savvy, and not easily manipulated. Sadly, the opposite is the case (on it's ass, dumb as shit, and very easily manipulated).
Other posters on this story also say predictable
1. "The NYTimes reported it but they are just as bad!!1!!1!1" That's just not the case. The NYtimes answers that criticism directly and provides links to prove it. Let's see someone step up and give equal or better counter evidence. Be sure to include links to specific NYTimes articles by generals mentioned in the report, and show how they connect directly with Pentagon propaganda campaigns about the war.
2. "How is this news, we all know the Bush administration is corrupt and manipulative beyond measure!!!1!!!1!1" The part that makes this news is that WE CAN PROVE IT. The systematic "psy-ops" manipulation of public opinion by the Pentagon is provable in court. That is news.
TV news has a long way to go. A good first step is to never, ever watch Fox News (unless to mock it), and deride anyone who does. Sure CNN isn't blameless, but Fox News was the main offender.
Thank you Dave Raggett
never did, and never will
not thinking deeply about the news somehow nullifies my points? or that thinking deeply about the news was something i even said or assumed? or that i reply upon to make my conclusions?
(scratches head)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
WTF ?!? Is this Slashdot or some kind of f@ck!ing liberal news outlet ? This story doesn't belong here ... Please have the editors remove it.
"Traditional anti-war bias"? Hello? Ever hear of "Hearst's War"?
What you call "anti-war bias" is just the fact that modern news organizations are able to graphically depict what a cruel, evil, insane thing war is. (And I stole that phrase from a career soldier, so don't turn your "bias" on me!) In the pre-Vietnam era, people could pretend to themselves that war was a clean, heroic thing, that mostly killed a lot of Evil Invaders and a few Noble Martyrs. Now people get a daily reminder that our War Against Terror is chewing up the lives of thousands of people. That would create a certain hesitation even if everybody, including the news media, were out to show that the WoT was actually accomplishing its goals. Which, BTW, it's not.
I finally had a chance to read the full NY Times article from the other day on the Pentagon's public relations offensive.
It got me thinking, who comes out looking the ugliest? Is it:
a) The Bush Administration officials who deliberately traded access for favorable spin, and were more concerned with shaping public opinion than owning up to the truth of their failed war strategy?
b) The analysts themselves, decorated retired officers who put their vanity and business interests ahead of the public's right to know the truth--not to mention the lives of their active duty colleagues?
c) The networks and other media outlets who allowed anyone with a few stars and bars to spout propaganda without investigating possible conflicts of interest or questioning the source of the "inside information" being revealed.
I vote c.
This adminstration has certainly gone way overboard in its willingness to treat the truth as a mere inconvenience and resort to questionable tactics. But in general, public officials act in a political world, and we can expect any president and administration to do their utmost to build public support for their policies. As a former advocate myself (albiet for campaign finance reform, not war) I can even kind of admire DoD public relations chief Torie Clark for her astuteness in recognizing that military analysts were the most effective vehicles for her boss' message.
Many of the analysts probably believed most of what they were spouting (call it ideological blinders, an inability to see a naked emperor...). There's no excuse for those who recognized the disconnect and were willing to trade their integrity for the bright lights of TV and the dull glow of lucrative contracts for their favor-seeking clients. But, they're just a set of flawed individuals.
The biggest concern to me is the breakdown of a system of free press that is supposed to inform the public through independent reporting. In not conducting the most basic conflict-of-interest checks, the networks fundamentally abdicated their responsibilities to the public.
Perhaps we should remind them more regularly that they rent our public airwaves from the public for the whopping price of $0 in exchange for the directive to operate in the public interest. Take action by signing Progressive Future's Petition for an Open Media.
We are winning in Iraq, and if all these mythical soldiers who are saying this really exist, why is it they only ever talk to extremist liberal/terrorist-supporter blogs?
what are you doing in this thread, under this story, about this article? ;-P
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I used to think that was the case. But watching over the last twenty years or so I've come to realize that it isn't quite that simple.
For example, during the Monica Lewinsky hoopla, it seemed you couldn't look at a newspaper or turn on a TV without hearing more than you wanted to know about the story. They certainly weren't trying to stay on Clinton's good side, even though he was very popular at the time.
Fast forward a decade, and if you keep your eyes peeled you can catch stories like this:
So it's not quite as simple as you make it sound.
If a popular president has an extramarital affair, the press shows no fear and shouts it from the rooftops night and day.
But if the least popular president on record (backed by his administration) maintains that he has the inherent authority to kidnap US citizens at will and make them watch while his goons crush their children's testicles, the "free press" covers his butt so well that if you blink you'll miss the story.
--MarkusQ
Look, Mr Barstow, you're trying to sell a story about the media being used to paint a false picture to the American public, yes? But you, yourself, are a member of the media? Reporting on a topic that paints a picture of the picture-painters to the American public? In an election year?
And then there's just being stupid. We want the media to admit when it's screwed up, as the NYTimes did on Judith Miller and the role they played in selling the Iraq war. You tell them to STFU when they commit journalistic malpractice, as ABC did with the Democratic debate last week.
In an election year?
Yes, in an election year, you incompetent asshat. If the Times has broke the NSA wiretapping story when they learned of it instead of waiting until after the 2004 elections, we might have saved over a thousand American lives and over a trillion dollars just in Iraq. This year, John McCain might as well be running for George W. Bush's third term. He's pushing the same budget busting fiscal policies that give the majority of the benefits to the top 1%, he's sucking up to crazy end times Evangelicals faster than you can say "agents of intolerance", and is an even bigger warmonger than Dick Cheney.
It's amazing how people's biases show up. This kid is claiming the media is anti-war, and he knows this because his buddies told him so.
For the rest of the country, they're baffled as to why the media never allowed anybody on the air who questioned the war, up until maybe the last year or so.
Am I the only one thinking "duh"?
Seriously, the media is anything but unbiased. Money, corporatism, and power rule above all. Stop expecting anything more, we're never going to get it.
Not pessimism. Fact.
no, i'm not being a cynic, i'm serious, and i say manufacturing turth is a good aspect of mankind. mankind is not an animal in static captivity to his environment. mankind goes out, and changes the environment. mankind manufactures the truth about the world he lives in. he invents things. he invents things like the gun and the atom bomb. but he also invents science and reason and morality and civilization
so when i say truth is manufactured i am not being cynical about what bullshit people will swallow, i am calling you to arms to manufacture your "truth": a world with less war. the truth is NOT on your side in the desire to end war. mother nature is cruel and violent. civilization and morality are truths mankind manufactured to fight the essential cruelty of nature. the state of murder and war is the truth. what you are adovcating for, an end to war, is an unnatural thing you need to manufacture
for example: should we go to war with iraq? well, those who wanted to go outright manipulated facts about weapons iraq did not have. this is not a reason for you to uncover these manipulations, because no one cares about that. because the quesiton is driven by emotion, not a situation driven by static facts
therefore, you manipulate your own facts in support not going to war with iraq. why not go to war with iraq?: justify the reason. static unchanging facts like "there is no wmd" does not actually help that cause. if you look deeply in yourself, you'll find it is not because you are a defender of some sort of truth, but because of your own emotional bias about the value of war to "fix" things
it is a lie you tell yourself that you defend the truth. you are beholden to emotional assumptions just as untruthful as those held by warhawks. i would say though that your emotional assumptions are more well-intentioned than those of a warhawk. that the positive value of your beliefs is not some sort of hewing to the truth more than others, because you don't, but because of the nature of your emotional bias as compared to others
unfortunately, you believe that a wonkish slavish devotion to the "truth", whatever that is supposed to mean in an environment where all truths are manufactured, will somehow set us on the right path. that, for example, if some massive expose in the media about how the wmd issue was utter bullshit in 2002 would have actually prevented the us from going to war in iraq in 2003. no, the war hawks would have found some other means to start the war. it was their passion. the bullshit wmd charge was merely one avenue available to them among many. they would have kept trying, and would have succeeded, if you had actually met them on their battlefield: the battlefield of propaganda
in other words: so why did we go to war? because those who opposed the war didn't try hard enough to tell their passionate side of the issue. they just thought the "facts" would save them. never did. never will. its a case of if you can't beat em, join em: you need to start manufacturing your own truths. because what you call truth isn't really on your side, and probably doesn't even exist. its simply your passion versus their passion. meet them on that battlefield, or lose by assuming the battlefield between cold hard facts and propaganda will decide the day
your passion, your subjective feelings about an issue defines your reality. not the "facts"
because mankind simply makes his own reality. not just in his head, but via his technological inventions, he turns deserts into cities and valleys into breadbaskets
you don't win anything with a slavish devotion to the truth when dealing with a creature who invents whatever truth he wants. its emotional and subjective what he wants. so you have to meet him at an emotional and subjective level to persuade him
shortening this entire comment into one sentence: you don't alter the contents of someone's heart by appealing to their mind: you have to appeal directly to their heart
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Isn't this old news? Or was it just speculation up to this point?
My UID is prime. Hah!
This headline assumes that the pro-war faction brought onto the corporate so-called "news" were analysts to begin with and didn't just gain the "analyst" label by the fact that they were featured on the corporate news. They were not impartial experts. They were merely pundits, sent to lie to drum up popular support for an illegal and immoral war. As Peter Hart from Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting explained on today's Democracy Now! (transcript, video, high-quality audio, smaller size audio):
What the Pentagon did is conspire with the media and over seventy-five retired military officers to spread lies about the invasion and occupation of Iraq; propaganda which continues to this day. The pundits weren't being manipulated, the public was. The pundits participated with their consent. Since one expects the Pentagon to get their story out (I don't excuse it, I merely expect it), one might wonder why the media didn't do their job and challenge those in power to justify their case for war? It would be far better to headline this story a failure of media to do their job as reporters. Again, Hart explains:
The New York Times didn't cover the media aspect of this problem probably because the Times was a willing participant in the lying. Apparently it still is.
Digital Citizen
Agreed, they are cutting him as much unjustified slack as the press is, and are arguably even more responsible for the state we're in.
Sometimes, when I've got my paranoid cranked up past 7 or so, I wonder if the conjunction of the above mentioned claims of power to torture anyone they want combined with the proven ability to eavesdrop on anyone they want without a warrant (a power which we now know they've used on reporters and politicians) work to reduce the collective spine of those that should be standing up and saying "Hey, wait just a cotten picking minute!"
Perhaps it isn't dereliction of duty so much as rational fear of a powerful and amoral opponent.
-- MarkusQ
Propaganda doesn't breed objectivity, thats the point.
How many people still buy into all the lies that led us into Iraq? Who many people think there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11? Your 'vaccine' will do nothing but breed apathetic, mindless zombies.
To those in the loop, it was apparent that Bush et al intended to launch a campaign based on false (dis)information that was deliberately being misinterpreted by the Bush administration.
When there are endless video recordings of Bush, Cheney, Rice all making false statements -- then when asked about those statements, they have the audacity to say they either 'never said that', or 'it was misinterpreted'.
These are obvious, verifiable LIES, and yet no news outlet actually plasters those lies over the news even a fraction as much as some perverted senator.
What's with that? Yet a story that the 'Pentagon Manipulating TV Analysts' is even presented as semi-surprising is probably even more disgusting.
I am open source, and Linux baby!
everything i said is compatible with universal human nature, and is observed in every society with mass media (and those without mass media, where there is nothing but gossip)
;-)
and the rest of what you said is similar grasping at straws. so i see i've exhausted your resistance: you are sputtering
so maybe now that i've peeled away through your mind, i'm beginning to speak to your heart
truth is manufactured
mankind manufactures his reality
the desire to have no war is not a truth, it is a passion of yours, it is something you and like-hearted souls are attempting to manufacture. and its a good passion, its one we need
so: stop thinking the "truth", whatever that is, is on your side in the good fight. your heart is in the right place, but your mind is failing you: you have bad tactics
and so you will lose the fight against warmongering until you evolve better tactics. those who manufacture the causes for war are winning, you are being shoved to the sidelines
an issue involving people's intent is not an issue whose fundamental points revolve around static facts. you need to speak to the intent, not the static facts
now: unite your passion with your mouth, and speak your heart. because currently, what your mind is saying, and what your mind is telling you to do to win your cause is failing your cause, and we are having war and will have more war because you are so ineffective
the warmongerers have an open field before them. you are on the sidelines, ineffectual and ignored. listen to me, and get back in the game, or be satisfied in your ivory tower, influencing no one, and watching the world pass you by
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
It is only media manipulation the news is for the successes in Iraq. If the media is manipulated the other way, then it is the truth.
"When fact is fiction and T.V. reality." U2
competition between points of view breeds objectivity. you cannot decide the truth before anyone has discussed an issue. you let people discuss an issue, then the truth begins to reveal itself
the media, the news cycle, is a form of discussion as facts trickle out. in the media, when something is published, no one, anywhere, is in a position to determine with enough veracity how truthful or not something is. but as the facts begin to reveal themselves over time, the bullshit is allowed to be winnowed from the gold
therefore, you and a lot of other people are going about this problem all wrong. you want the media to present you with something up front as unquestionable and unassailable. that's impossible. what you do instead is you let any old stupid crap get published, and you let people sort it out themselves. outlets that engage in too much bullshit flinging will see their integrity be questioned, and lose readership by serious readers
in other words, propaganda DOES breed objectivity. you are forgetting what propaganda is: half truth
here's truth:
1. bob stabs mike.
2. mike shoots bob in response.
here's the propaganda-addled media's take on the truth:
pro-bob media: "MIKE SHOOTS BOB"
its a half truth. its the truth, but only half of the truth of the situation
pro-mike media headline: "BOB STABS MIKE"
again, a half truth, it didn't tell what came next
but anyone paying attention to both sources can tease out the chain of events and see bob is the original culprit
see, real propaganda isn't lies at all. it is 100% truth... that conveniently omits some truths
now go to drudgereport.com
see the headlines?
when you read those headlines, HOW ARE THEY CHOSEN? in other words, drudgereport doesn't lie. it just chooses to show us some truths, and ignore others
now: you tell me how in the real world a media organization is supposed to pick what headlines are chosen for front page, what ones go on the last page, and what doesn't get published IN A COMPLETELY OBJECTIVE MANNER
utterly impossible
so you allow the ideologically addled media to manipulate, since the manipulation is unavoidable. then, you simply rely on more than one source of info, and you get a picture of the real truth of your world
proven: propaganda DOES breed objectivity, in a country with robust media (that is, there isn't only the propaganda-addled official state media, with no competition)
and finally, you present us with the spectre of the brainless moron who believes everything they read. huh? is such a person ever someone who can be salvaged from thinking stupid things? should the goal of media be to protect such fragile morons? morons will exist, in an environment populated with propaganda, or your hypothetical (impossible) universe where the media is flawless, either way. so that's a red herring
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
They do a damn good job claiming EVERYTHING Bush has done, injecting right-wing politics into everything, and being the opposite of "Fair and Balanced" (more like "Tipped to the Right"), the government doesn't even need to worry about Fox spreading the truth on TV!
One of the most insightful comments I've seen on slashdot. Devastated that I haven't got any mod points...
Yellow journalism was wrong then and it is wrong now.
Just because I pissed on you once, doesn't make it any better when I piss on you a second time.
doesn't mean it is going to stop
life has ugly truths. deal with it
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Fortunately this will end soon as USA is hurtling towards insolvency - private and public. Once the foreign lenders realize they are making sub-prime loans to US treasury, this craziness will end.
I don't think one needs to have detailed information of this sort of a military initiative to be able to determine the larger picture
Very true. I knew that we were in trouble in the Iraq war when I saw a ship unload cars of equipment in PA. Rail car after rail car was loaded with battered and broken down HMMVs and other vehicles... everything looked used and beat up...
This is my sig.
Sure, but look at it from the network's perspective. If they are going to hire an analyst, they are going to hire an insider, someone with contacts, someone who is successful and in the business. Any John Q. Historian could come to a conclusion, but who is the viewer going to believe, him or a buddy of Gen. Petraeus?
They would hire these guys called REPORTERS. What these reporters would do, is go and sneak around and get information for themselves, liquor up a few buddies from high school or college that were connected, plug into the good old boys network and get the real story. Now, the network puts on a talking head because, really, they are semi-popular figures with a bit of domain expertise but really are just sorta entertaining. Like, nobody watches Ollie North or Wesley Clarke because they are somehow "plugged in". They watch these guys because they are entertaining.
So really, when it boils down to it, the talking heads might as well just shoot from the hip rather than grovel or let themselves be manipulated for access to information, because the people already think they are making it up anyway and it is just so much more entertainment.
This is my sig.
Look what happened to Peter Arnett:
Peter Arnett made stuff up and got busted for it. Operation Tailwind? Yeah, right. He was a self promoting dick who cloaked himself in the false mantle of left wing hero worship to make himself some kind of a martyr. Too many people on the left eat up his peacenik crap and can't see that he just did it to cover his own sorry ass, and those that aren't dedicated lefties just assume that all lefties are that way.
This is my sig.
Really, just do the unthinkable and go:
New York Times
Wall Street Journal
Fox News
CNN
CBS used to substitute for all of the above, but now it sucks.
This is my sig.
The US government is manipulating the medias. News at 11!
lately i have been wondering, why the german news report every suicide bomber in iraq, afghanistan, etc. (20-50 victims per day) while they say not one word about the 30 murdered people per day in the US
I have the impression that they're trying to convince us, that the people from the middle east are extremely dangerous zealots - unlike the civilized western countries...
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
Ok, let's pick a salacious scandal then. Surely you remember these stories:
So where's the media circus? Why haven't we heard about this to the blue dress and blood on the glove level that other similar stories get? Why do they just report it tiny bits and pieces and then let each one fade quietly into the night?
--MarkusQ
I see! ...
That explains why americans have grown so resistant to bullshit!
SIERRA TANGO FOXTROT UNIFORM
... positively dumbest story ever on /. and that's no small trick.
You mean to tell me that the Pentagon has been talking to friendly generals with continuing ties to the current command in order to get out their side of the story?
Merciful heavens, what next?
Will Nancy Pelosi start holding press conferences? Will "unnamed sources close to the CIA" start leaking information? Will Hillary and Bill say nasty things about Obama?
Honest to God guys, get a fucking clue.
I realize the tragic realities of the modern news media, but I don't know where else to go. I even tried Democracy Now!, but they're no better. They are so clearly telling viewers what they want to hear that I can hardly stand to watch it. Where else can I turn?
You claimed that, "Dems just argue that signing statements and torture should only take place for their causes." I asked you to provide a citation for your assertion. You promptly attempted to change the subject by asking me to provide a citation on a point that I didn't argue one way or the other.
You still haven't verified your claim. Can we take this as an admission that you're full of shit?
SIERRA TANGO FOXTROT UNIFORM
It's been obvious for many years, that the US media is controlled and biased to certain parties, reflecting "truths" that are not related to reality. For an easy comparison and validation, compare a CNN coverage to a BBC coverage of the same event.
Mod points are a dangerous tool. Abuse them wisely.
Holy cow, all that spinning and outright lying and the public opinion concerning Iraq is still abysmal? What would it be like if they didnt have to "buy" the news media?
Are you even backing up the correct people in Iraq right now ?
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
They absolutely failed at this goal - so, I doubt the veracity of this article.
The author is likely so bent on 'Bush (et al) is evil' that any thing that seems like success in Iraq is immediately the result of the Military Industrial Complex - a conspiracy against the truth - that there is NEVER a justified reason to go to war - and that if everyone thought like they did there wouldn't even be a need for war.
Right.
if you believe all media companies are pretty much the same, with the same ideological spin: congratulations, you're a fringe character. you are either so far left or so far right, you can't tell the difference between mildly left or mildly right, it all looks the same to you. in whcih case, being on the fringe, you simply don't matter
That statement only holds for the left/right dichotomy. What about rich/poor? What if all the media are biased towards the interests of the wealthy because their main shareholders and their executives are all wealthy? Does the majority of non-wealthy people not matter because they fail to see the difference between Rupert Murdoch and the less obscenely rich?
during Reagan's years, the media pretty much covered his butt and his declining mental capacity. In WWII they covered the fact the president was a cripple. In 1989 during the first Iraq war they came up with the fake news of "Iraqi solders leaving babies to die on the cold hospital floors". Anyone remember that?????? helloooooooooooo? You Americans have such SHORT memories!
I got permanently modded -1 because I dared to question Israel on
There's a fundamental question lying at the bottom of all this controversy. Those of us who live in democracies and hear constantly about how wonderful our "free media" are expect to get objective news reporting. Maybe not from any single outlet, but from the aggregate of the media. Some will lean left, others right, some are hawks, others doves, etc. So far, so good.
Then our government declares a state of war or "war". The first question is which you think it is: war or "war". If it's a real war, Churchill's dictum that "truth must be accompanied by an escort of lies" comes into play. We all know that "loose lips sink ships", and no one wants to be responsible for getting our brave boys killed, or even for harming civilian morale by revealing that, yes, one of our battleships was sunk with the loss of 4,000 sailors.
Trouble is, how do we know if it's a real war or a "war" arbitrarily declared by the government? As Orwell's 1984 pointed out, it is trivially easy for any government to proclaim a continuous state of war, thereby giving itself an excuse to suspend all civil liberties "for the duration" - i.e. indefinitely.
And this is where public patriotism comes in. In some countries more than others, a large fraction of the people readily snap into a patriotic, somewhat militaristic, unquestioning frame of mind as soon as they perceive any threat. In such a climate of opinion, the media would be insane to take an anti-government line or question the war. It's not necessarily a matter of prejudice, or vested interests, or black helicopters; it's just that they will lose their audience if they don't tell it what it wants to hear.
Just as we get the government we deserve (because we vote it in), we also get the media we deserve (because we buy it selectively). Only with a truly educated, rational, mature, objective citizenship can excellent media thrive.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
The media colluded with the Pentagon?
That is fucking laughable and could only come from the idiots at Slashtards.dum working in syncro with their media peers as they goose step through the land of bias
Having observed the media at large (and the Slashtardian bent) since the start of the war, hell since the Bush admin its obvious who the media roots for via the slant, mis and dis-information, lies, hyperbole, innuendo or just sheer incompetence.
Here on Slashtard, you can surely find the same!
Because only a fucking idiot would regurgitate this tripe.
Err. no. If you think that's true you really need to get out more. Even accounting for the fact that "leftist" and "conservative" encompass huge overlapping viewpoints, depending on the speaker, to pretend that Fox/talk-radio are just the "right balance" to the "general left" is just so far out there in cuckoo land it's not even funny.
ustr: Managed string API with ave. 44% overhead over strdup(), for 0-20B
When exactly did Iraq knock the books out of our hands?
Iraq "knocked the books" out of Kuwait's hands. Iraq "knocked the books" out of Iran's hands. Iraq "knocked the books" out of the Kurd's hands. Saddam used chemical weapons for the last two, as well. Are you against people standing up to bullies on other people's behalf?
They never bothered me at home.
Well, how noble of you...
So that's a yes.
No, that's a no. And I'll explain, again, for readers, who, might be too inexperienced to recognize that you lack the ability to draw meaningful conclusions from a preponderance of evidence.
The original statement was : Democrats do not want to reduce the power of the government, they want to keep power for themselves. They don't want to end torture, wiretaps, or even presidential arrests, as they may want to do the same thing themselves.
My argument was:
a) All criticism about any of those things has been that Bush has been inappropriate with them...never, that, is the wrong behavior and should not be done at all.
b) Obama and Clinton both in debates have suggested that there are times when people ought to be tortured.
c) Neither has introduced legislation to ban FISA courts and warrantless wiretaps of US Citizens altogether. In fact, FISA courts were something that was actually created by Democrats.
d) Neither has introduced legislation to dismantle the Department of Homeland Security or repeal the USA PATRIOT ACT. Neither has promised to do that.
e) The Democratic Party has promised to implement the full recommendations of the 9/11 commission. This includes national ID cards and the whole RealID initiative.
Of course, we have the traditional conservative complaints as well.
f) Democrats want to confiscate firearms and destroy the 2nd amendment Hillary and Obama have both voted in favor of every anti-gun resolution they could get their hands.
g) Democrats want to squash free speech by re-instituting their old trick of federal monitoring of radio and TV for political content. What part of, the entire country had its speech oppressed for 50 years spells freedom to you?
When I asked you to prove otherwise, all I was saying, show me the thing that the Democrats have done to unravel the police state that they helped to create. Please! Have they reduced the number of police? No. In fact, they promised to hire 100,000 MORE police on top of the 100,000 MORE they hired. What have they done to reduce the power of the government to either arrest or harrass or tax or confiscate?
Just what?
This is my sig.
Gone are the days when world looked at USA as a saviour
... - when it suited them. ... - when it suited them. ...
(WW2).
Since then, USA Empire has intervened in more than FIFTY
countries around the world - to support it's own perceived interests.
http://members.aol.com/bblum6/American_holocaust.htm
They supported fascist Spain, Portugal
They brought down democratic governments in Latin America - when it suited them.
They supported religious zealots - like in Saudi Arabia
They supported dismembering of states - like in the Balkans - when it suited them.
They supported changing of borders - like in the Middle East - when it suited them.
They
Current USA reminds me a lot of Roman Empire.
Parallels are striking.
It's ultimate doom is also, assured.
The questions remain what will be the cause and when it will happen?
Market crash like in 1929?
Immigration and population boom that will replace Anglo-Saxons?
Climate change?
Nuclear war?
Else?
The only problem is, rest of the world will not be able to laugh.
We are so dependent on USA economically, that the entire world will
be plunged into a dark age.
Few monkeys in a wrong spot can do a lot of damage.
If this were true and given the decidedly and obviously left-wing, anti-bush, anti-war stance of the media, the editors of these media outlets would have cried foul YEARS ago. If this were true it only shows the total incompetence of the media's reporters, researchers, and commentators.
For those uninclined to read the article hereby linked, it's two quotes. One's from Max Boot, arguing that "everybody does it, so why should the Times complain about this one? Oh yeah, because the Bush administration is bravely trying to break the party line of those Evil Liberal Media Conspirators!" and John Podhoretz saying "Nothing to see here, move along." (A further link points to an article talking about how wrong the Times was to have broken the story about the illegal domestic wiretap program).
What neither one acknowledges is that, even if it is "no secret that [the whole government] tries to influence their coverage by carefully doling out access," it remains DETRIMENTAL TO DEMOCRACY to do so! A Cheneyesque "So?" from neocon commentators fails to excuse the MSM's faults in not aggressively seeking out the actual truth. It is always relevant that a supposedly "neutral" or "objective" commentator has a financial interest in the events he is interpreting.
This is a prime example of what Manufacturing Consent was talking about.
Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
There are problems with your ideal:
1) People like to be told what they already believe.
2) American media is almost entirely corporate owned (90% owned by 5 owners)
3) The media exists to make money for their owners.
4) The media will therefore prioritize stories based on what the majority of the audience wish to hear.
5) The media all competing to tell people what they already believe creates an echo chamber which hides any truth inconsistent with what people already believe.
You have merely transferred the duty to be flawless from the media to the audience. This does not seem to be a decidely better model for the media than the one you are arguing against.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
That's the big advantage of knowingly lying; you can say anything you feel like.
To put these claims in context:
In short, his promises are worth nothing. He will break them without blinking an eye when he decides it's in his best interests to do so. If you can find anyone that seriously believes John McCain would honor a campaign promise no matter what happens tell them their shoe's untied and grab their wallet.
--MarkusQ
Propaganda has always been part of war efforts. And they will always be part of a war effort. The government needs to get out their viewpoint of what is going on. I'm not sure why this is surprising to anyone here.
What I am curious about is where people think there is some overwhelmingly positive coverage of the military? I sure haven't seen it anywhere.
I'm shocked, shocked, that some sheeple apparently believe that the media are objective and actually have their best interests at heart. What next ? Will the marketers charge us for the advertising we are forced to endure because they think the useless products they are pushing are good for us ?
What good is a journalist's access if they're not using to BE a journalist?
I'm not sure what your point is. While Clinton was on questionable legal grounds to bomb Kosovo (we didn't really invade, though we came close) he was on a lot stronger footing than Bush's invasion of Iraq. I will agree that in both cases the media gave insufficient attention to the legality of the attacks. But I'm otherwise at a loss for how or why you are comparing the two, when one lasted about seventy five days with few net causalities and at minimal expense and the other is likely to go longer than seventy five months, with considerable casualties and at enormous expense.
What point are you trying to make? You aren't trying to make a case that Clinton benefited from the Lewinsky scandal, are you?
--MarkusQ
Long live the new flesh!
The antiwar group has doing what they can to broadcast unfavorable news. To the point of regurgitating exxagerations, lies, and untruths themselves. Neither side is more dastardly than the other.
You seem to be overlooking the ramifications here. There is a creeping uniformity in coverage resulting from the dissemination of the "official story" in exchange for media access. At least, in the past I felt that after checking several differently-slanted outlets I had some notion of what had happened...
In recent years, the news content has diminished. Actual investigative reporting seems rare, and TV talking heads simply rehash official press releases. Invoke the bullshit detector and all that's left is simply that "this press release wants you to believe such-and-such." Useful information disseminated to populace, skeptical or stupid: none. This is infotainment.
Or, to put it the other way, you're either intentionally lying or are too fucking stupid to know a goddamned thing about a major branch of science.
I will make the argument that evolution has proved absolutely useless for biology, other than to say that living systems are dynamic and change in response to each other and their natural surroundings.
What has biology done more me lately? Physics has done good stuff using relativity and q.d. as a framework, chemistry has done good stuff, using all the various reaction laws as a framework, plus some physics, but if biology is so heroically in the front line of medical research, let's see how these guys are doing.
Right now, we rightly say that Bush is a loser because he botched the war in Iraq and 4000 soldiers are dead with little to show for it. Meanwhile, scientists have been fighting HIV for decades now, and what we have is 100 million people dead, at least, many more many infected, and as we speak, all hope of a vaccine for AIDS has just evaporated. Do you understand what that failure means - basically, we're talking about the entire continent of Africa being wiped out, and THEN, newer strains of AIDS gradually surpassing the drugs we have out there to control it. Basically, everyone with AIDS is going to die from it. It's an utter disaster. The Independent (hardly a conservative paper), just ran an editorial suggesting perhaps that we bail on AIDS vaccine research altogether and focus on trying to keep the drug pipeline for treatment filled so that those people who have AIDs can stay alive when their existing drugs quit working.
So, faced with the black death of our time, science has utterly failed. And, AIDS is a new threat. In existing diseases, bacteria and virii continues to run their course, and both are outgaming science. The number of drugs that can treat drug - resistant bacteria is dwindling... I think they are now down to one or two, and there's not much left in the pipeline. There's no cure for common virii, still, and, even worse, even the flu is gradually passing the ability of vaccines to prevent it. Last year's vaccine was a failure, missing a new strain entirely...
The bottom line is, biology as a discipline has failed us. The only way biology is going to succeed is if it ditches evolution and instead turns to computer science, physics, and mathematics as a way of grapping with the problems of complexity that underly everything they do. It's hardly well and good for biologists to smugly point to Africa and say that our religious customs are invalid because they have found a fossil, when, a billion people will die on that continent over the next century from diseases that they have failed to cure.
This is my sig.