MEDIA MANIPULATION aka INFORMATION CONTROL aka MIND CONTROL

[alvin]

They have you "believing" all types of things that aren't REAL...

http://www.shandyking.com/2006/09/17...th-mass-media/

http://www.netctr.com/mediawatch.html

http://www.bigeye.com/stupefaction.htm

http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle2838.htm

[kalamu]

lol

jesus loves you alvin

[alvin]

Originally Posted by kalamu

lol

jesus loves you alvin

And he loves you too...and George Bush AND Saddam Hussein.

[kalamu]

Saddam Hussein loves me?

SWELL!

[alvin]

I guess if anyone should knowledge about media manipulation would be an insider.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070127/...ney_under_fire

"No one served up spicier morsels than Cheney's former top press assistant. Cathie Martin described the craft of media manipulation — under oath and in blunter terms than politicians like to hear in public".

"The uses of leaks and exclusives. When to let one's name be used and when to hide in anonymity. Which news medium was seen as more susceptible to control and what timing was most propitious. All candidly described. Even the rating of certain journalists as friends to favor and critics to shun — a faint echo of the enemies list drawn up in Richard Nixon's White House more than 30 years ago".

"Not only did Tenet leave unanswered questions about Cheney, his remarks came out late on a Friday, the government's favorite moment to deliver bad news.

Why?

"Fewer people pay attention to it later on Friday," Martin testified. "And in our view, fewer people are paying attention on Saturday, when it's reported."

As Martin rated their options, putting Cheney on "Meet the Press," NBC's Sunday morning talk show, "is our best format." Cheney was their best person for the show and "we control the message a little bit more," according to Martin".

[JohnMos]

Of course this administration has used media manipulation to spread beneficial spins on their policies. There's no other way the war in Iraq would have become as horribly out of control as it currently is if the media would have asked the right questions, made the right connections, or even given a fair amount of criticism.

I believe it recently came to light that Cheney used Meet The Press to help further the Iraq agenda and build support. Speaking of, anyone see the joke of an interview he gave to Wolf Blitzer? It's obvious the media has been lacking in any sort of substantial reporting on the administration, and now it is obvious that the administration isn't going to 'be bothered' by responding to the important questions.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by JohnMos

Of course this administration has used media manipulation to spread beneficial spins on their policies. There's no other way the war in Iraq would have become as horribly out of control as it currently is if the media would have asked the right questions, made the right connections, or even given a fair amount of criticism.

You're asserting that war would have had a different outcome but for different questions from the media? Are you serious?

[Edit]

inconceivable!!

[PETA]

You seem a decent fellow... I hate to kill you.

[JohnMos]

Originally Posted by xian

You're asserting that war would have had a different outcome but for different questions from the media? Are you serious?

Not too sure if I stated my claim too broadly. What I meant to convey was that this current uproar over policies and strategies affecting Iraq and the war would have been more pronounced in the past years if the media would have had the assertiveness to do actual research and make more serious inquiries than they did.

I know I am unfairly grouping them all together in the claim, but it seems to me that as far as most popular press media is concerned, they failed to do their jobs at an even subpar level. Would better coverage have lead to a different outcome in Iraq? Probably not for Iraq, but I believe the US could have avoided many unnecessary casualties if the American people, glued as they are to the television and their comfy couch(and lives), would have been better informed on their weekly channel-surfing through the news.
I seriously doubt the majority of people would have allowed such a catastrophe of a war, or occupation, to continue for as long as it has if they had known what we know now. And I believe we would have known it all a lot sooner had the journalists done their jobs.

Maybe I'm talking out of my ass, feel free to explain to me why I would be wrong.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by JohnMos

Not too sure if I stated my claim too broadly. What I meant to convey was that this current uproar over policies and strategies affecting Iraq and the war would have been more pronounced in the past years if the media would have had the assertiveness to do actual research and make more serious inquiries than they did.

So if the press had made more of a stink there'd have been a bigger stink

Just teasing - I understand what you;re getting at. But I do think there was a lot of controversy and a lot of the issues that are only obvious in retrospect. That's not to say that the pres doesn't do a poor job of fact checking - they do a poor job

Originally Posted by JohnMos

I know I am unfairly grouping them all together in the claim, but it seems to me that as far as most popular press media is concerned, they failed to do their jobs at an even subpar level. Would better coverage have lead to a different outcome in Iraq? Probably not for Iraq, but I believe the US could have avoided many unnecessary casualties if the American people, glued as they are to the television and their comfy couch(and lives), would have been better informed on their weekly channel-surfing through the news.
I seriously doubt the majority of people would have allowed such a catastrophe of a war, or occupation, to continue for as long as it has if they had known what we know now. And I believe we would have known it all a lot sooner had the journalists done their jobs.

Maybe I'm talking out of my ass, feel free to explain to me why I would be wrong.

I don't necessarily agree that better reporting would have resulted in different decisions by commanders in the field (one glaring criticism of GW is that he relied too much on the generals and was too hands off. The General could care less what the press thinks - well excepting General Clark and of course he was busy doing other things).

As far as catastrophe's go - the catastrophe is that we didn't get a functional gov't quickly. We relied too heavily on faith that the Iraqis could and would do a lot of work on their own - which they didn't. The casualties - while indiviually tragic (and I know mother's of dead soldiers - I've seen them cry while their sons get wheeled past them - it is brutal in the extreme) they are still remarkable low considering how many soldiers have been to Iraq and for how long.

[Silver]

Originally Posted by xian

You seem a decent fellow... I hate to kill you.

You seem a decent fellow. . . I hate to die.

[Silver]

Originally Posted by nuwanda

It just so happens that your friend here is only mostly dead

and there's a big deference between MOSTLY DEAD and all the way dead. With all the way dead there's really only one thing you can do. . . dig through their pockets for loose change. . .

[JohnMos]

Originally Posted by xian

So if the press had made more of a stink there'd have been a bigger stink

Just teasing - I understand what you;re getting at. But I do think there was a lot of controversy and a lot of the issues that are only obvious in retrospect. That's not to say that the pres doesn't do a poor job of fact checking - they do a poor job

Well that first sentence pretty much sums up what I was trying to say. Fact checking was a big part of the problem. Also it can be argued that the press DID ask tough questions since the beginning, but accepting the blundering doublespeak of an answer from the President without calling him out on it - or even following up with another question (hell, they probably just could've reworded the first question) is the fault of the journalist.

Originally Posted by xian

I don't necessarily agree that better reporting would have resulted in different decisions by commanders in the field (one glaring criticism of GW is that he relied too much on the generals and was too hands off. The General could care less what the press thinks - well excepting General Clark and of course he was busy doing other things).

As far as catastrophe's go - the catastrophe is that we didn't get a functional gov't quickly. We relied too heavily on faith that the Iraqis could and would do a lot of work on their own - which they didn't. The casualties - while indiviually tragic (and I know mother's of dead soldiers - I've seen them cry while their sons get wheeled past them - it is brutal in the extreme) they are still remarkable low considering how many soldiers have been to Iraq and for how long.

Nah, it would be surprising and highly incompetent of a general to make decisions based on BBC reports or the like. The difference I think it would have made would be how quickly we started(or will start) the systematic withdrawal of troops. I know the house and senate were a little full up on war supporters, but with enough public outcry one would hope that congress would be able to form a coherent and usable exit strategy and in turn have a better plan of installing the elected Iraqi government.

The casualties may be low, but after 'winning' the war all those years ago, it should be unnecessary for troops to be in such a volitile situation. So it may not be a huge catastrophe yet, but unnecessary deaths on both sides isn't helping its case.

Executing Sadam has so far only made things worse. Bush's idea of emboldening the terrorists by speaking out against his troop sur-esca-augmentation is completely rediculous, as is the idea that 21,000 extra troops will do anything substantial. More troops may be necessary to keep the peace while they get Iraq up and running, but we've been waiting for that for how long now? If he wants support, he needs to show a complete strategy and not keep putting it off. Whoops, getting off-topic...

[alvin]

more "false information" posted by moi.

source: PBS ..."credible"???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ygb5u...elated&search=


The TRUTH: Hidden in PLAIN SIGHT