Page 4 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >
Topic Options
#594364 - 12/27/11 11:19 AM Re: Christopher Hitchens, RIP [Re: Lawson]
Charles Reece Offline
Member

Registered: 08/18/99
Posts: 10013
Loc: us of fuckin' a
Leftist journalists were very critical for the most part. Liberal journalists (the non-ideological, objective ones) were not for the most part.
_________________________
The Gospel, wherein much Truth is written.

Top
#594365 - 12/27/11 12:00 PM Re: Christopher Hitchens, RIP [Re: Charles Reece]
Lawson Offline
Member

Registered: 11/11/02
Posts: 11978
Loc: Lexington, Ky.
I didn't check the ideology register to see who was which.

All I know is, in 2003, I read local and national newspapers and good magazines like The New Yorker and The Atlantic and listened to National Public Radio and watched C-Span and whatever the PBS News Hour was called at that point.

Based on the information these mainstream news sources presented to me, I was deeply skeptical of the wisdom or morality of invading Iraq. I was pretty sure we were being fed bullshit. As we were.

I didn't have any secret CIA sources or friends in Baghdad telling me this. I was just consuming the news that everyone else could have consumed, beyond the silly commercial TV newscasts.

Folks who complain that nobody was telling the truth -- I dunno, man, look around a little better next time. Just because Dan Rather didn't tell you something during the first five minutes of the CBS Evening News doesn't mean nobody was reporting it.

Top
#594366 - 12/27/11 12:54 PM Re: Christopher Hitchens, RIP [Re: Lawson]
Charles Reece Offline
Member

Registered: 08/18/99
Posts: 10013
Loc: us of fuckin' a
_________________________
The Gospel, wherein much Truth is written.

Top
#594367 - 12/27/11 01:05 PM Re: Christopher Hitchens, RIP [Re: Charles Reece]
Lawson Offline
Member

Registered: 11/11/02
Posts: 11978
Loc: Lexington, Ky.
Originally Posted By: Charles Reece


I never know what to make of "Project Censored," the annual book collection of worthy news stories you should have seen but you never saw because, see, TEH CORPORATE LAPDOG MEDIA WOULDN'T TELL YA 'BOUT THEM!!!

Because the thing is, I usually have seen news coverage of most stories on this annual list. Which sort of pokes a hole in the boogey-boogey man conspiracy theories of the Left.

When I haven't previously seen a lot of news coverage, it's for stuff like "Story No. 18, this latest U.N. resolution condemning Israel for its latest bad acts against the Palestinians, which TOTALLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN ON THE FRONT PAGES EVERYWHERE 'CAUSE IT'S A U.N. RESOLUTION AND THAT TOTALLY CHANGES EVERYTHING!!!"

laugh

Looking at this year's "Project Censored" list, for instance, I see that we were never told about the appalling rate of military suicides during the wars (except I've read a ton of stories on the subject), we were never told that Google is using software to spy on us (except ... you get the idea), and we were never told that sweatshops in China are making U.S. tech goodies like iPods (except ...)

If I've already heard all the stuff that "Project Censored" says I haven't heard, do I win a prize?

Memo to Lefties: If you haven't heard of most of these stories, the guy who fucked up was you.

Top
#594368 - 12/27/11 01:56 PM Re: Christopher Hitchens, RIP [Re: Lawson]
Joe Lee Offline
Member

Registered: 06/22/01
Posts: 12277
Originally Posted By: Lawson
Initially, you were saying that NOBODY in the news media or American public life questioned or challenged the Bush administration's plans to invade Iraq.
Actually I was talking about a panel I saw on MSNBC one afternoon a week or two back now, that I thought was worth sharing because it seemed the whole panel was just taking it as given that NOBODY in the news media or American public life questioned or challenged the Bush administration's plans to invade Iraq.

Originally Posted By: Lawson
Then you acknowledged that SOME PEOPLE did publicly question or challenge, but they seemed to be outnumbered, outshouted and smeared by the administration and its supporters.
At that point I was stating my own recollections.

I just think it's interesting that this panel was making so many assumptions, one that they, a select group of the most commercial TV news outlets represented all media, and and that they had also learned their lesson.

I felt it was ironically intertwined bullshit, a ridiculous assumption, based on a flawed premise.

Top
#594370 - 12/27/11 02:24 PM Re: Christopher Hitchens, RIP [Re: Joe Lee]
Lawson Offline
Member

Registered: 11/11/02
Posts: 11978
Loc: Lexington, Ky.
Well, I don't disagree with that.

It's admittedly a sore subject for me.

More than once, I've reported on the campaign of a corrupt politician who was going to -- once elected -- serve his own personal interests and those of his wealthy backers.

Nonetheless, because he had slicker and more plentiful TV commercials, the voters elected him. (Citizen pondering his choice in the voting booth: "Dang, how did thet jingle go agin?")

And more than once, the politician, having been elected, immediately set about serving his own personal interests and those of his wealthy backers. As predicted.

At which point a chorus of disgruntled Boo-Hoos arose. Goddamnit ta hell, why din't teh media TELL US this guy was a crook?! Oh if only I'da known! I'll vote da bum out next time!

Fast forward two or four or six years, and the process repeats, and the incumbent is handily re-elected, etc., etc.

The public, at some point, must assume responsibility for its own decisions.

Top
#594372 - 12/27/11 04:25 PM Re: Christopher Hitchens, RIP [Re: Lawson]
Joe Lee Offline
Member

Registered: 06/22/01
Posts: 12277
I totally agree. I think we've even had this discussion before, one of my biggest pet peeves is "the undecideds" the people that claim they can't make a decision because all there is are mud slinging ads out their or perfectly diametrically opposed shouting pundits. The information is out there, but the idiots don't want to bother to look for anything. They want it brought to them on a silver platter, and they don't want to have think about it.

Tough shit undecideds. Democracy isn't supposed to be easy.

Top
#594373 - 12/27/11 04:48 PM Re: Christopher Hitchens, RIP [Re: Joe Lee]
Lawson Offline
Member

Registered: 11/11/02
Posts: 11978
Loc: Lexington, Ky.
Totally agree back at you.

Money corrupts elections in favor of the wealthy elite. The Citizens United decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is going to make that a hundred times worse than it already was.

But you know what?

It's in the power of the average American to essentially erase the influence of all that money.

Here's the secret: Don't pay attention to campaign ads.

Seriously.

Don't pay attention to campaign ads.

Those millions and billions of dollars raised for American election campaigns, most of that goes into campaign ads -- mostly television, but still some radio, and more Internet with every election cycle.

You don't want some billionaire funneling a fraction of his ill-gotten gains through an anonymous "outside" group to control the election in your community?

No problem.

Don't pay attention to campaign ads.

If you ignore the bright, shiny ads telling you that Senator Slickster is your friend -- and the dark, grainy ads telling you that his challenger is a socialist bitch who wants to make your children have abortions -- if you seek out your own information on the candidates using the news media and the Internet and by paying attention to what you see of debates and speeches -- then you're running the table.

Not them.

It's really as simple as that.

Top
#594377 - 12/27/11 11:13 PM Re: Christopher Hitchens, RIP [Re: Lawson]
Charles Reece Offline
Member

Registered: 08/18/99
Posts: 10013
Loc: us of fuckin' a
Lawson, your job is to hear of this stuff, so that's not so surprising. When the readers of major newspapers don't, that's where the problem lies -- i.e., which stories are focused on and which aren't, not which ones journalists have heard about. I guess there wouldn't be a problem if everyone were paid to be a journalist.

As for Leftist journalists, all I can say is that The Nation had a much better track record regarding the Iraq War than the New York Times. Maybe you'd say The Nation is more objective than the Times, but that's not what I typically hear from mainstream journalists.
_________________________
The Gospel, wherein much Truth is written.

Top
#594380 - 12/28/11 02:36 AM Re: Christopher Hitchens, RIP [Re: Charles Reece]
Gerald Offline
Member

Registered: 11/29/09
Posts: 1108
PBS had a good documentary about Iraq, which went into detail about how Saddam got into power, how he was originally our ally, how they got chemical weapons, etc.

Anyways, regardless of the what kind of news you got, the reasoning, "we have no proof that they are building weapons of mass destruction, but they COULD be," should have given the public a clue as to where this was heading.

I don't understand the leftist vs objective liberal assertion. Being objective is a bad thing??

While I do agree that, at times, it seems that the media can be biased or not reporting the details properly (example FOX News), but I think it's because the majority of the public is lazy. For example, to find out if a candidate is good, you actually have to look up his/her voting record, where they stand on the issues, etc. But alot of times, people just go by the (R) or (D) on the ballot and the campaign commercials. With the Iraq War, people should have been reading up on it more. Looking for more sources than just CNN and their local paper.

Agree on ignoring campaign commercials. How much possible useful information can be obtained from a 30 second television spot? I also find them insulting because they always have some attack ad, which manipulative sinister music accompanied by a bad photo of the rival candidate.

Maybe people should spend less time watching reality tv and become more civic minded. Unfortuantely people don't take much if any interest in government and politics.
_________________________
"My head's lopsided *****!"-Red Gumby

Top
Page 4 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >