|
|
|
Mespo_man
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
 Posted - 11/09/2001 : 10:00:34
|
There has never been a war like it.
The good guys have media correspondents on BOTH the good guy side and bad guy side. But the bad guys only have media correspondents on the bad guy side.
The bad guys pontificate to the good guys about how good the bad guys are and how bad the good guys are. The bad guys show the good guys every bad thing the good guys are doing.
The good guys fall over each other (BBC, CNN) to tell the rest of the good guys all the mistakes that the good guys are making that the bad guys say the good guys are doing.
The bad guys aren't really bad guys, except when they hang people (Abdul Haq) who say that they are bad. The bad guys must have a very good judicial system because "justice" was served within hours. But they don't show this to the good guys because the good guys might report that the bad guys are bad. The bad guys also don't show the good guys how the bad guys stone women to death or amputate the hands and feet of other guys who the bad guys say are bad, in a sports stadium that the good guys built.
The media for the good guys is SO good that they report every bomb, missle, rifle round, and barking dog via satellite link to other news hungry good guys who parade a plethora of expert good guys before the media to micro-analyze the real time reports of every bomb, missle, rifle round and barking dog.
NOW... If you want a historical perspective, pretend that reporters for the New York Times were at Pearl Harbor AND on the Japanese carriers all at the same time. Or that Peter Jennings, Dan Rather and Tom Brokhaw reported live from Tokyo when the B29 bombers made their incendiary raids late in WWII. Then you begin to appreciate what a media circus this war really is.
THIS AIN'T YOUR DADDY'S WAR!
(:raig
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2001 : 11:36:49 [Permalink]
|
And your point is?
Are you arguing for more censorship?
Did you really think the world today is the same as the world in 1941?
The "bad guys" aren't the only ones playing the propaganda game, you know.
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
 |
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2001 : 19:21:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Are you arguing for more censorship?
I would. When the lack of restraint becomes treason. When enemy lies are reported as truths. When the press puts our own men in jeopardy. When orders to terrorists in the US are relayed by CNN and the BBC.
Censorship sounds like a fine idea.
It's a war, get it?
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
Lisa
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2001 : 19:53:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Are you arguing for more censorship?
I would. When the lack of restraint becomes treason. When enemy lies are reported as truths. When the press puts our own men in jeopardy. When orders to terrorists in the US are relayed by CNN and the BBC.
Censorship sounds like a fine idea.
It's a war, get it?
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it.
Not to mention Peter Arnett by name or anything...
Lisa
If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much room. |
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2001 : 20:10:30 [Permalink]
|
Well, I respectfully disagree.
1. We have no control over the media outside the US (except for more or less indirect influence -- think BBC at one extreme to Al Jazeera at the other). So I am going to ignore non-US media outlets.
2. I have not heard enemy propaganda reported as fact, as you claim. The source is always identified.
3. Most people are savvy enough to understand that reports coming from the Taliban can't be given the same sort of truth value as reports from more objective sources. But I'd throw in the comment that the Pentagon is not always entirely forthcoming either. Caveat Emptor.
4. As an informed citizen, I want to hear what the "bad guys" are saying, if for no other reason than to understand the reactions that may occur in third-party countries like Pakistan.
5. Do you have any evidence that orders to terrorist are being, or have been, reported on CNN? I would call this a straw man, since the media have already agreed not to broadcast unedited tapes from bin Laden & Co.
6. "Duh... war? Uh, whazzat?" Yes, I get it. Please don't be condescending.
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2001 : 21:11:35 [Permalink]
|
Well, I respectfully disagree.
1. We have no control over the media outside the US (except for more or less indirect influence -- think BBC at one extreme to Al Jazeera at the other). So I am going to ignore non-US media outlets.
No, we don't have control of the media. The problem is when US Troop movements are covered and reported without regard for the safety of the troops. The media treats this as a football game, unfortunately, irresponsible behavior in reporting here will cost lives.
2. I have not heard enemy propaganda reported as fact, as you claim. The source is always identified.
No, they are always *unconfirmed* reports. However, people don't always hear the *unconfirmed*.
3. Most people are savvy enough to understand that reports coming from the Taliban can't be given the same sort of truth value as reports from more objective sources. But I'd throw in the comment that the Pentagon is not always entirely forthcoming either. Caveat Emptor.
Have you been following the Diatribe 2 thread? Or any of the other discussions regarding whether the US is entirely culpable for all the problems with Afghanistan. Most people will believe whatever they want - this is just more fodder for the grist mill.
4. As an informed citizen, I want to hear what the "bad guys" are saying, if for no other reason than to understand the reactions that may occur in third-party countries like Pakistan.
Understood. I think the point here was that unbeknownst to us - information may be passing between bin Laden and those outside Afghanistan.
5. Do you have any evidence that orders to terrorist are being, or have been, reported on CNN? I would call this a straw man, since the media have already agreed not to broadcast unedited tapes from bin Laden & Co.
The point is not to be a strawman. The point is that there maybe something which our experts will miss or not understand. The possibility exists that it could happen.
6. "Duh... war? Uh, whazzat?" Yes, I get it. Please don't be condescending.
Do you? Seriously. Do you understand the potential cost in lives on all sides? Do you understand that reporting just where our troops are and what they are doing and where they are going puts their lives in danger unnecessarily? Do you understand that people are going to come home in body bags? Do you understand that people in Afghanistan are going to die? Do you really understand the magnitude of what is happening here?
I can't conceive of it yet - and I was in the service during the last *war* we fought. I know it scares me silly and I don't want it to happen. But it is.
It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them. -Mark Twain |
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2001 : 09:49:30 [Permalink]
|
Trish (and Slater too), I respect your opinions on a lot of things. I don't think we're all that far apart on this issue either, but I can't entirely agree with you. In fact, I'm not sure exactly what you're advocating.
quote:
1. We have no control over the media outside the US (except for more or less indirect influence -- think BBC at one extreme to Al Jazeera at the other). So I am going to ignore non-US media outlets.
No, we don't have control of the media. The problem is when US Troop movements are covered and reported without regard for the safety of the troops. The media treats this as a football game, unfortunately, irresponsible behavior in reporting here will cost lives.
Can you give me even one example of a news report that you feel has put any "good guy" troops in danger? I can't. I can't remember any detailed reports of troop movements or actions that weren't coming straight out of the Pentagon, or from a Navy ship with the Navy stamp of approval. We see jets catapulting off carrier decks, but are given no information about where they're going, or even when the launch occurred.
IMHO the information flow from the combat areas is being controlled pretty tightly. Please understand that I think this is right and proper, I'm not calling for less control on the media in this regard.
quote:
2. I have not heard enemy propaganda reported as fact, as you claim. The source is always identified.
No, they are always *unconfirmed* reports. However, people don't always hear the *unconfirmed*.
Unconfirmed reports can come from a lot of sources, including Afghani journalists working undercover on the ground, pilots who report what they think they saw but haven't had a chance to check, refugee interviews, and so on. Why do you think that "unconfirmed report" is a code phrase for "Taliban propaganda"?
When the Taliban makes a public statement, or al Qaeda calls on Muslims to do this or that, it's reported as such.
Besides, what's so awful about enemy propaganda? Remember someone called "Tokyo Rose"? Sailors listened to her aboard Navy vessels in the Pacific theater, and American morale was not shattered. On the contrary.
quote:
3. Most people are savvy enough to understand that reports coming from the Taliban can't be given the same sort of truth value as reports from more objective sources. But I'd throw in the comment that the Pentagon is not always entirely forthcoming either. Caveat Emptor.
Have you been following the Diatribe 2 thread? Or any of the other discussions regarding whether the US is entirely culpable for all the problems with Afghanistan. Most people will believe whatever they want - this is just more fodder for the grist mill.
Sorry, I haven't. Those rubysue/Gorgo threads are too personal and cutthroat for my taste. I feel that both sides have a serious lack-of-objectivity problem, and I don't find that I learn much (or enjoy watching the fur fly).
(continued...)
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2001 : 09:51:26 [Permalink]
|
(...continued)
quote:
4. As an informed citizen, I want to hear what the "bad guys" are saying, if for no other reason than to understand the reactions that may occur in third-party countries like Pakistan.
Understood. I think the point here was that unbeknownst to us - information may be passing between bin Laden and those outside Afghanistan.
You feel this is true even now, when the networks have agreed not to air such material unedited? I grant you that the first bin Laden tape was handled badly, but the ground rules are different now. And even if we slapped complete censorship on our own media, others outside our control could still get the word out. You don't really think al Qaeda is relying on CNN to communicate with their network, do you?
quote:
5. Do you have any evidence that orders to terrorist are being, or have been, reported on CNN? I would call this a straw man, since the media have already agreed not to broadcast unedited tapes from bin Laden & Co.
The point is not to be a strawman. The point is that there maybe something which our experts will miss or not understand. The possibility exists that it could happen.
See above.
quote:
6. "Duh... war? Uh, whazzat?" Yes, I get it. Please don't be condescending.
Do you? Seriously. Do you understand the potential cost in lives on all sides? Do you understand that reporting just where our troops are and what they are doing and where they are going puts their lives in danger unnecessarily? Do you understand that people are going to come home in body bags? Do you understand that people in Afghanistan are going to die? Do you really understand the magnitude of what is happening here?
I can't conceive of it yet - and I was in the service during the last *war* we fought. I know it scares me silly and I don't want it to happen. But it is.
Yes, I do. Seriously. I think I understand the meaning of war as well as anyone else who hasn't experienced it first-hand. Whether direct experience allows one to gain a deeper insight is possible, but not a given. I don't have to give birth to know it's painful. And I'm a pretty empathetic guy.
So I return to my original question: what are you saying is broken and needs fixing? Do you think greater censorship is needed, and if so, what specific things should be banned or regulated? In a world with global communications and many media that are beyond US control, how are you going to choke off those sources? Seems to me the only result is a less well-informed American public -- as if we weren't already earning D's and F's on that report card!
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
comradebillyboy
Skeptic Friend
USA
188 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2001 : 10:48:19 [Permalink]
|
no, save me from all of those negative stories, the only lies i want to hear are the ones that bush, asscroft and the pentagon tell every day.
i don't like to see the formerly free press becoming a mouth piece for government propaganda. i want to see all sides of a story and i think that i am capable of separating fact from fiction.
the current administration is no friend of a free and open press or the constitution for that matter. they have earned my distrust.
comrade billyboy |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2001 : 19:53:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Trish (and Slater too), I respect your opinions on a lot of things. I don't think we're all that far apart on this issue either, but I can't entirely agree with you. In fact, I'm not sure exactly what you're advocating.
I'll thank you here. And hopefully clear some things up too.
quote:
quote:
1. We have no control over the media outside the US (except for more or less indirect influence -- think BBC at one extreme to Al Jazeera at the other). So I am going to ignore non-US media outlets.
No, we don't have control of the media. The problem is when US Troop movements are covered and reported without regard for the safety of the troops. The media treats this as a football game, unfortunately, irresponsible behavior in reporting here will cost lives.
Can you give me even one example of a news report that you feel has put any "good guy" troops in danger? I can't. I can't remember any detailed reports of troop movements or actions that weren't coming straight out of the Pentagon, or from a Navy ship with the Navy stamp of approval. We see jets catapulting off carrier decks, but are given no information about where they're going, or even when the launch occurred.
IMHO the information flow from the combat areas is being controlled pretty tightly. Please understand that I think this is right and proper, I'm not calling for less control on the media in this regard.
This comes from a previous war. It's pretty pathetic when reports are hitting my desk with some type of classification stamped in red across everything and I'm watching the same info on CNN. Worry about what may be, more than what is currently...
quote:
quote:
2. I have not heard enemy propaganda reported as fact, as you claim. The source is always identified.
No, they are always *unconfirmed* reports. However, people don't always hear the *unconfirmed*.
Unconfirmed reports can come from a lot of sources, including Afghani journalists working undercover on the ground, pilots who report what they think they saw but haven't had a chance to check, refugee interviews, and so on. Why do you think that "unconfirmed report" is a code phrase for "Taliban propaganda"?
When the Taliban makes a public statement, or al Qaeda calls on Muslims to do this or that, it's reported as such.
Besides, what's so awful about enemy propaganda? Remember someone called "Tokyo Rose"? Sailors listened to her aboard Navy vessels in the Pacific theater, and American morale was not shattered. On the contrary.
This has nothing to do with morale. More with misinformation and disinformation. Find Garrettes post in General Discussion with the NYTimes (?) article pasted in. That's what worries me.
quote:
quote:
3. Most people are savvy enough to understand that reports coming from the Taliban can't be given the same sort of truth value as reports from more objective sources. But I'd throw in the comment that the Pentagon is not always entirely forthcoming either. Caveat Emptor.
Have you been following the Diatribe 2 thread? Or any of the other discussions regarding whether the US is entirely culpable for all the problems with Afghanistan. Most people will believe whatever they want - this is just more fodder for the grist mill.
Sorry, I haven't. Those rubysue/Gorgo threads are too personal and cutthroat for my taste. I feel that both sides have a serious lack-of-objectivity problem, and I don't find that I learn much (or enjoy watching the fur fly).
I can't say that I blame you. However, there are people in this society that will follow blindly what another says. Basically, there are a few individuals that are accusing anyone who does not question the gov and fall in with Chomsky of not being skeptics. That doesn't follow. It's an authoritarian argument. What this amounts too, IMHO, there are people who think they've thought things through but have been taught or were raised in an evironment where the gov was consistently ridiculed without a balancing counterargument to the ridicule. What's this have to do with this...well, there are two types of criticism: Constructive and Destructive. IMHO, Chomsky uses destructive criticism to drive home his point without any constructive criticisms of his own to act as a balance.
It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them. -Mark Twain |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2001 : 19:59:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
4. As an informed citizen, I want to hear what the "bad guys" are saying, if for no other reason than to understand the reactions that may occur in third-party countries like Pakistan.
Understood. I think the point here was that unbeknownst to us - information may be passing between bin Laden and those outside Afghanistan.
You feel this is true even now, when the networks have agreed not to air such material unedited? I grant you that the first bin Laden tape was handled badly, but the ground rules are different now. And even if we slapped complete censorship on our own media, others outside our control could still get the word out. You don't really think al Qaeda is relying on CNN to communicate with their network, do you?
Again, it is a possibility. Think about it, using our own media against us. It could be prearranged and nothing more than a signal required.
quote:
quote:
5. Do you have any evidence that orders to terrorist are being, or have been, reported on CNN? I would call this a straw man, since the media have already agreed not to broadcast unedited tapes from bin Laden & Co.
The point is not to be a strawman. The point is that there maybe something which our experts will miss or not understand. The possibility exists that it could happen.
See above.
Ditto.
quote:
quote:
6. "Duh... war? Uh, whazzat?" Yes, I get it. Please don't be condescending.
Do you? Seriously. Do you understand the potential cost in lives on all sides? Do you understand that reporting just where our troops are and what they are doing and where they are going puts their lives in danger unnecessarily? Do you understand that people are going to come home in body bags? Do you understand that people in Afghanistan are going to die? Do you really understand the magnitude of what is happening here?
I can't conceive of it yet - and I was in the service during the last *war* we fought. I know it scares me silly and I don't want it to happen. But it is.
Yes, I do. Seriously. I think I understand the meaning of war as well as anyone else who hasn't experienced it first-hand. Whether direct experience allows one to gain a deeper insight is possible, but not a given. I don't have to give birth to know it's painful. And I'm a pretty empathetic guy.
So I return to my original question: what are you saying is broken and needs fixing? Do you think greater censorship is needed, and if so, what specific things should be banned or regulated? In a world with global communications and many media that are beyond US control, how are you going to choke off those sources? Seems to me the only result is a less well-informed American public -- as if we weren't already earning D's and F's on that report card![/quote]
Ah, well I'm not saying anything is broken. I am advocating (perhaps poorly) that the media must take additional steps to ensure that it acts responsably. Instead of worrying about 'If it bleeds it leads...' axiom, now they need more than ever to act with a modicum of reason. (And you can't tell me they always do.)
It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them. -Mark Twain |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2001 : 20:02:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
no, save me from all of those negative stories, the only lies i want to hear are the ones that bush, asscroft and the pentagon tell every day.
i don't like to see the formerly free press becoming a mouth piece for government propaganda. i want to see all sides of a story and i think that i am capable of separating fact from fiction.
the current administration is no friend of a free and open press or the constitution for that matter. they have earned my distrust.
comrade billyboy
Well lying was not my intention, merely speculation. I'm not calling for the media to fall in and tow a specific line - just practice a little prudence in running their stories is all. I don't exactly like/trust the current administration myself. However, we are stuck with the yo-yos for another 3 years.
It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them. -Mark Twain |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2001 : 02:41:20 [Permalink]
|
No, it ain't my daddy's war, which was the second big one, but it might be starting to resmsble it in the way the news is presented.
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/htx/nyt/20011110/ts/in_the_war_on_terrorism_new_life_for_propaganda_1.html
Possibly, this link should have been on a different thread, but here it is.
Today, we have the ability to observe almost any activity on the sruface of the earth and private organizations have access to many if not most of them. And this is how it should be. But in a time of was, there must be some restraints.
f
The more I learn about people, the better I like rattlesnakes. |
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2001 : 07:11:55 [Permalink]
|
Trish,
Thanks for your clarification. As I thought, you and I are not far apart.
If you'll permit me to paraphrase, I feel the current controls on the media are enough, possibly even too tight in some respects (but probably not by much). My concern is that the public not be cut off unnecessarily from information that might be vital to understanding the issues and events in this conflict.
Your fear is that, although it hasn't happened yet, an irresponsible media outlet may report information that puts our armed forces (or our military strategies) at risk, and you feel the need for tighter controls for that reason.
Meanwhile, others have expressed concerns in the opposite direction -- that we may be getting fed a line of propaganda from our own government, rather than the truth. (I think this is distinct from the effort to produce propaganda for consumption in the Islamic world -- that's hard to quibble with, and quite appropriate to counter the other side's efforts.) So I guess I fall somewhere close to the Goldilocks position in this debate... "just right". :-D
Perhaps we should let the matter rest for a bit, and return to it when and if an incident of the kind you fear actually occurs. Or do you think the Seymour Hersch article qualifies?
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
Mespo_man
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2001 : 07:17:24 [Permalink]
|
Hi Donnie,
Since I started the thread, I should respond. I was just making smug observations and really didn't have a point until now. But, it seems the Pentagon has a message for Al Jazeera.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1653000/1653887.stm
It would appear on the surface that the Pentagon opted for a little press censorship using the sledge hammer technique. I also find it interesting that U.S. press releases (at least none that I have read) make no mention of the missle strike on the Al Jazeera facilities. The acid test will be whether anyone in the U.S. press corps has the balls to ask the Pentagon in their next news briefing why they targeted Al Jazeera.
One missle. One building destroyed after the news staff had left for the night. That was no accident by any stretch of the imagination. It was the Pentagon's way of saying to Al Jazeera... "F*CK YOU".
(:raig
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2001 : 07:58:29 [Permalink]
|
I haven't seen anyone on this board say this yet. Have you really heard people say this?
quote:
Have you been following the Diatribe 2 thread? Or any of the other discussions regarding whether the US is entirely culpable for all the problems with Afghanistan.
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa - Cat Stevens |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
