Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6   Go Down

Author Topic: War with Iraq  (Read 26241 times)

Stumpy

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 996
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #45 on: September 12, 2002, 01:27:11 pm »

It’s like eating peanuts.

Eat the meat.
Throw away the hull.

Trick is, knowing what’s the meat and what’s the hull.
Logged
Libertarianitis - A disease where one is incapable of doing anything other than debate. The sufferer is rendered totally incapable of being constructive and constantly marginalizes him or herself by displays of extreme negativity, bitterness and intransigence.

percy, aka tntsmum

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 108
  • SEE YOU IN THE FREE STATE!!!!
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #46 on: September 12, 2002, 01:32:04 pm »

I find it ridiculous to categorically reject the media sources simply due to their size.  In fact, due to their size, they _don't_ have anything to fear from government censorship.  They have to consider the cost to their credibility if they make overly antagonizing statements, but don't you believe they wouldn't do it if they thought they had enough to persuade the population.  

And then you lump Fox into the mix, when it is quite obvious that Fox takes a distinctly different approach to the news than CBS and NBC.

You oversimplify your position to the detriment of your credibility.  Media is not state-controlled, and the influence of state is not even overpowering.  The media is free and any collusion going on is not a matter of policy, as is obvious given the enormously common situations where the media _does_ disagree with the administration, or congress, or whoever happens to hold power.

Of course you must be willing to challenge your news sources and you cannot take everything at face value, but the big 5 are not significantly more unreliable than any other news source.
BOOYA!!!!! The government does NOT control the media. I'm not saying it might not attempt to get coverage slanted a certain way (clinton was MASTERFUL at this) But no, if anything the media is, usually trying to dig up dirt and contradict the government.
 Just one example is Watergate, but there are many others. And I'm NOT complaining that is precisely what they are there for!
As one gains a certain amount of time (years) actively following the news and what reality bears out as truth, one slowly decides what their credible sources are. In my experience time and reality has lent credibility to the mainstream media if only in that they do report the facts truthfully for the most part and tend to be very critical whenever possible of government. I do not appreciate the statist slant that is ever present but some reilef can be found in Fox.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2002, 01:33:40 pm by percy, aka tntsmum »
Logged

Dave Reese

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20
  • I'm a llama!
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #47 on: September 12, 2002, 01:43:42 pm »


Quote
author=Dave Reese
state-controlled media . . . hmmm . . . . who, then, can you trust for reliable news?


Bingo. You have stated the problem precisely. Sorry, I don't have an answer, though I do understand the problem. I did reference this in an earlier post on page 2 of this thread. Even the so called 'alternative' news sources are pretty bizarre in most aspects, and often have some rather twisted agendas.


Mouse, I hate to bug ya, but in light of your above statement, how do you know the media is indeed state-controlled?

If you can't trust a media source to tell you, then you're pretty much left to find out for yourself, through hard experience.

No flame intended.

Dave
Logged

maestro

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #48 on: September 12, 2002, 03:22:51 pm »

There is most definitely a slant in the media, and often I will use a news source merely as a reference to find other news sources so that I can compare information and extract the info.  It is usually pretty easy to spot the biases, especially once they have been pointed out a few times.  

The problems we notice with regard to government policies of war and police actions, is that the media is not given the information needed to be entirely accurate.  You'll end up with estimations and guesses, but you should be expecting them, since they are usually clear about what the government will and won't tell them.

Government secrecy is a separate issue from media inaccuracy.
Logged

Elizabeth

  • Former FSP Vice President
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1650
  • Someone has to ask the tough questions...
    • Free State Project
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #49 on: September 12, 2002, 03:46:49 pm »


Its less a case of inaccuracy as it is censorship (partial or full exclusion, either of certain aspects of an event, or entire events). UK news often is a bit less censored, with events appearing there which appear here partially or not at all, though UK news has its own share of spin & slant.


Yes -- I often watch or listen to BBC World News -- they are slanted too, but in a completely different way.  In particular, I get a lot from their coverage of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
Logged

Eddie_Bradford

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 567
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #50 on: September 12, 2002, 04:37:02 pm »

Good lord this is a huge thread.  I really didn't take time to read too much of it so I'm sure this has already been pointed out.

Basically the US hasn't gone to 'war' since world war II.  All other military conflicts were not 'wars' because Congress never 'declared war', many time they passed a resolution to support the president but they didn't officially declare war.  Supposedly the war powers act limits the Presidential war powers to just limit excusions of like 30 or 60 day or something, subject to extension if American troop's lives are in danger from a hasty withdrawl.  But it really doesn't limit this power at all.  Basically the President is Commander in Chief.  What he says goes and the military obey's only him.  Now this isn't how it was supposed to be, IMO the Congress was supposed to declare war and then in that war the President controls the military and when the wars end as declared by congress then the military stops fighting.  Oh well too bad for the democratic repuplic.  One of my friends who is in law school said that really to law and the court system the constitution doesn't mean anything because if there is popular support behind something then it will be allowed even if it's against the constitution.  Sometimes it seems like common law is stronger than our constitution.  For example the recent Court case about making it illegal to execute menatlly dissabled people (note I'm not make a case for or against this practice) the Supreme Court decided it was 'cruel and unusual' basically because more people think that now than they did in the past.  There has been something like 10 states or something that made it illegal so the SC is like "Uh okay looks like a bunch of people don't like this so sure let's get rid of it! Whatever, suddenly it is against the constitution whereas if only 3 states made it illegal then it would not be!!!"  In the past the SC had ruled the opposite btw.
-Eddie
Logged

maestro

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #51 on: September 12, 2002, 05:30:12 pm »


Quote
author=maestro
I find it ridiculous to categorically reject the media sources simply due to their size.


Size? You lost me there. Just did search on all 5 thread pages, only 1 occurance other than yours being 'sized' refering to city.

Quote

You oversimplify your position to the detriment of your credibility.


This far into the thread (currently page 5), one presumes participants have read preceding posts, so as to avoid having to redundantly re-post previously posted basics & details. When one is a ways into a discussion, to restate each position in detail becomes too tedious and time consuming. To do so would also result in a dramatic increase in post size, every post needing to be larger than all which precede it to contain all details previously covered... See the problem?

But then again, your post may have been to someone else, as there was no included reference... If so, ignore this post.  :)


The size was a reference to your previous disparaging of the Big 5 media companies.  On the other hand you mentioned that you used a collection of smaller media sources for your informational needs.  Perhaps you weren't using their size as an indicator, but the implication was there for me to see.

The oversimplification that I describe refers to your implication that the big 5 media companies are _always_ lying about everything they report about.  You make these claims without providing strong evidence for your case.  

I have read the entire thread over a period of time, so I may have forgotten some of your arguments, but all of the evidence that you have quoted that I can remember can be attributed to Government secrecy leading to media inaccuracy, or to self-censorship  based on market forces.  If a media corp generates something that is unreasonably inflammatory, they risk losing more customers than they gain.  If they had enough material to prove their statements beyond reasonable doubt of the average tv viewer, they would jump on it without regard to the inflammatory nature.  This has been demonstrated repeatedly, and the media has stepped on the toes of just about every agency, organization, corporation, and important persona in search of a scoop.

The media is not under the control of the government and acts in its own interest.  The government is not under the control of the media and acts in _its_ own interest (to our detriment).  It is oversimplification to take these two groups and claim without evidence that they are in collusion.
Logged

percy, aka tntsmum

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 108
  • SEE YOU IN THE FREE STATE!!!!
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #52 on: September 13, 2002, 06:00:19 am »

Mouseborg, just as an aside.... among most who follow the U.K. media "The Guardian" is notorious for it's anti-american slant and is, at best, unreliable. In my personal experience they play very fast and lose with the facts. If they were honest enough to post the retractions and corrections they ought to that would comprise half their paper/website.
I understand you could dismiss this, but just be very careful when gathering info and make sure you judge them just as critically as you judge the U.S. media. Make note of how they present things and let a little time pass to see if what they say bears up under reality.
Logged

percy, aka tntsmum

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 108
  • SEE YOU IN THE FREE STATE!!!!
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #53 on: September 13, 2002, 06:12:31 am »

OK, I can't take it anymore... I have to say it.... you giving credence to The Guardian really explains ALOT.
Ok - I'm ready, you get a free disparaging comment in my direction.
Logged

wolf_tracker

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 122
  • Live Free or Die
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #54 on: September 13, 2002, 06:52:35 am »

percy, i believe you are partly right... i do not remember seeing anything lately from a british
news source that says anything nice about anything american

this from the people who followed hitler

and in my heart i am beginning to believe that is the road we are once again walking down

the road that allowed gas chambers to gas jews

it appears that history is going to once again repeat itself

look how many people say that everything happening in the middle east is
because the jewish people will not roll over and die, but they stand up and
fight for the family and country ... god forbid ... wanting to live free and not letting
people walk over you ...

are the people signing up for the free state willing to fight if necessary ...
i wonder ??? ??? ???
Logged

Elizabeth

  • Former FSP Vice President
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1650
  • Someone has to ask the tough questions...
    • Free State Project
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #55 on: September 13, 2002, 08:20:56 am »


this from the people who followed hitler


Godwin's Law!

Time to lock the thread.
Logged

wolf_tracker

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 122
  • Live Free or Die
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #56 on: September 13, 2002, 09:52:01 am »

1. what does a locked thread mean ... you are shutting off discussions

2. are you saying that many people in europe did not follow and approve of what hitler
did during world war ii

3.  are you not seeing the same thing happening now ... i hear/read that oh the poor people
in the middle east are so picked upon and it is those darn israelies that are doing it ... they
should be punished ... israel should not be able to defend itself ...

what is wrong with any of those statements

my understanding is that a locked threat means no more posting on a topic ...
and no one is calling anyone anything ... we are voiceing what we feel are important
to us ... and not attacking anyone else ...

so does that mean you can stop anything anytime ...  ??? ::)

just wondering
Logged

wolf_tracker

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 122
  • Live Free or Die
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #57 on: September 13, 2002, 12:13:28 pm »

 Quirk's Exception: Intentional invocation of this so-called
                    "Nazi Clause" is ineffectual.
Logged

maestro

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #58 on: September 13, 2002, 01:00:51 pm »



With all due respect, you would not consider it government control when Rice tells the big 5 to collectively put a lid on it, and they immediately roll over and play dead? They weren't even subtle about it.

That was pretty blunt and hard to miss.

That is censorship via government, no matter if one sees such in a simplified or complex context. If you do not see such a thing as government mandated censorship, we will simply have to agree to disagree on that point, as there is no other way to illustrate it more fully, since they themselves provide the evidence.



Okay, perhaps I misunderstood the extent of what you were trying to say with your previous posts.  I still disagree with your immense distrust, but that's for you to work with.

It seems to me that the government _asking_ the big 5 to be quiet about something is very different from _forcing_ them to be quiet.  The only consequence that the big 5 would have faced for refusing is that the gov would have used the bully pulpit to berate them, which is within the right of the administration to do to any media source.

As such, I can't consider the hush-request about bin-Laden's speeches to be censorship.
Logged

Eddie_Bradford

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 567
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #59 on: September 13, 2002, 02:01:44 pm »




With all due respect, you would not consider it government control when Rice tells the big 5 to collectively put a lid on it, and they immediately roll over and play dead? They weren't even subtle about it.

That was pretty blunt and hard to miss.

That is censorship via government, no matter if one sees such in a simplified or complex context. If you do not see such a thing as government mandated censorship, we will simply have to agree to disagree on that point, as there is no other way to illustrate it more fully, since they themselves provide the evidence.



Okay, perhaps I misunderstood the extent of what you were trying to say with your previous posts.  I still disagree with your immense distrust, but that's for you to work with.

It seems to me that the government _asking_ the big 5 to be quiet about something is very different from _forcing_ them to be quiet.  The only consequence that the big 5 would have faced for refusing is that the gov would have used the bully pulpit to berate them, which is within the right of the administration to do to any media source.

As such, I can't consider the hush-request about bin-Laden's speeches to be censorship.


Personally I think it's foolish to NOT misstrust the media!  No I'm not a conspiracy theorist I just think it's totally folish to believe something you hear from one source!  Actually I don't nessicarily misstrust them as much as I am skeptical of them and most other media for that matter.  I'm skeptical of the big 5 (and Fox if this doesn't include fox) I'm skeptical or NPR, BBC, Pravda, and Rush Limbaugh!  But I listen/read all of them because I can find that usually you can piece together the truth with a bunch of perspectives.  It's not that they report things that are factually innacurate it's just that our media is not in the news business, they are in the entertainment/information business.  Our media (and the rest of the world too I think) has a certain way of approaching news that causes them to ignore and omit important facts that would otherwise dramatically change ones perception of events.  For example people are freaking out about child kidnappings but the number of them happening are actually decreasing.  The media just focuses on one or two sesational cases.  These should be a local news story and it is not indicative of any overall trend but they think people will watch it so they run with it.  It was the same last year with shark attacks, it wasn't any more than normal.  When the Enron thing happend I watch like 5 hours of Skilling's C-SPAN testimony to figure out what happend.  All of the news stories were exactly the same about the whole Enron thing and contained no substance whatsoever.  They were actually specifically missleading.  If Skilling showed in detail how it was impossible for anyone to know about this specific event here in advance, then the media reports "Skilling: 'I didn't know anything!' "  The truth is that I don't know whether Skilling did anything evil or illegal but what I do know is that he gave a detailed, logical, and articulate account for what happend to Enron on the House floor (most of the members there didn't even understand what he was saying [or try to]) and no one has been able to show any connection to him or incentive he would have for helping Fastow with his corrupt partnerships.  What I hope you guys realise is that to our media this absolutely doesn't matter they just don't care whether he did anything wrong or not.  Somebody has to pay!  We need to throw that bastard in JAIL!  If he didn't know he SHOULD have known!  Yes that's right we are making it a crime to not know everything all the time, and no we don't care!  You ask how can we judge? We know nothing of the nature of the business or what the specific circumstances were, and we don't even have a passing knowledge of those financial structures or even finance but we know that he was rich and he must pay!!!!!  The same thing happend to Gary Condit by the Fox news channel.  Despite being a huge slimeball Condit was hung at a witch trail where there was never anything to indicate he had anything to do with Chandra's dissapperance.  While listening to the communist on Pacifica radio the other day I heard that the assasination attempt on Karzi the new pres. of Afganistan was actually stoped by one of his aides and not his american body guards.  The aid jumped on top of the assasin and then the American body guards opened fire and killed both the assasin and the aid.  The media reported that the American body guards saved Karzi.  Again I don't necisary believe either but the communist one rang more true to me than the mainstream one so I tend to believe it in this case.  Actually I think my best source for info in the Economist.  Point is don't trust everything you see on TV and if after watching a story you feel very strongly for or against something you should remember that this was in the design of the program and you should look into the other arguement as well if you want ANY objectivity.
-Eddie
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6   Go Up