Our Media Sucks!
Facts About Iraq: What the MSM Won't Tell You
Did you know that 47 countries have re-established their embassies in Iraq?
Did you know that the Iraqi government employs 1.2 million Iraqi people?
Did you know that 3100 schools have been renovated, 364 schools are under
rehabilitation, 263 schools are now under construction and 38 new schools
have been built in Iraq?
Did you know that Iraq's higher educational structure consists of 20
Universities, 46 Institutes or colleges and 4 research centers?
Did you know that 25 Iraq students departed for the United States in
January 2004 for the re-established Fulbright program?
Did you know that the Iraqi Navy is operational? They have 5- 100-foot
patrol craft, 34 smaller vessels and a navel infantry regiment.
Did you know that Iraq's Air Force consists of three operation squadrons,
9 reconnaissance and 3 US C-130 transport aircraft which operate day and
night and will soon add 16 UH-1 helicopters and 4 bell jet rangers?
Did you know that Iraq has a counter-terrorist unit and a Commando Battalion?
Did you know that the Iraqi Police Service has over 55,000 fully trained
and equipped police officers?
Did you know that there are 5 Police Academies in Iraq that produce over
3500 new officers each 8 weeks?
Did you know there are more than 1100 building projects going on in Iraq?
They include 364 schools, 67 public clinics, 15 hospitals, 83 railroad
stations, 22 oil facilities, 93 water facilities and 69 electrical
facilities.
Did you know that 96% of Iraqi children under the age of 5 have received
the first 2 series of polio vaccinations?
Did you know that 4.3 million Iraqi children were enrolled in primary
school by mid October?
Did you know that there are 1,192,000 cell phone subscribers in Iraq and
phone use has gone up 158%?
Did you know that Iraq has an independent media that consist of 75 radio
stations, 180 newspapers and 10 television stations?
Did you know that the Baghdad Stock Exchange opened in June of 2004?
Did you know that 2 candidates in the Iraqi presidential election had a
recent televised debate recently?
OF COURSE WE DIDN'T KNOW!
WHY DIDN'T WE KNOW?
OUR MEDIA WOULDN'T TELL US!
Instead of showing the progress made, we get photos of flag burning and SPECIAL REPORTS on incidents at Abu Ghraib, people throwing snowballs at presidential motorcades, and thrillers about run-away-brides.
And Drumroll please...
....
....
....
Rather than telling focusing on any of the positives, the scum at "NEWS-WEAK" erroneously accuse our soldiers of flushing the Quran down the toilet! (See more about that here) This from the same "journalist" who sat on the Monica Lewinsky scandal to "save the President" any embaressment. Yikes!
The lack of accentuating the positive in Iraq serves only one purpose. It undermines the world's perception of the United States and our soldiers. As far as I am concerned, our media is undermining our power to persuade people around the globe. The picture they sell of our values, interests, and REALITY is so skewed, it is hardly recognizable to the average American. And we wonder why so many parts of the world chant "Death to America"!
Sources:
USAID.GOV
STATE.GOV
posted by Patrick @ 10:49 PM
18 Comments:
Interrogators are taught cultural awareness and how it will and can apply to an interrogation. Religious disrespect should not be practiced in an interrogation because it will shut the source/detainee down. Hatred toward us from our enemy already exists, it is not in an interrogator's best interest to confirm a detainee's hatred by desecrating the Quran or any other religious item he might possess, especially if the detainee is devout or even fanatical.
Flushing the Quran down the toilet will confirm to our enemy that we are monsters and he will do all he can to resist the interrogation. A skilled interrogator does not have to flush a Quran down the toilet to gain intelligence. This is why I doubted the Newsweek story when it first came out.
Do you have any INDEPENDENT sources? If not, I wouldn't believe most of the stats you cited.
Dear Anonymous
I don't have independant sources to tell me the world is not flat. I don't have an independant source to tell me my driver's license is valid. I don't have and independant source to prove to me you are not part of the Flat Earth Society--ergo, you must be.
Funny thing, liberals are usually willing to accept a government take-over of the media--oops, I mean "social control" of the media, and then turn around and say they wouldn't trust the government to give them accurate information regarding Iraq...sick and tired of hearing it.
INDEPENDENT sources? Oh, you mean like:
IraqBodyCount.net
or
NewTopiaMagazine.net
I know, why don't we just ask this "independent fellow", pictured here.
Why don't you suggest some "independent sources" for us to evaluate?
Anonymous -
Has it ever occurred to you that your independent sources might not be so independent? How would you know if they were? They are not transparent. They aren’t obligated to say who or what owns them. Nor is it made clear how they obtain their information or why we should consider their sources reliable. Compared to the mountain of documentary evidence that can be produced to validate the claims you so easily dismiss, your independent sources can offer absolutely nothing of substance that would offer any thinking person reason to believe a thing they say.
In a nutshell - the only reason you are attracted to such sources is because they validate your worldview. Which is fine. One shouldn't confuse validating your worldview for searching for what’s true - as it appears you already have.
-" Do you have any INDEPENDENT sources? If not, I wouldn't believe most of the stats you cited."-
Good point, this looks suspisiosly like a chain email that has been pasted in.
-"Did you know that the Iraqi government employs 1.2 million Iraqi people?"-
What in the world is the government employing this many people for?
-"
Did you know that Iraq has an independent media that consist of 75 radio
stations, 180 newspapers and 10 television stations?"-
How independant is it, since that seems to be a major point of contention here.
-" And we wonder why so many parts of the world chant "Death to America"!"-
And then you have other parts that praise america, so something good must be getting through.
-"I don't have independant sources to tell me the world is not flat. "-
Acctually, you do. I'll bet you didn't know that until you went through school, and were either in science or you were studying columbus, and then you were told the earth is round.
Palm Boy,
"Good point, this looks suspisiosly [sic] like a chain email that has been pasted in."
"Acctually [sic], you do. I'll bet you didn't know that until you went through school..."
Where did you go to school? Something tells me you weren't the spelling bee champ...
Regardless, it sounds to me like you're both a possible polemicist, and maybe even a confused conservative.
My evidence? I read your blog...not sure where you are going with that, but I guess the title says it all.
As it pertains to this post, I'm not sure what the point of your comment was...care to explain?
If you mean that we should control our "free press" and the image they export to the rest of the world, I'm with you...still, a clarification is in order.
"As it pertains to this post, I'm not sure what the point of your comment was...care to explain?
If you mean that we should control our "free press" and the image they export to the rest of the world, I'm with you...still, a clarification is in order."
The point was to show how instead of attacking an issue, the attacks revolved around attacking a person.
And no, I do not believe that the presses should be controled. Beyond obsenity laws, the press has been granted free run by the constitution. If the mainstream media publishes something like this, and you disagree with it, use something else. If enough people agree with you, the mainstream will change.
Palm Boy,
"The point was to show how instead of attacking an issue, the attacks revolved around attacking a person."
In this case, the person IS the issue -- specifically, the issue we take with Newsweek's irresponsible failure to properly verify their facts before reporting them.
"Beyond obsenity laws, the press has been granted free run by the constitution."
Ummmm... no. You left out Libel, Sedition, and Plagiarism, for starters. Freedom of the Press means the freedom to bear witness and to express ones opinion, but NOT to bear false witness. You are NOT free to lie. You are NOT free to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater. There are things aside from obscenity which are NOT protected by Freedom of the Press.
"In this case, the person IS the issue -- specifically, the issue we take with Newsweek's irresponsible failure to properly verify their facts before reporting them."
While Isikof may be an issue, the person who posted in response to Patricks original post was not the issue. Just because "anonymous" says something you don't agree with doesn't give you free reign to attack that person. Attack the substance of the post, but not the poster.
"Freedom of the Press means the freedom to bear witness and to express ones opinion, but NOT to bear false witness. You are NOT free to lie. You are NOT free to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater. There are things aside from obscenity which are NOT protected by Freedom of the Press."
The entire 1st ammendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I don't see anything here about governement control of the presses.
"Just because "anonymous" says something you don't agree with doesn't give you free reign to attack that person."
Ummm.... exactly who attacked anonymous directlyu, and where? Please point that out for me, I must have missed it.
"I don't see anything here about governement control of the presses."
shouting fire in a crowded theater"
(Phrase Origins)
This is from the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Schenck v. U.S.
(1919), setting limits on the freedom of speech guaranteed by the
First Amendment to the Constitution. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes,
Junior, wrote: "The most stringent protection of free speech would
not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a
panic."
New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)
"The Court held that the First Amendment protects the publication of all statements, even false ones, about the conduct of public officials except when statements are made with actual malice (with knowledge that they are false or in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity)"
Sorry, I ran out of break time before I could finish. Where was I? Oh, yes, showing palm boy how the First Amendment does NOT give you free reign to say anything anytime under any circumstances. I think I covered reckless speech and libel, so that leaves:
Plagiarism
"Historically, copyright and free expression have been regarded as separate worlds. Both have constitutional underpinnings, of course - monopoly control over reproduction and distribution of creative works derives from the Copyright Clause (Article 1, section 8, clause 8 of the Constitution), and protection of artistic and intellectual freedom originates in the First Amendment."
So you do NOT have a consitutional right to plagiarize copyrighted material.
Sedition
"The Supreme Court made its last important attempt to reconcile the First Amendment and the law of sedition in 1969 when it ruled in Brandenburg v. Ohio that advocacy of unlawful conduct is protected by the Constitution unless it is directed toward inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
So while certain types of seditious speech are protected, there ARE LIMITS to free speech.
Wow, thanks for the summary!
"New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)
"The Court held that the First Amendment protects the publication of all statements, even false ones, about the conduct of public officials except when statements are made with actual malice (with knowledge that they are false or in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity)"
Was the Newsweek article published with malice? I doubt it. Most likly an editor so blinded by his hatred of the Bush administration that he let this through.
However, the government should not have to be a clearing house for the truth of publications. What would happen in the end? A state-controlled media conglomerate that is mainly a propaganda wing of the party in control.
Mark -meneltarma:
"I don't have independant sources to tell me the world is not flat. I don't have an independant source to tell me my driver's license is valid. I don't have and independant source to prove to me you are not part of the Flat Earth Society--ergo, you must be"
Was the Newsweek article published with malice? I doubt it.
Nice Non Sequitur. my point in posting those articles was to refute your point that "Beyond obsenity laws, the press has been granted free run by the constitution."
But I'll play your game for a moment, because I am curious:
Was the Newsweek article published with malice? I doubt it. Most likly an editor so blinded by his hatred of the Bush administration that he let this through.
Exactly what, in your mind, is the difference between Malice and Blind Hatred?
However, the government should not have to be a clearing house for the truth of publications.
Nor should the publications be a clearinghouse for every unfounded rumor and wild accusation that comes along, just because it fits their political point of view.
"I don't have independant sources to tell me the world is not flat. I don't have an independant source to tell me my driver's license is valid. I don't have and independant source to prove to me you are not part of the Flat Earth Society--ergo, you must be"
You can't honestly think that was intended as a personal attack -- Mark was arguing against anonymous' "Independant source" comment. He wasn't actually saying that anon. is a flat-earther.
My initial post was more concerned with Joseph Nye (Harvard Ph.D) and his book "Soft Power".
How are we supposed to "spread the gospel of democracy" around the world if we are constantly undermined by our hateful and untruthful media?
Sensationalism replaces newsworthy materials, and fiction replaces fact. The "bias" in the media is only crippling it more.
As for the "control mechanism", I'm not sure my reference was specifically geared towards "government". The market forces could also play a role here, if we are to assume standard Econ 101 principles.
Of course it is intriguing to note that the "demand" for anti-American propaganda is especially high in places like the Middle East. Perhaps Newsweek was simply playing to the extremist market, fueling the fire?!?
If that sounds like pyscho-babble to you, maybe I'm thinking too much like a "conspiracy theorist".
Case in point: Newsweek and the rest of the media will continue to be fact-checked, vetted, and otherwise thoroughly REVIEWED for accuracy. Who will do this? BLOGGERS!
"
Exactly what, in your mind, is the difference between Malice and Blind Hatred?"
Malice is an extream hatred that causes action against another, and forethought for the actions, premeditated attacks essentially.
Hatred is a strong dislike, mostly passive emotion, and can cause knee-jerk reactions, but not planned attacks. Blind hatred is essentially a knee-jerk reaction to something, such as letting a compleat lie into a major publication.
"You can't honestly think that was intended as a personal attack -- Mark was arguing against anonymous' "Independant source" comment. He wasn't actually saying that anon. is a flat-earther."
Sarcasim arguement accepted, my mistake.
Anon's are annoying, they should stick around for arguements.
"Nor should the publications be a clearinghouse for every unfounded rumor and wild accusation that comes along, just because it fits their political point of view."
Alright then, who are you sugessting be a clearing house for the media?
I think one already exitsts. Look at what the consumers want, and if the media matches that, so be it. If not, then alternative sources will take command of the market.
"
Of course it is intriguing to note that the "demand" for anti-American propaganda is especially high in places like the Middle East. Perhaps Newsweek was simply playing to the extremist market, fueling the fire?!?"
If they can sell it...
Still not right, but we can't control what they sell in other countries.
Malice is an extream hatred that causes action against another, and forethought for the actions, premeditated attacks essentially.
Hatred is a strong dislike, mostly passive emotion, and can cause knee-jerk reactions, but not planned attacks. Blind hatred is essentially a knee-jerk reaction to something, such as letting a compleat lie into a major publication.
Ah, so you're arguing that the difference between malice as defined legally and Blind hatred is that one leads to intentionally malicious actions while the other leads to actions that, while reckless and equally damaging, were not intentionally untrue. It's a fine distinction, but I think that if it could be proven that the story was run with the intent of defaming the president, and that in their haste to do so, Newsweek failed to verify the veracity, a strong case for libel could be made.
Hello,
I'm glad to see what you are doing. Yes, unfortunately, the Media just wants attention, like most people in the world, and what brings it to them is negative issues, shock value, etc. They are like a bad dog, doing things for attention. The dog chews their owner's shoes. The owner gets home and yells at the dog. The dog gets attention, negative or positive attention, it is still attention. The media stinks. Personally, I'm just 33 years old and I haven't yelled at a dog in a long time, I have evolved.
I must comment on XoftSpy though. I got a virus the other day, and have spent a lot of time fixing my computer, even up till 6am again today, it's ok, it is the weekend, and at 7am I'm going to go eat Blue Berry Pancakes, but anyway, I spent about an hour waiting for XoftSpy to finish, it boasts it can fix PSGuard virus / malware whatever it is, but you have to purchase it, which was not clear until it finished. I think that is wrong, deceitful. They mislead you and I lost an hour of my time because of that. I recommend removing that link from your blog.
I'm going to link to your blog next time I update. Btw.
-Dave W- Connecticut
Post a Comment
<< Home