Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 55
Thanks Tree31Thanks

Thread: war of terror

  1. #11
    Swamper chaos's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    3,320
    Thanks
    1500

    From
    Cyberia
    Quote Originally Posted by Miller47 View Post
    This thread is over a week old.

    You bumped it for a week.

    I gave you a pity-bump.

    Let it die with dignity...if that's possible.
    This thread has a purpose. You simply can't see it.

  2. #12
    Swamper chaos's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    3,320
    Thanks
    1500

    From
    Cyberia
    CBS reported that 87% of Americans supported going to war in Afghanistan.
    CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll showed that 72% of Americans favored the war against Iraq.

    That tells me our media does a really great job at selling wars to democrats and republicans. So how much do yall think these for-profits wars will end up costing the taxpayers? My guess is well over 6 trillion dollars.

    I can't help but laugh when Americans talk about conservatism.

  3. #13
    Veteran Member bajisima's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    41,647
    Thanks
    24468

    From
    New Hampshire
    Quote Originally Posted by chaos View Post
    CBS reported that 87% of Americans supported going to war in Afghanistan.
    CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll showed that 72% of Americans favored the war against Iraq.

    That tells me our media does a really great job at selling wars to democrats and republicans. So how much do yall think these for-profits wars will end up costing the taxpayers? My guess is well over 6 trillion dollars.

    I can't help but laugh when Americans talk about conservatism.
    Just saw that Sinclair Broadcasting will be in 72% of households now with their purchase of Tribune. They will essentially be the US media because they will own most of our local news. So whatever they report will be what we talk about over the water cooler, from national to local politics. It will have impact on things like potential conflicts and war.

    FCC exploits loophole to push massive expansion of pro-Trump Sinclair Broadcasting - Salon.com
    Thanks from chaos

  4. #14
    Swamper chaos's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    3,320
    Thanks
    1500

    From
    Cyberia
    Quote Originally Posted by bajisima View Post
    Just saw that Sinclair Broadcasting will be in 72% of households now with their purchase of Tribune. They will essentially be the US media because they will own most of our local news. So whatever they report will be what we talk about over the water cooler, from national to local politics. It will have impact on things like potential conflicts and war.
    The democratic party may be in more trouble than expected.

  5. #15
    Telecastin' Blues63's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    6,651
    Thanks
    4414

    From
    Brisbane, Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by chaos View Post
    CBS reported that 87% of Americans supported going to war in Afghanistan.
    CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll showed that 72% of Americans favored the war against Iraq.

    That tells me our media does a really great job at selling wars to democrats and republicans. So how much do yall think these for-profits wars will end up costing the taxpayers? My guess is well over 6 trillion dollars.

    I can't help but laugh when Americans talk about conservatism.
    I can't blame the media here fully. Yes, they were used by Bush to sell the WMD story, but he did a fantastic job of convincing Americans and the leaders of other nations as well, despite the objections from the UN owing to Blix's testimony. The reaction to 9/11 initiated the conflict in Afghanistan, as the Afghani government couldn't/wouldn't hand over known AQ operatives and leaders which were ultimately responsible for the attack. Again, the media reported on the events of the day as presented by the administration and talking heads dissected and discussed the topics, but are the outlets to blame for this, or did they reflect public opinion?

    The media hang on every word promulgated by politicians for content and historically, this is nothing new. It can be difficult enough to fill a half hour news slot or a newspaper with content, let alone trying to keep viewers tied to a 24 hour News Channel and that is why we have so many OP-ED programs, but ultimately the events of the day control the narrative.
    Last edited by Blues63; 8th August 2017 at 03:30 AM.

  6. #16
    Veteran Member bajisima's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    41,647
    Thanks
    24468

    From
    New Hampshire
    Quote Originally Posted by Blues63 View Post
    I can't blame the media here fully. Yes, they were used by Bush to sell the WMD story, but he did a fantastic job of convincing Americans and the leaders of other nations as well, despite the objections from the UN owing to Blix's testimony. The reaction to 9/11 initiated the conflict in Afghanistan, as the Afghani government couldn't/wouldn't hand over known AQ operatives and leaders which were ultimately responsible for the attack. Again, the media reported on the events of the day as presented by the administration and talking heads dissected and discussed the topics, but are the outlets to blame for this, or did they reflect public opinion?

    The media hang on every word promulgated by politicians for content and historically, this is nothing new. It can be difficult enough to fill a half hour news slot or a newspaper with content, let alone trying to keep viewers tied to a 24 hour News Channel and that is why we have so many OP-ED programs, but ultimately the events of the day control the narrative.
    But that's disturbing. Did they repeat the story on WMDs because Bush was charming and convincing? Because I doubt Trump could get away with that today, the media would rake him over the coals. So basically that sends the signal to the "powers that be" that you just need a charming president who can smile and convince people. Think about that. In some ways, doesn't that play into what Trump (and Sanders during the primaries) said? That there is forces (ie swamp) out there pulling the strings paid in part by the 1%? That's pretty scary that to some extent the media would go along with that. Look what NBC did to Phil Donahue for announcing his opposition to the Iraq war on his show. He was ousted. Of course NBC was owned by GE then and they had a lot of interests in war.
    Thanks from chaos

  7. #17
    Veteran Member bajisima's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    41,647
    Thanks
    24468

    From
    New Hampshire
    Quote Originally Posted by bajisima View Post
    But that's disturbing. Did they repeat the story on WMDs because Bush was charming and convincing? Because I doubt Trump could get away with that today, the media would rake him over the coals. So basically that sends the signal to the "powers that be" that you just need a charming president who can smile and convince people. Think about that. In some ways, doesn't that play into what Trump (and Sanders during the primaries) said? That there is forces (ie swamp) out there pulling the strings paid in part by the 1%? That's pretty scary that to some extent the media would go along with that. Look what NBC did to Phil Donahue for announcing his opposition to the Iraq war on his show. He was ousted. Of course NBC was owned by GE then and they had a lot of interests in war.
    Less than 12 hours later and look at the media. They did a complete 180 and went from talking about how awful Trump is doing in the polls to war with NK. Follow the money. Wont be a mention of Russia while this is happening.
    Thanks from chaos

  8. #18
    Telecastin' Blues63's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    6,651
    Thanks
    4414

    From
    Brisbane, Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by bajisima View Post
    But that's disturbing. Did they repeat the story on WMDs because Bush was charming and convincing?
    No, they repeated it because the government was issuing press releases for them.

    Because I doubt Trump could get away with that today, the media would rake him over the coals.
    The media at the time also questioned the veracity of the WMD claims.

    So basically that sends the signal to the "powers that be" that you just need a charming president who can smile and convince people. Think about that.
    Not really.

    In some ways, doesn't that play into what Trump (and Sanders during the primaries) said? That there is forces (ie swamp) out there pulling the strings paid in part by the 1%? That's pretty scary that to some extent the media would go along with that.

    I don't think so. I don't know how you made that leap.

    Look what NBC did to Phil Donahue for announcing his opposition to the Iraq war on his show. He was ousted. Of course NBC was owned by GE then and they had a lot of interests in war.
    Did Phil Donahue's production team receive a lot of complaints? You have to ask that question first.
    Last edited by Blues63; 8th August 2017 at 10:13 PM.

  9. #19
    Swamper chaos's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    3,320
    Thanks
    1500

    From
    Cyberia
    Quote Originally Posted by bajisima View Post
    Less than 12 hours later and look at the media. They did a complete 180 and went from talking about how awful Trump is doing in the polls to war with NK. Follow the money. Wont be a mention of Russia while this is happening.
    It's being reported that North Korea has vast mineral riches similar to what was found in Afghanistan. Empires use their might to exploit the natural resources of sovereign nations. The media parrots intelligence agencies to help them sell boots on the ground. This is not new, propaganda has been the media's job ever since there was a media.

    87% of Americans don't agree on anything but somehow they agreed to support the war in Afghanistan.
    Thanks from bajisima

  10. #20
    Swamper chaos's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    3,320
    Thanks
    1500

    From
    Cyberia
    Quote Originally Posted by chaos View Post
    Contemporary Journalism & Its Role in Society
    We are now able to fact check the writer through our own research, show opposing view points, and even research how credible the journalist may be. Because of this, contemporary journalists have to be sure that all facts are presented in their writing. They also have to anticipate that someone may question their credentials or research and be prepared to defend both.
    Anyone watching the Unabomber on the Discovery channel knows by now that idiolects (linguistics) is a legit science. That is why print journalism is far superior to the talking-heads on TV who simply parrot what they are told by one of our so-called intelligence agencies.

    Those who spend a lot of time on the boards do a lot of reading so it only makes sense to get our news from print journalists. I read so many articles that I never know what to believe. That is why knowing idiolects is so important.

    The fraud will always give themselves away if you know what to look for.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Terror vs. terror...
    By The Man in forum Current Events
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 9th January 2014, 06:05 PM
  2. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 30th June 2011, 03:51 PM
  3. The "War on Terror" is over
    By Formative Years in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 17th August 2009, 02:03 AM
  4. Terror or Oil?
    By freethinkr in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 1st October 2007, 04:27 PM
  5. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 3rd June 2007, 09:51 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed