A recent poll conducted by the program on International Policy Attitudes showed that 41% of Americans believe that the weapons of mass destruction the US went to war about have been found. Another recent poll found that up to 50% of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein was the mastermind of 9-11, and 0ver 80% of Americans believe that some of the hijackers were Iraqis.
This kind of mass public ignorance is a result of homogenized media. It's perfect for selling policies and lies that would be untenable should the media be more diverse and answerable to the people.
This kind of mass public ignorance is a result of homogenized media. It's perfect for selling policies and lies that would be untenable should the media be more diverse and answerable to the people.
For instance, how hard is it to say the facts, such as Iraq's nerve agents never being stablized and therefore useless at this point? The media loves to talk about Iraq's chemical weapons, yet ignores the most important part, the part that shows that it's physically impossible for them to still be dangerous. Yet they still ask, "Where are the weapons?" I have a hard time believing there isn't a single person at the major news outlets that is aware of this important fact.
A recent poll conducted by the program on International Policy Attitudes showed that 41% of Americans believe that the weapons of mass destruction the US went to war about have been found. Another recent poll found that up to 50% of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein was the mastermind of 9-11, and 0ver 80% of Americans believe that some of the hijackers were Iraqis.
This kind of mass public ignorance is a result of homogenized media. It's perfect for selling policies and lies that would be untenable should the media be more diverse and answerable to the people.
How can that be when the media have reported over and over and over again that none of that is the case? The "homogenized media" has been reporting your examples. So who's to blame? They get the story right and report on it over and over yet you blame them for some poll numbers. Get real and try again.
A poll in France showed that a significant number thought 9-11 was a CIA plot. Explain that.
I caught some of the cable news this weekend. Over and over and over they reported on the lack of evidence of WoMD and Bush being over seas and what this General said and what Rumsfled said after that. Talking head after talking head going on an on about "world reaction". It's NOT the media's fault if people are not getting the message.
You'll have to find something else to blame it on.
No. You might still be watching the news channels, but rating have dropped dramatically since the war 'ended'. But did you really not know that? Tis is pretty basic stuff.
A poll in France showed that a significant number thought 9-11 was a CIA plot. Explain that. [/B]
Maybe that has something to do with the fact that the CIA was largely responsible for funding the (hardline Islamic fundamentalist) Mujahadeen in Afghanistan to the tune of many billions, specially during the Reagan era (paranoia of fictitious Soviet expansionism). Many members of the Al Qaida group trained in Afghanstan and have been recruited from the mujahadeen...so the the CIA was responsible, indirectly and directly, for getting Al Qaida off to a galloping start.
Then, don't forget that the CIA has a pretty horrible reputation throughout the world for cozying up with, funding and arming some of the world's nastiest despots. The CIA has to have been on fairly decent terms with Osama bin Laden: there was a widely published story that 2 agents visited with him in Dubai when (OBL) was there in hospital for kidney treatment earlier in 2001, (pre 9-11) but he was still the world's most wanted terrorist...and he was left alone.
I dont buy that the CIA planned and executed 9-11. There is no proof. There again....can anyone inform me where I can obtain absolute and undeniable proof that Bin Laden and the Al Qaida network planned and execued 9-11? None has been forthcoming, anywhere. Everything has been conjecture and supposition, there is no evidence that is solid enough to stand up in a court of law, if given a hearing (which this administration is doing it's damnedest to avoid).
You can rant about "conspiracy theories" all you like...but don't forget the "Saddam/9-11/WMD" connection, repeated mantra-like on the all-pervading corporate media time and time again for months and months before and during the Iraq war. This was a baseless conspiracy theory of the most blatant kind...and nearly 70% of the US public bought the lie, and as a result, the war was sold.
You are of course aware that Murdoch took US citizenship solely in order to purchase 20th century Fox and establish the Fox Broadcasting network? News Corp itself remains incorporated in Australia, in order to take advantage of accounting principles that are a little more relaxed than in the UK or US. News Corp also has a number of subsidiaries (estimated at around 60 in 1997) in various tax havens (Cayman Islands, Virgin Islands, Bermuda and the Dutch Antilles). In this way, News Corp managed to keep its effective corporate tax rate at an average of 5.7% throughout the 1990s. By comparison, the other big media conglomerates paid between 27% and 32%. More info on Murdoch can be found here...I thought the part about how he avoided complying with the FCC's Financial Interest and Syndication rules until he received special waivers was particularly interesting.
There is a communications bill being debated in the UK right now which, if passed, will allow Murdoch to purchase a terrestrial British channel for the first time (he already owns 40% of the main satellite TV consortium). The fact that News Corp publications have 40% of the UK newspaper readership is causing a lot of people to worry about what will happen if the bill passes. Commons have already let it through and the Lords are debating it this week. Bear in mind that Murdoch's holdings already reach three quarters of the worlds population.
The problem with news on the internet is that a lot of people do not get their news from the internet. According to one survey, 42% of Americans do not use the internet. Of those that do use the internet, how many use it as a source for news? Of those that use the internet as a source for news, how many go beyond news sites that accompany established TV channels and/or print media?
Maybe that has something to do with the fact that the CIA was largely responsible for funding the (hardline Islamic fundamentalist) Mujahadeen in Afghanistan to the tune of many billions, specially during the Reagan era (paranoia of fictitious Soviet expansionism). Many members of the Al Qaida group trained in Afghanstan and have been recruited from the mujahadeen...so the the CIA was responsible, indirectly and directly, for getting Al Qaida off to a galloping start.
Wrong. Another anti-american lie from SJO. You may be able to argue that some of the taliban came from the groups funded by the US but that's about it.
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
Then, don't forget that the CIA has a pretty horrible reputation throughout the world for cozying up with, funding and arming some of the world's nastiest despots. The CIA has to have been on fairly decent terms with Osama bin Laden: there was a widely published story that 2 agents visited with him in Dubai when (OBL) was there in hospital for kidney treatment earlier in 2001, (pre 9-11) but he was still the world's most wanted terrorist...and he was left alone.
Oh yea that must be true not matter how much complete BULLSHIT it is. You know because you're such a hateful bigot that you can make up total crap and present it as truth. I think the CIA meet with Hitler too.
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
I dont buy that the CIA planned and executed 9-11. There is no proof. There again....can anyone inform me where I can obtain absolute and undeniable proof that Bin Laden and the Al Qaida network planned and execued 9-11? None has been forthcoming, anywhere. Everything has been conjecture and supposition, there is no evidence that is solid enough to stand up in a court of law, if given a hearing (which this administration is doing it's damnedest to avoid).
Well there was that whole video tape where Bin Laden was going on about how the results were way better than expected. Maybe you missed that one?
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
You can rant about "conspiracy theories" all you like...but don't forget the "Saddam/9-11/WMD" connection, repeated mantra-like on the all-pervading corporate media time and time again for months and months before and during the Iraq war. This was a baseless conspiracy theory of the most blatant kind...and nearly 70% of the US public bought the lie, and as a result, the war was sold.
It still stands that just because some poll numbers, which knowing your track record are complete BS, show that the public is uninformed DOES NOT mean that the media is to blame for.
Anyway Clear Channel can't be all that bad. They hired this radio host after he was fired from a public radio station (NPR) for speaking publicly. So much for free speach on public radio.
That's a bit misleading. He was fired from a local public radio station that's an NPR affiliate. He was not fired from NPR. BIG difference.
So Scott...you want to argue that the news is mindless crap, then you want to argue that the public is ignorant and the news people are doing a good job?
Pick a side, buddy!
In my mind at least (if nowhere else) the corporate media is guilty of AT THE VERY LEAST removing the context of all news, letting the White House agenda shape their reporting, being pompous and masturbatory (how many times did we see 'journalists' interviewing other reporters about how they feel about the war? Why not ask a soldier on an Iraqi civilian, for god's sake?) , fear mongering ( Did you know that SARS is no worse than the flu?) and reporting the same crap story over and over again. Who cares about Laci Peterson? That's a ****ing local issue!
These are all travesties being broadcast to us, the American people, over airwaves that we're supposed to own. The entire media is a cartel, NPR/CPB included (don't forget, they stood with Clear Channel and opposed microradio).
The answer to this problem isn't labyrinthine laws restricting media ownership. It's a strong public-access infrastructure.
So Scott...you want to argue that the news is mindless crap, then you want to argue that the public is ignorant and the news people are doing a good job?
Pick a side, buddy!.
...
Are you stupid or just dumb? Pick a side.
I said that local news was the same old thing. Then the discussion turned to polls showing that people don't know what's going on and this could only be the fault of the media. Well cable was reporting on it. So ... what were you saying?
Comments
This kind of mass public ignorance is a result of homogenized media. It's perfect for selling policies and lies that would be untenable should the media be more diverse and answerable to the people.
Originally posted by sammi jo
This kind of mass public ignorance is a result of homogenized media. It's perfect for selling policies and lies that would be untenable should the media be more diverse and answerable to the people.
For instance, how hard is it to say the facts, such as Iraq's nerve agents never being stablized and therefore useless at this point? The media loves to talk about Iraq's chemical weapons, yet ignores the most important part, the part that shows that it's physically impossible for them to still be dangerous. Yet they still ask, "Where are the weapons?"
Originally posted by sammi jo
A recent poll conducted by the program on International Policy Attitudes showed that 41% of Americans believe that the weapons of mass destruction the US went to war about have been found. Another recent poll found that up to 50% of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein was the mastermind of 9-11, and 0ver 80% of Americans believe that some of the hijackers were Iraqis.
This kind of mass public ignorance is a result of homogenized media. It's perfect for selling policies and lies that would be untenable should the media be more diverse and answerable to the people.
How can that be when the media have reported over and over and over again that none of that is the case? The "homogenized media" has been reporting your examples. So who's to blame? They get the story right and report on it over and over yet you blame them for some poll numbers. Get real and try again.
A poll in France showed that a significant number thought 9-11 was a CIA plot. Explain that.
Originally posted by Scott
How can that be when the media have reported over and over and over again that none of that is the case?
Because of the prominant of "FOUND!" followed by low-profile retractions. Did you really not know the answer to that question?
I caught some of the cable news this weekend. Over and over and over they reported on the lack of evidence of WoMD and Bush being over seas and what this General said and what Rumsfled said after that. Talking head after talking head going on an on about "world reaction". It's NOT the media's fault if people are not getting the message.
You'll have to find something else to blame it on.
Originally posted by Scott
A poll in France showed that a significant number thought 9-11 was a CIA plot. Explain that. [/B]
Maybe that has something to do with the fact that the CIA was largely responsible for funding the (hardline Islamic fundamentalist) Mujahadeen in Afghanistan to the tune of many billions, specially during the Reagan era (paranoia of fictitious Soviet expansionism). Many members of the Al Qaida group trained in Afghanstan and have been recruited from the mujahadeen...so the the CIA was responsible, indirectly and directly, for getting Al Qaida off to a galloping start.
Then, don't forget that the CIA has a pretty horrible reputation throughout the world for cozying up with, funding and arming some of the world's nastiest despots. The CIA has to have been on fairly decent terms with Osama bin Laden: there was a widely published story that 2 agents visited with him in Dubai when (OBL) was there in hospital for kidney treatment earlier in 2001, (pre 9-11) but he was still the world's most wanted terrorist...and he was left alone.
I dont buy that the CIA planned and executed 9-11. There is no proof. There again....can anyone inform me where I can obtain absolute and undeniable proof that Bin Laden and the Al Qaida network planned and execued 9-11? None has been forthcoming, anywhere. Everything has been conjecture and supposition, there is no evidence that is solid enough to stand up in a court of law, if given a hearing (which this administration is doing it's damnedest to avoid).
You can rant about "conspiracy theories" all you like...but don't forget the "Saddam/9-11/WMD" connection, repeated mantra-like on the all-pervading corporate media time and time again for months and months before and during the Iraq war. This was a baseless conspiracy theory of the most blatant kind...and nearly 70% of the US public bought the lie, and as a result, the war was sold.
Originally posted by aquafire
...News.Corp is owned by Rupert Murdoch...
A US Citizen....?
You are of course aware that Murdoch took US citizenship solely in order to purchase 20th century Fox and establish the Fox Broadcasting network? News Corp itself remains incorporated in Australia, in order to take advantage of accounting principles that are a little more relaxed than in the UK or US. News Corp also has a number of subsidiaries (estimated at around 60 in 1997) in various tax havens (Cayman Islands, Virgin Islands, Bermuda and the Dutch Antilles). In this way, News Corp managed to keep its effective corporate tax rate at an average of 5.7% throughout the 1990s. By comparison, the other big media conglomerates paid between 27% and 32%. More info on Murdoch can be found here...I thought the part about how he avoided complying with the FCC's Financial Interest and Syndication rules until he received special waivers was particularly interesting.
There is a communications bill being debated in the UK right now which, if passed, will allow Murdoch to purchase a terrestrial British channel for the first time (he already owns 40% of the main satellite TV consortium). The fact that News Corp publications have 40% of the UK newspaper readership is causing a lot of people to worry about what will happen if the bill passes. Commons have already let it through and the Lords are debating it this week. Bear in mind that Murdoch's holdings already reach three quarters of the worlds population.
The problem with news on the internet is that a lot of people do not get their news from the internet. According to one survey, 42% of Americans do not use the internet. Of those that do use the internet, how many use it as a source for news? Of those that use the internet as a source for news, how many go beyond news sites that accompany established TV channels and/or print media?
Originally posted by sammi jo
Maybe that has something to do with the fact that the CIA was largely responsible for funding the (hardline Islamic fundamentalist) Mujahadeen in Afghanistan to the tune of many billions, specially during the Reagan era (paranoia of fictitious Soviet expansionism). Many members of the Al Qaida group trained in Afghanstan and have been recruited from the mujahadeen...so the the CIA was responsible, indirectly and directly, for getting Al Qaida off to a galloping start.
Wrong. Another anti-american lie from SJO. You may be able to argue that some of the taliban came from the groups funded by the US but that's about it.
Originally posted by sammi jo
Then, don't forget that the CIA has a pretty horrible reputation throughout the world for cozying up with, funding and arming some of the world's nastiest despots. The CIA has to have been on fairly decent terms with Osama bin Laden: there was a widely published story that 2 agents visited with him in Dubai when (OBL) was there in hospital for kidney treatment earlier in 2001, (pre 9-11) but he was still the world's most wanted terrorist...and he was left alone.
Oh yea that must be true not matter how much complete BULLSHIT it is. You know because you're such a hateful bigot that you can make up total crap and present it as truth. I think the CIA meet with Hitler too.
Originally posted by sammi jo
I dont buy that the CIA planned and executed 9-11. There is no proof. There again....can anyone inform me where I can obtain absolute and undeniable proof that Bin Laden and the Al Qaida network planned and execued 9-11? None has been forthcoming, anywhere. Everything has been conjecture and supposition, there is no evidence that is solid enough to stand up in a court of law, if given a hearing (which this administration is doing it's damnedest to avoid).
Well there was that whole video tape where Bin Laden was going on about how the results were way better than expected. Maybe you missed that one?
Originally posted by sammi jo
You can rant about "conspiracy theories" all you like...but don't forget the "Saddam/9-11/WMD" connection, repeated mantra-like on the all-pervading corporate media time and time again for months and months before and during the Iraq war. This was a baseless conspiracy theory of the most blatant kind...and nearly 70% of the US public bought the lie, and as a result, the war was sold.
It still stands that just because some poll numbers, which knowing your track record are complete BS, show that the public is uninformed DOES NOT mean that the media is to blame for.
Originally posted by Scott
anti-american
Sorry, chief, but you certainly aren't the spokesperson for america. Move along.
Originally posted by Scott
Anyway Clear Channel can't be all that bad. They hired this radio host after he was fired from a public radio station (NPR) for speaking publicly. So much for free speach on public radio.
That's a bit misleading. He was fired from a local public radio station that's an NPR affiliate. He was not fired from NPR. BIG difference.
Originally posted by Arty50
That's a bit misleading.
Don't worry. Scott's not being 'misleading', he's just lying.
Pick a side, buddy!
In my mind at least (if nowhere else) the corporate media is guilty of AT THE VERY LEAST removing the context of all news, letting the White House agenda shape their reporting, being pompous and masturbatory (how many times did we see 'journalists' interviewing other reporters about how they feel about the war? Why not ask a soldier on an Iraqi civilian, for god's sake?) , fear mongering ( Did you know that SARS is no worse than the flu?) and reporting the same crap story over and over again. Who cares about Laci Peterson? That's a ****ing local issue!
These are all travesties being broadcast to us, the American people, over airwaves that we're supposed to own. The entire media is a cartel, NPR/CPB included (don't forget, they stood with Clear Channel and opposed microradio).
The answer to this problem isn't labyrinthine laws restricting media ownership. It's a strong public-access infrastructure.
Originally posted by Gizzmonic
So Scott...you want to argue that the news is mindless crap, then you want to argue that the public is ignorant and the news people are doing a good job?
Pick a side, buddy!.
...
Are you stupid or just dumb? Pick a side.
I said that local news was the same old thing. Then the discussion turned to polls showing that people don't know what's going on and this could only be the fault of the media. Well cable was reporting on it. So ... what were you saying?