Censorship by death

[Sava]

Originally posted by gunkulator
Dixie Chicks learned the hard way that ultimately we are all salemen or saleswomen. Tick off those who provide your meal ticket and don't be surprised if they choose not to buy your wares. AFAIK, not one agent of the gov't has prevented the Dixie Chicks from saying their piece.

Boycotts and demonstrations are time honored ways of pressuring public organizations and people to change. Both the left and right have effectively used them for years. They are part of our freedoms.

Yeah, you sure taught them who the boss is!

[Sava]

Notice the Album rose last month from the #6 spot... way to tell them you won't put up with their unPatriotic nonsense!

[gunkulator]

Huh? You're the one claiming censorship and then you turn around and make the opposite point. Why did you bring it up at all?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Sava
Notice the Album rose last month from the #6 spot... way to tell them you won't put up with their unPatriotic nonsense!

Does this mean that we won't have to bother with posts about thier plight now?

[gunkulator]

Natalie Maines on 3/14:

"As a concerned American citizen, I apologize to President Bush because my remark was disrespectful. I feel that whoever holds that office should be treated with the utmost respect"

Way to stick to your guns, Natalie.

[Sava]

Originally posted by gunkulator
Huh? You're the one claiming censorship and then you turn around and make the opposite point. Why did you bring it up at all?

I was claiming attempted censorship. And I brought it up to show how the jingoistic tactic of "let's boycott them" is stupid and it doesn't work.

DD: Sure, but now it means I'm going to be laughing at moron boycotters.

[Sava]

Originally posted by gunkulator
Natalie Maines on 3/14:

"As a concerned American citizen, I apologize to President Bush because my remark was disrespectful. I feel that whoever holds that office should be treated with the utmost respect"

Way to stick to your guns, Natalie.

Yeah, it is a shame she had to crumble. Apparantly the bark of the idiots scared her despite their threats not being worth the air which carried the sound.

[General Ludd]

They had to buy more CDs so that they could burn them.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Osweld
They had to buy more CDs so that they could burn them.

Drat! I knew there was an explanation!

[Ned]

For those of you who not seen understand the American and, indeed, the Western traditions of the Free Press, what CNN has done here is betray those traditions. A Free Press exists in order to bring to light the truth, to the ferret out the corrupt, whether they are politicians are simply wealthy and powerful people; and to provide a forum for debate. They do this, most of all, by being honest to themselves and honest to their audiences. They protect their sources through confidentiality. They protect their own people by immediately publicizing any attempted at coercion.

Now if CNN had said that every broadcast, every statement, every comment about Saddam and Iraq was being filtered, or biased in Saddam's favor and against the US in order that CNN be allowed access to Iraq, then we may have understood that CNN was feeding us propaganda. But they never told us what they were doing until Saddam fell. This is a travesty. This is travesty not only because they misled the American people and the world thereby causing this country damage and the Iraqi people to suffer because murderers do not like exposure; but they commited fraud for the purpose of fattening their own bankaccounts.

I hope someone brings a RICO action against them.

But even if CNN or any other news media were tell us that they are biasing the stories in a light favorable to the dictators and unfavorable to America, filtering and censoring the news to please those who like to murder and torture in the dark shadows, why in the world what anyone watch such a network for real news knowing what they are being fed is propaganda?

FOX, MSNBC are right to pursue this. I also hope that people directly harmed by CNN's fraudulent reporting soon file suit. Where are the ACLU when we really need them?

[Sava]

That's right, FOX is a pillar of truth and accurate reporting.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sava
That's right, FOX is a pillar of truth and accurate reporting.

OK, Mr. Know-it-all, cite one example of that FOX lies.

I admit they are flag-waving and pro-American. However, they do not lie that I know of.

CNN lied, and they admit it.

CNN admits it continues to lie.

AFAIK, the information you get from FOX is the truth.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Or that portion of it, described in words of the reporter's or editor's choosing, that fits the reporter's or editor's concept of the truth that they should report. (i.e. that portion that is wanted by their constituency). If you haven't seen it, check out Kurosawas' Rashomon.

First of all, facts are objective, truth is subjective, because it depends on scope. If CNN (and many others) had to play ball with the Hussein regime to get access, then you have two choices - play ball, or leave the stadium and say nothing. You're either presenting spun information, or none at all, and in neither case, does "truth" enter into it.

How hard does Fox, CNN, or anyone question this administration? Push hard, and anonymous sources dry up and you lose access. Someone else softpeddles, and they continue getting anonymous "leaks" and official access. "Managing" the press has been an on-going enterprise as long as there has been a press.

And where, BTW, does CNN (or anyone else in the press) "admit that they continue to lie?" - that's your (or Fox's) spin. The "fact" would be nothing more, nor less, than the exact statement made by a CNN representative, not edited, not commented upon, and with full documentation of the context, either textually and/or physically. That's "truth." All reportage is something entirely different - from choosing which details to emphasize (do you really think anything of note in the world can be described "truthfully" in an hour long news format, minus weather, sports, stocks and commercials? ), to choosing which words to characterize actions you're choosing to describe.

I don't know where you've been in the last 12 years, but CNN and every other news agency "officially" in Iraq has stated numerous time that they were escorted, that they were taken to specific sites, that they were not able to move with total freedom and ask what they wanted of anyone. Hell, it was all over the news after the first Gulf War - everyone knew (or almost everyone) that that's the price of admission in Baghdad. CNN also repeatedly disclaimed (as did others) that "blah blah blah couldn't be independently confirmed. Lots of statements like "According to the Iraqi government, blah blah blah"

There's been plenty out there openly stated, from multiple sources, multiple times, that US reporters in Iraq did not have freedom of movement and free access. Reporters here in the US don't have it - try to get into a secured crime scene, a closed session of Congress, etc. It's more blatant by many degrees in something like Saddamite Iraq, but the "free" press is more myth than reality, unless you tow the establishment line most of the time. Conditionally free is not free.

[Ned]

No, doubt, MtG, two viewers of any scene will observe and report something different. I agree that we all knew reports from inside Iraq were managed. But we didn't know that CNN was threatened in order to force them to bias the news as well, and to report exactly what the Information Minister wrote.

I think we need a new law that requires media to disclose attempts by foreign government to intimidate them as a condition of being granted broadcast rights in this country. If the media are too focused on their pocketbooks to tell the truth, the this is the kind of message they need. If they lie, they die.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
If they lie, they die.

And if they don't lie, they sie too, or rather their staff in the hands of the opposing dictators.
While I don't think CNN should be any proud of having modified its normal editorial line during the war (yet I didn't notice any harsh criticism of the war in CNN, but that's just me), I think it is normal they comply with the demands of an authority that has the direct power of killing / torturing their journalists. I much prefer having the journalists survive at the price of the truth, rather than having the 'independant reporting' cost the lives of these people.

Besides, truth is hurt in times of war anyways, and I don't see why it is more justified to broadcast US propaganda rather than Iraqi propaganda. Except that the US are not brutal in their way to pass propaganda through the free press.

[Ned]

I would prefer that our media have the freedom of editorial independence. Our democracy relies on it. It is a central pillar. It is not optional.

If an American reporter is intimidated in any fashion, I would like the US government to go after the government that did it. We have our ways. But, most of all, we would want the people of America and the world to know that that particular government is a menance to the truth to a free press. They have something to hide.

As to the rest of the world, it appears that the concept of a free press is not as important as it is in the US, otherwise other press organizations in the world would be expressing outrage at what CNN did.

But since they are not, I suspect they are doing the same thing CNN did - compromising with the devil in order to make money.