Press has been lying about Iraq

[Nubclear]

Boy, you sure do like similes, don't you.

Oh come now.........Attempting to attack me on the basis of smilies will not help you save your position

-Yes, I think the idea of an "informal" conspiracy of the press is quite posible.

You do realize however that a conspiracy of this magintude would require co-operation with EVER person in Iraq and with ALL the news agencies in the ENTIRE world, dont you?

-Yes, I think that you and your ilk are much more likely to believe in such a conspiracy of the right rahter than the left, even though the left is demonstrably more dominant in the media, even the American media.

However this is irrelevant to the subject at hand. You are simply trying to MAKE it the subject in order to divert attention from your obviously failing arguements

chew them even more?

Yes, go ahead and chew them a bit more, because it will simply prove I'm not the one chewing your arguements out.......You are I'm simply showing it off

Now, I'll ask again: Do you believe in the conspiracy theory which is stated in the first post of this thread?

YES
NO

Please tell us. No "I never said I did" or "I will not be disrespected so much that I am forced to answer some pitiful question from YOU!!". Because then we'll know what the answer is

Also, you said that I had not responded to one of your questions and I asked you to clairfy that question......Obviously I'm still not getting it. Will you please clarify the question for me one more time?

[Edan]

Originally posted by LoneWolf

Quote:

Oddly, people like Gepap are quite ready to believe in "right-wing, pro -American" conspiracies. Hmm...

Or tass.

There's a "tass" conspiracy? Tass, what are you up to?

For reporters to exagerate the amount of looting doesn't have to be a conspiracy. If it's happening, it could merely be reporters trying to focus on the story that's more likely thing to sell newspapers (or get higher ratings) and thereby blowing it out of proportion.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Edan


There's a "tass" conspiracy? Tass, what are you up to?

[MRT144]

Edans hit it. Televisual Media detonates nuclear devices when it comes to blowing things out of proportion when reporting.

[Dis]

I really do not believe this for obvious reasons. But I do feel like there could be bias.

Obviously a conspiracy is impossible for obvious reasons.

But you cannot ignore the fact that most journalists are liberal. And they may unintentionally distort the facts to make things look worse than they really are. They may just do this for sensationalism. Because a boring happy Iraq just wouldn't "make" good news and would lead to lower ratings. So they have to spice things up.

[Nubclear]

I have to go, so hopefully tomorrow when I come back.......

Someone will have continued what I have started

[Cruddy]

If you expect the "truth" from the media, you are bound to be dissappointed.

The "truth" depends on your own personal perspective.

So getting "lies" from the papers/TV etc on any subject is the norm, not the exception.

The only point to this debate is that some believe it to be a conspiracy, others do not. Neither side can prove their case.

Next!

[Sava]

oh god ned, you've finally gone off the deep end

Scarborough is a flesh-faced blowhole of monumentous proportions. I can't believe you watch (well maybe I can) let alone believe anything this jackass says.

I hope your foil hat fits, Ned...

[Darius871]

Just adding another

[Kropotkin]

In other news, the holoucast never happened. This claimed by old SS-officer on his death bed, everyone else has been lying.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
Of course, GePap and MtG, you have complete faith in liberal, anti-Bush media to give you the facts and nothing but the facts, with no spin.

I have complete faith in nothing, but one individual's op-ed piece that "everyone is lying and I'm telling the truth" doesn't mean a hell of a lot to me, either.

The Pentagon and CentCom's own admissions as to occasional casualties from ambushes and security issues in various parts of the country make it obvious that it's not all lovey-dovey on the ground. Not to mention international organizations like the WHO citing reasons such as lack of security hampering medical personnel and restoration of water supplies as reasons contributing to the outbreak (predictable and avoidable) of cholera in Basra.

"liberal, anti-Bush media" has been the tagline to scare gutless corporate media into line since the beginning of Bush II. It used to be just liberal media, but anything that works to keep the boys in line. Funny how little hard investigative reporting gets done any more, isn't it? Not like the Watergate days at all - now the press is shackled back to taking fluff handouts from the government, and an occasional little tiff over wording.

Journalists may be liberal, but their managers and editors are ratings-fed corporate whores who'd die rather than really offend anyone.

[monkspider]

Ned can't be serious about this.

[Sava]

MtG...

[Ned]

Originally posted by notyoueither
It is kind of hard to believe that every reporter, and every news organization has been in on the conspiracy until this brave soul came along.

What he said is that this was not uniform, that he AP had some very fine reporters that told the truth. But some of them, he said, truly had it in for Bush and were spinning the stories. He also said that there was a "herd" mentality in the press where everyone reported the same stories in essentially the same way.

The museum was one of his examples. Not one single reporter bothered to check out the facts, but simply repeated the line from the AP that the artifacts in the museum had been looted by a "frenzied" mob. Foreman said he was there has did not see a frenzied mob. He say people, indeed, families, walking out of the museum with chairs, fans and the like.

The looting, he said, was targeted against the government and the Ba'ath party members. Some of the reporting did make this distinction in the beginning. However, most of it later made no distinctions whatsoever in an effort to protray Baghdad in a state of utter lawlessness. He said that nothing could be further from the truth.

It would be useful if someone could find a link to the original Post article. However, here is a link to Scarborough's transcripts. They end on May 8th. So, you will have to wait until Monday, I believe, to get a transcipt of his show.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/MSNBCTRANS...MAIN_Front.asp

[Sava]

That's right... nobody looted innocent sites.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


....Journalists may be liberal, but their managers and editors are ratings-fed corporate whores who'd die rather than really offend anyone.

I could be wrong about the situation over there, but over here it's the editors that bear legal responsibility for what is published

As a consequence, editors are carefully chosen for their prudence at the very least, and yes, many of them do resemble corporate lap dogs. They're certainly not going to offend their employers.

EXCEPTION: Private Eye. Take great delight in offending the rich and infamous (and their own publishers). As they were sponsored by the late Peter Cook (Dudley Moore's co-comedian in the early days) this is not surprising.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sava
oh god ned, you've finally gone off the deep end

Scarborough is a flesh-faced blowhole of monumentous proportions. I can't believe you watch (well maybe I can) let alone believe anything this jackass says.

I hope your foil hat fits, Ned...

Hey Sava, I've been a right wing lunatic for some time. I am glad you finally noticed.

[Sava]

Yeah, but you can be right-wing and not be a complete whackjob

[Ramo]

The looting, he said, was targeted against the government and the Ba'ath party members.

Like goverment hospitals, schools, libraries, power and sanitation plants. What a noble cause.

[Ned]

I am sure that some of you have been watching Fox and wondered why their reporting of what was going on in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq contrasted so sharply with what we were seeing from the AP, CNN and others. While Fox was showing smiling Iraqis, celebrating and congratulating our troops, CNN and AP and the others were showing angry Shi'ite mobs shouting down with America, down with Bush and were emphasizing widespread looting and lawlessness in Baghdad.

Maybe this is an example that reporters only report bad news, but even when they reported the news, they reported it in a way to create a misimpression.

For example, Jonathan Foreman told of an interview with an Iraqi citizen of means. This Iraqi had two bodyguards protecting his home (or business?). The AP reporter, I believe it was AP, ran the story that the Iraqi had just hired the bodyguards to protect his home against looters. In truth, the Iraqi had long employed the bodyguards to protect his home. That report was not only "spin," it was a lie.

Now, if Jonathan Foreman were simply saying that the press was mis-reporting what was going on inside Iraq, it would be one thing. It would be his word against the word of many. But, he gave specific examples, named names and was sufficiently detailed in how the stores were being misreported that his versions of the facts could be checked out and rebutted if necessary.

[Jac de Molay]

The WSJ ( that liberal paragon) also reported yesterday about widespread looting at oil facilities as well, which is why they're having more difficulty than thought at cranking up oil production again.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ned
For example, Jonathan Foreman told of an interview with an Iraqi citizen of means. This Iraqi had two bodyguards protecting his home (or business?). The AP reporter, I believe it was AP, ran the story that the Iraqi had just hired the bodyguards to protect his home against looters. In truth, the Iraqi had long employed the bodyguards to protect his home. That report was not only "spin," it was a lie.

Uh, you simply chose to believe in this Foreman person, as there seems to be nothing else backing his assertions.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sava
Yeah, but you can be right-wing and not be a complete whackjob

I thought you extreme lefties thought that that was impossible.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ned


I thought you extreme lefties thought that that was impossible.

You might stereotype me as a lefty, but I'm not

So Ned, let me get this straight. Only FoxNews is reporting the real story?

[Ned]

Originally posted by DetroitDave
The WSJ ( that liberal paragon) also reported yesterday about widespread looting at oil facilities as well, which is why they're having more difficulty than thought at cranking up oil production again.

DetroitDave, Foreman is an embedded reporter in Baghdad. That is what he was talking about.

What the WSJ says is generally reliable if their own reporter is writing the story. (Notice how al Qa'ida targeted a WSJ reporter for execution and not an AP reporter.) If it is, however, a repeat of an AP story, well the may be some truth mixed with the fiction.

[Sava]

My suspicion is:
embedded reporter = reading scripted military news

[Ned]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Uh, you simply chose to believe in this Foreman person, as there seems to be nothing else backing his assertions.

UR, and you choose to believe the AP reporter. All this goes to show is that we tend to believe people who report the news that is consistent with our own belief system.

Which is why the Arab street truly believed the story that 4,000 Jews stayed home the morning the WTC was attacked.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sava
My suspicion is:
embedded reporter = reading scripted military news

The very definition of Baghdad Bob.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sava
You might stereotype me as a lefty, but I'm not

Could have fooled me.

So Ned, let me get this straight. Only FoxNews is reporting the real story?

Of course!

But, it is good that we have at least one network that is "right." Now we have some means of testing whether the stories we see from the liberal press are being spun for a purpose.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ned
Could have fooled me.

Sure I did. The world isn't black and white. There are more than two political ideologies and more than two sides to any issue. And frankly, anyone who doesn't agree with you, you classify as a lefty.

But, it is good that we have at least one network that is "right." Now we have some means of testing whether the stories we see from the liberal press are being spun for a purpose.

Newsflash... all TV media outlets are owned by corporate conglomerates. You are hearing their POV, not a liberal one. Just because you don't like what's being said, you shouldn't label it as liberal. That's very ignorant.