[quote]The Beast wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Funny, from the Communist News Network.
Well at least you don’t have to pay for the BBC. We are forced to pay ?130GBP a year for a TV nework that hates the country in its title.[/quote]
The news is suppose to check the government because the governed do not have time.
CNN host [Glenn Beck] to first-ever Muslim congressman: “Prove to me that you’re not working with our enemies”
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/lindsay/44387
[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
CNN host [Glenn Beck] to first-ever Muslim congressman: “Prove to me that you’re not working with our enemies”
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/lindsay/44387[/quote]
Glenn Beck can lick balls. I say this as a Minnesotan and wonder if Beck were to ask Ellison’s new constituency to prove that they weren’t working with our “enemies” what their reaction would be. Lets also consider Ellison is a convert to Islam not born into or raised in the faith. Also realize that a large part of his constituency is also Muslim and therefore by Beck’s logic must also be “working for the enemy”. Is this really/ the perception of what Islam is?
Holy crap! do they only give “news” shows to those that are capable of pissing people off?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:
CNN host [Glenn Beck] to first-ever Muslim congressman: “Prove to me that you’re not working with our enemies”
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/lindsay/44387
Glenn Beck can lick balls. I say this as a Minnesotan and wonder if Beck were to ask Ellison’s new constituency to prove that they weren’t working with our “enemies” what their reaction would be. Lets also consider Ellison is a convert to Islam not born into or raised in the faith. Also realize that a large part of his constituency is also Muslim and therefore by Beck’s logic must also be “working for the enemy”. Is this really/ the perception of what Islam is?
Holy crap! do they only give “news” shows to those that are capable of pissing people off?[/quote]
I just realized THIS is the actual propaganda special vroom is posting about-
Glenn Beck Exposed: The Extremist Agenda
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/beck.extremistagenda/
Olbermann did a great segment speculating on what kind of influence the “Beck types” may be having on their followers…
Does idolizing Malkin turn you into a terrorist?
Apparently Freeper Chad Castagana, the man who sent the phony anthrax letters to Olbermann, Pelosi and others–worshipped Malkin and Coulter. What a surprise. Countdown takes a look…
The “Extremist Agenda” exposed.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
The Beast wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Funny, from the Communist News Network.
Well at least you don’t have to pay for the BBC. We are forced to pay ?130GBP a year for a TV nework that hates the country in its title.
The news is suppose to check the government because the governed do not have time.[/quote]
The news is just as corrupt as the government. Both are influenced far too heavily by small pressure groups to push their agendas.
If people want to watch the likes of Fox or CNN, they know full well what the content is like, they can go and watch another network on the other channel to get a different opinion, and you aren’t paying a compulsory tax for it.
Sorry for the thread hijack.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I’m not sure what you mean my state controlled. I do not know of any in the US.[/quote]
Yes you do. ‘The man’ has you shackled and you don’t even realize it! The FCC has a hand in all of it. Open your eyes!
Being serious, I thought it was more interesting that you ascribed (commercial) propaganda to commercial news propaganda almost to the exclusion of conventional (sociopolitical) propaganda, which is more what vroom is referring to IMO.
Perfect example of the point, NPR has a ‘left’ bias, they are also reluctant to bite the hands that feed them (corporate contributors like ADM and Wal-mart). Can’t blame them for the bias, but to assume they aren’t slanted just because they’re ‘public’ is foolish.
Once again, just because someone’s an expert doesn’t mean they’re not spewing propaganda. My point is that the ‘why’ and the commentary are going to be asked and broadcast by expert, anchor, and listener alike. Deriving them all from one source or dismissing them all as irrelevent can be equally detrimental.
Agreed.
And you thought you were going to have a reasonable discussion…
[quote]lucasa wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I’m not sure what you mean my state controlled. I do not know of any in the US.
Yes you do. ‘The man’ has you shackled and you don’t even realize it! The FCC has a hand in all of it. Open your eyes!
Being serious, I thought it was more interesting that you ascribed (commercial) propaganda to commercial news propaganda almost to the exclusion of conventional (sociopolitical) propaganda, which is more what vroom is referring to IMO.
PBS and NPR are both publicly ‘owned’–meaning their support comes mostly from donations, grants, some underwriting, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Maybe you meant other countries?
Perfect example of the point, NPR has a ‘left’ bias, they are also reluctant to bite the hands that feed them (corporate contributors like ADM and Wal-mart). Can’t blame them for the bias, but to assume they aren’t slanted just because they’re ‘public’ is foolish.
As far as commentary goes–it is fine and good; however, it isn’t news. There are many whom are duped into believing commentary to be fact. My idea of news is what I hear in my car on the way to work. Morning Edition reports the news without commentary. I get to hear the “who, what, where, and when”–sometimes “how”. The “why” segments are all participated in by “experts” in the field and also consist of listener questions and commentary. This comes from the fact that not all journalists will ask the questions that need to be asked and sometimes there are opinions that haven’t been considered.
Once again, just because someone’s an expert doesn’t mean they’re not spewing propaganda. My point is that the ‘why’ and the commentary are going to be asked and broadcast by expert, anchor, and listener alike. Deriving them all from one source or dismissing them all as irrelevent can be equally detrimental.
We need to remember when a anchor asks an expert, “What do you think,” the answer is only an expert opinion not a fact.
Agreed.
[/quote]
I think we do agree but let me clear up my point and defend NPR/PBS
Public broadcasting is not leftist. This erroneous perception I think comes from the fact that people who support NPR tend to be viewed as tree hugging, hippy, left-wing, nut jobs–which has nothing to do with the news they report. And by sheer definition of the term, anything ‘leftist’ wouldn’t be considered news and I don’t think it would receive the funding it does from many private citizens and corporations. Further more, have you ever watched the McLaughlin Group or Tucker Carlson or that kook Suzie Ormond?
My point on experts was exactly what you are saying. I consider myself an expert and anything I say with regard to my field is nothing more than knowledgeable opinion–much like many of the articles I read about training here on this site.
My main point is that we often focus too much on the ‘why’ and to finish this point I will make an analogy to my profession. I am fascinated with this question that is why I study physics. But when I “report” my observations there are certain protocols that I must follow so as not to give false impressions about my results. Analyses are usually in the form of questions to make the readers themselves question the results and spark dialogue. Most people in my profession are very egotistical and get caught up in their own titles. These same titles are the cause of much what is wrong with the sciences and the general public?s misinterpretation of knowledge. This is the same thing that happens when facts get misrepresented by journalists.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Public broadcasting is not leftist. This erroneous perception I think comes from the fact that people who support NPR tend to be viewed as tree hugging, hippy, left-wing, nut jobs–which has nothing to do with the news they report. And by sheer definition of the term, anything ‘leftist’ wouldn’t be considered news and I don’t think it would receive the funding it does from many private citizens and corporations. Further more, have you ever watched the McLaughlin Group or Tucker Carlson or that kook Suzie Ormond?[/quote]
We’re way off topic, but NPR and PBS are two separate entities and IMO, NPR is slightly leftist and PBS swings wildly between both extremes.
You’re preaching to the choir here. I spend a lot of time around people who can generate theory and answers without any data.
I guess I would only qualify that the ‘why’ coming from commercial media doesn’t bug me so much as the perception/illusion of closure.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
I guess I would only qualify that the ‘why’ coming from commercial media doesn’t bug me so much as the perception/illusion of closure.
[/quote]
YES!
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I think we do agree but let me clear up my point and defend NPR/PBS
Public broadcasting is not leftist. This erroneous perception I think comes from the fact that people who support NPR tend to be viewed as tree hugging, hippy, left-wing, nut jobs–which has nothing to do with the news they report. And by sheer definition of the term, anything ‘leftist’ wouldn’t be considered news and I don’t think it would receive the funding it does from many private citizens and corporations. [/quote]
Speaking of propaganda and NPR/PBS – I was reminded of an interesting study from a little while back that ties this together.
Study Finds Direct Link Between Misinformation and Public Misconception
October 2003
Study Finds Widespread Misperceptions on Iraq Highly Related to Support for War, Misperceptions Vary Widely Depending on News Source Fox Viewers More Likely to Misperceive, PBS-NPR Less Likely
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/100403F.shtml
In the words of Colbert - “Reality has a well-known liberal bias.” Only one thing to do about that…
The Leaning Tower of PBS
LA Times
May 9, 2005
“There is no smoking gun, but when things begin to add up in aggregate, you can really only draw one small subset of conclusions… that CPB is caving to conservative Republican political pressure,” said Garry Denny, associate programming director at Wisconsin Public Television and president of the Public Television Programmers Assn…
But the consternation has risen to such a level that Tomlinson said he is worried about how it will impact PBS, which is facing a 25% cut in federal funding next year…
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0509-07.htm
PBS Scrutiny Raises Political Antennas
Washington Post
April 22, 2005
Under its mandate from Congress, which created the agency in 1967, CPB is required to act as an independent buffer between lawmakers and public broadcasters, although it can set broad programming goals.
Appointees of President Bush currently control the majority of seats on CPB’s eight-member board. Each board member serves a six-year term…
In negotiations with PBS earlier this year, the corporation also insisted, for the first time, on tying new funding to an agreement that would commit the network to strict “objectivity and balance” in each of its programs – an idea that PBS’s general counsel described in an internal memo as amounting to “government encroachment on and supervision of program content, potentially in violation of the First Amendment.”
Late last week, CPB’s board declined to renew the contract of its chief executive, Kathleen Cox, a veteran administrator at the agency. She was replaced by Ken Ferree, a Republican who had been a top adviser to Michael Powell, the former chairman of the Federal Communications Commission…
A senior FCC official, who would not speak for attribution because he must rule on issues affecting public broadcasting, went further, saying CPB “is engaged in a systematic effort not just to sanitize the truth, but to impose a right-wing agenda on PBS. It’s almost like a right-wing coup. It appears to be orchestrated.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8067-2005Apr21.html
[quote]vroom wrote:
Sloth wrote:
LOL.
You can’t point to a nutbar conspiracy theorist and conclude that because they see conspiracies for everything that nobody will ever listen.
[/quote]
The problem with your response starts here. You quoted only one of my responses. I quote you, “You can’t point to A nutbar conspiracy theorist…” I didn’t point to A nutbar conspiracy theorist. I pointed out that the VAST majority of muslims, in the muslim world, are nutbar conspiracy theorists. Don’t get mad at me, I didn’t conduct the gallup poll and other research on the subject.
Zionists behind 9-11, indeed.
Think Jim Jones and David Koresh, on a massive scale. That’s the kind of indoctrination you’re dealing with.
I wonder what the reaction would be if it was asked of any of the Jewish members of congress to prove they are not working with the known spies at AIPAC.
Or asking the HUNDREDS of Jewish Congressional staffers over the decades if they have any links to Mossad (the Israeli Inteligence agency which gets help from Jewish-AMERICANS to achieve its goals- many of which involve spying on the good old USA).
“Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It’s classified information.” – US official quoted in Carl Cameron’s Fox News report on the Israeli spy ring and its connections to 9-11.
After all, Fair is fair.
You can whine all you want about Beck but it doesn’t change the fact that those clips from Arab tv are real.
If you didn’t see the special there is a link to it on Glenn Beck’s wikipedia.org page . . .oh wait, some head in the sand hippie deleted it (check the change history)
Here it is
http://conservativeblogtherapy.blogspot.com/2006/11/exposed-extremist-agenda-one-hour.html
The special had cartoons glorifying suicide bombings , soap operas where Jews steal the eyes of little palestinian girls, (almost) laughable claims about what PEPSI means and how the company tried to overthrow Iran, the president of Iran telling his people about how he will force his enemies to bow to Iran’s will two weeks after his (quite differnt) UN address, and 3 year olds playing the tape of their dad the suicide bomberg getting blow up over and over the way American kids play Barney the purple dinosaur tapes over and over, huge crowds chanting “death to america” etc
The fact is I’ve never seen this stuff before and it gives me more insight into the arab mentality than anything Keith O says.
You may hate Beck and that is fine but if you didn’t find that stuff disturbing you are insane and naive.
If someone tells you over and over they are going to kill, believe them.
Tell me again how George Bush is the real enemy.
-M
[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
A “CNN Special On Propaganda”, in all likelihood, is propaganda…
Pentagon Memo Reveals Launch of New PR War
The Associated Press
30 October 2006
In a memo obtained by the Associated Press, Dorrance Smith, assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, said new teams of people will “develop messages” for the 24-hour news cycle and “correct the record.”
Pentagon Boosts “Media War” Unit
BBC
31 October 2006
The US defence department has set up a new unit to better promote its message across 24-hour rolling news outlets, and particularly on the internet.
The Pentagon said the move would boost its ability to counter “inaccurate” news stories and exploit new media.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/103106O.shtml
Why Were Government Propaganda Experts Working On News At CNN?
3/27/2000
What makes the CNN story especially troubling is the fact that the network allowed the Army’s covert propagandists to work in its headquarters, where they learned the ins and outs of CNN’s operations. Even if the PSYOPS officers working in the newsroom did not influence news reporting, did the network allow the military to conduct an intelligence-gathering mission against CNN itself?
For instance, one PSYOPS officer worked in CNN’s satellite division. According to Intelligence Newsletter, rear admiral Thomas Steffens, a psychological warfare expert in the Special Operations Command, recently told a PSYOPS conference that the military needed to find ways to “gain control” over commercial news satellites to help bring down an “informational cone of silence” over regions where special operations were taking place.
An unofficial strategy paper published by the U.S. Naval War College in 1996 and written by an Army officer (“Military Operations in the CNN World: Using the Media as a Force Multiplier”) urged military commanders to find ways to “leverage the vast resources of the fourth estate” for the purposes of “communicating the [mission’s] objective and endstate, boosting friendly morale, executing more effective psychological operations, playing a major role in deception of the enemy, and enhancing intelligence collection.”
[/quote]
Lol bud you’re hilarious. Kind of interesting to see how everyone’s kinda ignoring your fact-filled and credible posts while just continually arguing.
[quote]Shoebolt wrote:
Lol bud you’re hilarious. Kind of interesting to see how everyone’s kinda ignoring your fact-filled and credible posts while just continually arguing.
[/quote]
Dude, you are freaking brainwashed. All that info says is that the government might have “suggested” them. Why shouldn’t they bring attention to that?
Let’s start more slowly. If the government had MADE them then that would be propaganda. If the government allegedly points them out it isn’t. See how easy?
They wer made by state run middle eastern TV stations for middle eastern audiences. If you think that is hilarious you don’t or can’t understand the problem.
1938 all over again only this time with ADD and xboxes
-M
[quote]ramadano wrote:
Shoebolt wrote:
Lol bud you’re hilarious. Kind of interesting to see how everyone’s kinda ignoring your fact-filled and credible posts while just continually arguing.
Dude, you are freaking brainwashed. All that info says is that the government might have “suggested” them. Why shouldn’t they bring attention to that?
Let’s start more slowly. If the government had MADE them then that would be propaganda. If the government allegedly points them out it isn’t. See how easy?
They wer made by state run middle eastern TV stations for middle eastern audiences. If you think that is hilarious you don’t or can’t understand the problem.
1938 all over again only this time with ADD and xboxes
-M[/quote]
Hence, I’m not the only one brainwashed. You think that CNN and other Western news networks are without their fare share of corporate and government sponsored propaganda?
There is propaganda on every news network yes, but to deny that his airing has an agenda behind it is just being in a brainwashed state urself.
http://www.memritv.org/default.asp
This is a good site to view TV media from the mideast. This organization translates and puts up the videos.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
The problem with your response starts here. You quoted only one of my responses. I quote you, “You can’t point to A nutbar conspiracy theorist…” I didn’t point to A nutbar conspiracy theorist. I pointed out that the VAST majority of muslims, in the muslim world, are nutbar conspiracy theorists. Don’t get mad at me, I didn’t conduct the gallup poll and other research on the subject.
Zionists behind 9-11, indeed.
Think Jim Jones and David Koresh, on a massive scale. That’s the kind of indoctrination you’re dealing with. [/quote]
You are really stuck on holding everything as an impossibility aren’t you?
Do you have ANYTHING at all to back up your latest claims?
Regardless, if you were to actually consider my response, you would see that it is not based on an assumption of numbers, but instead the existence of various groups.
Open up your mind just a tiny little bit and realize that your first knee-jerk thought isn’t the end all be all that you attempt to impose it as.
[quote]Shoebolt wrote:
There is propaganda on every news network yes, but to deny that his airing has an agenda behind it is just being in a brainwashed state urself.
[/quote]
Oh ok, I see. How dare the government give information to someone that draws attention to something arabs created for arabs! How dare someone expose something the media has up until now turned a blind eye to!
Maybe the “agenda” in this case is simply to gasp inform. Isn’t that the job of the media? Go watch the video so you can see real what real propaganda looks like and not the BS you are talking about.
It is irrelevant that someone may or may have had ulterior motives for showing them to you. The NYT puts out secret information because they want to crucify Bush but that doesn’t make what they uncover any less important. Put down your politics for a second and think about what their existence means. Oh wait you won’t because you can’t.