NationStates Jolt Archive

I was watching the ceremonies for the new WWII memorial (60 years is too damn long if you ask me), one vet who was interviewed said that if the media was the way it was then as it was now we would have been saluting hitler right now. His reasoning is that so many lives were lost on D-Day the press would have chewed FDR alive and that we would have pulled out (like Vietnam). That and they would have kept telling the people that this was not our war (Vietnam, Iraq) and that we had to reason to be there, that we should just go after Japan and ignore Germany.

What do you think? I personally support censorship in times of war, the Tet offensive should have been the big victory we needed to end Vietnam, but the media gave an inaccurate portrayal of the war, should the government lied, but we were atleast winning when they did, the media's lies shattered our aura of invincibility.

This is directed mostly to my American counterparts, others may give their input but censorship laws vary by country.

The Media sucks. Its full of liars who only care about Ratings.

The Media sucks. Its full of liars who only care about Ratings.


Exactly.

The fact that the war in Iraq is going wrong is obviously entirely the media's fault; after all, if the media wasn't there reporting them we wouldn't know about the deaths and the prisoner abuse and the facts. Al media shoulod be banned and heavily censored so that they can only come out with good news about our wonderful president and his heroic stand against the forces of darkness.
Fox News should be the only media organisation allowed into Iraq to report events there, because they have exactly the right attitude towards the conflict.
Of course, this would require the USA to act towards the media just as they did in Soviet Russia but, hey, that's a small price to pay.

I think that the media should tell the truth. If the public doesn't like the truth, well, that says something, doesn't it?

And about this D-Day nonsense....it's not like Americans didn't know that lots of people were dying in WWII. The difference is that Americans saw the losses in WWII as clearly necessary and justified under the circumstances, and the same is not true of Vietnam and Iraq.

And about this D-Day nonsense....it's not like Americans didn't know that lots of people were dying in WWII. The difference is that Americans saw the losses in WWII as clearly necessary and justified under the circumstances, and the same is not true of Vietnam and Iraq.

You just proved my point. The people thought the losses were necassary in WWII because the government told them they were, the media was unable to say negatives because of the espionage and sedition acts of WWI and WWII.

Let's see, before the media, America was undefeated.

After the media's intervention, America is .500 with the second Iraqi war still pending.

Coincidence? I think not.

Did anyone ever think that maybe the government acrually knows what they are doing once in a while?

That and they would have kept telling the people that this was not our war (Vietnam, Iraq) and that we had to reason to be there, that we should just go after Japan and ignore Germany.

I was just curious... how exactly were you going to ignore Germany when they declared war on the United States on Dec. 11, 1941? Or did you think you should just ignore it and let Europe and Canada , etc.. fight it? You didn't go in to save Europe.. Hitler had declared war on the United States as well. Vietnam nor Iraq declared war on the United States.. I think there is a huge difference.

The fact that the war in Iraq is going wrong is obviously entirely the media's fault; after all, if the media wasn't there reporting them we wouldn't know about the deaths and the prisoner abuse and the facts. Al media shoulod be banned and heavily censored so that they can only come out with good news about our wonderful president and his heroic stand against the forces of darkness.
Fox News should be the only media organisation allowed into Iraq to report events there, because they have exactly the right attitude towards the conflict.
Of course, this would require the USA to act towards the media just as they did in Soviet Russia but, hey, that's a small price to pay.

That's not my point, my point is that the media is blowing those out of proportion. Making it look like that is all we are doing there.

The media spends too much time talking on certain subjects, like crime, they should have to base their coverage on the percentage fo those crimes. Violent crimes are about 5% of all crimes in the US, so if the media spends 95% of the time talking about non-violent crimes people will release this is a safe place to live.

Also, doesn't it seem odd, the media talks about how going into Iraq is wrong, yet when private Lynch was "rescued" they kept saying how heroic she was? They are only interested in money and ratings, which really are the same thing, if you have high ratings you make more money.

We need censorship in war. Why? Because the people with the stomach for it are the people fighting. And the people who don't have the stomach don't need to see it. When the people at home see every aspect of war they have no way of comprehending it. They jump to conclusions, they let their emotions take over, and they lose all reason.

I mean, look at it... millions died in wars before CNN came around... and there was propoganda saying we were winning, and you know what? We won. Now, we see and hear about every civillian and serviceman killed as it happens, realtime, BC by BC. We've lost around a thousand men in this war... one one thousandth of the casualties nations lost 100 years ago... heck, 80 years ago. But, there's negative propoganda, and our military is under the scrutinous eye of the PC police... and we will lose this war if we do not have more homefront support.

Come on guys, We're doing REALLY well in this war. We're doing things faster and better than ever before, and in spite of the fact that our enemy wears no uniforms. But if you watch the mainstream media, you'd think we were losing this war, and comitting suicide over there.

Get a grip people! Support our freakin troops, let them do their job, let them know they're supported, and we WILL win!

That and they would have kept telling the people that this was not our war (Vietnam, Iraq) and that we had to reason to be there, that we should just go after Japan and ignore Germany.

I was just curious... how exactly were you going to ignore Germany when they declared war on the United States on Dec. 11, 1941? Or did you think you should just ignore it and let Europe and Canada , etc.. fight it? You didn't go in to save Europe.. Hitler had declared war on the United States as well. Vietnam nor Iraq declared war on the United States.. I think there is a huge difference.

Good question, I am sure the media would have found a way, those squirlly bastards are always finding ways to twist the facts. They would have said something like "oh Britain has held Germany off this long, the tides are about to turn against them anyways, why should we embark on this noble cause?"

See, we believed we were doing the right thing becuase the media, which was government controlled said we were, plain and simple. People are quite easily convinced of one thing, like religion for example, if you tell them something over and over again they will start to believe it, it is even easier when they are young, it is called brain washing, that is what the media does. Who here thought that the DC snipers had a white van? Guess why you thought that, the media was acting on inaccurate information and they told the people that, later when other shootings started something clicked in the people's mind, they said on the news they had a white van, yeah, that is what I will say, like the guy who was in Home Depot at the time of the shooting, told everyone he saw the shooters speed away in a white van, media told everyone once again that it was a white van. Only afterwords was it discovered that he was lying, the media still went with the white van story, up till the were found in a blue caprice.

Unfortunatly, this goes down against the First Amendment...the freedom of the press.

Should we allow governments to crack down on the media, ESPECIALLY during times of war, than we may never know about Abu Garib by now.

Remember, the government's main goal is to STAY in power. They'll use anything they can get their hands on. Giving them the media is NOT a good option.


Hence, the First Amendment


man those guys from the 18th century were smart.

I can't believe how many of you support cencorship. It seems to me the lion's share of you live in USA, which is supposed to be the land of freedom.

I agree with the fact that media doesn't always (or better: hardly ever) tell the exact thruth without blowing events out of proportion or concentrating on shocking events to gain higher ratings, but censorship is a very dangerous weapon and can not be supported. Censorship brings nations further away from each other by massively changing one nations point of view about another country or historic events. Let's look at an extreme example: North-Korea. If any country has strong cencorship, it has to be North-Korea. North-Korean believe South-Korea started the war, they believe if someone commits a crime, he and his family up to the 3rd generation should be sent to concentration camp because evel lurks in the genes, because the media tells them. They believe South-Korea is starving, because the media isn't allowed to report otherwise. This is an extreme case of course, but merely a result of media cencorship. People are very influential, and those who aren't won't be able to get support for their believes if everyone else has been brainwashed.

IMHO, cencorship is a bad idea.

Let's see, before the media, America was undefeated.

After the media's intervention, America is .500 with the second Iraqi war still pending.

It couldn't be because America lost so many men that pulling out of a country was neccesary, could it? I mean, not that I don't think sending thousands of men and women into a jungle to be killed by random Viatnamese people wasn't the best idea that the US government ever had, but...

Should we allow governments to crack down on the media, ESPECIALLY during times of war, than we may never know about Abu Garib by now.
which is my point. Of all the sick twisted things the enemy is doing to us in this war, we catch a couple oif our guys going crazy and suddenly everyone at home thinks we're the bad guys. Let the government take care of it, and just support the troops until they come home.

Should we allow governments to crack down on the media, ESPECIALLY during times of war, than we may never know about Abu Garib by now.
which is my point. Of all the sick twisted things the enemy is doing to us in this war, we catch a couple oif our guys going crazy and suddenly everyone at home thinks we're the bad guys. Let the government take care of it, and just support the troops until they come home.
but if we never had it, we'd never know that we had soldiers commiting such crimes.

The Army would slowly demoralize into....some Republican Guard (omg...REPUBLICAN Guard)

And about this D-Day nonsense....it's not like Americans didn't know that lots of people were dying in WWII. The difference is that Americans saw the losses in WWII as clearly necessary and justified under the circumstances, and the same is not true of Vietnam and Iraq.

You just proved my point. The people thought the losses were necassary in WWII because the government told them they were, the media was unable to say negatives because of the espionage and sedition acts of WWI and WWII.

Let's see, before the media, America was undefeated.

After the media's intervention, America is .500 with the second Iraqi war still pending.

Coincidence? I think not.

Did anyone ever think that maybe the government acrually knows what they are doing once in a while?

That doesn't prove your point at all. Apparently, you think that the American people are idiots, willing to accept whatever the all-powerful media tells them. You think that they can't tell the difference between a necessary and justified war, and a war based on distortions and propaganda. You view Americans as pathetic sheep.

Propaganda can work wonders, but only outright lies could convince people that Iraq was clearly worth fighting. What you're suggesting is that the U.S. government essentially become an authoritarian regime, forcing people to accept an distorted, optimistic view of the war.

The fact that the war in Iraq is going wrong is obviously entirely the media's fault; after all, if the media wasn't there reporting them we wouldn't know about the deaths and the prisoner abuse and the facts. Al media shoulod be banned and heavily censored so that they can only come out with good news about our wonderful president and his heroic stand against the forces of darkness.
Fox News should be the only media organisation allowed into Iraq to report events there, because they have exactly the right attitude towards the conflict.
Of course, this would require the USA to act towards the media just as they did in Soviet Russia but, hey, that's a small price to pay.

That's not my point, my point is that the media is blowing those out of proportion. Making it look like that is all we are doing there.

The media spends too much time talking on certain subjects, like crime, they should have to base their coverage on the percentage fo those crimes. Violent crimes are about 5% of all crimes in the US, so if the media spends 95% of the time talking about non-violent crimes people will release this is a safe place to live.

most of crime is boring stuff. do we really need reportsd on every single purse snatching and shoplifting? the truth is, there just isnt that much interesting stuff going on. i for one dont weant my television to tell me everything is okay, stop thinking, the government has it all under control. id rather hear about murders and robberies than see flag waving and propoganda.

Also, doesn't it seem odd, the media talks about how going into Iraq is wrong, yet when private Lynch was "rescued" they kept saying how heroic she was? They are only interested in money and ratings, which really are the same thing, if you have high ratings you make more money.

oh no, they are covering more than one side! wow, those devils will do anything to make a buck. listen, a free media isnt neccessarily a bad thing, it stops us from getting into quagmires, keeps the politicians honest. id rather have the us lose a few wars than live in a place where the politicians have a blank check to do whatever they want and a media that bends to their every demand.

And about this D-Day nonsense....it's not like Americans didn't know that lots of people were dying in WWII. The difference is that Americans saw the losses in WWII as clearly necessary and justified under the circumstances, and the same is not true of Vietnam and Iraq.

You just proved my point. The people thought the losses were necassary in WWII because the government told them they were, the media was unable to say negatives because of the espionage and sedition acts of WWI and WWII.

Let's see, before the media, America was undefeated.

After the media's intervention, America is .500 with the second Iraqi war still pending.

Coincidence? I think not.

Did anyone ever think that maybe the government acrually knows what they are doing once in a while?

lets see, when america was isolationist, america was undefeated (except the war of 1812)

after it became interventionalist, america is 4/5 (vietnam, panama, grenada, bosnia, the first gulf war (plus more im probably missing)), with the second gulf war still pending

Coincidence? i think not.

Did anyone ever think that it might be the wars we choose to fight might be more to blame than the big, bad media?

I personally support censorship in times of war

I say that censorship is never justified. It serves the interest of the ruling class.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Come on guys, We're doing REALLY well in this war. We're doing things faster and better than ever before, and in spite of the fact that our enemy wears no uniforms. But if you watch the mainstream media, you'd think we were losing this war, and comitting suicide over there.

Get a grip people! Support our freakin troops, let them do their job, let them know they're supported, and we WILL win!

can you please tell me exactlly what victory is? this isnt like a war where yuou take over berlin, hitler surrenders and everyone goes home happy.

we've taken over baghdad, we're killing people left and right. so tell me, how exactly do you plan on winning this war? if its getting a stable government in place, id say we arent doing so well. if its convincing the middle east that america isnt so bad, id say we're doing about as well as france did in ww2. if its bringing stability in the region, i dont know how lending support to the jihad makes the region stable. truth is, there is no set objectives for this war. i doubt anyone knows what we are really fighting for. maybe if there was a single, concrete goal the us had, the media could fous on that. but untill then, bombs are going off, people are dying, that's the story.

as soon as somebody tells me exactly what victory is, maybe ill buy the argument that letting bush do whatever he wants will mean victory.

Should we allow governments to crack down on the media, ESPECIALLY during times of war, than we may never know about Abu Garib by now.
which is my point. Of all the sick twisted things the enemy is doing to us in this war, we catch a couple oif our guys going crazy and suddenly everyone at home thinks we're the bad guys. Let the government take care of it, and just support the troops until they come home.


germany 1945: of all the sick and twisted things the jews have done to us, we just want to solve the problem once and for all, and everyone thinks we're bad guys? just let the fuher take care of it, and support the reich untill it is victorious.

a just cause cant be hurt by harsh but accurate coverage by the media

atrocities need to be brought to the light of day or they will never be stopped.

Here is a good article (http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=83795) about these "the media is stabbing America in the back" theories. The whole thing is worth reading, but here are some excerpts:

Take a look at the morning paper nowadays and it's clear that America has a lot of enemies. Two or three different brands of insurgency are operating in Iraq. North Korea has nuclear weapons and Pakistan is selling them. Our former best friend in Baghdad turns out to be an American spy. Al Qaeda, of course, is still out there. All this notwithstanding, some commentators on the right seem to have decided that the real enemies aren't the ones they read about it the papers, but the people who write them.

....

The argument here - that everything is fine except the media coverage - is absurd on its face. The reporters in question are, unlike their pundit-detractors, on the ground in Iraq witnessing the situation for themselves. It is undeniable, moreover, that a growing chorus of former war supporters - liberals and conservatives alike - people like George Will, Tucker Carlson, Thomas Friedman, Fareed Zakaria, and Bill Kristol have grown increasingly dubious that the president's policies will bring us to success. Is this band of ex-hawks really trying to bring America down, or are they sincerely worried that the president is the one bringing us low? The doubters, moreover, are hardly to be found in the press alone. Three of the past four top generals in the U.S. Central Command have denounced the president's handling of the situation and the fourth is on the board of a company that depends on good will from the Pentagon to stay in business. These general are not die-hard liberals, or surly reporters, they're men who've spent years commanding all U.S. military forces in the region.

...

Nevertheless, the political purpose of the theory isn't hard to grasp. The groundwork is being laid for a new version of the "stab in the back" myth that helped destroy Weimar Germany. No matter how far south things go in Iraq, the blame will be laid not at the feet of the president who initiated and conducted the war, but rather on those who had the temerity to note that it wasn't working. Rather than the critics having been proven right, or so the story goes, the critics are to blame for the failure of the very policy they were criticizing. It's an ugly tactic, and as you go down the journalistic food chain, it grows uglier still.

Also, I would just like to note the similarity between this cartoon (http://perso.wanadoo.fr/d-d.natanson/dolchstoss.jpg) about Germany's defeat in WWI:

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/d-d.natanson/dolchstoss.jpg

And this modern-day right-wing cartoon (http://cerdipity.no-ip.com/cartoons/2004jan12.jpg) about the situation in Iraq:

http://cerdipity.no-ip.com/cartoons/2004jan12.jpg

It's the same deal--if you claim that all bad news is nothing more than pessimism, defeatism, and treason, then you don't have to face reality or place responsibility where it belongs. The Star of David in the first cartoon may have changed to a peace sign in the second, but otherwise the theme is identical.

Here's a little more information (http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/pages/t018/t01841.html) about the Weimar-era "stab in the back" myth.

Should we allow governments to crack down on the media, ESPECIALLY during times of war, than we may never know about Abu Garib by now.
which is my point. Of all the sick twisted things the enemy is doing to us in this war, we catch a couple oif our guys going crazy and suddenly everyone at home thinks we're the bad guys. Let the government take care of it, and just support the troops until they come home.
But we ARE bad guys (well, not we, but the abusers). I won't comment as to whether or not we're any worse than "the enemy" because I don't believe everything the media tells me. I do, however, feel as though it's good that the American people know what these soldiers are doing. If it happened here, they would be sent to jail. What would you think if the Americans were the prisoners that were being abused? Why can't you see that it's just as bad for us to do it to them? I, for one, think we should know, regardless of who is abusing and who is abused.

Why is this thread focusing so much on the prisoner abuse when so many other things worth discussing have happened?

How about Dan Rather interviewing Saddam? Fair and balanced or just what Saddam wanted him to see. How about the complete ignoring of chemical weapons found in IRaq and the fact that they are bing used by terrorists. How about The GIs who are shot at while building schools? How about the fact that the electric grid is now BETTER than it was during Saddam for most of the country. Why not report about the many business which are starting and the rapidly falling unemployment.

There are two reasons:
1) Good news seldom sells newspapers.
2) Reporting good news does not make a 'name' for the reporter or their media master.
3) The vast majority of reporters/editors are liberal and cannot help but view the world through liberal tined vision. It is not their fault - just their perspective. No human can be completely impartial.

Should the govt limit it? Absolutely not. Muckraking has been around forever and always will be. Only blatalntly treasonous or inciteful language should be (and is) banned.

How do you assure the media is balanced? That's the joy of freedom - you don't. Freedom is about responsibility. Responsibility to seek out the truth and share it. Supply and demand is only marginal at doing that. Luckily in the modern era it is not hard to get or share information. There is much propoganda on all sides, but hidden within is the truth.

Look--in an ideal situation, the press and the government are intractable enemies. The press is supposed to be there to make sure the government doesn't act in secret.

I say supposed to be because more and more it looks like the corporate media is hand in hand with the government when it benefits them. Look at the recent mea culpa by the NY Times over its Iraq WMD coverage--they basically admitted that they swallowed the administration line completely (although they haven't gone far enough in my opinion--Judith Miller needs to be looking for a job right now).

Meanwhile, nobody knows who Dana Milbank is and Sy Hersh is attacked for no reason. Why? Because they do their jobs and they not only investigate the government, but they expose the government when it screws up.

Why is this thread focusing so much on the prisoner abuse when so many other things worth discussing have happened?

How about the complete ignoring of chemical weapons found in IRaq and the fact that they are bing used by terrorists.

There are two reasons:
1) Good news seldom sells newspapers.
2) Reporting good news does not make a 'name' for the reporter or their media master.
3) The vast majority of reporters/editors are liberal and cannot help but view the world through liberal tined vision. It is not their fault - just their perspective. No human can be completely impartial.
(aside from that being 3 reasons.. :) I'll just forgive that...)
good news?

Why is this thread focusing so much on the prisoner abuse when so many other things worth discussing have happened?

How about the complete ignoring of chemical weapons found in IRaq and the fact that they are bing used by terrorists.

There are two reasons:
1) Good news seldom sells newspapers.
2) Reporting good news does not make a 'name' for the reporter or their media master.
3) The vast majority of reporters/editors are liberal and cannot help but view the world through liberal tined vision. It is not their fault - just their perspective. No human can be completely impartial.
(aside from that being 3 reasons.. :) I'll just forgive that...)
good news?Ummm... Bozzy? No chemical weapons have been found or used in Iraq, not by terrorists, not by insurgents. Hasn't happened. Might as well get past it.

Why is this thread focusing so much on the prisoner abuse when so many other things worth discussing have happened?

How about the complete ignoring of chemical weapons found in IRaq and the fact that they are bing used by terrorists.

There are two reasons:
1) Good news seldom sells newspapers.
2) Reporting good news does not make a 'name' for the reporter or their media master.
3) The vast majority of reporters/editors are liberal and cannot help but view the world through liberal tined vision. It is not their fault - just their perspective. No human can be completely impartial.
(aside from that being 3 reasons.. :) I'll just forgive that...)
good news?Ummm... Bozzy? No chemical weapons have been found or used in Iraq, not by terrorists, not by insurgents. Hasn't happened. Might as well get past it.yeah, ok, so that wasn't seran(sp) we found...

Last I heard--and if you can come up with a news story that contradicts me, I'll be glad to look at it--the shell that was used in one IED attack dated back to the Iran-Iraq war and was never actually found to have sairn inside of it. Prove me wrong--you know me, I'll admit it if I am.

I have to say I am not for censorship and not in this case either I say no though I make up my own mind I have to say media should not be forced etc. do we want a government news only? Sounds offly one sided of course both sides want it this way I say the more views the more coverage the better and the freer the coverage the better

Josh, this may be the one and only time we ever agree on something. :lol:

I'm always in favor of more and better news coverage, regardless of who's in office.

Unfortunatly, this goes down against the First Amendment...the freedom of the press.

Should we allow governments to crack down on the media, ESPECIALLY during times of war, than we may never know about Abu Garib by now.

Remember, the government's main goal is to STAY in power. They'll use anything they can get their hands on. Giving them the media is NOT a good option.


Hence, the First Amendment


man those guys from the 18th century were smart.

They must not want to stay in power too bad, or else we would have a war after each election. See the election results don't matter if the president, who is in command of the most powerful army in the world, decides to disband congress and make the US a dictatorship and not giving up his power, I am actually kind of surprised this has never happened before, but now that they get their own little army to protect them and excellent benefits their is probably more incentive to give up power than to fight to keep it.

We manage to hold these peaceful elections because of very strong nationalist beliefs in the US, you know, saying stuff like we are the best and peaceful change of power prove this, we are more loyal to the country than any one person.

Is this topic basically asking "Do you believe in free speech?"?

I think that the media should tell the truth. If the public doesn't like the truth, well, that says something, doesn't it?

And about this D-Day nonsense....it's not like Americans didn't know that lots of people were dying in WWII. The difference is that Americans saw the losses in WWII as clearly necessary and justified under the circumstances, and the same is not true of Vietnam and Iraq.
I agree 100%

The US is the most powerful country and the leader of the free world. Being the only super power it is our responsibility to polices the world and protect the rights of people everywhere in the world.

Saddam was commiting genocide against the Kurds in northern Iraq since his rise to power. No longer being responsible for policing just the western hemisphere but rather the whole world, we are all but duty bound to go into Iraq, politics got in the way in 1991, Bush Sr. was losing in the polls and he thought that if he had our troops home by the time of the elections he would win, he still lost.

No we have gone into Iraq to finish what we started 13 years ago, this is just a continuation of the war on terror, after the Taliban fell in Afganhistan Al Qeada moved some of their bases into northern Iraq.

All but two countries in the world denounced the attacks of September 11, Iraq and Afganhistan, we have invaded them both and have not faced any major terror attacks since then, the war on terror has been successful up till this point. Politics and the media have no place in war, in Britain every single soldier who dies in action is honored with a proper service upon return from Iraq, we can't do anything because the democrats and media double team the president. When pictures of 20 caskets draped with Americans flags were released the democrats made a huge stink about it, so the media stopped showing them, why is it that we can not honor our dead with a proper service and remembrance?

Facts about the training camps here (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84291,00.html)
or here (http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2002/html/19996.htm)