Quote from Maverick74:
OK, man this is frustrating. I am not talking about the Saddam torture. I am talking about how our media selectively reports.
Quote from Madison:
like, for example, in the 6 months prior to the invasion, when every news program on air featured at least one neocon/administration "official" blabbering hysterical propaganda and lies in response to softball setup questions, unopposed?
of course they selectively report. the only solution to that is diversity of sources and freedom of expression -- coincidentally, exactly the things powell II, the fcc, and the neocons are fighting hardest to prevent.
Quote from Maverick74:
You guys are missing the point. I don't mind seeing all the torture that American Soldiers are doing to Iraqi's and when I say I don't mind, I mean, I don't mind that they are broadcasting it and making us aware of what's going on over there. But what about some balance. I don't get why we have to see American soldiers performing sex acts on Iraqi's 24 hours a day and yet we have in our hands footage of Saddam committing acts of torture and none of it gets broadcast. Whatever happened to having some balance here. Or should we just pretend that the Iraq's are angels and American soldiers are vicious, brutal, heartless soldiers? I'm just saying there is a very clear double standard here, that's all.
Quote from Maverick74:
OK, this is my fault. I must be speaking Greek here. I am not talking about torture here. We could be talking about European models as far as I care. I am talking about the agenda of the media to selectively report what they want to report. Forget about Saddam and the torture. My point is we have a blatant example here where the media is intentionally holding a video that many would consider newsworthy while at the same time, playing up the American abuse videos around the clock. That's my point.
I'm not talking about comparing tit for tat but rather the bias of the media. It kind of reminds me of that Iraqi Information Minister, Tarik (sp) guy during the shock and awe campaign when he was on Al Jareeza TV saying things like we have beat the Americans, the war is over, we have the situation under control. Is our media in this country really as manipulative as Al Jareeza? I thought we were better then that. My bad.
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
Liberal bias is often revealed by what is deemed "news" or how much prominence it is given. Anything that promotes liberal stereotypes is given prominent, uncritical treatment and items that contradict that agenda are typically ignored. It is instructive to compare the front pages of the Washington Times and Washington Post to see the difference.
The saddam torture videos, like the Berg murder, did not fit the stereotype of an out of control, murderously incompetent US military, so they were one day stories. The prison hazing pictures fit that stereotype, plus had titillation value, so they are omnipresent. The media and congressional obsession with some minor misconduct in the context of a war where we have lost hundreds of troops to roadside bombs, snipers, ambushes ,etc shows their priorities are seriously adrift.
Quote from bungrider:
In case you haven't noticed, we have the dumbest, most corrupt, most hated by the world, and above all - WEAKEST president in American history.
Now THAT is news.
PS - If you consider forcing a prisoner to shove a banana up his ass whilst being videotaped "minor misconduct," I'm sure as shit glad I wasn't in your fraternity (or Dick Cheney's, since he said the same exact thing you did).
Quote from Pabst:
I know you're ultra young Bung (hey that was a JESSE JACKSON moment) but you're lack of history and perspective often shows. If you think going to war when you KNOW it's going to hurt you politically is a sign of weakness then your sense of measurement is way off. If nothing else Bush has the balls to piss off half the electorate and 3/4's of the world for what he believes is right....
Quote from bungrider:
This first paragraph, I think, cuts into the heart of what's different between me and you: I see Bush as being too weak to stand up to "special interests" (not just corporations - I also mean the pro-Israel ideologues) and too stupid to stay in control of the people around him, like Wolfowitz and Cheney.
I think that we can both agree that no politician, certainly no Republican, has ever done anything simply because it was "the right thing to do." Thus I've been skeptical of this whole Iraq thing from the beginning.
And I have a special grudge against what I deem as the ultimate socialism: corporate charity. I'm surprised you aren't more offended by the subsidization of social interests by the US military. I think that there needs to be a complete and total division between private interests and the government. Farm subsidies are no different than this.
Face it, it's always going to be some form of paranoia used by the neocons to foist large bills on the taxpayers. It was fascism in latin america in the 80s; now it's Islam. Both easy targets since the underlying victims are poor people that nobody gives a shit about.
From questionable people come questionable motives.
As for the other 2 paragraphs, all I can say is that poor people with nothing to lose are going to behave this way. The US and Israel have made themselves perfect targets for demagogues targeting these groups.