FRIHOST • FORUMS • SEARCH • FAQ • TOS • BLOGS • COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Enemy Press





S3nd K3ys
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20421

FrontPage Magazine wrote:
This is a war. You can be unhappy about it and sit it out. That's ok. That's what a democracy is about. You're right to dissent. You can criticize the war and vote for another government that will leave the field of battle. That's ok too. That's also what a democracy about. But while an elected government and the young men and women it sends into battle are engaged with a ruthless enemy in the field, you can't work to cripple their efforts , or do the work of the enemy side and expect the rest of us not to regard you as a saboteur and a Judas and an enemy within.

These thoughts are provoked by the lead story in Saturday's Los Angeles Times and then by a missing lead in the paper the next day. On Saturday the lead story headline in the Times was "Bomb Kills 10 Marines At Fallouja." What kind of a lead story is this? We're in a war. What's the big news that ten soldiers have died? And by one roadside bomb? It could happen any day -- even on the last of a war before a peace. There is no story. This is hardly news. It's like running a headline that today 110 people were killed in car accidents. Actually that's a fact (or a ballpark fact -- if 55,000 Americans die every year from car wrecks). But no one writes headlines about it because it's not news. It's life as we know it. As long as there are millions of cars on the roads and they're driven by people like us, there are going to be accidents and deaths. So too with war.


Sen. Joe Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, came out with a big statement on Iraq last week. Did you hear about it? Probably not. Everyone was still raving about his Democrat colleague, Rep. Jack Murtha, whose carefully nuanced position on Iraq is: We're all doomed unless we pull out by next Tuesday! (I quote from memory.)

Also, the United States Army is "broken," "worn out" and "living hand to mouth." If the reaction to Murtha's remarks by my military readers is anything to go by, he ought to be grateful they're still bogged down in Iraq and not in the congressional parking lot.

It's just about acceptable in polite society to disagree with Murtha, but only if you do it after a big 20-minute tongue bath about what "a fine man" he is (as Rumsfeld said) or what "a good man" he is (as Cheney called him) or what "a fine man, a good man" he is (as Bush phrased it). Nobody says that about Lieberman, especially on his own side. And, while the media were eager to promote Murtha as the most incisively insightful military expert on the planet, this guy Lieberman's evidently some nobody no one need pay any attention to.

Here's why. His big piece on Iraq was headlined "Our Troops Must Stay."
i_am_mine
Quote:
What kind of a lead story is this? We're in a war. What's the big news that ten soldiers have died?


Whats the big news that ten soldiers have died?
S3nd K3ys
http://newsbusters.org/node/3087

Newsbusters wrote:
TIME Omits Positive War on Terror Results From Report on its Own Poll
Posted by Noel Sheppard on December 6, 2005 - 01:11.

On Friday, NewsBusters reported the results of a new Rasmussen poll indicating that the public’s view of the War on Terrorism has dramatically improved in the past couple of months, but none of the mainstream media were opting to share this information with the citizenry. Well, another polling agency has just done a survey confirming this increase in American optimism concerning this subject. Yet, in this case, the very media outlet that paid for the survey is the one not including the results in its own published report.


Lose the war at all costs. Even at the cost of those ten soldiers.
i_am_mine
Manipulation of facts, corruption of media?
Why the anguish? The see, saws both ways...and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out which one swung first...


Quote:
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 12, 2004; Page A01

Days before the Iraq war began, veteran Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus put together a story questioning whether the Bush administration had proof that Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction.

But he ran into resistance from the paper's editors, and his piece ran only after assistant managing editor Bob Woodward, who was researching a book about the drive toward war, "helped sell the story," Pincus recalled. "Without him, it would have had a tough time getting into the paper." Even so, the article was relegated to Page A17.

"We did our job but we didn't do enough, and I blame myself mightily for not pushing harder," Woodward said in an interview. "We should have warned readers we had information that the basis for this was shakier" than widely believed. "Those are exactly the kind of statements that should be published on the front page."

As violence continues in postwar Iraq and U.S. forces have yet to discover any WMDs, some critics say the media, including The Washington Post, failed the country by not reporting more skeptically on President Bush's contentions during the run-up to war.

An examination of the paper's coverage, and interviews with more than a dozen of the editors and reporters involved, shows that The Post published a number of pieces challenging the White House, but rarely on the front page. Some reporters who were lobbying for greater prominence for stories that questioned the administration's evidence complained to senior editors who, in the view of those reporters, were unenthusiastic about such pieces. The result was coverage that, despite flashes of groundbreaking reporting, in hindsight looks strikingly one-sided at times.

"The paper was not front-paging stuff," said Pentagon correspondent Thomas Ricks. "Administration assertions were on the front page. Things that challenged the administration were on A18 on Sunday or A24 on Monday. There was an attitude among editors: Look, we're going to war, why do we even worry about all this contrary stuff?"

In retrospect, said Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr., "we were so focused on trying to figure out what the administration was doing that we were not giving the same play to people who said it wouldn't be a good idea to go to war and were questioning the administration's rationale. Not enough of those stories were put on the front page. That was a mistake on my part."

Across the country, "the voices raising questions about the war were lonely ones," Downie said. "We didn't pay enough attention to the minority."

When national security reporter Dana Priest was addressing a group of intelligence officers recently, she said, she was peppered with questions: "Why didn't The Post do a more aggressive job? Why didn't The Post ask more questions? Why didn't The Post dig harder?"

Several news organizations have cast a withering eye on their earlier work. The New York Times said in a May editor's note about stories that claimed progress in the hunt for WMDs that editors "were perhaps too intent on rushing scoops into the paper." Separately, the Times editorial page and the New Republic magazine expressed regret for some prewar arguments.

Michael Massing, a New York Review of Books contributor and author of the forthcoming book "Now They Tell Us," on the press and Iraq, said: "In covering the run-up to the war, The Post did better than most other news organizations, featuring a number of solid articles about the Bush administration's policies. But on the key issue of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, the paper was generally napping along with everyone else. It gave readers little hint of the doubts that a number of intelligence analysts had about the administration's claims regarding Iraq's arsenal."

The front page is a newspaper's billboard, its way of making a statement about what is important, and stories trumpeted there are often picked up by other news outlets. Editors begin pitching stories at a 2 p.m. news meeting with Downie and Managing Editor Steve Coll and, along with some reporters, lobby throughout the day. But there is limited space on Page 1 -- usually six or seven stories -- and Downie said he likes to feature a broad range of subjects, including education, health, science, sports and business.

Woodward, for his part, said it was risky for journalists to write anything that might look silly if weapons were ultimately found in Iraq. Alluding to the finding of the Sept. 11 commission of a "groupthink" among intelligence officials, Woodward said of the weapons coverage: "I think I was part of the groupthink."

Given The Post's reputation for helping topple the Nixon administration, some of those involved in the prewar coverage felt compelled to say the paper's shortcomings did not reflect any reticence about taking on the Bush White House. Priest noted, however, that skeptical stories usually triggered hate mail "questioning your patriotism and suggesting that you somehow be delivered into the hands of the terrorists."

CONTINUED 1 2 3 4 Next >



For the Full Story > Washington Post

Rupert Murdoch's a.k.a Media Moghul ( a.k.a Fox News Daddy ) has knack for being super biased...but ofcourse you don't believe me, perhaps you'll believe the people who work for Murdoch himself...and yes its all in Video!

Clara Frenk
Former Fox News Producer
subject: Politicizing news coverage
(Quicktime http://www.outfoxed.org/clips_clara_frenk_qt.php, Windows Media http://www.outfoxed.org/clips_clara_frenk_wm.php)

Alexander Kippen
Former Fox News Producer
subject: The flag pays
(Quicktime http://www.outfoxed.org/clips_alexander_kippen_qt.php, Windows Media
http://www.outfoxed.org/clips_alexander_kippen_wm.php)

Jon Du Pre
Former Fox News Anchor
subject: Covering news for Fox
(Quicktime http://www.outfoxed.org/clips_jon_dupre_qt.php, Windows Media http://www.outfoxed.org/clips_jon_dupre_wm.php)

Frank O'Donnell
Former Fox News producer
subject: Fox political agenda and a Current Affair
(Quicktime http://www.outfoxed.org/clips_frank_odonnell_qt.php, Windows Media http://www.outfoxed.org/clips_frank_odonnell_qt.php)




___________________________________________________________



The New Media Monopoly

The New Media Monopoly describes the cartel of five giant media conglomerates who now control the media on which a majority of Americans say they most rely. These five are not just large — though they are all among the 325 largest corporations in the world — they are unique among all huge corporations: they are a major factor in changing the politics of the United States and they condition the social values of children and adults alike.

These five huge corporations — Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) — own most of the newspapers, magazines, books, radio and TV stations, and movie studios of the United States.

These Big Five (with General Electric's NBC a close sixth) do not manufacture automobiles, or clothing, or nuts and bolts. They manufacture politics and social values. The media conglomerates have been a major force in creating conservative and far right politics in the country. They have almost single-handedly as a group, in their radio and television dominance, produced a coarse and vulgar culture that celebrates the most demeaning characteristics in the human psyche — greed, deceit, and cheating as a legitimate way to win (as in the various "reality" shows).

It is not just national economics that is at stake — though their power has led to the government's somnolence of anti-trust action. Nor is it just the neglect of broadcast media giantism by the government agencies that by law are still required to operate "in the public interest." The public interest is to have the country's largest broadcasting system in the world provide diversity in news, opinion, and commentary that serves all Americans, right, left, and independent, as well as access to their local stations as well as true choices in national programs.

What is at stake is American democracy itself. A country without all the significant news, points of view, and information its citizens need to be informed voters is risking the loss of democratic rights. Voters without genuine choices and without the information they need to choose what meets their own needs and wishes has produced something alarming: on Election Day our voters are forced to vote for what is the narrowest political choices among all industrial democracies of the world.

A whole generation that has forgotten, for example, that the public owns the air waves, not the broadcasters.
[Ben Bagdikian]


Do not forget that these 10 soldiers were someone's children, who deserved to have their story put on the front page.

The state, nor the pride of the state shall ever come before that of the individual, that my friend, is called communism: for the state, by the state and of the state.

Cherish this for America once was, and still fights to be for the people, by the people and of the people.
S3nd K3ys
i_am_mine wrote:


Do not forget that these 10 soldiers were someone's children, who deserved to have their story put on the front page.

The state, nor the pride of the state shall ever come before that of the individual, that my friend, is called communism: for the state, by the state and of the state.

Cherish this for America once was, and still fights to be for the people, by the people and of the people.


I have NO problem putting them on the front page of every paper in the nation. I DO have a problem with them not putting ANYTHING good about it on ANY page. Reading any of the main-stream media, ('cept for Fox), you will rarely hear about any of the good that's going on. And when you do hear about the good, it's delivered in such a way as to down-play it's importance, or simply spin it to make it seem bad.
i_am_mine
seems to be problem of individual preference of what you'd like to see.
too bad.


Throughout history the voice of a nation's people has spoken out against there governments, and sounded far more venomous and unpatriotic than this...The Soviet Union,France(the Revolution is famous for its pioneering use of Gazettes/Newspapers as a form of protest/truth/rebellion ),China(now spreading faster than ever on an un-monitorable medium-The Internet),India(again the newspaper),South Africa...

The truth may hurt.But what hurts has a right to get published.

And what hurts usually makes it to the front page.

There's a reason for the negativity.
S3nd K3ys
i_am_mine wrote:
seems to be problem of individual preference of what you'd like to see.

.


No, I'd like to see both sides of the story reported equally. There's good and bad going on, but we only hear about the bad, as if the good doesn't exist.

What's so hard about that to understand? Rolling Eyes
i_am_mine
I would imagine during World War II the main subject of newspaper reports was Adolf Hitler,The Nazis,The Holocaust and so on and so forth, rather than the weather down in Hawaii and whether it was a good time of the year to go skinny dipping.

The same holds true for the Vietnam War, the papers reported more and more negativity ( although they too, as similar to today, tried to initially not to report ), why didn't they report the (minor) victories across Vietnam? Because they're hardly were any, to put it in rather childish words we were losing more than we were winning, there was more discontent and fear than hope and pride, not to mention the low morale of the soldiers.

If you have bad news and none too good, you're not gonna put in something bright and cheerful 'cus you've already got something dark and not to hopeful in there.

Thats what news is.Its not good or bad.Its just news.You can't put in something good for the sake of putting it in.There's no quota.If "negative" news outnumbers "positive", then that means something's going on .

Thats how people stay in touch with the way the world around them is tilting...towards good times or bad days.

You have a hurricane going through Florida and the next day in the papers ( if there is a paper ) you're not gonna see that many good stories cus there just aint that many, you're gonna hear more about the death and destruction.

Its called reporting the truth.Even if the truth is something you'd rather not hear....

The Fourth Estate.A pillar of democracy.
S3nd K3ys
i_am_mine wrote:
I would imagine during World War II the main subject of newspaper reports was Adolf Hitler,The Nazis,The Holocaust and so on and so forth, rather than the weather down in Hawaii and whether it was a good time of the year to go skinny dipping..


Jeez, dude... Rolling Eyes Are you really that shallow? Did you read what I posted? Did you understand it?

I don't want to know about the ****** weather in Istanbul.

I want to know about:

The elections they've had in Iraq, and the upcoming election

The 76,000 new jobs that were created

The nearly 200 new newspapers being published in Iraq from all arrays of opinions

How 39% of Iraqis now have access to international satellite television

How 4000 schools have been totally renovated

How 12 million new math and science books have been printed and replaced in schools without the pro-Saddam propoganda attached

How 100% of schools have been re-opened if not in the same location at a temporary location while the original school house is being renovated

The budget for healthcare today in Iraq is over 1 billion dollars

There has been a 25% increase in immunization rates amongst Iraqi children

75 medical facilities have been confirmed to have been refurbished

That's the kind of thing I'd like to hear about, as well as the bad things.
i_am_mine
Dude as shallow as the truth may be it hurts to know that each of the points you mentioned above is overshadowed by...

I was trying to explain in little kiddy words since you clearly do not acknowledge the existence of statistics,facts ans figures.

Well back to to it again I guess, since thats the way you want it...

These are the points that you posted above:
1. Job creation
2. 200 newspapers created
3. 39% of Iraqis have satellite t.v
4. 4000 schools renovated
5. 12 million new math and science books reprinted and replaced for pro saddam propoganda
6. 100% schools reopened
7.Healthcare @ over 1b $
8.75 med facilitied refurbished
9.oh wait there's 8.

Starting with 1. Job creation...

Perhaps you overlooked the fact that of 76,000 jobs created 32,880 jobs are actually that Of the Iraqi Police, The job itself is infamous throughout Iraq but attracts for its relatively high renumeration.Security forces are dying at a rate of 4 to 1 compared with US troops.
The total number of Iraqi police and military killed from June 1, 2003, to Nov. 2, 2005, was 3,657.The average number of Iraqi police men dead per month is between 50 to a hundred.103 Iraqi troops and police were killed in the 18 day period from Nov. 10 through Nov. 27, an average of well under six per day. This showed a slight improvement on the 45 Iraqi troops and police killed in the seven-day period from Nov. 3 through Nov. 9, an average of just below 6.5 per day.


Now when you say 75,000 jobs and I say 32,800 ( and rising ) police men that fall at an average of 6.5 per day, my friend the truth has never been more sadistic in that it is bright...I'm sure you'll find your happy little statistics of employment inflating as we go.
Lets do a little math here 32,800 of 75,000 hmmm....thats 43.73 % and thats definitely saying something.
Its also common knowledge and fact that men join the Iraqi police because the local economy is virtual non existant id est, to get food on the table.The American forces need them to keep their own body count down, which is non-too-impressive either.
...

....

.....good news.They hired 6.5 people more,yesterday and today...
...maybe thats why they can't put it on the 1st page...they're doing us all a favor.


2.200 Newspapers Created.

That really is great news.200 yep yep.Especially since they're all puppets for non-factual morale raising stories that are actually written by the military itself, then published in newspapers without the name of the Author given....

PROOF: ( Also note, senator is Republican Sad )
Quote:

Military Says It Paid Iraq Papers for News
Possible 'Improprieties' to Be Investigated

By Josh White and Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, December 3, 2005; Page A01

The U.S. military command in Baghdad acknowledged for the first time yesterday that it has paid Iraqi newspapers to carry positive news about U.S. efforts in Iraq.

In a statement, the command said the program included efforts, "customary in Iraq," to purchase advertising and place clearly labeled opinion pieces in Iraqi newspapers. But the statement suggested that the "information operations" program may have veered into a gray area where government contractors paid to have articles placed in Iraqi newspapers without explaining that the material came from the U.S. military and that Iraqi journalists were paid to write positive accounts.

"Serious allegations have been raised that suggest the process may be functioning in a manner different than is intended or appropriate," the statement said. Commanders are "reviewing these allegations and will investigate any improprieties," it said.

The statement from Baghdad was the first official effort to explain the media initiative after three days of news reports describing efforts by the U.S. military to plant stories in Iraqi media under the guise of independent journalism.

The episode has sparked an intense debate at the Pentagon and beyond, as military officials in Washington said privately that they are troubled by the situation and media experts said the program violated standard journalistic practices.

After a briefing from Pentagon officials yesterday, Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said he remains "gravely concerned about the situation." He said the Pentagon is looking into cases in which there may have been "an omission" of labels in newspapers indicating where the material came from or that it was an advertisement.

Top Pentagon authorities appear to have been caught off guard by the disclosure of the Lincoln Group's activities, and the three days it has taken for the Defense Department to produce yesterday's statement seemed to reflect considerable uncertainty about how to respond. Several senior Pentagon officials expressed their own frustration over waiting for an explanation from the military command in Baghdad.


But hey look at the bright side, you wanted positive new right?You got it. So what if they paid to get in there? Don't matter...I mean normal folks don't really expect to read unbiased, truthful stories when the open the newspaper in the morning right?
Quote:
"Here we are trying to create the principles of democracy in Iraq. Every speech we give in that country is about democracy. And we're breaking all the first principles of democracy when we're doing it," said a senior Pentagon official who opposes the practice of planting stories in the Iraqi media.


7,8.Healthcare @ over 1b $, 75 med facilitied refurbished

I must make a minor correction here in an otherwise true fact that you have stated: The Ministry of Health's 2004 budget from the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) for health care is US $950 million.


Now you tell me, when there's somewhere between 6 to 6.5 Iraqi personnel dying on average each day,A 2005 Total of America Soldiers killed as 2132, improvised explosive devices going off every day at every corner, Shia-Sunni clan wars, militia regroupings and you expect your positive news to get more print space ??

On the other hand, maybe you will, if you can pay for it and get it into a puppet newspaper.
Related topics
FOR WAR OR NOT
Enemy Territory
Press&Publicity officer from Uni club seeks free webspac
Wolfenstien: Enemy Territory
Fable
Mexifornia - The Destruction of America
Word Press Invite!
call of duty United Offensive pc cheats
Urban Legends About the Iraq War
Treason?
Press Effect
Can anyone (preferrably a Republican fan-boy) splane this?
Arch Enemy To Record New Album In 2006?
The Middle East Conflict
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.