The Globe uses reliable sources to get their stories,too.
Doesn’t meen I’d trust their take on it, though. Point in case: Here in Denver We have two major daily papers, The Denver Post and the Rocky Mountain News. Most people like the News for it’s layout. I would rather read the Post, though, because they state the facts and don’t try to hide under tones or lead their readers to draw any conclutions. But for war coverage, I still didn’t trust 75% of what they reported. Rueters has a long held repytation for telling the bruital truth.
I think it’s a good article.
It does make the point that what is seen in the media in one place is not necessarily how it is seen elsewhere.
How much is spin on either side? Well that depends on bias and perspective.
The American media perspective is going to lean favourably in the mainstream media to the sitting government and all those who oppose will be in some way marginalized. That’s how it goes and that really is how it really works.
Bush said it himself “…if you aren’t with us, you’re with the terrorists.”.
How much sense does that make? How many media outlets are gonna print or screen objections to the current president? Media is about advertising dollars, advertising dollars dominate all media with the exception of the private press, which is not exactly mainstream and isn’t really in a position to truly persuade someone in their political leanings.
So, coming from a Kungfu guy such as Gene, I thought it was a good article. Certainly a clearer look at it than one would get in their panic room watching fox 
cheers
I think the Chinese pronounciation of Bush is very telling. After all, the Chinese are the beacon of light for truth, equality, and civil rights for all its citizens.
Bush said it himself “…if you aren’t with us, you’re with the terrorists.”.
How much sense does that make?
Makes a lot of sense considering how serious Bush takes the war on terrorism.
How many media outlets are gonna print or screen objections to the current president?
KL, You must be kidding. The NYT for one.
Media is about advertising dollars, advertising dollars dominate all media with the exception of the private press, which is not exactly mainstream and isn’t really in a position to truly persuade someone in their political leanings.
Those advertising dollars are the best poll on how US citizens feel about the subject.
KL, You must be kidding. The NYT for one.
Are you kidding?! The media has been self-censoring itself since Bush started this tirade. No one wants to be perceived as being “against the troops” because that is unAmerican. :rolleyes:
Even the Democrats are too scared to say anything about this horrendous tax-cut that just passsed. Our national debt will be almost 8 trillion in a few months thanks to Bush. We don’t even have the required monetary ratio of debt to join the Euorpean Union right now.
Oh yeah. We’re on the right track.
Putting the focus on supporting the troops only detracts from the agenda of the administration.
Of course you can tug at peoples hearts by pointing at their own that are in harms way.
the soldiers certainly didn’t start the war. They are there because they are a tool of the government. That is the lot of the soldier.
Of course you would show support for your friends, family and countrymen. My country has troops all over the place, serving for various reasons including the war on terrorism. I support them in their endeavours.
The troops should not be used in such partisan ways though IMO and Bush certainly loves to connect himself to the military to justify his administrations actions. This says a lot in itself.
cheers
Oh yea that ***** clinton had nothing at all to do with our present national debt and economy situation.
Bush is a FAR better leader than that P.O.S whale humper ever was and ever could be. Some people are just ****ed because he did not continue down the same road of national pussification.
I am going to be laughing my arse off when he wins again in 04.
I am going to be laughing my arse off when he wins again in 04.
Sure, but are you gonna be laughing in 08 when he’s done? My money is on you be weeping with the rest of us.
Bush is a FAR better leader than that P.O.S whale humper ever was and ever could be.
What exactly has he led us towards? Um…OK, we kicked the crap out of two 3rd tier countries. What else…? What improvements has he made? What policies?
He was a laughing stock in the media before 9/11. Many were saying he was the worst President ever. So what changed? We got attacked, and people got defensive, and he started spouting Nationalistic rhetoric and whipped everyone into a fervor. But to what avail? Al Queda is still bombing people…didn’t stop them. Couldn’t catch Bin Laden…Saddam is still alive…didn’t kill him. So who’s the next target for his endless war for popularity?
And that whole air-craft carrier fiasco was ridiculous.Maybe next time, he should try to sell his tax-cuts from a submarine. That would make people think he is strong!
Its flabbergasting that you overlook the big picture. America is breaking up terrorist cells left and right, 9/11 suspects and al-Queda suspects are being captured and apprehended with more being rounded up all the time, their have been no more home front attacks, Bush has taken out two national backers which support terrorism, one of them a world class evil.
What do some of you people expect, for Bush to snap his fingers and Bin Laden is caught, patience is a virtue and the hunt still goes on, how long did it take to capture some of the nazi war criminals from WWII…:rolleyes:
Gore would of rolled his nuts around in the sandbox and not accomplished a thing.
it take to capture some of the nazi war criminals from WWII…
That Hitler fellow was especially hard to find. :rolleyes:
Originally posted by MasterKiller
Al Queda is still bombing people…didn’t stop them. Couldn’t catch Bin Laden…Saddam is still alive…didn’t kill him.
If you wanted Saddam and Bin Laden’s heads on a silver platter; if you wanted global American hegemony; if you wanted a successfull crusade against militant Islam; then you no doubt find Bush to be a failure.
If you wanted the genocide of the Iraqi people to stop, then you no doubt find Bush to be a success.
Really, it’s all a matter of what your personal values are.
Originally posted by MasterKiller
That Hitler fellow was especially hard to find. :rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
You’re showcasing your gross ignorance of history again.
Masterkiller, here is a roll-eyes back at you for overlooking the whole post just as you are overlooking the big picture.:rolleyes:
If you wanted the genocide of the Iraqi people to stop, then you no doubt find Bush to be a success.
Which UN Resolution called for a stop to genocide against the Iraqi people, again?
Originally posted by MasterKiller
Which UN Resolution called for a stop to genocide against the Iraqi people, again?
You’re going to have to make more of an effort to have a point before I’m tempted to go to the trouble to get a reference for you.
It was a question about values not UN resolutions.
It was more like an after-thought when the world wouldn’t rally around GW’s cause. I’m not saying putting Saddam out of commision wasn’t his original goal. I’m saying it was, and the whole WMD thing was just a lie to achieve it.
The CIA even admits that documents may have been forged which supported the administrations claims of WMD.
Originally posted by MasterKiller
It was more like an after-thought when the world wouldn’t rally around GW’s cause.
What was?
I’m not saying putting Saddam out of commision wasn’t his original goal.
Deposing Saddam’s regime was his original goal. This is a bit different than needing to know where his body is.
I’m saying it was, and the whole WMD thing was just a lie to achieve it.
The WMD thing was the context by which America could operate within the UN. That it’s different from their context for operating within their own foreign policy doesn’t make it “a lie.” Two very different contexts result in two very different sets of reasoning.
The WMD thing was the context by which America could operate within the UN. That it’s different from their context for operating within their own foreign policy doesn’t make it “a lie.” Two very different contexts result in two very different sets of reasoning.
So you justify fabricating a military condition to the rest of the world in order to be depose a government that you don’t like and poses no threat to us? If Liberation was the goal all along, then how was Iraq a threat to our security.
How does foreign policy justify lying about the reasons you want to want to invade another country? And even if it does, what are the repercusions on foreign relations if the rest of the world knows we lied?
Originally posted by MasterKiller
So you justify fabricating a military condition to the rest of the world…How does foreign policy justify lying about the reasons you want to want to invade another country?..And even if it does, what are the repercusions on foreign relations if the rest of the world knows we lied?
Say you take a friday off work and go to the beach with your girlfriend. While you’re there, you bump into one of your supervisors from work, and he goes “Why are you here?” You tell him, “Oh, I took the day off work.” Later on, you bump into one of your buddies, he asks you “Why are you here?” You say, “Man, I wanted to stay home and drink, but my girlfriend made me come.”
Is either one of these a lie? Is either one of these a fabrication to justify something?
No, they’re both perfectly reasonable answers; they differ because of context.
Same deal here. I’m not justifying it, I’m explaining what it is. I encourage you to find fault with it, so long as you’re finding fault with what actually happened, rather than something you made up.
So once again, nothing about this is a “lie.” Moreover, all of this was entirely overt and public domain all along.
…in order to be depose a government that you don’t like and poses no threat to us…how was Iraq a threat to our security
Since I happen to care for people other than just myself, that they posed no threat to me personally is not a particularly persuasive point with me.
Again, you may be different. You may only care about threats to yourself and not care if other people suffer. In which case, I’d have to accept your reasoning here as valid.
Again, it’s all about personal values.