Understanding the demonisation of the mainstream media

Status
Not open for further replies.
(Edit: this is a response to Mick's request for sources for my previous claims)

I'll have to send an email to MediaLens' programmer, his search function doesn't work as well as it should. That said, this article is an example of what I was talking about:

http://medialens.org/index.php/aler...an-next-in-line-for-western-intervention.html

The FAIR archive is packed:

http://www.fair.org/blog/2013/07/15/cbs-gives-iran-nuclear-fearmongering-a-voice/
http://www.fair.org/blog/2013/09/24/irans-nuclear-weapons-program-again-2/
http://www.fair.org/blog/2013/01/31/irans-nuclear-weapons-program-again/
http://www.fair.org/blog/2012/08/31/burying-the-most-important-news-on-irans-nuclear-program/
http://fair.org/take-action/action-alerts/pbs-and-irans-nuclear-weapons/

Within those articles are lots of links to previous talking points.

I accept that I was wrong in my timeline, the Iran thing goes further back than just 6 months.
 
Wow. When you put it like that, you make him sound as bad as those warmist fear-mongers who deliberately lie and falsely hype the end of the world even though their "science" has been repeatedly shown to be inaccurate.

Still, they keep at it no matter how often their hockey sticks and such are shown to be broken. Hey, there's tons and more tons and megatons of money to be made in carbon taxes, so it's no wonder they go at it hammer and tong.

And just to show what paranoid loons these warmists are, they insist the myriad evidence pointing out the falsity of their claims is that it's a conspiracy by a cabal of corporate elites.

So, to be clear, my point isn't that AJ is perfect or remotely close or that he doesn't have an agenda. I'm just saying that it is inaccurate to section him off from others who are doing the same kind of thing and making a shitload more money doing it.

At least the MSM does give climate change denialists coverage.
 
Wow. When you put it like that, you make him sound as bad as those warmist fear-mongers who deliberately lie and falsely hype the end of the world even though their "science" has been repeatedly shown to be inaccurate.

Still, they keep at it no matter how often their hockey sticks and such are shown to be broken. Hey, there's tons and more tons and megatons of money to be made in carbon taxes, so it's no wonder they go at it hammer and tong.

And just to show what paranoid loons these warmists are, they insist the myriad evidence pointing out the falsity of their claims is that it's a conspiracy by a cabal of corporate elites.

So, to be clear, my point isn't that AJ is perfect or remotely close or that he doesn't have an agenda. I'm just saying that it is inaccurate to section him off from others who are doing the same kind of thing and making a shitload more money doing it.

There's a huge difference between accurately reporting what 97% of actively published climate scientists agree about the climate, and lying about FEMA camps.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
 
(Edit: this is a response to Mick's request for sources for my previous claims)

I'll have to send an email to MediaLens' programmer, his search function doesn't work as well as it should. That said, this article is an example of what I was talking about:

http://medialens.org/index.php/aler...an-next-in-line-for-western-intervention.html

The FAIR archive is packed:

http://www.fair.org/blog/2013/07/15/cbs-gives-iran-nuclear-fearmongering-a-voice/
http://www.fair.org/blog/2013/09/24/irans-nuclear-weapons-program-again-2/
http://www.fair.org/blog/2013/01/31/irans-nuclear-weapons-program-again/
http://www.fair.org/blog/2012/08/31/burying-the-most-important-news-on-irans-nuclear-program/
http://fair.org/take-action/action-alerts/pbs-and-irans-nuclear-weapons/

Within those articles are lots of links to previous talking points.

I accept that I was wrong in my timeline, the Iran thing goes further back than just 6 months.

Interesting that half of those are PBS, which I don't really think of as MSM.

I see what you are saying, but it seems a bit tenuous to me when you look at the actual stories. Not really a large amount of outright assumptions of a nuclear weapons program, more reporting on Israel's claims of such a program. I'd have to read more though.
 
There's a huge difference between accurately reporting what 97% of actively published climate scientists agree about the climate, and lying about FEMA camps.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

97% is an amazing amount of consensus in any scientific group. In the 1930s, by which time quantum mechanics had all the math needed to support its lunacies, less than 60% of physicists were willing to accept what it meant. Even though they all could read the math.

Einstein's theories of relativity, in particular the Special theory, took even longer to be accepted. Even today the world of physics is divided, with some seeing string theory as plausible, and others sticking with the many-worlds interpretation. Me, like Heisenberg, I'm uncertain.
 
Interesting that half of those are PBS, which I don't really think of as MSM.

I see what you are saying, but it seems a bit tenuous to me when you look at the actual stories. Not really a large amount of outright assumptions of a nuclear weapons program, more reporting on Israel's claims of such a program. I'd have to read more though.

I left the US quite some time ago, before Fox existed, but I considered PBS to be a legitimate news source back then. Things have changed, I guess. They do.

I'm now going through those links to see where they point to, and the list is: CBS, WaPo, USA Today, ABC, NYT, PBS. Although two of the five FAIR alerts are about specific PBS Newshour claims, the WaPo and NYT are cited more often. The other 3 FAIR alerts are not channel specific and instead have gathered claims from across the board. So half of the claims that Iran was developing nuclear weapons has not appeared on PBS, far from it. PBS have been pulled up twice, I expect because it's a public station and expected to have higher standards, but the others have all been called out for the same thing at least twice. 3 times for WaPo and NYT, 4 for USA Today. Which would make the PBS contribution not half, but 1/8 of the sources quoted.

I could keep going back, the pattern is the same.
 


The first link about CBS is not that CBS misled, but is about the fact that they allowed Netanyahu, the Israeli head of state, an interview where he could voice his concerns, which FAIR contends are exaggerated.... CBS did not assert anything.


CBS Gives Iran Nuclear Fearmongering a Voice
By Peter Hart 15 Comments

Claims that "Iran is building a nuclear weapon any day now" go back several decades. TheChristian Science Monitor pointed this out (11/8/11) in a web feature titled, "Imminent Iran Nuclear Threat? A Timeline of Warnings Since 1979." Muhammad Sahimi noted (AntiWar.com, 5/5/10): "In 1997 Israel predicted a new date for Iran having a nuclear bomb: 2005." And blogger Nima Shirazi has an exhaustive catalog of similar statements about Iran's imminent nuclear bombs.

Given all of that history, it would be wise to be skeptical of any new claims.

Which brings us to the CBS Sunday show Face the Nation (7/14/13), where host Bob Schieffer announced at the top of the show:

Only on CBS, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says Iran is dangerously close to having a nuclear weapon. And is moving fast to develop an intercontinental missile that could deliver it to the United States.

Schieffer would later add, before the interview began, that they would discuss "the big story overseas"–which is "Iran and its continuing effort to build a nuclear weapon."

Actually Iran is not known to be continuing any such effort–they've long denied it, and the view of U.S. intelligence agencies is that Iran is not known to be pursuing nuclear weapons.

But you'd hardly get that impression from the CBS interview. It began with Netanyahu explaining that the Iranians "have taken heed of the red line that I sketched out at the U.N."– a reference to the speech where he brandished an absurd cartoon drawing of a bomb.

He raised the stakes by claiming that Iran is

building ICBMs to reach the American mainland within a few years. They're pursuing an alternate route of plutonium, that is enriched uranium to build a nuclear bomb. One route, plutonium. Another route, ICBMs, intercontinental ballistic missiles to reach you.

There are plenty of reasons to be skeptical of these missile claims; and even if they were building such weapons, they would be 5 to 10 years away, according to some experts (Wired, 2/24/12).

If Schieffer was frustrated by anything during the discussion, it was the argument that the United States government should be doing more to back up Israel. He told Netanyahu, "Well, the United States has said that we won't tolerate a nuclear Iran. What else can we say?"

Near the end of the interview, Schieffer asked:

Well, how close are they right now? Are they within a month? Are they within six months of having the capability? How close do you think they are?

As nuclear phycisist Yousaf Butt has argued (Reuters, 2/22/13), if that's the question, then the answer so far is that we don't know that Iran is trying to build a bomb at all. And, more importantly, there is no reason to treat Netanyahu as if he would know this:

Unfortunately, Netanyahu's latest claims about the time line to an Iranian bomb is not a one-off aberration. He has been making such assertions for decades. So it pays to take his views with a boulder of salt.

In 1992, Netanyahu, then a parliamentarian, said Iran was three to five years from a bomb. Then, as now, he was urging the United States to do Israel's dirty work – and, perhaps, suffer the possible blowback – saying the alleged threat must be “uprooted by an international front headed by the U.S."

Netanyahu's crystal ball on Iran was cloudy 20 years ago ‑ and it seems still cloudy now.

Netanyahu's overheated rhetoric generated stories about the Iranian threat in the New York Times and Washington Post today–which is probably the point of him going on Sunday chat shows and making such claims. It doesn't hurt that these venues are unlikely to push back and ask tough questions.
Content from External Source
 
The first link about CBS is not that CBS misled, but is about the fact that they allowed Netanyahu, the Israeli head of state, an interview where he could voice his concerns.... CBS did not assert anything.

Accepted. My bad. So it falls into another category. It is a piece that is a push towards war. Not immediate war, but after 4 decades of demonizing Iran would any ordinary American feel bad if war with Iran happened? Obviously, it's what Israel wants.
 
The problem that I see has been identified with AJ, and others, isn't just that he's a ranty commentator, but that he's fear-monger, and that the kinds of claims he makes come very close to incitement to violence.

I don't know any specifics about him inciting to violence, so I'd have to see those. I do know that a host on the same network as Shultz just last week was on air saying that someone needed to shit and piss in the mouth of a woman he does not approve of. While he has since apologized, he has faced no disciplinary action at all.
 
I don't know any specifics about him inciting to violence, so I'd have to see those. I do know that a host on the same network as Shultz just last week was on air saying that someone needed to shit and piss in the mouth of a woman he does not approve of. While he has since apologized, he has faced no disciplinary action at all.

I didn't say he incited violence, as you know well considering you used my quote. I said "the kinds of claims he makes come very close to incitement to violence".

I read about that thing with Palin. Absolutely disgusting. I hate the woman, I hold her in the lowest esteem, but what I read was well out of order. I don't know the context, but I can't think of one that would come close to excusing a comment like that. Whoever said it should be forced to apologise face to face to her, preferably kneeling. While she stood before him/her with her hubby by her side, holding one of their prized bear-killing guns.

Disgusting.
 
A good place for a pretty humorous take down of Alex Jones is rationalwiki. Their article on him is full of snark, but it is sourced. They did bring up that for a while Jones was trying to pin the blame for the Boston Marathon bombings on a missing student that turned up dead. Was there a retraction...?
 
Too feckin' much coverage, imho. It appears that me and Joe have very, very different views on where the planet is headed, and who is steering.

I think it's going to hell in a bucket and I'm guessing you do as well, given your warming angst.

As to who is steering, I cite the usual suspects, but I thought the overwhelming consensus (I'd say at least 97%) here don't believe it's being steered at all but is just emerging.
 
There's a huge difference between accurately reporting what 97% of actively published climate scientists agree about the climate, and lying about FEMA camps.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

Sure is. The political and professional and social pressures of being a radio host/journalist lying about FEMA camps is nowhere near the political and professional and social pressures of toeing the line in academe.

Btw, can you name a significant scientific discovery that didn't turn the consensus view on its ear?

Me, neither.

So what's your point?
 
Sure is. The political and professional and social pressures of being a radio host/journalist lying about FEMA camps is nowhere near the political and professional and social pressures of toeing the line in academe.

Btw, can you name a significant scientific discovery that didn't turn the consensus view on its ear?

Me, neither.

So what's your point?

Sorry, but to claim that academics are pressured to toe some sort of line because of "political and professional and social pressures " is an empty assertion and is not relevant to this thread. It is my understanding there is a great deal of competition to prove or disprove a hypothesis in academia. If a scientist makes a false claim or misrepresents their findings they become a pariah and lose all credibility and this is pretty much true regarding journalists in the mainstream media. If you have evidence to support your claim, perhaps you should start a thread where you provide that evidence so it can be vetted.
 
Last edited:
The problem for me, and presumably others, isn't that corporate media corrects errors when they've been identified. Every reputable newspaper publishes corrections.

The problem is that corporate media relays government spin as fact. Recent instances of this that come to mind is the barrage of claims in the media that the Syrian government was behind the chemical attack that made the news, despite no actual evidence being provided. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Syria wasn't responsible, I don't know. And that's the point. At the time nobody knew, but you wouldn't have gotten that impression from watching the US/UK news, or from reading the WaPo or NYT, or even the Grauniad.

I don't find that to be entirely accurate- per this article in the Washington Times:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ashar-assad-approved-chemical-attac/?page=all

Or this one from CBS news:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/syria-chemical-weapons-attack-blamed-on-assad-but-wheres-the-evidence/

Or this one from the Associated Press (read on Yahoo news- mainstream?):

http://news.yahoo.com/syria-gives-russia-chemical-weapons-evidence-095511215.html

Even the BBC gives significant coverage to the point of view of Syria and Russia:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23927399

That's my problem with corporate media...ignoring stories that will harm the status-quo for their main advertisers (the auto industry, oil industry, airlines, etc.

Can you provide an example of this opinion?
 
I don't find that to be entirely accurate- per this article in the Washington Times:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ashar-assad-approved-chemical-attac/?page=all

Or this one from CBS news:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/syria-chemical-weapons-attack-blamed-on-assad-but-wheres-the-evidence/

Or this one from the Associated Press (read on Yahoo news- mainstream?):

http://news.yahoo.com/syria-gives-russia-chemical-weapons-evidence-095511215.html

Even the BBC gives significant coverage to the point of view of Syria and Russia:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23927399

Actually, the BBC did not give significant coverage to the Syrian point of view initially. A very fine evaluation of media coverage of Ghouta, placing it into the framework of previous actions, was provided by MediaLens:

http://medialens.org/index.php/aler...chemical-weapons-attacks-in-ghouta-syria.html
See also:
http://medialens.org/index.php/aler...rsuasive-evidence-syria-sarin-libya-lies.html

FAIR also dealt with propaganda in the US media:
http://www.fair.org/blog/2013/06/14/syria-and-chemical-weapons-what-do-we-know/
http://www.fair.org/blog/2013/09/01/which-syrian-chemical-attack-account-is-more-credible/
http://fair.org/take-action/action-alerts/iraq-then-syria-now/

Both sites provide lots more commentary if you're interested in exploring further.
 
Sorry, but to claim that academics are pressured to toe some sort of line because of "political and professional and social pressures " is an empty assertion and is not relevant to this thread. It is my understanding there is a great deal of competition to prove or disprove a hypothesis in academia. If a scientist makes a false claim or misrepresents their findings they become a pariah and lose all credibility and this is pretty much true regarding journalists in the mainstream media. If you have evidence to support your claim, perhaps you should start a thread where you provide that evidence so it can be vetted.

It is anything but an empty assertion. The evidence has already been vetted, credibility is gone, and the warmist emperors are feeling the draft on their bare arses from the winds of climategate I, climategate II, and climategate III.
 
Can you provide an example of this opinion?

I'm not sure how to go about providing you with an example of my opinion. But I'm not about to pretend I don't know what you meant, which is can I provide you with something that explains why I have this particular opinion. Earlier in the thread I mentioned that corporate media have for some time given equal time to the climate denialists as they have to the science which warns of the path we're heading down. Do you believe that not to be true? Do you think that climate change has been covered in a manner that does justice to the single biggest threat to humanity in the media? Do you think climate change is a significant problem?

Rather than post links to articles going back 5 years from MediaLens, which has covered the lack of proper coverage in the media on this issue, I'll simply point you that way, if you're interested.
 
Let's have a space where we can compare the relative merits of the mainstream media versus those ['alternative media'] websites...
Plaudits.
I believe that the mainstream media... will issue a correction of a story that was later found to be incorrect.
This may be correct but I have a number of issues with this that are too complex to drag out here. In summation, ideological priorities and positioning i.e news values, secondly, timing. It's all well and good issuing a retraction, the falsification has already been rendered, the damage, done. Part and parcel of a rolling news propaganda model.
This is an opportunity to justify the accusations of lying and cite examples (WITH LINKS) of instances where either the mainstream media or the alternative media have posted a story that turned out to be incorrect and failed to issue a correction.

I would like this thread to stick to evidence to support your views, not just another back and forth of people's opinions.
One example at a time. Good.

Libya. Objective, historical facts: CIA infiltrated sovereign nation in turmoil. Leader of nation sodomised, anally raped with a knife, murdered without trial.

Leave opinions to one side. These are facts. Selective facts, granted. Still facts. Actually that's a third issue here (or relevant to my first point concerning news values, rather).

An example of presentation that week. This one is from the British Broadcasting Corporation:

Transcript (capitalised words highlight the words their voices emphasise to viewers):

Person A: Let's just take you live to Tripoli, I want to show you some pictures there. This is people in Tripoli, in Seta, I think it's GREEN SQUARE, renamed Martyr Square. Call it... Well choose your names really...

Person B (interjects): Pick your names really. I think it's still Green Square, renamed by those... but as you can see a MASS, a HUGE throng of people turning out. We spoke very briefly to [a BBC correspondent] this morning who described the scenes of jubilation and celebration saying it was a VERY GOOD DAY.

Person A: More on that after 7.

End of transcript. The United Kingdom finishes their eggs and toast, turns off the television and goes to work with visions of jubilation and celebration at a pivotal moment in human history.


Fact: It is not Tripoli. It is India.

Reread transcript and note possible - only possible - "Freudian" quality (my emphases).

Person A: Let's just take you "LIVE" to "Tripoli". I WANT to SHOW YOU some pictures THERE. This IS people in Tripoli, in Seta, I think it IS GREEN SQUARE, renamed Martyr Square. Call it... Well, [we will] chose [our] your names really...

Person B (interjects): Pick [our] your names really. I think it's still [not] Green Square, renamed by those [at the BBC]... But as YOU CAN SEE a MASS, a HUGE throng of people turning out. We spoke very briefly to [a BBC correspondent] this morning who described the scenes of jubilation and celebration saying it was a VERY GOOD DAY.

Person A: More on that after 7.

End of transcript.

As this video instance is embedded here I would like to point out one or two of the comments below the upload, in speech marks, as they help inform us of something. Firstly, the standard faux-pragmatism, the standard rhetorical retort comment:

"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."

Then:

"BBC reports live from Libya, but shows people in India. They obviously think people are that stupid."

People are that stupid. In fact it is not stupidity at all. It is wilful desire to trust, perfectly understandable, an innate human quality, and unfortunately, very easily exploited.

Most apposite and informative comments, in my opinion, are these two, from the same gentleman:

"The BBC received 50,000 emails and responded that it was just a terrible mistake".

Could have been, most certainly could have been. This would of course support what is claimed here on this thread. The falsification is a fact of history, the idea has been visually seeded in the viewer's mind, but yes, they have retracted the assertion. However, the gentleman's second comment leaves us with doubts on the sincerity of this retraction:

"The BBC claimed they chose the wrong footage by mistake. Impossible... it was supposed to be a live stream and by accident they roll [historical] footage of Indian Independence day".
 
Last edited:

Fact: It is not Tripoli. It is India.

As this instance is embedded here I would like to point out one or two of the comments below the upload, in speech marks, as they help inform us of something. Firstly, the standard faux-pragmatism, the standard rhetorical retort comment:

"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence"

Then:

"The BBC received 50,000 emails and responded that it was just a terrible mistake".

Could have been. Most certainly could have been. This would of course support what is claimed here on this thread. The falsification is a fact of history, the idea is visually seeded in the viewer's mind, but yes, they have retracted the assertion. However, the gentleman's second comment leaves us with doubts on the sincerity of this retraction:

"The BBC claimed they chose the wrong footage by mistake. Impossible, first of all it was supposed to be a live stream and by accident they role tape [historical] footage of Indian Independence day".


Christ, what a laboured point, if anyone got it. The beeb made a mistake, simples. The duo in the studio are the very early morning hosts, as we know from their holding up the morning papers. They're the bottom of the beeb foodchain, the lowest of the low. The fact that they can't identify the myriad flags of India being held aloft is sadly funny - I saw this happen live and was laughing my arse off. It's not a bloody plot, it's a mistake.

sigh
 
It is anything but an empty assertion. The evidence has already been vetted, credibility is gone, and the warmist emperors are feeling the draft on their bare arses from the winds of climategate I, climategate II, and climategate III.
Seriously, this is a big claim - that climate change has been conclusively proved false - post your evidence in a new thread and stop just claiming it like it's common knowledge and indisputable fact.
 
Sorry, but to claim that academics are pressured to toe some sort of line because of "political and professional and social pressures " ... If a scientist makes a false claim or misrepresents their findings they become a pariah and lose all credibility

Ya, I tend to agree as it applies to research within universities.

However, I'm reminded of a report I heard on CBC Radio One a few months ago. A survey conducted by the union representing federally employed Canadian scientists has discovered that many of them feel they are being muzzled and subjected to political interference. A quarter of the scientists claim they had been asked to alter data. Not conclusive without some more concrete corroborating evidence.

Interestingly this was reported by the CBC; a member of the mainstream media.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/m...ientists-widespread-survey-suggests-1.2128859
 
Christ, what a laboured point, if anyone got it. The beeb made a mistake, simples. The duo in the studio are the very early morning hosts, as we know from their holding up the morning papers. They're the bottom of the beeb foodchain, the lowest of the low. The fact that they can't identify the myriad flags of India being held aloft is sadly funny - I saw this happen live and was laughing my arse off. It's not a bloody plot, it's a mistake.

sigh

I did not say it is a plot. I said it is very possibly a mistake. Why put words in my mouth? My sister's best friend used to work within the breakfast television team. I have numerous friends and family at all levels within BBC television and radio. I do not speak out of complete ignorance. On the face of it the mistake involves someone walking several hundred metres down a corridor, going into the library, pulling a video, walking back, loading it, and then an assistant director or director accidentally misinforming Bill Turnbull that a video cassette (most likely) is somehow a live feed. The question to ask is was there relevant parallel news concerning Indian independence day scheduled for that day that would cause the intern to take that walk to the library?
 
Last edited:
The duo in the studio are the very early morning hosts, as we know from their holding up the morning papers. They're the bottom of the beeb foodchain, the lowest of the low. The fact that they can't identify the myriad flags of India being held aloft is sadly funny - I saw this happen live and was laughing my arse off. It's not a bloody plot, it's a mistake.
And most respectfully, I'm not sure quite where you're getting off with a) presumption of ignorance on my part and b) the denigration of the breakfast television team, but the question remains, and is valid, as to how that could happen, and I now believe you may be being quite naive.
 
Beer companies are major advertisers, but the media still covers drunk drivers and binge drinkers. I find a lot of poor journalism in reporting stories about oil and gas companies also.
 
Its your opinion that the MSM "ignores" stories that harm their advertisers. It should be easy for you to provide an example.

Hmm. I can see now that I probably phrased that wrong. Thanks for pointing it out. The corporate media doesn't ignore stories that might not be in the best interests of their advertisers. They concentrate on other things instead. The biggest industries in the world are fossil-fuel dependent, pharma excepted. See my previous post that provides a link to a site that has covered this issue extensively.
 
Beer companies are major advertisers, but the media still covers drunk drivers and binge drinkers. I find a lot of poor journalism in reporting stories about oil and gas companies also.

True. And alcohol abuse leads to more deaths and abuse than, for example, marijuana. Do you think the media ever give any kind of analysis based on comparisons between these two things?

Cigarette advertising used to be far more extensive than it is today. That there is any tobacco advertising allowed, anywhere, is insane.

I smoke. Where I live, Finland, there is zero advertising for tobacco. You can't even see the products in the stores that sell them, they are all hidden. ID must be shown, and I mean MUST be shown, before anyone can buy tobacco. 21 is the age here.

The policy is working. Consumption is declining. The number of kids taking it up is getting smaller every year.
 
Seriously, this is a big claim - that climate change has been conclusively proved false - post your evidence in a new thread and stop just claiming it like it's common knowledge and indisputable fact.

What I did said was that their "science" has been repeatedly shown to be inaccurate and their hockey sticks have been shown to be broken. I also said the scientists involved in climategates I, II, and III had no credibility.

Climate change happens, the rest is politics and ideology.
 
What I did said was that their "science" has been repeatedly shown to be inaccurate and their hockey sticks have been shown to be broken. I also said the scientists involved in climategates I, II, and III had no credibility.

What you actually said was: "The evidence has already been vetted, credibility is gone, and the warmist emperors are feeling the draft on their bare arses from the winds of climategate I, climategate II, and climategate III."

Could you please just say what you mean using unambiguous and clear language. Your use of idioms, similes, cliches, personifications and metaphors leads to unnecessary misunderstanding.
 
... justify the accusations of lying and cite examples (WITH LINKS) of instances where either the mainstream media or the alternative media have posted a story that turned out to be incorrect and failed to issue a correction.

I would like this thread to stick to evidence to support your views, not just another back and forth of people's opinions.
Sure. Okay, so BBC Breakfast are bottom feeder morons, "lowest of the low", looks like we have that one licked. Pure science.

What about this one? I'm sure most of you felt pride and joy, or at least a little awed or thrilled, upon witnessing this "momentous epoch-making" event in American history, the literal toppling of Saddam. His statute, that is. Most memorably described by the great Donald Rumsfeld, whose words resounded throughout the entire western world, consistently, on the hour, every hour. Oh, and every fifteen minutes inbetween.

"The scenes of free Iraqis celebrating in the streets, riding American tanks, tearing down the statues of Saddam Hussein in the center of Baghdad are breathtaking. Watching them, one cannot help but think of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Iron Curtain.”

Really? Let's pull back from that beautiful mental image Donald (and the networks you are defending) have drawn for us and take a long view shot of the square:
SQ2-1.gif
Where is everyone? I'm trying really hard to find these scenes of jubilant Iraqis that are reminiscent of Berlin in 1989. Are they here, there, where? Anyone? No?

*Tumbleweed blowing through*

I guess they must have been there in the hearts of Americans. The fact they were not physically there - at all - well, why quibble over such details?
 
Last edited:
Sure. Okay, so BBC Breakfast are bottom feeder morons, "lowest of the low", looks like we have that one licked. Pure science.

What about this one? I'm sure most of you felt pride and joy, or at least a little awed or thrilled, upon witnessing this "momentous epoch-making" event in American history, the literal toppling of Saddam. His statute, that is. Most memorably described by the great Donald Rumsfeld, whose words resounded throughout the entire western world, consistently, on the hour, every hour. Oh, and every fifteen minutes inbetween.

"The scenes of free Iraqis celebrating in the streets, riding American tanks, tearing down the statues of Saddam Hussein in the center of Baghdad are breathtaking. Watching them, one cannot help but think of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Iron Curtain.”

Really? Let's pull back from that beautiful mental image Donald (and the networks you are defending) have drawn for us and take a long view shot of the square:
SQ2-1.gif
Where is everyone? I'm trying really hard to find these scenes of jubilant Iraqis that are reminiscent of Berlin in 1989. Are they here, there, where? Anyone? No?

*Tumbleweed blowing through*

I guess they must have been there in the hearts of Americans. The fact they were not physically there - at all - well, why quibble over such details?


I appreciate your input, but the news media reports what is said at news conferences. It was not the media lying or misrepresenting, they were reporting Rumsfeld's remarks.
 
I appreciate your input, but the news media reports what is said at news conferences. It was not the media lying or misrepresenting, they were reporting Rumsfeld's remarks.
I'm sorry. It is a totally bare-faced lie, and an instance of mass collusion. You were all completely psyop'd.

Shamelessly.
 
Ya, I tend to agree as it applies to research within universities.

However, I'm reminded of a report I heard on CBC Radio One a few months ago. A survey conducted by the union representing federally employed Canadian scientists has discovered that many of them feel they are being muzzled and subjected to political interference. A quarter of the scientists claim they had been asked to alter data. Not conclusive without some more concrete corroborating evidence.

Interestingly this was reported by the CBC; a member of the mainstream media.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/m...ientists-widespread-survey-suggests-1.2128859

Thanks for that article. Back during the Bush administration there had also been charges that reports of climate changes were being suppressed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth/29climate.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: January 29, 2006
The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

Content from External Source
So, yeah... there are instances where as a result of political pressure scientific findings have been suppressed and scientists muzzled.... (interestingly in both articles it mentions scientists warning of climate change were being muzzled by conservative governments) BUT, the scientists/'academe' were not toeing a line as had been claimed by @Joe Newman

Sure is. The political and professional and social pressures of being a radio host/journalist lying about FEMA camps is nowhere near the political and professional and social pressures of toeing the line in academe.
 
Last edited:
The politico-media complex (PMC, also referred to as the political-media complex) is a name that has been given to the close, systematized, symbiotic-like network[1] of relationships between a state's political and ruling classes, its media industry, and any interactions with or dependencies upon interest groups with other domains and agencies, such as law (and its enforcement through the police[2]) and, particularly, corporations - especially the multinationals. The term PMC is often used to name, derogatively, the collusion between governments or individual politicians and the media industry in an attempt to manipulate rather than inform the people.
aupload.wikimedia.org_wikipedia_en_2_29_The_Leveson_Love_Triangle_Leveson_2.jpg


Orwell Rolls in His Grave is a 2003 documentary film written and directed by Robert Kane Pappas. Covered topics include the Telecommunications Act of 1996, concentration of media ownership, political corruption, Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the controversy over the US presidential election of 2000 (particularly in Florida with Bush v. Gore), and the October surprise conspiracy theory.
 
I appreciate your input, but the news media reports what is said at news conferences. It was not the media lying or misrepresenting, they were reporting Rumsfeld's remarks.
You're heading in the right direction. Now, consider the inherent power in the representation of news events that can be reported ad verbatim, as a 'fact', via press release, news conference, and sound-byte. A lie is a contract of truth, once it is uttered as someone else's word. We can report Mr Rumsfeld says the sky is full of green polkadots, if he has said it is, then this is a "fact". Does not change the fact this is a lie.
Associated Press - By DIAA HADID and QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRAApr 9, 2013 2:58 PM

BAGHDAD (AP) — Ten years ago, a statue fell in Baghdad's Firdous Square. Joyful Iraqis helped by an American tank retriever pulled down their long time dictator, cast as 16 feet of bronze. The scene broadcast live worldwide became an icon of the war, a symbol of final victory over Saddam Hussein.
Content from External Source
The psyop continues. That deluded piece of A.P tripe above is just a few months ago. "Final" victory? Between 500 000 and 1.5 million human beings have been murdered there since that psyop sealed the "hearts and minds" victory for the U.S, domestically. Any idea how serious a crime that is? Of course you do, sir, but it is too late.

I, personally, was spitting blood when I watched that scene. Fuming, knowing a blood bath was being initiated and seeing it for what it was, a mass media co-opted psychological operation, with the gravest of portent, signified by the imperial flag over the nation's leader. Absolute blasphemy and a criminal affront to all known law.

Where in any mass media piece is there any mention of the Yinon plan? Before, during or after the freedom Iraqis have been enduring? Nowhere, that's where.

Let's stick to evidence, as requested. Continuing, with a criticism of the same A.P article:

Unmentioned in the AP report was the fact that “It was a Marine colonel — not joyous Iraqi civilians, as was widely assumed from the TV images — who decided to topple the statue,” as The Los Angeles Times reported back in 2004.
Content from External Source
Why are A.P saying this?

In fact, US soldiers needed to use loud speakers to gather Iraqis around the statue – a necessary ingredient if the choreographed propaganda effort was to be convincing.
Content from External Source
Was that in your memory of events, that day? How commonly reported?
“It was a quick-thinking Army psychological operations team that made it appear to be a spontaneous Iraqi undertaking,” The Times report added.

Iraq War advocates, then and now, still cite the event as symbolic of “Operation Iraqi Freedom.” They are more right than they know. The event was symbolic. It was emblematic of the whole Iraq War: a massive lie perpetrated simultaneously on millions of innocent Iraqis and Americans.
http://news.antiwar.com/2013/04/09/media-still-hype-staged-toppling-of-saddam-statue-as-genuine/
Content from External Source
The BBC's News At Six described this propaganda coup outside the journalists' hotel as a "momentous event" with the media "a witness to history", with US forces watching "amazed" on a "day of extraordinary drama and historic images", with Bush declaring "a historic moment" in reference to what were "extraordinary events" (April 9). This was all in the first 90 seconds of the programme.
Content from External Source
What is extraordinary about the U.S army gathering the western media, coercing a few by-standers, and shipping in a terrorist organisation, to vandalise a statue?

They are entirely correct, of course, as is standard in the hypocritical arts, it is precisely a day of "extraordinary drama and historic images". It is a staged act! - and imagery is extraordinarily powerful. They laugh in people's faces with the double meanings inherent within sound byte and copy.
As the "momentous events" of April 9 were described, the war raged on. US soldiers and many Iraqi civilians were killed in fighting that same night. The next day a suicide bomber killed several US marines and wounded four more close to where the statue had been toppled. Civilians were shot and killed: Channel 4 filmed as a six-year-old girl was shot in the head by US troops, and as a civilian man was shot dead on his balcony as he came out to see what was happening. Two children were shot dead at a checkpoint....

But the media had already decided that the war had come to a happy conclusion. The BBC's Nicholas Witchell declared of the US drive into central Baghdad:

"It is absolutely, without a doubt, a vindication of the strategy." (BBC News at Six, April 9)
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2859.htm
Content from External Source
Meanwhile, in actual reality, up to 1.5 million human beings are dead so far since this "happy conclusion" and your leaders have been tried and convicted in absentia for mass war crimes and torture. Did they report that on American television? If you see those who have been convicted, arrest them.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top