Understanding the demonisation of the mainstream media
- Thread starter Critical Thinker
- Start date
- Status
Joe Newman
Active Member
The issue of climate change has been used as a fear-mongering exercise that dwarfs by magnitudes anything AJ could ever dream of realizing with any talk of FEMA camps or police states or anything else he is said to promote.
The credibility of those implicated in climategates I, II, and III has been damaged beyond repair, Mann's haloed hockey stick has been shown to be inaccurate, and the issue of climate change is driven by agenda, not evidence.
I hope that is clear enough.
Last edited:
Alhazred The Sane
Senior Member.
No idea what Climategate II and III refer to, but the first one was well and truly debunked. Of course, corporate media spent a whole lot less time on the debunking than they did on the initial spurious claims.
Joe Newman
Active Member
Believe it if you need it, but the idea that it has been well and truly debunked only plays inside the choir room.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/
As a senior member, you should start a new thread if you wish to reply, since this is off-topic. I would do it, but my efforts inevitably set off the "not following guidelines" trip wire.Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate
A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday, igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal.
Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.
JRBids
Senior Member.
Bravo, what's scarier is there are those who BELIEVE him and DEFEND him.
Alhazred The Sane
Senior Member.
And yet NINE independent inquiries found the scientists had done nothing wrong, or even strange. I'd suggest that the idea that Climategate has any credibility at all plays only down the rabbit hole.
Joe Newman
Active Member
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/
It's warmer down rabbit holes, so maybe that's a good destination. Regardless, the hole is going to need to be expanded as the members increase, because the credibility seems to be lessening further.“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,”writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.
“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...un-socialism-masquerading-as-environmentalism
The new Australian government, elected by a landslide on a platform opposing carbon taxes and “global-warming” schemes as United Nations climate theories were imploding, delivered a blunt message to UN alarmists this week: No more “socialism masquerading as environmentalism.” With the new conservative-leaning cabinet taking a stand against UN machinations and radical domestic restrictions imposed under the previous Labor Party government, Australian authorities also publicly refused to sign up for any new contributions, taxes, or charges at this week’s embattled UN global-warming summit in Poland.
As UN and national government “climate” dignitaries assemble in Poland to work on foisting a devastating planetary carbon regime on humanity, UN global-warming theories have become a laughingstock. Meteorology Professor Richard Lindzen at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), who served as a lead author for the third UN climate report, said the UN body had “truly sunk to a level of hilarious incoherence” with its latest assessment.
“They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase,” added Dr. Lindzen, who has published hundreds of scientific papers and is just one of countless scientists lambasting the latest round of UN climate hysteria. The UN-promoted theory dubbed “The Ocean Ate My Global Warming” by critics, meanwhile, is really an admission that its climate models do not accurately simulate natural internal variability in the system.
qed
Senior Member
In the early nineties two of my geology profs asserted adamantly to our class that man-made global warming was a conspiracy despite what our textbook said.
One of these is now head of geology at my local university, and is well-published, but not in the field of climate.
In 2000 he still held the position, and I bet a bottle of whisky against him.
He is still refusing to cough up.
One of these is now head of geology at my local university, and is well-published, but not in the field of climate.
In 2000 he still held the position, and I bet a bottle of whisky against him.
He is still refusing to cough up.
Trigger Hippie
Senior Member.
Let's examine that AP article you characterize as a deluded piece of tripe.
The article states quite clearly the toppling of Saddam's statue became iconic of a final victory over Saddam Hussein. Victory over Saddam. It was meant to be a symbol that marked the end of Saddam’s regime, and it was publicized at a time when former regime members where still in the country side rallying government forces and claiming victory over the US.
But that AP article also focuses on Iraqi citizens who are extremely critical of US involvement. It suggests the situation in Iraq is better in some regards, but also that it is anything but ideal or concluded. Your failure to mention those parts doesn't give a balanced view of the piece. How did you not, just now, demonize the Associated Press?
On April 10, 2003, the day after Saddam's statue was toppled, Rumsfeld was on CNN putting out cautionary statements about how the tide of war was only turning in America's favour, how there was still much fighting going on, that many more people were going to die, and that they weren't even close to beginning the process of nation building. Hardly a portrayal of a "happy conclusion" by either CNN or Rumsfeld.
The article states quite clearly the toppling of Saddam's statue became iconic of a final victory over Saddam Hussein. Victory over Saddam. It was meant to be a symbol that marked the end of Saddam’s regime, and it was publicized at a time when former regime members where still in the country side rallying government forces and claiming victory over the US.
But that AP article also focuses on Iraqi citizens who are extremely critical of US involvement. It suggests the situation in Iraq is better in some regards, but also that it is anything but ideal or concluded. Your failure to mention those parts doesn't give a balanced view of the piece. How did you not, just now, demonize the Associated Press?
On April 10, 2003, the day after Saddam's statue was toppled, Rumsfeld was on CNN putting out cautionary statements about how the tide of war was only turning in America's favour, how there was still much fighting going on, that many more people were going to die, and that they weren't even close to beginning the process of nation building. Hardly a portrayal of a "happy conclusion" by either CNN or Rumsfeld.
Last edited:
AluminumTheory
Senior Member.
Here is an excellent website regarding climate science.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Newcomers-Start-Here.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Newcomers-Start-Here.html
Joe Newman
Active Member
As an aside, how did you feel upon learning that that whole iconic toppling was an orchestrated bit of psyop theater and not the spontaneous event it was billed to be.
Is that an acceptable practice as far as you are concerned?
Trigger Hippie
Senior Member.
I'm not sure that it was. I have not looked into it enough to form an opinion.
Feel free to start another thread on the issue with clear, unambiguous, claims of evidence supporting your assertions.
Joe Newman
Active Member
Not necessary. This is either good enough to do the job or nothing else will.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89489923
Nearly four years ago, a Los Angeles Times writer revealed that according to a study of the invasion published by the U.S. Army, the statue toppling was not necessarily the spontaneous event that it appeared to be. David Zucchino is the national correspondent for the LA Times. He first reported that story back in 2004 and he's on the line with us now. Hey, David. Thanks for being with us.
Mr. DAVID ZUCCHINO: (Journalist, Los Angeles Times) Good morning.
MARTIN: Good morning. So David, you were in Baghdad on this day five years ago, but not in Firdos Square. When and how did you hear about that big Saddam Hussein statue falling?
Mr. ZUCCHINO: Well, actually, even though I was in Baghdad that day, I was across the river about a mile or two away and had no idea that was going on, and in fact, the Army troops I was with also had no idea, and I didn't find out about it until several weeks later when I got back to the U.S.
MARTIN: When you found out about it, what was the narrative attached to it?
Mr. ZUCCHINO: My impression was that there was a spontaneous rally by Iraqis and they jumped on the statue and basically pulled it down. I knew there was some U.S. soldiers or Marines in the area, but I was not clear on exactly what their role was, whether they were just providing security or were taking part. It was fairly nebulous.
MARTIN: So you dug up more specifics that cast light on those circumstances surrounding the toppling of the statue. Explain what you found out.
Mr. ZUCCHINO: This was part of a five-hundred-and-some page review, or report, by the Army on the entire invasion, what went wrong and what went right. It was sort of an After Action Report, and this was just sort of a one or two page sideline, almost a footnote.
They had interviewed an Army psychological operations' team leader and he described how a Marine colonel - the Marines were in charge of that area and had just come in, and this Marine colonel had been looking for a target of opportunity, and seized on that statue.
And according to this interview with the psy-ops commander, there were Iraqis milling around the statue, and in fact, had been beating it with sledgehammers and apparently thinking about trying to bring it down, but it was a huge statue and they had no way to do that. So the Marines came up with the idea of bringing in a big recovery vehicle, like a wrecker, and trying to bring it down that way.
But the psychological operations commander noticed that the Marines had put an American flag on the statue and he thought that was a terrible idea, because it looked like an occupation and he didn't want - the psychological ops didn't want that, so they replaced it with an Iraqi flag, hooked a cable up to it and started pulling it down.
But somebody had the bright idea of getting a bunch of Iraqis and a lot of kids and pile them on the wrecker to make it look like a spontaneous Iraqi event, rather than, you know, the Marines sort of stage-managing this entire dramatic fall of the statue.
MARTIN: So we can't say that it was the idea of this Marine colonel. He basically was surveying the circumstances, saw that there were Iraqis who were already kind of attacking the statue, and so the U.S. military, according to this report, just facilitated something.
Mr. ZUCCHINO: Correct. They took advantage of an opportunity. As he said, it was a target of opportunity, and they just sort of stage-managed it and made it happen in a way that it would not have happened if the Marines had not intervened.
MARTIN: And is it possible - is there any way that that particular psy-ops team leader, whose testimony ended up in the Army report, was exaggerating his team's role?
Mr. ZUCCHINO: It's possible. I mean, you have to take him at his word, but he does clearly say, in his interview, that the Iraqis were there and attempting to take it down. So he doesn't make it sound like it was the Marines idea totally. It's just that they took advantage of the situation.
MARTIN: And even if the Army psy-ops was involved, were they - what was the message that they were trying to drive home by seizing this so-called opportunity?
Mr. ZUCCHINO: Oh, their message was clearly that the Iraqis were welcoming the Americans. They were thanking the Americans for - literally for toppling Saddam Hussein, and this was a very dramatic moment, and they wanted to push across the message that the U.S. was liberating Iraq. They weren't occupiers. It wasn't a conquest. It was liberating the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein.
Trigger Hippie
Senior Member.
Actually, it is necessary. Your post is off topic. Start another thread.
Joe Newman
Active Member
Does that mean you didn't read it or you read it but don't accept it? I didn't think that at this late date that it was a point of contention.
AluminumTheory
Senior Member.
Are the LA times not MSM?Nearly four years ago, a Los Angeles Times writer revealed that according to a study of the invasion published by the U.S. Army, the statue toppling was not necessarily the spontaneous event that it appeared to be. David Zucchino is the national correspondent for the LA Times. He first reported that story back in 2004 and he's on the line with us now. Hey, David. Thanks for being with us.
I thought this was about MSM criticisms. Now we're taking about the Iraq War?
Joe Newman
Active Member
I trust them for all sorts of things. Just not everything. Same with alternative stuff. As I've said from the jump, it's about discrimination, not blind acceptance or dismissal. Why this simple point eludes, I have no idea. Well, ok, yes I do. Because a cter is putting it forth and we all know what those people are like.
AluminumTheory
Senior Member.
Are you sure that your not applying confirmation bias?
For me it's about reputation. Sure everybody makes mistakes. And some are honest about them, and others most certainly are not. It's not that I would believe the opposite of what infowars is telling me. But I need to see hard evidence before I'll belive them in which case. I would look for the source article(s) from which they probably loosley copied to get more reliable information.
Stories need to be investigated. But as it was pointed out numerous times, there are numerous eyes on the MSM. So theyaren't going to take much of a chance from unreliable sources or extreme bias in reporting. But not theres not much out there to keep alternative media in check so some people can outright make things up and their audience will belive it. It really is up to the individual to fact check AM content, and more often than not, it doesnt happen.
For me it's about reputation. Sure everybody makes mistakes. And some are honest about them, and others most certainly are not. It's not that I would believe the opposite of what infowars is telling me. But I need to see hard evidence before I'll belive them in which case. I would look for the source article(s) from which they probably loosley copied to get more reliable information.
Stories need to be investigated. But as it was pointed out numerous times, there are numerous eyes on the MSM. So theyaren't going to take much of a chance from unreliable sources or extreme bias in reporting. But not theres not much out there to keep alternative media in check so some people can outright make things up and their audience will belive it. It really is up to the individual to fact check AM content, and more often than not, it doesnt happen.
Joe Newman
Active Member
I would be so bold as to say that I examine the idea more than most here. I'm quite aware of the head I win/tales you lose dynamic and rail against it wherever it pops up. I see it a lot here.
That's just it. What you describe is what I do as a rule. I never just take a single source as gospel and check for other sources as a default. But I think most folks who rail about PP/IW don't realize that beyond the commentary pieces, most of their content is sourced from other sites. It's as much a portal as anything.
That's why I just shook my head when you said that PJW article I posted was an op-ed. That just isn't the case and one can tell the difference immediately. It wasn't rendering an opinion or commentary; it was reporting the details of a situation and was filled with over a dozen links to outside sources. It was saying this situation is happening. See here and here and here. It was nothing like the puff piece on Lennix.
Those puff pieces are filler to provide content while the bigger pieces are being worked on. And that particular big piece you dismissed out of hand contained information that effects you as much as me.
But that's just it. A big problem is that the investigation you speak of is happening less and less by the msm. They are slashing their budgets because they are hemorrhaging money. One of the biggest problems with the msm is not what is reported, though that can often be problematic. It's what is not being reported. Whether it is due to ideological pressure or from lack of funds, the big guns aren't on the edge of what is happening anymore. They are getting scooped regularly by the lean and hungry alternative outlets.
Alhazred The Sane
Senior Member.
Like the staged photo of the raising of the flag on Iwo Jima? Whether acceptable or not, it's hardly something new. And like the Australian poster, it was common knowledge within a week in the UK.
Cairenn
Senior Member.
And interesting blog on AlJazerra America. He makes some good points about why there are problems in the big media companies.
http://blog.davidhenderson.com/2013...staged-images-editorial-slant-disappointment/
http://blog.davidhenderson.com/2013...staged-images-editorial-slant-disappointment/
AluminumTheory
Senior Member.
Regardless of what you want to believe, it is still Opinion. Citing sources doesn't change that. It is reporting the details of a situation from a perspective, and speculating based on presented 'facts'. News articles are supposed to present strictly the facts without personal bias or opinion.
Representative Press
Member
The most dramatic pattern of suppression is that of the main motive for why we were attacked on 9/11 and unfortunately that suppression extended to Amy Goodman's Democracy Now which you can listen to the day of 9/11 and even the day after and see for yourself the glaring absence of reporting why the attacked happened. I told Amy personally that fact at a media reform conference a few years ago. This was on the newswire that morning yet almost no one read the word "Israel":
"Expert: Bin Laden Warned of 'Unprecedented' Attack
(Reuters) Sep 11, 11:19 AM ET
Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden warned three weeks ago that he and his followers would carry out an unprecedented attack on U.S. interestsfor its support of Israel, an Arab journalist with access to him said Tuesday."
See this video: 9/11 Motive & Media Betrayal
and the pattern of suppression of the motive played a role in planting the seeds of the "9/11 Truth Movement": See the 9/11 misdirection away from "WHY" and to "HOW"
http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-911-misdirection-away-from-why-and.html
In the above link you can see for example how Dan Rather and Andrea Mitchell made sure not to say the word "Israel.
Just to show you that reading from that newswire was physically possible, here is Tom Brokaw actually reading it once:
And if you don't think that slipped through in the heat of the moment, keep in mind the very same Tom Brokaw not only never said it again, a few years later when asked for a question he would ask a world leader, Brokaw decided that even though bin Laden wasn't a world leader, he wanted to ask him a question and the question he asked was why he attacked on 9/11! So the above link was most certainly a slip and Brokaw has removed the motive from his own mind I guess in order to deal with his role in the suppression. I think it must weigh on him subconsciously because it is odd he asked that question of bin Laden when bin Laden wasn't even a world leader.
Last edited:
Representative Press
Member
MSM does in many times. David Gregory just did it Saturday night.
There is a pattern of the media doing this:
Last edited:
Representative Press
Member
Talking about suppression, see if you can find MSM media talking about why the hostages were taken in the first place in Iran: "Notice when we hear about the Iran hostage crisis we almost never hear why the hostages were taken in the first place? (the reason was they wanted to hold the Shah accountable for his crimes. They wanted the Shah handed over to them because they were worried the U.S. would once again reinstall the Shah like they did in 1953. The building they took over is the very same building the CIA used to launch the coup that reinstalled the Shah in 1953." http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2013/11/us-corporate-media-overwhelmingly.html
Representative Press
Member
Unfortunately, the Real News allowed Larry Wilkerson to spread the falsehood about Saddam not allowing the inspectors in: See @ 11m 27 sec:
Larry Wilkerson: Why wouldn't Saddam Hussein come forward and tell everybody—I mean, stand there abjectly and say to the UN inspectors, I have nothing, I will go with you everywhere; if we have to walk over every square foot of Iraq, I'll show you? Well, it was prestige, and it was also the fact he didn't want the Iranians to know he was weaponless when it came to WMD. After all, he fought an eight-year war with them.
So you have to look at much more—a much wider array of very complex issues in order to understand why someone's taking the negotiating position they're taking. We call it empathy. We call it being—in the military, being able to put yourself in the other person's shoes and look at the problem you're negotiating from their perspective. Paul, we simply have lost the ability to do that in this country.
JAY: Thanks for joining us, Larry.
WILKERSON: Thanks for having me, Paul.
BUT Saddam DID say "I have nothing"! Saddam DID let the inspectors in!
Representative Press
Member
Joe Newman
Active Member
Right. It's called psyops. But to hear it told round here by some, that stuff is a figment of ct loony land.
Joe Newman
Active Member
No, it wasn't an op-ed piece. It was about "is" not "ought." You are confusing spin with an op-ed piece. All articles are spun, it's virtually impossible not to do so anymore. But his piece was about what was going on, not about should it be going on or who was right about this or that.
But even so, this is another problem with being so partisan that you never check out the other side, you miss a lot of information. Hell, I've learned tons of shit as far as history and issues from folks I thought were dead wrong re opinion about the history or issues. I take the info and leave the opinion. But if I never go to sites branded as Bad, I miss out on much of the data needed to make an informed choice.
Were I to never visit the kind of sites folks here rail against, I wouldn't believe all the stuff about police state this and totalitarian that. But when I see the continual creep of both, based on verified incidents, not someone's opinion of them, I can see it for myself, even if I think a lot of the opinion around it is overheated or inaccurate.
Joe Newman
Active Member
Wow. That was a straight up hit piece. I have no clue if anything he says is true or not, having never watched AJM, but he didn't provide a single example re any point he made and that's just bad form.
Joe Newman
Active Member
But isn't that all you've been doing with your own cherry picking re IW/AJ?
No, I can pick pretty much any random AJ story, and it has the same characteristics of inaccuracy, hyperbole, and fear mongering. You know this.
Anyway. This thread was too open ended to start off with. If anyone feels there's some actually science to be had, feel free to start a new thread.
- Status
Similar threads
