Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 29 of 29
  1. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
    #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Reality is what is supposed to be represented by by the media, and in a democracy, a free media is supposed to watchdog the gov't for corruption.
    You can call that slanted and liberal all you want.
    I certainly will because that's truthfully what it is. Who are you kidding? you`d have to be naive not to acknowledge this. watchdogs? pfft. they border on propagandists who seek out dirty laundry in order to undermine their political adversaries, dathomas. please.

    the "free media watchdog " line doesnt fool anyone. selectively reporting stories which support their agenda, and leaving out others which might give credit to the successes in the war effort - basically "anything it takes" to discredit republicans in order to win political points for the left. thats a true disservice to those looking for the "reality" of any situation. lets consider some of the positive stories your LA times "media" consistently fail to give proper attention to.

    zarqawi`s own people in jordan have turned on him and declared war on islamic terrorism. the death toll suffered by terrorists is far higher than that which US forces are suffering. Terrorists are now attacking their OWN people - the sunnis and those in jordan as ive said above. letters intercepted in afghanistan sent from top alqaeda figures intended for zarqawi or bin laden ( who has incidentally been MIA, hmmm..) indicate they are running out of finances, suffering significant losses of high ranking al qaeda leaders and have been ousted from power in afghanistan and iraq. they indicated they are growing increasingly outnumbered. their only means of attack are suicide and car bombings, and they refuse to face the US military head on because they know they cannot win. Muslims leaders are staunchly rejecting zarqawi now more than ever due to his mindless slaughter of other innocent muslims worldwide, and the odds are being stacked against the terrorists, NOT US. there have been NO attacks on US soil since 9/11 - in spite of numerous alqaeda threats. numerous terror operations may have been thwarted and several alqaeda cells may have been apprehended. do the ny or la times remind us of this much? watchdogs, eh? dont think so.

    look, you have to weigh both the good and the bad equally. you can find negatives in ANY situation, and particularly in a war, OF COURSE there will be negatives. thats the nature of the beast! thousands of people didnt die in WW 1 AND 2, HUNDREDS of thousands died!!! we still won. so until these journalists put the WHOLE story in proper perspective, they are little more than propagandists transparently serving a political agenda.
    Last edited by vw2002; 12/05/2005 at 07:51 PM.
  2. #22  
    VW- I agree with most of what you said but this part:

    "the "free media watchdog " line doesnt fool anyone."

    The media does play an important watchdog function. Many types of corruption have become public knowledge only because of the media and its efforts.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  3. #23  
    Source:
    Two of the newspapers now identified as having published the articles have already received threats from insurgents, and one editor has disappeared.
    So I think it's fair to ask who has done more to damage the press in Iraq, the Pentagon or the LA Times?
    Last edited by phurth; 12/05/2005 at 02:37 PM.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    ...Well anyways, I feel if we want a democracy there, we should let public opinion rule...
    Public opinion is shaped by the information made public. It is of necessity that we get out "positive" information. We must actively attempt to sway public opinion. The key is not to bear false witness in so doing.

    I don't know that use of pseudonyms or pen names or ghost writers qualifies as false witness.

    If the account is accurate/true, then the deliverer is bearing true witness, even if said deliverer's identity is unknown.
  5. #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Public opinion is shaped by the information made public. It is of necessity that we get out "positive" information. We must actively attempt to sway public opinion. The key is not to bear false witness in so doing.

    I don't know that use of pseudonyms or pen names or ghost writers qualifies as false witness.

    If the account is accurate/true, then the deliverer is bearing true witness, even if said deliverer's identity is unknown.
    Couldn't have said it better. Well put.
  6. #26  
    Nicely said. It appears that the left feels there is only failure in Iraq and think the US is not only writing the stories, but lying on what is going on. The only one's doing that is the US Media.

    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Public opinion is shaped by the information made public. It is of necessity that we get out "positive" information. We must actively attempt to sway public opinion. The key is not to bear false witness in so doing.

    I don't know that use of pseudonyms or pen names or ghost writers qualifies as false witness.

    If the account is accurate/true, then the deliverer is bearing true witness, even if said deliverer's identity is unknown.
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Public opinion is shaped by the information made public. It is of necessity that we get out "positive" information. We must actively attempt to sway public opinion. The key is not to bear false witness in so doing.
    If we only get out positive (or focus only on positive information) then by definition its not the entire truth and therefore it would not qualify as 'bearing true witness'? (i.e. there is some 'true' information that is probably negative.)

    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    If the account is accurate/true, then the deliverer is bearing true witness, even if said deliverer's identity is unknown.
    I agree if this was all that is considered when the message is given. We have to take into account 'who' is giving us the message. (i.e. look at all the OT threads where the messenger is called into question 'NYT v. National Review or Fox v. ABC' where people will dismiss something out of hand that might be completely true simply because the source is 'suspect'.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  8. #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    If we only get out positive (or focus only on positive information) then by definition its not the entire truth and therefore it would not qualify as 'bearing true witness'? (i.e. there is some 'true' information that is probably negative.)
    I cannot speak for Shopharim, But I think in relation to the discussion, I took it as making sure that the good news gets out there instead of or in addition to ONLY always reporting ONLY the bad news. Which I feel is a valid criticism for our Media as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    look at all the OT threads where the messenger is called into question 'NYT v. National Review or Fox v. ABC' where people will dismiss something out of hand that might be completely true simply because the source is 'suspect'.
    I think it is more that the source in their view is more liberal or conservative to their liking than truly held in suspect.

    For instance I have seen some on this forum say "Cite from a creditable source.....and Fox News does not count". I take this comment as a difference in political outlook based on that person's personal political biased leanings vs their view or opinion of the liberal or conservative leanings of that news organization.
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    I cannot speak for Shopharim, But I think in relation to the discussion, I took it as making sure that the good news gets out there instead of or in addition to ONLY always reporting ONLY the bad news. Which I feel is a valid criticism for our Media as well.
    I think it's a valid criticism too but I think it's closely linked to what type of news 'sells'. Unfortunately, I would be willing to wager that people are more likely to buy a paper that talks about how a Federal Air Marshal shot a suspect than (pick any 'good' event).

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    I think it is more that the source in their view is more liberal or conservative to their liking than truly held in suspect.
    Isn't that saying the same thing? Because the source is viewed as leaning one way or another, it's suspect (because it's not giving both points of view.)

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    For instance I have seen some on this forum say "Cite from a creditable source.....and Fox News does not count". I take this comment as a difference in political outlook based on that person's personal political biased leanings vs their view or opinion of the liberal or conservative leanings of that news organization.
    But aren't those two things so closely related. If I am liberal, then wouldn't I think that Fox news isn't reporting it 'fairly'?

    I like to listen to all kinds of views. Usually I can tell which way a particular news channel leans by listening to the types of questions it asks its guest. I don't turn it off but rather keep it in the back of my head when the answers are given or commentary made. The ones I really like are when I can't tell which way it's leaning.
    Last edited by t2gungho; 12/09/2005 at 04:59 PM.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions