Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1.    #1  
    I just read an article which suggests that the Iraqi media was paid off to act as the mouthpiece for the US provisional authority. The payments which took place to Iraqi media are reminiscent of the payments given to US news commentators to promote Bush policies.

    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...raq_loose_cash

    Here are some questions I am asking myself as I read this article:
    Under what circumstances can we justify using tax dollars to manipulate the press? During an occupation? During an election? How do these activities influence credibility of the media both here and in Iraq?
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 02/14/2005 at 01:17 PM.
  2. #2  
    It's okay when it's changing the minds of Iraqi boys and men to stop blowing up our soldiers.
  3. #3  
    I guess it's no different then NPR or PBS receiving funding from the government and being a mouthpiece for the democrat party.
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  4. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    I guess it's no different then NPR or PBS receiving funding from the government and being a mouthpiece for the democrat party.
    Claire slight difference here. NPR and PBS are to report what they see fit, they are not told what to report.
  5.    #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    It's okay when it's changing the minds of Iraqi boys and men to stop blowing up our soldiers.
    So it is justified as a war tactic, to save the lives of our troops.

    OK, I can buy that.

    Is it bad that this story is being brought up, does it threaten our troops right now?

    At what point if any would it be proper to admit we were doing this?

    Are we being set up to be called hypocrites by our opponents over there?

    I wonder if it caused more harm than good regarding our troops and our credibility over there to do this?

    I am just bringing up these questions for discussion , I am still considering them myself.
  6. #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Claire slight difference here. NPR and PBS are to report what they see fit, they are not told what to report.
    Last I checked, arab media is slanted in the insurgents favor. US backed media is slanted in our favor. If it helps saves US soldiers lives then it's a good thing. The sooner the 'tide' is turned over there, the sooner our troops can get the hell out of there.
  7. #7  
    Yes it is bad. We also have a war here at home with liberals and conservatives constantly battling over the legitimacy of the President. Go to the Yahoo msg boards. Look at what they are saying back and forth. The democrat senators are going to use this to talk about for the next 3 months instead of getting more important things done. I accepted Clinton as my president, when can a liberal accept Bush. It's unbelievable. What's gonna happen when a Republican wins again in '08 and '12? Still be in denial?

    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    So it is justified as a war tactic, to save the lives of our troops.

    OK, I can buy that.

    Is it bad that this story is being brought up, does it threaten our troops right now?

    At what point if any would it be proper to admit we were doing this?

    Are we being set up to be called hypocrites by our opponents over there?

    I wonder if it caused more harm than good regarding our troops and our credibility over there to do this?

    I am just bringing up these questions for discussion , I am still considering them myself.
  8.    #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    Last I checked, arab media is slanted in the insurgents favor. US backed media is slanted in our favor. If it helps saves US soldiers lives then it's a good thing. The sooner the 'tide' is turned over there, the sooner our troops can get the hell out of there.
    It seems to me that people can usually recognize propoganda when enough of it is fed to them and the more we do it, the more I worry that we lose people's respect. I wonder whether we should lead by example and try to promote accurate unbiased news in Iraq, the good and the bad.
  9. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    Last I checked, arab media is slanted in the insurgents favor. US backed media is slanted in our favor. If it helps saves US soldiers lives then it's a good thing. The sooner the 'tide' is turned over there, the sooner our troops can get the hell out of there.
    I was making a point to Claire. I can't comment on this matter of US backed media in the Arab world, as I have not read the article. I'm going to go read it now and give you my thoughts in just a bit. Not that you care but I will offer my opinion in a bit.
  10. #10  
    It may be slanted, i.e. the insurgents are probably referred to as 'bad guys', but how is the US backed media in Iraq inaccurate? Are they lying on how many soldiers and insurgents being killed? I doubt it. Are they saying explosions are occuring that really aren't? I doubt it. The Iraqi's need a civilized view of the news to realize these bastards are murderers and the only way for them to survive is to get rid of them.

    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    It seems to me that people can usually recognize propoganda when enough of it is fed to them and the more we do it, the more I worry that we lose people's respect. I wonder whether we should lead by example and try to promote accurate unbiased news in Iraq, the good and the bad.
  11. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    It may be slanted, i.e. the insurgents are probably referred to as 'bad guys', but how is the US backed media in Iraq inaccurate? Are they lying on how many soldiers and insurgents being killed? I doubt it. Are they saying explosions are occuring that really aren't? I doubt it. The Iraqi's need a civilized view of the news to realize these bastards are murderers and the only way for them to survive is to get rid of them.
    THe inaccuracy is that it did not report on what was going on in the country, but instead it reported things not important to the citizens of that country. Here is an example from the article:
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    WASHINGTON - A journalist who helped Iraq (news - web sites) form a new broadcast network in 2003 testified Monday that U.S. occupation officials were more interested in airing their own activities than stories essential to Iraqis.

    Don North, who served as a U.S. government adviser to the Iraqi Media Network, said the network became an irrelevant mouthpiece for the U.S. Coalition Provisional Authority.

    The network was given "a laundry list of CPA activities" to cover instead of stories on security, the lack of electricity and jobs, said North, an independent journalist.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Now I don't see this as a big problem if they label the network for what is "The Coalition Provisional Authority Channel" instead of trying to pass it off as an Iraqi News Channel.
  12. #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Claire slight difference here. NPR and PBS are to report what they see fit, they are not told what to report.
    They have a slant, an adgenda. I guess you could say the same with some of the reporting in Iraq. Al Jazeera has "their truth", I guess we can have our own.
    Well behaved women rarely make history

Posting Permissions