Media vs. the truth

[theloniusfleabag]

It has been said that "The first casualty of War is the truth".

I just read something on a Yahoo news link about the US fighting 'anti-Iraqi' insurgents in Iraq, and I wondered what on Earth that meant. How can the Iraqis, fighting the occupation of Iraq (in their mind) be anti-Iraqis? Propaganda at it's most inglorious. Does the media have the right to engage in propaganda, or should it serve just 'truth'? Should they be forced to issue a disclaimer before news broadcasts that says "The information contained herein may not be truthful nor factual, but is presented in such a way as to maximize profitability for us, and to serve the interests of a third party?"

[Charles Anthony]

Does the media have the right to engage in propaganda, or should it serve just 'truth'?

I believe the media has every right to engage in propaganda and even to tell lies.

Unless, of course it is funded by tax-payers -- in which case, it only has the right to remain silent.

Should they be forced to issue a disclaimer before news broadcasts that says "The information contained herein may not be truthful nor factual, but is presented in such a way as to maximize profitability for us, and to serve the interests of a third party?"

There is no need. We should be smart enough to automatically make that assumption.

If we are not that smart enough or we expect a right to free factual entertainment, we are probably better off listening to lies.

[colliver19]

I have one thing to say:

RUPERT MURDOCH :angry:

He own's just about every newspaper in the UK and hundreds more worldwide. He has too much power.

[sharkman]

It has been said that "The first casualty of War is the truth".

I just read something on a Yahoo news link about the US fighting 'anti-Iraqi' insurgents in Iraq, and I wondered what on Earth that meant. How can the Iraqis, fighting the occupation of Iraq (in their mind) be anti-Iraqis? Propaganda at it's most inglorious. Does the media have the right to engage in propaganda, or should it serve just 'truth'? Should they be forced to issue a disclaimer before news broadcasts that says "The information contained herein may not be truthful nor factual, but is presented in such a way as to maximize profitability for us, and to serve the interests of a third party?"

If you are really interested in hearing what an anti Iraqi is, you only have to consider the region and who benefits. There are several countries actively supporting unrest in Iraq as a back handed way to resist the US. They send in personnel to whip up unrest and organize bombing, mass murders, kidnappings and the like. These foreigners to Iraq are anti-Iraqis, and should be an embarrassment to the Arab world as they kill their brothers and seek to bring lawlessness and ruin to one of the great historic Arab nations of the world.

Syria and Iran would love to get their hands on Iraqi lands and oil, and use this new power to beat up the West with, as would many other West hating countries over there.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear sharkman,

There are several countries actively supporting unrest in Iraq as a back handed way to resist the US. They send in personnel to whip up unrest and organize bombing, mass murders, kidnappings and the like. These foreigners to Iraq are anti-Iraqis,

Yes, I'll agree that these elements make up a portion of those sowing discord. I disagree that they are the majority, though.

[Nazia]

Media is a DIGUST!

It is fully of savaged lies... :angry:

In short and comprehendable terms...media is the Satan daily homework!

[guyser]

Media is a DIGUST!

It is fully of savaged lies... :angry:

In short and comprehendable terms...media is the Satan daily homework!

Satan was your english teacher.

[Nazia]

lol..my mistake guyser.

First of all I never really liked spelling disgust...always got it wrong.

As for the grammer...it happens when you speak with angry passion.

I shall correct my mistake, indeed.

Medis is DIGUSTING!

It is full of savaged lies...

In short and comprehendible terms....media is the Satan's daily homework.

Now if that satisfies your rude comment guyser then good. I've put each of my mistakes in bold font

[GostHacked]

The media is in bed with the government. Not to mention the Pentagon and White House have their own media circus.

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/media/060831/X083128U.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - The U.S. command in Baghdad is seeking bidders for a two-year, $20-million public relations contract that calls for monitoring the tone of Iraq news stories filed by U.S. and foreign news media.

This is more or less a way to cover up stuff. If you make the news and give the news to others to report it, this seems like the US Government is in their own propaganda war. (And you wonder why it is compared with Nazi Germany so often).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6100906.stm

The US defence department has set up a new unit to better promote its message across 24-hour rolling news outlets, and particularly on the internet.

...

Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said earlier this year the US was losing the propaganda war to its enemies.

So the media is slanted and biased and filtered and sanatized for your viewing. Those in power get to tell us what is what now without anyone really questioning anything. Sad sad sad. Wake up.

EDIT LE

http://usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-1...ntagon-pr_x.htm

Run by psychological warfare experts at the U.S. Special Operations Command, the media campaign is being designed to counter terrorist ideology and sway foreign audiences to support American policies. The military wants to fight the information war against al-Qaeda through newspapers, websites, radio, television and "novelty items" such as T-shirts and bumper stickers.

This is proof that the media is lying to you.

[Charles Anthony]

This is proof that the media is lying to you.

Big deal. Why is that a problem?

[GostHacked]

This is proof that the media is lying to you.

Big deal. Why is that a problem?

Whoooaaaaaaaa nelly.

Ok, please say you are kidding me. Do you want to know the truth? Or are you happy just going about your business and taking in at face value everything they say. Do you have kids? Do you teach them that lying is a bad thing, or have you lied to them about that? Are you married? Ever think the wife is lying to you? Don't worry there is nothing wrong with people bullshitting you and lying to you. Or are you more afraid of the truth?

The problem is, that since the media is lying to us all, we are not being told what the real truth is. That does not bother you at all in the least? Are you a yes man? This means not only the media is lying, but your government as well. But you don't see a problem with that.

NEWSFLASH SCENARIO - Charles Anthony is a racist and is ignorant. Don't talk to him if you encounter him, he is armed and dangerous.

^^^ If that was in the media, slandering you, you would just be fine with that? Or would you say something.

A lie is a lie is a lie is a lie is a lie. No problem.

[Nazia]

Well, well

I'm sorry but I must ask Charles Anthony,....do you not have any sensibility?

Yes you don't mind the media lying because I hardly think it affects you...or you really don't care.

Now as GostHacked quoted:

"NEWSFLASH SCENARIO - Charles Anthony is a racist and is ignorant. Don't talk to him if you encounter him, he is armed and dangerous.

^^^ If that was in the media, slandering you, you would just be fine with that? Or would you say something."

I don't know if you are racist Charles but I certainly agree you are ignorant! I mean you refuse to see the lies...the betrayel. You don't care and you don't want to know! What are you afraid of?

And as for GostHack's question....would you be fine with the fact if someone was 'slandering' you on media. Would you not want the truth settled?

Please Charles Anthony..answer these questins...because I am APPALLED with your selfish,naive,cretinous reply.

[theloniusfleabag]

This is proof that the media is lying to you.

Big deal. Why is that a problem?

Whoooaaaaaaaa nelly.

Ok, please say you are kidding me. Do you want to know the truth?

I believe that what Charles Anthony is saying is that there is no obligation for the media to tell the truth, and the onus is on the individual regarding what to accept or deny as 'truth'. The same would apply for most of your hypothetical questions, that the individual is ultimately responsible for how one deals with 'lies'.

Don't forget, he is a 'libertarian-anarchist' at heart, so the argument would run that the punishment for lying would be poor sales.

[Charles Anthony]

Dear Flea,

I believe that what Charles Anthony is saying is that there is no obligation for the media to tell the truth,

Correct. However, I wish to refine some of your other conclusions.

Don't forget, he is a 'libertarian-anarchist' at heart, so the argument would run that the punishment for lying would be poor sales.

I care less about the poor sales. I would not generalize and say that it is unprofitable to tell lies. I believe telling lies is part of the packaged product marketed by the media. Even if a deceptive media was rewarded with HIGHER sales, I would still say they have the right to lie. The primary reason is simple: I can not claim ownership over The Truth. I do not even know what it is. We can fight over what we say but we can not claim ownership over The Truth any more than we can claim ownership over Peace or World Poverty or Pop Music.

I'm sorry but I must ask Charles Anthony,....do you not have any sensibility?

No. I am hard-headed.

Yes you don't mind the media lying because I hardly think it affects you...or you really don't care.

Wrong. It does affect me. However, I have no power over it.

I don't know if you are racist Charles but I certainly agree you are ignorant!

I do not think I am a racist but I am certainly ignorant about one thing: The Truth.

What you fail to realize is that you and I and everybody in this world knows NOTHING.

We can not prove any bit of our knowledge is true. We can not even prove that we are observing the physical phenomena around us. Ultimately, we take things for granted. A normal person learns to cope and function by making rational choices of what to believe and what not to believe. We also make rational choices of what we say.

Telling the truth is not always helpful. A sane and sensible person realizes that at a very early age.

I mean you refuse to see the lies...the betrayel.

No. I embrace them.

I have one question for you: Do you believe everybody tells you the truth?

The rest of your questions are irrelevent.

Ok, please say you are kidding me.

I am very serious. There are billions of people on this planet. Do you think the media can lie to ALL of them?

We have the ability to see through the lies (maybe not immediately but eventually if we try hard enough) and find the truth.

The problem is, that since the media is lying to us all, we are not being told what the real truth is.

How do you know that? Answer: You did "research" and found out yourself.

That is what I am talking about.

This means not only the media is lying, but your government as well. But you don't see a problem with that.

If you handed a media outlet to me tomorrow and said "Here! It is yours!!" I would probably not know how to run the business. However, I will tell you this: if it was more profitable or convenient to tell lies, I would do so.

NEWSFLASH SCENARIO - Charles Anthony is a racist and is ignorant. Don't talk to him if you encounter him, he is armed and dangerous.

^^^ If that was in the media, slandering you, you would just be fine with that? Or would you say something.

I am fine with that because nobody cares and it is to nobody's advantage to believe you.

If I were in a position where your slander could affect my reputation adversely, I would not be on this forum. Your "slander" is moot.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

What you fail to realize is that you and I and everybody in this world knows NOTHING

Cogito ergo sum. Perhaps 'next to nothing', but not fully 'nothing'.

I can not claim ownership over The Truth. I do not even know what it is.

Then I shall tell you. It is 'That which does be'. When people invented 'god', they gave him characteristics of 'truth', the most notable being the statement "I am'. This applies well to 'truth', but less so to 'god', for only 'God' requires faith. Truth does not require anything. It simply is, regardless of our interpretation, regardless of our wishes, regardless of our claims. While some humans may have high regard for 'truth', it cares not one jot or tittle for us.

[Nazia]

To Charles Anthony...

so are you telling me because the world knows 'NOTHING" then you are going to accept whatever is thrown at you and simply ASSUME on those basis?

Just because you have no power over it..does that mean your mind will accept it...?

and another thing u mentioned yourself...your ignorant concerning the truth. meaning you take the lies and judge them. But on what views on what basis...obviously by those provided to you through the media.

Each lie you accept builds a brick..then in the end you have your false statment.in other words your building.

AS for your question:

Do I believe everyone tells the truth?

Ofcourse not...that would be absurd and deceiving. But Charles it depends GREATLY on the circumstance. I mean think about it....in the case of the media...its a grand matter...it goes around the countries, it influences it affects minds and most importantly decisions! Are you getting at what Im saying...? If soemone lies about their age or etc...that is a personal matter you know between you and the person. But in the case of the media..theres no oppurtunity to explain to understand. Whatever is said is the final decision and those that know NOTHING will no doubt except it as a foundation to BUILD on...

THATS WHY.......

media vs truth is a bigger issue which deserves to be considered.!! Get what I'm saying?

[Nazia]

To Charles Anthony...

so are you telling me because the world knows 'NOTHING" then you are going to accept whatever is thrown at you and simply ASSUME on those basis?

Just because you have no power over it..does that mean your mind will accept it...?

and another thing u mentioned yourself...your ignorant concerning the truth. meaning you take the lies and judge them. But on what views on what basis...obviously by those provided to you through the media.

Each lie you accept builds a brick..then in the end you have your false statment.in other words your building.

AS for your question:

Do I believe everyone tells the truth?

Ofcourse not...that would be absurd and deceiving. But Charles it depends GREATLY on the circumstance. I mean think about it....in the case of the media...its a grand matter...it goes around the countries, it influences it affects minds and most importantly decisions! Are you getting at what Im saying...? If soemone lies about their age or etc...that is a personal matter you know between you and the person. But in the case of the media..theres no oppurtunity to explain to understand. Whatever is said is the final decision and those that know NOTHING will no doubt except it as a foundation to BUILD on...

THATS WHY.......

media vs truth is a bigger issue which deserves to be considered.!! Get what I'm saying?

[Nazia]

SORRY FOR THE REPETITION...IT WAS A MISTAKE.

[Charles Anthony]

Dear Thel,

Cogito ergo sum. Perhaps 'next to nothing', but not fully 'nothing'.

I should have said "nothing that can be proven" instead. Descartes' famous statement was an assumption.

Then I shall tell you. It is 'That which does be'.

Do you have any proof for that? or must we make asses out of ourselves?

When people invented 'god', they gave him characteristics of 'truth', the most notable being the statement "I am'. This applies well to 'truth', but less so to 'god', for only 'God' requires faith.

That is an excellent and related point. However, the difference you identify is practically wrong.

Truth does not require anything.

The Truth requires proof without which it is an assumption. Hence, making a claim that "The media (or anybody else for that matter) lies." goes nowhere with respect to moral judgment without proof.

At the extreme, we can not prove anything. Thus, we each take things for granted to various degrees.

so are you telling me because the world knows 'NOTHING" then you are going to accept whatever is thrown at you and simply ASSUME on those basis?

No. I (like any marginally intelligent person) will do the opposite. I will NOT accept ANYTHING that is thrown at me.

You completely misunderstand.

Just because you have no power over it..does that mean your mind will accept it...?

No. I will not trust anything to be true. I start by believing everybody is lying or out to make a buck.

and another thing u mentioned yourself...your ignorant concerning the truth. meaning you take the lies and judge them. But on what views on what basis...obviously by those provided to you through the media.

Correct. What else can I do?

Each lie you accept builds a brick..then in the end you have your false statment.in other words your building.

That is the best that I can do. What do you suggest?

Do you suggest that I make things up myself??

AS for your question:

Do I believe everyone tells the truth?

Ofcourse not...that would be absurd and deceiving.

-- and how do you deal with it?

Probably the same way as I do.

But Charles it depends GREATLY on the circumstance. I mean think about it....in the case of the media...its a grand matter...it goes around the countries, it influences it affects minds and most importantly decisions! Are you getting at what Im saying...?

Trust me, I understand what you are saying.

Your point is that a deceptive media can create a lot more damage than a little white lie about somebody's age or true hair color. I agree but also I do not care.

To help YOU understand my position I want you to imagine yourself floating in the middle of the ocean during a tsunami storm wearing nothing but a life-jacket. What are you going to do to stop it???

With a lying media, you have the power to not believe it. You also have the intelligence to realize that what you identify as "The Media" is operated by real people and not some supernatural force.

I would also suggest that honesty in "The Media" is miniscule compared to honesty in "The History Books" or do you believe everything you just learned in History class?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

Descartes' famous statement was an assumption.

It would not have been famous if it was. It is based on the application of 'occam's razor' to logic, whittling down to the one thing that cannot be considered an assumption.

The Truth requires proof without which it is an assumption

It requires nothing from us. You need to stop being such a human .

That which does be is so without human perception. 'It' doesn't care what we think. Whether existence is the world being held up on a turtle's back, our universe being a single molecule in the big toenail of some giant being in an alternate universe...one,and only one 'that which does be' exists. For this, I can only offer the 'proof' of logic. There is only room for one. As I have said elsewhere, there is a finite amount of 'that which does be', surrounded by an infinite amount of 'that which does not be'. Perception may vary as to how 'what does be' is seen, and imagination may try to envision 'that which does not be', but even that imagining becomes being, though only in a chemical formula sort of way.

The number of grains of sand on all the beaches of the world, at any given instant, are static and finite, and they don't care that we are human and can't count them. All of the other counts belong in the realm of 'that which does not be'.

[Charles Anthony]

Dear TheOne&Us,

I am still going by memory now and it would be more proper to search for a link. Nevertheless, Descartes had to assume that he, in fact, existed as a starting point for his philosophization. However, he could not prove that he existed. The best he could do was make the reasonable assumption that since he is able to think, he must exist as an individual.

Maybe he could have assumed that since he is able to create or commit horrifying acts of evil or simply to dream, he must exist too.

Nevertheless, his statement is technically an assumption and it is in perfect harmony with my point about appreciating The Truth and The Media. We are constantly making assumptions because all we have is perception.

You need to stop being such a human

Unfortunately, that is all you guys can get from me -- for now.

one,and only one 'that which does be' exists. For this, I can only offer the 'proof' of logic. There is only room for one. As I have said elsewhere,

-- and finally we are coming close to some semblance of proof!

there is a finite amount of 'that which does be', surrounded by an infinite amount of 'that which does not be'. Perception may vary as to how 'what does be' is seen, and imagination may try to envision 'that which does not be', but even that imagining becomes being, though only in a chemical formula sort of way.

For better or for worse, perception is more practical than whether it is nobler to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.

I fail to see any practical application of the Dooby-Dooby Doo Theory.

The number of grains of sand on all the beaches of the world, at any given instant, are static and finite, and they don't care that we are human and can't count them. All of the other counts belong in the realm of 'that which does not be'.

Interesting. Please tell me: in which dimension does the empty-half of the half-filled glass lie?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

Dear TheOne&Us,

Interesting. Please tell me: in which dimension does the empty-half of the half-filled glass lie?

Such an easy one!? Even empty space has the edges of it's reality defined by the infinite amount of what is not there, like sixteen pails of buffalo snot.

[GostHacked]

I would also suggest that honesty in "The Media" is miniscule compared to honesty in "The History Books" or do you believe everything you just learned in History class?

Now I am doubting all that I learned in history class. History was written by the winners. The media is run by winners as well. Most can't see through the lies the media portrays, and that is dangerous. You can manipulate whole populations because of the simple fact that they are ignorant. And also they go against their better judgement to say that.. well if its on TV/RADIO, INTERNET it must be true.

[Charles Anthony]

Dear LoneFlea,

Such an easy one!? Even empty space has the edges of it's reality defined by the infinite amount of what is not there, like sixteen pails of buffalo snot.

I see.

My fist has just taken a life of its own and knocked some overwhleming sense into my head -- albeit a sense of void that can only be quenched by a fresh cocktail of e8ight delicious Vegetables.

Now I am doubting all that I learned in history class. History was written by the winners.

True but history is also written by the literate. You are also literate and thus, you are not so helpless and the media does not have as much influence.

[M.Dancer]

It has been said that "The first casualty of War is the truth".

I just read something on a Yahoo news link about the US fighting 'anti-Iraqi' insurgents in Iraq, and I wondered what on Earth that meant. How can the Iraqis, fighting the occupation of Iraq (in their mind) be anti-Iraqis?

You have to take the whole phrase and remember that Journalists forget the shorthand they use ampngst themselves, isn't always understood by all.

The are anti iraqi gov't insurgents....the operative word is insurgent.

in·sur·gent Listen: [ n-sûrjnt ]

adj.

Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.

Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.

n.