Disinformation and media propaganda

[lost&outofcontrol]

Anti-Israeli zealots are simply not believable. Even though the media, by nature, loves to report stories of the big bad military killing innocent people, they are simply not going to take the word of people like the ones you are quoting seriously. Nobody does. You all hate Israelis with a near-frenzied vitriol, and nothing you say is accepted at face-value. If An Israeli soldier was shot and killed in the doorway of an Arab shop your conspiracy theory sites would scream "Israeli military blocks entrance to helpless Arab shopkeeper's store!!" Nobody pays any attention to this sort of nonsense. The Israeli government, for all its faults, is extraordinary honest about casualties compared to ANYONE in the Arab world or the anti-Israeli zealots one finds among the dregs of the Left.

Please, it's not anti-semitism, it reality. Try to keep the rhetoric down.

When the Soviet Union did something wrong (and they did a lot of them), they were called on it. Where is the unbiased reporting on our side I ask? Where was our free press when the US was funding the Contras in Nicaragua and continued funding them after is was uncovered? Where was our free press when over 100 prominent Latin American religious martyrs, including Archbishop of San Salvador were murdered and 4 US American church women were brutally raped and killed by US back Contras forces? Where was the "free" press when an Israeli F-16 dropped cluster bombs on a school in Damour, leaving forty-one children dead or wounded, where was the outcry?

It is not an issue of left vs. right. The issue is of Hypocrisy and Ignorance vs. reality.

[Argus]

Anti-Israeli zealots are simply not believable. Even though the media, by nature, loves to report stories of the big bad military killing innocent people, they are simply not going to take the word of people like the ones you are quoting seriously. Nobody does. You all hate Israelis with a near-frenzied vitriol, and nothing you say is accepted at face-value. If An Israeli soldier was shot and killed in the doorway of an Arab shop your conspiracy theory sites would scream "Israeli military blocks entrance to helpless Arab shopkeeper's store!!" Nobody pays any attention to this sort of nonsense. The Israeli government, for all its faults, is extraordinary honest about casualties compared to ANYONE in the Arab world or the anti-Israeli zealots one finds among the dregs of the Left.

Please, it's not anti-semitism, it reality. Try to keep the rhetoric down.

I didn't mention anti-semitism.

When the Soviet Union did something wrong (and they did a lot of them), they were called on it.

Not actually true.

Where is the unbiased reporting on our side I ask? Where was our free press when the US was funding the Contras in Nicaragua and continued funding them after is was uncovered?

Uh, reporting the violence and terrorism of the Contras and reporting on the way the administration was illegally funding them.

Where was our free press when over 100 prominent Latin American religious martyrs, including Archbishop of San Salvador were murdered and 4 US American church women were brutally raped and killed by US back Contras forces?

Latin American was a pesthole of intensely brutal violence commited back and forth between a variety of often shadowy left and right wing groups, often on innocent people. The media probably just grew bored after a while. Not to mention that it was incredibly dangerous for anyone to be there on the ground reporting on it all.

Where was the "free" press when an Israeli F-16 dropped cluster bombs on a school in Damour, leaving forty-one children dead or wounded, where was the outcry?

Where was the outcry when the Iranians were marching teenagers through mine fields as a cheap way to clear them? Where was the outcry when the Sytians butchered thousands of people in Hamas? Where was the outcry when the Soviet Union was brutalizing dissidents and putting them into insane asylums? Where is the outcry now when North Korea has jammed hundreds of thousands of men, women and children into death camps to be worked to death? Where is the outcry over hte brutality commited by the Chinese against various religious and ethnic groups, including the ethnic cleansing going on against Tibetans and Uighurs?

But hey, the BBC had a story on thunderstorms in the US today.

Why?

Because there was great video.

[lost&outofcontrol]

Where was the outcry when the Iranians were marching teenagers through mine fields as a cheap way to clear them? Where was the outcry when the Sytians butchered thousands of people in Hamas? Where was the outcry when the Soviet Union was brutalizing dissidents and putting them into insane asylums? Where is the outcry now when North Korea has jammed hundreds of thousands of men, women and children into death camps to be worked to death? Where is the outcry over hte brutality commited by the Chinese against various religious and ethnic groups, including the ethnic cleansing going on against Tibetans and Uighurs?

But hey, the BBC had a story on thunderstorms in the US today.

Why?

Iran minefield clearing: this is the only one I had trouble finding links to since the word minefield is often times used in a different context, I keep getting OT links in my searches.

Soviets brutalizing dissidents: New York times1 - New York times2 - New York times3 - Wikipedia1

North Korean death camps: CNN1 - CNN2 - washington post - BBC - The Guardian - Wikipedia

Chinese atrocities: BBC1 - BBC2 and a lot more others..

I hope you can see the difference. All your stories gained wide coverage.

[lost&outofcontrol]

Also wanted to add this one which I posted earlier but I don't think many of you clicked on the link.

While we were all preocupied with Janet Jackson's nipple, some poor schmuck was being tortured in Tennessee by police. I could not find a single story on CNN et al.

[lost&outofcontrol]

Bush 'planted fake news stories on American TV'

[lost&outofcontrol]

Man sentenced to 119 days in jail for speaking out at a school Board meeting.

But a community organizer here has been sentenced to 119 days in jail for speaking out at a Columbus School Board meeting. A severe diabetic,...Ironically, Doyle was initially charged with trespassing at the podium although he had an authorized speaker's slip. He was complaining about a school official, Sheri Bird-Long who stole some $200,000 from the school system, pleaded guilty to one felony count of having an unlawful interest in a public contract and one misdemeanor count of unauthorized use of property, a theft-related offense. Unlike Doyle, Bird-Long got no jail time upon conviction.

Woman arrested and accused of "assaulting police officers"

[lost&outofcontrol]

Corporate propaganda: Captain Copyright coming to Canada!

[GostHacked]

Keep it up Lost.

I can appreciate what you are doing. I also recall watching an interview on Meet The Press where Rumsfeld talks about propaganda and how the Pentagon must play a part in it as much as MSM. Actually to use the MSM to promote their views of things. As we know some views are well....

You can do a whole thesis on that.

[BHS]

You can do a whole thesis on that.

Yeah, but the media would just bury it in the back pages. Am I right?

[lost&outofcontrol]

Keep it up Lost.

I can appreciate what you are doing. I also recall watching an interview on Meet The Press where Rumsfeld talks about propaganda and how the Pentagon must play a part in it as much as MSM. Actually to use the MSM to promote their views of things. As we know some views are well....

You can do a whole thesis on that.

Thank you

People must realized what's happening and understand that these policies affect them directly.

You can do a whole thesis on that.

Yeah, but the media would just bury it in the back pages. Am I right?

Is it your contention that the media does not censor the news?

[geoffrey]

Is it your contention that the media does not censor the news?

I contend that the media has a very pro-Liberal basis, in both Canada and now in the U.S. too. Censor it? I don't think that's possible anymore with blogs and the such. If there is something worth knowing, you can figure it out without some profit driven machine telling you the stories that sell.

And the stories that sell right now is Bush's failures and Harper's fighting with the press. So that's what they publish. If people wanted to read stories about the successes of Iraq, the media would very quickly display a right leaning bias.

It's all profit driven. The media reflects, to a major extent, what people want to see/hear/read.

Censorship doesn't happen because of political reasons, censorship happens because a story isn't economically worth while to tell.

[Machinations]

Is it your contention that the media does not censor the news?

I contend that the media has a very pro-Liberal basis, in both Canada and now in the U.S. too. Censor it? I don't think that's possible anymore with blogs and the such. If there is something worth knowing, you can figure it out without some profit driven machine telling you the stories that sell.

And the stories that sell right now is Bush's failures and Harper's fighting with the press. So that's what they publish. If people wanted to read stories about the successes of Iraq, the media would very quickly display a right leaning bias.

It's all profit driven. The media reflects, to a major extent, what people want to see/hear/read.

Censorship doesn't happen because of political reasons, censorship happens because a story isn't economically worth while to tell.

I disagree. You can only cover a school opening so many times - meanwhile, theres mass religious based killings in the streets, constant bombings - so they're supposed to report only the good news? I don't know what good news in Iraq you want them to report. Besides - is'nt electricity and sewer still intermittent if not completely out to much of the country - YEARS after the occupation? What kind of story is that? Is it biased to report that?

You know, typical tactic - shoot the messenger. I happen to think that CBC and the BBC are good news organizations, typically providing a balanced picture if you're not a rabid partisan, unlike, say, Fox News.

[lost&outofcontrol]

New e-voting study shows it's really easy to steal an election

[GostHacked]

New e-voting study shows it's really easy to steal an election

Were any of these machines used in Canada's last election at all?

[lost&outofcontrol]

New e-voting study shows it's really easy to steal an election

Were any of these machines used in Canada's last election at all?

None of them are used in Canada to my knowledge and let’s hope it stays that way.

link

Annual costs summarized [per citizen]

Canada [all paper], $1.81

San Francisco, $3.27 [one election only!]

Sarasota, FL $8.00

Another quick little headline that should make the Us .gov apologist cringe:

Spy Agency Sought U.S. Call Records Before 9/11, Lawyers Say

[Argus]

New e-voting study shows it's really easy to steal an election

What I'd do, if I was a knowledgeable geek type with some time on my hands is go to the most absolutely rock solid, bedrock democratic or republican community - ie, Orange County in California, for example, and rig the machines to vote 90% for the other candidate, hell, maybe not even the democratic or republican candidate. I'd go to Orange County and rig the machines to cast 90% of their votes for the Communist Party.

That ought to get the MSM's attention.

[Shady]

I'd like to add an example of disinformation and propaganda. It's from the Moral & Religious Issues section of Maple Leaf Web.

Second: Madrid bombing

Al-Quaeda link It's the jump to conclusion game.

Alleged connections to Al-Qaeda

Man accused of being the Al-Qaeda terror network

Again, the media jumped the gun and no link was found

Anyone who followed the Madrid bombings closely at the time, should absolutely know, that the government's first response to the bombings was to blame Basque separatists, not Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda was only suggested afterwards. This was the true jump to conclusion.

While I don't have the time to waste to correct numerous other instances in this thread of disinformation and propaganda, I wanted to correct this grave error.

[lost&outofcontrol]

I'd like to add an example of disinformation and propaganda. It's from the Moral & Religious Issues section of Maple Leaf Web.

Second: Madrid bombing

Al-Quaeda link It's the jump to conclusion game.

Alleged connections to Al-Qaeda

Man accused of being the Al-Qaeda terror network

Again, the media jumped the gun and no link was found

Anyone who followed the Madrid bombings closely at the time, should absolutely know, that the government's first response to the bombings was to blame Basque separatists, not Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda was only suggested afterwards. This was the true jump to conclusion.

While I don't have the time to waste to correct numerous other instances in this thread of disinformation and propaganda, I wanted to correct this grave error.

Waste away...

Madrid bombing suspect tied to al-Qaeda, one day after the bombing

Links across Europe show Al Qaeda quick to regroup and combine different networks. 8 days after the bombing.

Al Qaeda Implicated In Madrid Bombings One day after the bombing

The Al Qaeda Connection 2 days after the bombing

Would you like more links?

[August1991]

Your argument consists in saying that the media misleads Canadians (Westerners?) about subjects Canadians don't care about. It would be similar if I argued that the MSM misinforms Canadians about astronomy because of daily columns of zodiacs and horoscopes.

I just want to get this right, because you think no Canadians care about this information, it doesn't matter if they censor it?!

And comparing the Fallujah massacre by US marines with Astrology is not the same thing. I hope you can see the difference.

No, I'm not saying that a massacre in Fallujah is like astrology. I'm saying, first of all, that magazines and newspapers publish news of interest to their readers. Hence, there are more articles about astrology, cosmetics and fashion than about Fallujah.

Second, I'm saying that accusing the news media of bias in its reporting of Fallujah is like an astronomer accusing the news media of bias because it has astrology columns. (IOW, this entire thread is based on a serious misunderstanding.)

Thirdly, and most important perhaps, I'm saying that astrology columns are read for fun but the cosmetics and fashion articles are read with interest because they provide useful information. IOW, the astrology columnist can publish error-filled nonsense but the fashion editor cannot.

Information about Fallujah is no more relevant to most people in Canada than the current temperature in Tokyo. Hence, I would not be surprised to learn that there are often errors in Tokyo weather reports printed in Canada.

----

L&OC, to prove that there is media propaganda, you would first have to show me evidence of a cartel - that is journalists get together and decide what the story-line is. Journalists are notoriously contrarian so the idea of a journalism cartel strikes me as about as likely as a precision drill team of cats.

In addition, I would expect that you show evidence that this media cartel provides information about a subject of direct interest and utility to ordinary Canadians.

Finally, to make the whole question relevant, you'd have to show that ordinary people changed their minds because of this media cartel.

The Soviet Union tried to do what you are hypothesizing and failed utterly. More recently, we have had publicity campaigns to stop smoking - taxes and harsh restrictions have had far more of an effect - and still 25% of Canadians smoke.

IOW, the media cannot control what people think about things that matter. People, like cats, have a tendency to go their own way.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

to prove that there is media propaganda, you would first have to show me evidence of a cartel - that is journalists get together and decide what the story-line is. Journalists are notoriously contrarian so the idea of a journalism cartel strikes me as about as likely as a precision drill team of cats.

The 'cartel' isn't amongst the journalists, you are right, that would be silly. It is amongst the editors and owners. They ultimately decide what does and does not get published or disclosed. Most newspapers (the larger ones) and media outlets are owned by very few people. People like Robert Maxwell (now dead), Rupert Murdoch. Hollinger, etc. owned virtually all newspapers you might pick up.

IOW, the media cannot control what people think about things that matter.

You ar correct, they can't control what you think, but they can control the information you get that helps you think. For example, when the US invaded Panama, it was condemned around the world (and in the UN) as a 'flagrant violation of international law', yet none of the major news networks (save one, I believe it was ABC that gave it a 7 second sound byte) reported that fact to the people of the US. Deemed 'not newsworthy', perhaps? You can bet a reporter might have covered and submitted the story, but the 'cartel' decided it was not going to report the information to the American public.

[August1991]

The 'cartel' isn't amongst the journalists, you are right, that would be silly. It is amongst the editors and owners. They ultimately decide what does and does not get published or disclosed. Most newspapers (the larger ones) and media outlets are owned by very few people. People like Robert Maxwell (now dead), Rupert Murdoch. Hollinger, etc. owned virtually all newspapers you might pick up.

But these men don't own television stations and radios, and they don't own all the newspapers. They don't always tell the editors what to do. Lastly, Maxwell, Murdoch, Black were (are) competitive bastards who frequently cheated on colleagues and partners. These guys couldn't work together in a cartel for five minutes - one of them would be bound to cheat on the others.

With the arrival of the Internet, the idea of a media cartel controlling information is even more absurd.

IOW, the media cannot control what people think about things that matter.

You ar correct, they can't control what you think, but they can control the information you get that helps you think. For example, when the US invaded Panama, it was condemned around the world (and in the UN) as a 'flagrant violation of international law', yet none of the major news networks (save one, I believe it was ABC that gave it a 7 second sound byte) reported that fact to the people of the US. Deemed 'not newsworthy', perhaps? You can bet a reporter might have covered and submitted the story, but the 'cartel' decided it was not going to report the information to the American public.

Thelonious, there you go again - making the same error as L&OC does through this whole thread. You give an example of media bias concerning a topic - Panama - of little or no interest to most people.

If the topic is of interest, it is a safe bet that the reporting is more likely to be accurate.

Does the media determine the topic of interest? Unlikely. Why? Because it's also a safe bet that people choose to be informed about topics where they have some control. I'll bet that most posters on this forum know a heck of alot more about cars, trucks and engines than they do about Panama or Fallujah.

Here's another way of looking at this. Why are (some) people (but not all) informed about sports matches? Are media reports biased in their sports reporting? Do these biased reports, if they exist, influence people's preferences for sports in general or support for a specific team?

----

I am not saying that we should hand over decisions about foreign affairs (Fallujah or Panama) to experts. OTOH, I'm not going to blame a supposed media cartel for a problem that is not of its making. Nor will I blame the supposed stupidity of ordinary people for their ignorance or lack of interest in a specific topic.

[lost&outofcontrol]

But these men don't own television stations and radios, and they don't own all the newspapers. They don't always tell the editors what to do. Lastly, Maxwell, Murdoch, Black were (are) competitive bastards who frequently cheated on colleagues and partners. These guys couldn't work together in a cartel for five minutes - one of them would be bound to cheat on the others.

With the arrival of the Internet, the idea of a media cartel controlling information is even more absurd.

And I quote

84% of Canadian media is owned by the five largest media companies, resulting in "increasingly homogenous perspectives." CanWest Global, the largest Canadian media company, controls over 30 per cent of the Canadian media market, including 14 metropolitan daily newspapers and hundreds of community papers.

The largest online "news" websites are either owned by these same media giants or get their news from these sources. And it's worst in the United States.

Thelonious, there you go again - making the same error as L&OC does through this whole thread. You give an example of media bias concerning a topic - Panama - of little or no interest to most people.

You see Thelonious, according to August1991 nobody cares about human rights violation by the country that pertains to be the world police. All we want to hear about is if newspapers have a bias against US Auto producers or what our astrology has to say. I wonder what Britney Spears is doing today.

If the media giants ignore a part of the world like the Congo for example, people won't ever know about it. Most people get their news from the major news sources. If the mass news outlets hide behind the “unbiased veil” then the majority of people won't ever hear about these stories.

Why aren't we hearing from the mass media outlets about Coca-Cola's human rights Abuses in India or in Columbia (keep that in mind the next time you drink a can of coca cola ). Nigerian Abuses by big oil. For the answer you must ask yourselves, how much a 30 second add cost.

[lost&outofcontrol]

But these men don't own television stations and radios, and they don't own all the newspapers. They don't always tell the editors what to do. Lastly, Maxwell, Murdoch, Black were (are) competitive bastards who frequently cheated on colleagues and partners. These guys couldn't work together in a cartel for five minutes - one of them would be bound to cheat on the others.

With the arrival of the Internet, the idea of a media cartel controlling information is even more absurd.

And I quote

84% of Canadian media is owned by the five largest media companies, resulting in "increasingly homogenous perspectives." CanWest Global, the largest Canadian media company, controls over 30 per cent of the Canadian media market, including 14 metropolitan daily newspapers and hundreds of community papers.

The largest online "news" websites are either owned by these same media giants or get their news from these sources. And it's worst in the United States.

Thelonious, there you go again - making the same error as L&OC does through this whole thread. You give an example of media bias concerning a topic - Panama - of little or no interest to most people.

You see Thelonious, according to August1991 nobody cares about human rights violation by the country that pertains to be the world police. All we want to hear about is if newspapers have a bias against US Auto producers or what our astrology has to say. I wonder what Britney Spears is doing today.

If the media giants ignore a part of the world like the Congo for example, people won't ever know about it. Most people get their news from the major news sources. If the mass news outlets hide behind the “unbiased veil” then the majority of people won't ever hear about these stories.

Why aren't we hearing from the mass media outlets about Nigerian Abuses by big oil. Coca-Cola's human rights Abuses in India or in Columbia (keep that in mind the next time you drink a can of coca cola ) and yet we hear about Coca-Cola's trade secrets being stolen. Which of the two stories would people want to hear?

For the answer you must ask yourselves, how much a 30 second add cost.

[August1991]

"Five conglomerates own 84% of Canadian media" - such a quote is meaningless. But I'll play the game on your ground L&OC and I'll take the fantastically extreme interpretation that this means five men control 84% of everything Canadian you read. So what? The five men could never agree on anything (Conrad Black agrees only with himself). Furthermore, there is still another 16%.

Moreover, all of your examples L&OC concern international affairs where many Canadians receive their news from foreign media sources (easily accessible in Canada). How many "conglomerates" own what percentage of world media?

The largest online "news" websites are either owned by these same media giants or get their news from these sources. And it's worst in the United States.

I'm not certain what you mean by this. Are you saying that the only source of news is a "news website"? That is simply incredible. The Internet started as a communications tool for research centres and academic reports still dominate. Many, many different organizations provide all kinds of information about virtually any subject imaginable.

L&OC, I have the impression that you take an exceptionally narrow view of sources of information. Have you ever been to a library? Have you ever read a book?

All we want to hear about is if newspapers have a bias against US Auto producers or what our astrology has to say. I wonder what Britney Spears is doing today.

You still don't get it.

I am saying that people pay attention to news reports for information that is useful to them. In such reports, you can be reasonably certain that journalists will be careful to avoid errors. IOW, I am fairly certain that media reports about the finances of US auto makers (or Coke trade secrets) are as accurate as possible. I am fairly certain that media reports about Britney Spears (or human rights abuses in South America) are not.

People pick and choose the information they want to know. People tend to know about things of direct interest to them. You don't buy peanut butter if you don't like peanuts.

People usually ensure they get information as accurate as possible about, to name a few examples, potential spouses, possible job promotions, education opportunities and all manner of purchases. This information will affect decisions that will have an effect on people's lives. Information about Britney Spears or the Congo is not going to make any difference in most decisions of most people.

If the media giants ignore a part of the world like the Congo for example, people won't ever know about it. Most people get their news from the major news sources. If the mass news outlets hide behind the “unbiased veil” then the majority of people won't ever hear about these stories.

There you go again, just like Thelonious. You pick an example in Africa (but you provide an Internet link to a popular newspaper, undercutting your whole point.)

If people want to know about the Congo or Nigeria, the information is easily available in Canada. In general though, individual Canadians don't care about Congo or Nigeria because it is far away and an individual Canadian can do absolutely nothing to change events there. Most Canadians wisely know this and as a result, most ignore articles about the Congo.

You see Thelonious, according to August1991 nobody cares about human rights violation by the country that pertains to be the world police.

L&OC, your anti-Americanism seems to motivate your entire argument and that's unfortunate. In the process, you have lost sight of what information people choose to know and why they choose to know it.

Underneath all of this, I fear you don't quite understand how an individual fits within a larger collective. You see an army but you haven't bothered to wonder how the individuals got together to form it.

[Biblio Bibuli]

You see an army but you haven't bothered to wonder how the individuals got together to form it.

Not me. I've been wondering about that ever since I got here.