RRC Archives

I'd be interested to hear what the political nuts have to say about this one...a pretty damning article about the bush administration's manipulation of the media:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washi ... Asj%20yC4Q

the truth is always the first casualty of war- and then the victors write the books after the lowest bidder supplies the forces

My response to this same non-story on an earlier thread. "Whatever. But, while every side on this issue engages in propaganda, the Pentagon's propaganda is in support of the U.S. war effort, while the New York Times engages in propoganda in support of our enemies, and that difference is, shall we say, significant."

New York Times engages in propoganda in support of our enemies

Is against the war really FOR the enemy? C'mon. Couldn't it just be that against the war is for our troops not to get killed. Couldn't against the war be for our children's children not the bear the tax burden of this war? Could against the war be for a shift is focus from this misguided foreign policy initiative to very pressing domestic policy (like steroids in baseball)? And don't go into some diatribe about the relationship between this war and those things.

I'm always confounded by this perspective.

L K Day wrote:...the Pentagon's propaganda is in support of the U.S. war effort, while the New York Times engages in propoganda in support of our enemies....

I know 4th graders that routinely build more complex arguments. Your Newspeak and organized hate sessions ala "1984" do very little to influence those of us with the ability to see shades of grey......

Sadly, that does not appear to be the majority of America these days.

I think their new movie will be a great resource in our fight against the evil-doers.

http://www.haroldandkumar.com/

But seeing everything in black and white is so much easier on limited intellects.

Max Boot - "The implicit purpose of the Times’s article is obvious: to elevate this perfectly normal practice into a scandal in the hopes of quashing it. Thus leaving the Times and its fellow MSM organs–conveniently enough–as the dominant shapers of public opinion."

What it comes down to is that, when it comes to propaganda, the NY Times wants a monopoly. Sorry if that point of view isn't complex enough for you Charlie. And since when does stating one's opinion in a rather straightforward and civil manner equate with "Newspeak" and "organized hate session"? What a tool you are.

Nah Larry, it was better once. During the Viet Nam conflict our media cover the blood and guts. We respected the concept of an informed democracy. The media can't show bodies during this conflict.

We held the USSR up to a higher standard, "your press is govt.-owned; our isn't; therefore our people are freer." Our standards are collapsing. We are twisting info to justify military action. We are running a propaganda program on the tax dollar to shift public opinion. We are paying to be deceived. The American ideal can so easily morph into dystopia. We all need to be critical and vigilant of our leaders; it is the American way. Some of us want you to cowboy up and be just a little more American please.