How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 All the News Unfit to Print...   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ]
 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

All the News (or not) Unfit to Print...

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


50 posted 05-20-2005 12:52 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

aren't we supposed to excuse a magazine for printing a few words?

Beats me...let's ask the families of the two dozen people who died as a result of those few words or the people caught in the riots those few words created. They may havea different idea....

but, hey, what the heck. The evil "Koran in the Toilet" incident has been exposed and that's what counts.....
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Caelestus
since 06-25-99
Posts 67715
Listening to every heart


51 posted 05-20-2005 06:51 AM       View Profile for Sunshine   Email Sunshine   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Sunshine's Home Page   View IP for Sunshine

quote:
What exactly about it was so important that Newsweek would consider it so important that the news got out to the world?

Nothing, 'Deer, other than to possibly incite the religious right.

quote:

Nobody would vote for me...

Won't know, Reb, until you throw your hat into the ring!
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


52 posted 05-20-2005 10:19 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
What exactly about it was so important that Newsweek would consider it so important that the news got out to the world? Was it the "the public has the right to know" song and dance that has been used since the beginning of time?

While it's a little awkward to argue for the importance of Truth in the face of inaccurate reporting, some of us don't believe that's just a song and a dance, Mike. Some of us believe knowing what's happening in our world is a both fundamental right and the foundation for all responsibility.

Aside from tactical information, which clearly needs to be protected from enemy access, the Truth belongs to all of us. Freedom founded on ignorance and lies isn't really freedom, but just a different kind of bondage. Those unable to stand in the light of Truth, be it reporters or politicians or nations, deserve to be -- and I think inevitably will be -- brought to their knees. That's not just a song and dance, Mike. It's the crux of all freedoms.
jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


53 posted 05-20-2005 10:49 AM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

Reb:

1. Many Americans are strongly religious.

2. A few years ago, the painting "Piss Christ" caused an uproar against Christian conservatives who regarded the work as tax-funded blasphemy.

3. How many people were killed?

I think "insane" is a fair characterization of both parties involved in the violence: (1) megalomaniacal political opportunists who misuse the zeal of certain Muslims to carry out acts of violence "in the name of Islam" and (2) the delusional acceptance of the words of the imams by radical Muslims who have been (mis)lead to believe that the Qur'an justifies the violence they have dealt out on their countrymen.

Part of the problem is with the Qur'an itself, the latter half which was written by Mohammad during his imperialistic phase.  The second and related problem is with the disproportionate control of Mosques by imperialistic Islamic factions.  While it is true that the majority of Muslims are not radical religious imperialists, it is also true that the majority of Mosques are led by radical religious imperialists.

At the philosophical level, I have little problem with Mohammad's early writings.  He was, in fact, more a religious than political reformer in those early days and, while I question the authenticity of his revelations, I (as you know) have a soft place in my heart for reformers.  His life, however, exemplifies what often happens to good people when given nigh-absolute authority and, unfortunately, his legacy has been defined in modern times by his later, revolutionary ideas.

It should also be noted that Christians who kill (such as the guy who killed Dr. Gunn outside an abortion clinic) cannot defend their actions without grossly distorting Biblical guidance on right behavior.  Qur'anic references to jihad are not so easily laid to rest.

Jim
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


54 posted 05-20-2005 11:20 AM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

Speaking of tabloids, The Sun has a new edition, with a photo of Saddam in very white briefs.  What The Sun quite failed to understand, or really didn't care about, is that the distribution of such a photo is a very clear violation of the Geneva Convention.  Whoever leaked/gave/sold that picture, and whoever printed that picture should be tried in accordance to the Geneva Convention.  I quite fail to understand the purpose of even taking such a photo, but whoever did on whomever's orders, both should be held by the same yardstick as the ones who distributed and printed it.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


55 posted 05-20-2005 12:52 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

That's not just a song and dance, Mike. It's the crux of all freedoms.

Yes, of course Ron, that is understood. That soapbox, however, is out of place in this incident unless you sincerely feel that the reason for that article to be printed was the media's drive for truth and justice to be spread around the globe. I think too highly of you to feel you believe that to be true. The media is power. Along with that power comes responsibility. I'll ask you the same question I asked LR. Aside from the fact it was later admitted to be false, do you feel that the media handled the situation responsibly by printing this article? Yes, you may go back into generalities and say no one has the right to tell any media what to print but I'm asking you about this particular one. Can you honestly tell me you don't feel that it was released as a propoganda weapon against Bush, irregardless of the consequences to Americans everywhere? There's really no need to sermonize about the constitution and the rights of free speech here in this instance. We all know why they did it. Was it worth it? Was this topic that newsworthy on its own merits? Could the printing of this article have any positive merit whatsoever? What is it? I'd like to know...
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


56 posted 05-20-2005 01:08 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

As I have said before, over the past so many months, terrorists have kidnapped civilians, distributed video of them beheading innocent victims, bombed churches, shopping centers, schools and killed countless Iraqi citizens and the majority of the headlines have been composed of The US insensitivities to prisoners. We shot pictures of them naked. We flushed their holy book down the toilet. (Oops, was that a head rolling by?) The terrorists don't need to do anything. The greatest weapon they have is our own media.
Our media and their hatred of Bush is the most powerful weapon the terrorists have. Our media has done more damage that any terrorist could ever hope to accomplish. If the terrorist groups were able to get together and hand out medals, the United States media would receive their highest award....and CBS might even televise the event!   But, hey, let the heads roll where they may. The media is exercising their right that the country they are abusing with their power gave them. Nothing is their fault because they are just innocent bystanders reporting the news. If the stick they jab the beehive with causes bees to come out and sting people....hey, they didn't tell the bees to come out and hurt anyone!

May they all feel very proud.....

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


57 posted 05-20-2005 01:32 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

By the way, as an afterthought, the media admitted that, before the war, they were aware of all the behind the scenes atrocities that were being conducted by Hussein against the Iraqi people but they didn't speak out because, to do so would have resulted in their expulsion from Iraq so they kept quiet while the atrocities went on.

Where was their "drive for the truth" then or their "public has the right to know" speeches then?
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Caelestus
since 06-25-99
Posts 67715
Listening to every heart


58 posted 05-20-2005 02:38 PM       View Profile for Sunshine   Email Sunshine   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Sunshine's Home Page   View IP for Sunshine

quote:
The Sun has a new edition, with a photo of Saddam in very white briefs.

As Ali stated...A Geneva gaff. But what's with the "redness" around the neck?

Seems to me that this could possibly be a "superimposed" picture?
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,15357022%255E401,00.html

[This message has been edited by Sunshine (05-20-2005 03:11 PM).]

Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


59 posted 05-20-2005 03:26 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

It's been admitted the age of the photo is well over a year old, shortly after Saddam's capture due to physical changes and appearance in the subsequent time.  Basically, it ain't new.  Which gives interesting questions into the timing of the release in The Sun and a paper in the US who's name eludes me, yanno, so soon after the Gitmo farce.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


60 posted 05-20-2005 10:58 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

Let's suppose for argument's sake that the Koran/toilet issue were true? What exactly about it was so important that Newsweek would consider it so important that the news got out to the world?



I'm going to allow Ike to answer your question Mike.

quote:

The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their Government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well in the face of threat and stress.

But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise.

Of these, I mention two only.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.


Dwight D. Eisenhower
January 17, 1961 http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm
(emphasis added)



How do we remain alert and knowledgeable as citizens without an independent and investigative press?

I'll be back with more later guys -- sorry, tired here.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


61 posted 05-20-2005 11:01 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quickie for Cat...

I don't think the GC applies to Saddam since he is a criminal prisoner of the soveriegn nation of Iraq and not a POW of a GC signatory.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


62 posted 05-20-2005 11:33 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

...and you believe, reb, that printing about a Koran in the toilet goes along with helping us remain alert and informed? You believe that NOT printing about a Koran in the toilet would endanger our liberties and democratic processes? You believe that's a positive in this case? I'd give a lot to be able to raise Ike from the dead and get his opinion on this one and ask him if that's what he met....sorry, LR, no disrespect intended but I find that reasoning extremely weak. I can see in cases where it may apply but not here. We can talk around why the article was printed forever but I think you know that answer as well as anyone and simply not mentioning it does not make it not so nor does dressing it up in fancy ideals which it doesn't have. A pig with lipstick on is still a pig.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


63 posted 05-20-2005 11:52 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Patience Mike.  Patience.

There are no pigs in lipstick here -- but one thing at a time --

quote:

Aside from the fact it was later admitted to be false, do you feel that the media handled the situation responsibly by printing this article? Yes, you may go back into generalities and say no one has the right to tell any media what to print but I'm asking you about this particular one. Can you honestly tell me you don't feel that it was released as a propoganda weapon against Bush, irregardless of the consequences to Americans everywhere? There's really no need to sermonize about the constitution and the rights of free speech here in this instance. We all know why they did it.



Actually Mike, I don't think you do.

What I've already said;

quote:

Newsweek is certainly culpible for its' own actions and I have no doubt that if there were people rioting in the streets of New York and there were resultant injuries and deaths there would be a class action lawsuit (justifiably) filed with all due haste.

and

The more egregious error committed by Newsweek and the White House though is not in anticipating what the reaction in the Muslim community would be to this. To simply categorize it as insane is equally a misunderstanding



Hardly generalities -- but let's get even more specific with a sequence of events;

Allegations of prisoner and Koran abuse surface in the mediasphere a couple of years ago.

This is important because if we want to win this war on terror and not have to fight the entire Muslim population of the world (see my previous and subsequent responses to Jim) we have to be aware of and engaged in the oversight of what our military does.

A top official (unknown specifically from what part of the government but it is perfectly logical to assume that he or she has security clearance to read classified documents since he is trusted by Newsweek to have actually read the forthcoming report from the military) comes to Isikoff and says that there is confirmation in the said forthcoming report that the Koran-in- the-toilet incident occured.

Isikoff takes the information to Newsweek along with a laundry list of other abuses.  

Newsweek takes the information to another government official to verify.

The second government official objects to some of the information but doesn't mention the Koran-in-the-toilet incident.

Newsweek takes this as confirmation (obviously a huge mistake and just plain lazy journalism.)

Newsweek prints the story?  Why? Because they are in the BUSINESS of delivering the news and always hope to deliver it before anyone else does.  There is absolutely nothing to be gained by fabricating a story or printing one from someone else they believe is lying because the military report is going to be released and the item either is or is not in there.  The story remains in the mediasphere for eleven days before someone in the Pentagon says -- oh -- not true.

Isikoff goes back to the original source who says 'gee I can't really remember where I read that.'


If this was Propaganda Mike -- then it was about to be released by the Military itself -- Newsweek thought it was scooping the report -- how is THAT propaganda?
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


64 posted 05-21-2005 12:18 AM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

How convenient that Newsweek did not show such adamant reasoning during the Clinton decade.  Time after time, Newsweek sat on the research, reporting and articles by Isikoff about Clinton and Lewinsky's affair, Clinton's sexual abuses in positions of power (state DA, governor, President), and perjury to a Federal grand jury.  However, change Clinton to Bush and everything is not only legitimate, but newsworthy, no matter the cost.  Well, except for the cost to self.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


65 posted 05-21-2005 12:31 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Actually, as far as the military releasing this information I'm interested in hearing about how the military was going to do it. Would it have been done in the same way, more or less, that Newsweek did? WOuld it have received the world-wide exposure Newsweek's article did? I'm sincerely not sure what is meant by saying the military was going to release it.


There is absolutely nothing to be gained by fabricating a story or printing one from someone else they believe is lying

Personally, I think there is, depending on what results people are trying to obtain. In my opinion, the Newsweeks, Rathers, Jennings and other parts of the media have one unifying agenda - they want us to fail in Iraq or, at least, they want to make it as hard as possible. The why is a given. Success in Iraq might, in some ways, favor Bush. It could even validate some of his decisions. That thought is abhorrent to them. They spew out all of the negatives they can...any positives don't see the light of day. Does it matter that it makes everything so much harder on our soldiers there? Does it matter that it supplies ammunition to the terrorist movements? Does it matter that it dirties our reputation as a nation in the Muslim world? Not a bit. If their articles or reports can cause anyone to shower condemnation on the administration they consider all of these by-producrs worth it. If it means fabricating reports just before the election, a la Rather, or running off half-cocked at the smell of a juicy tidbit, a la Newsweek, they will do it. They DO do it! The alternative would be favorable light cast on Bush and that would not be tolerable for them. That's what they have to gain by lying, fabricating or engaging in tabloid sensationalism....just  IMHO.

Alicat, you could not be more right...but good luck on getting left-dwellers to acknowledge those facts. Ain't gonna happen....
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


66 posted 05-21-2005 12:40 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

You're missing the difference Cat -- first -- Ann is a really good propagandist because she engages in selective truth telling to the utmost -- just like Michael Moore -- you know -- showing us a picture of a peaceful, happy-go-lucky Iraq that is suddenly bombed by the U.S. -- both real pictures -- but put together so as to tell a story that isn't the whole story and supports his viewpoint.

So, what Ann does -- is selectively tell you about a few stories that Newsweek doesn't run -- she doesn't mention the other stories that they elect not to run because the list would be so long as to be impossible to print -- even if one buys ink by the barrel.  

Second -- there was no forthcoming military report about Bill Clinton's humvee in the Oval Office -- what you have in this instance is information that Newsweek thinks the GOVERNMENT is about to release -- THAT's always NEWS!

And they (the military) would release it in it's report form Mike -- plain and simple -- it would behoove no news organization to fabricate information about what's going to be released in an official report because it's merely a matter of time before they are shown to be liars.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


67 posted 05-21-2005 12:46 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

but good luck on getting left-dwellers to acknowledge those facts



Where were there any facts supplied ?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


68 posted 05-21-2005 01:10 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Good grief! I don't have the strength, desire or time left alive to go into Clinton and the media...again. If you want to claim that Willie wsa not the press' fair-haired boy and didn't get any preferential treatment from them with regards to his too-many-to-count foibles, be my guest

So, getting back to my original question, are you saying that the government's military report would have had the same impact as the embellished version of Newsweek's....since news is news no matter where it comes from?
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


69 posted 05-21-2005 01:15 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

You mean the media that sold billions of dollars worth of advertising talking all about Clinton's foibles in lurid detail?  That media?  That media LOVED Bill Clinton!

Jim

quote:

I think "insane" is a fair characterization of both parties involved in the violence: (1) megalomaniacal political opportunists who misuse the zeal of certain Muslims to carry out acts of violence "in the name of Islam" and (2) the delusional acceptance of the words of the imams by radical Muslims who have been (mis)lead to believe that the Qur'an justifies the violence they have dealt out on their countrymen.




Sure, you and I might say that sitting around the table at lunch -- and it would be an interesting discussion -- I have, myself, called men who would fly into a building in hopes of becoming a Martyr and obtaining virgins in heaven for wives -- insane... but there is a whole list of things in my opinion that many Christian's believe and do to be insane.

But that's irrelevant because I believe that freedom of religion is SANE.

This statement;
quote:

Newsweek published an inaccurate, poorly substantiated sentence in their story. That's a problem. We have religious zealots who consider killing their countrymen less onerous than desecrating the Qur'an. That's insane.



Also lumps the mainstream moderate Muslims in with it because they also take desecration of the Koran very seriously -- as I previously pointed out -- but I like your more specific clarification better.


quote:

1. Many Americans are strongly religious.

2. A few years ago, the painting "Piss Christ" caused an uproar against Christian conservatives who regarded the work as tax-funded blasphemy.

3. How many people were killed?



Across the cultural divide many look at Christian culture and view the cannibalistic practice of devouring the chief prophet's flesh and drinking his blood in order to obtain salvation barbaric and insane.

There is certainly a divide amongst differing Christians as to the importance of various religious artifacts.  The Catholics in particular tend to place more emphasis on the power and meaning of a Crucifix, a statue of a Saint, Holy Water -- even Hitler had sense enough to leave the Holy See alone.

The handling of the Koran is codified and held closely in mainstream Muslim practice as well, and the U.S. Military even had to issue a specific set of rules for the handling of the Koran at GITMO:

quote:

More than two years ago, the Pentagon issued detailed rules for handling the Koran at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, requiring U.S. personnel to ensure that the holy book is not placed in "offensive areas such as the floor, near the toilet or sink, near the feet, or dirty/wet areas."

The three-page memorandum, dated Jan. 19, 2003, says that only Muslim chaplains and Muslim interpreters can handle the holy book, and only after putting on clean gloves in full view of detainees.

The detailed rules require U.S. Muslim personnel to use both hands when touching the Koran to signal "respect and reverence," and specify that the right hand be the primary one used to manipulate any part of the book "due to cultural associations with the left hand." The Koran should be treated like a "fragile piece of delicate art," it says.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/16/AR2005051601320.html



When we consider this religion doesn't accommodate forgiveness of sin -- but rather atonement -- it becomes a bit clearer as to why code violations are important.

Which leads us to the part that's germane to Deer's questions as well --

Some of the Islamic laws being violated at GITMO:

A suspect is tied to a chair and placed in a room where a female interrogator does a partial striptease and gives him a lapdance.

(if this is torture I volunteer -- but we're not talking about me)

The interrogator then whispers in his ear, 'How does Allah feel about you being aroused by an Infidel?'

She then reaches into her crotch, withdraws her hand soaked in red ink, and splashes it on the suspect who is told the ink is menstrual blood.

This guy now believes he is headed straight to hell.  

Is this the kind of behavior that we want our military to engage in?  If they're doing it -- don't we need to know it?

Which leads us to the part of the argument that you're getting RIGHT Mike -- which I'm going to post tomorrow -- sometime -- my son's birthday  -- taking him and 9 of his friends to see Revenge of the Sith.
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


70 posted 05-21-2005 02:25 AM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

Whew, a lot has been said since the last time yesterday where I've had the time to discuss my thoughts, LOL! I was busy working for KBOO News much of the day as both producer, reporter and audio editor, so I certainly had my hands full! That's OK though! So let me just review a few particular comments made here I find most important to respond to.

quote:
Let me ask you this. Let's suppose for argument's sake that the Koran/toilet issue were true? What exactly about it was so important that Newsweek would consider it so important that the news got out to the world?  Was it the "the public has the right to know"  song and dance that has been used since the beginning of time? What made this issue vital to be aired? Certainly Newsweek would have to know that it would be very detrimental to our efforts over there. Certainly they would know that it would make the work of our soldiers and civilians more difficult and more dangerous. Why was it so important to them to get this "incredible news story" out to the world that any consequences would be inconsequential to them? I'm sure you know the answer to that question as well as I and a large percentage of the population do and it has nothing to do with "the public's right to know".....as you well know.


The answer's simple, Balladeer. Because it is wrong.

And you're right that there overall is no real beneficial value to sharing the information. Nevertheless, it's as though you're saying that citing all the bad things happening at Abu Ghraib shouldn't be allowed and is nothing but detrimental to our mission, which all those atrocities must be known and be made available to the public simply because it is wrong and to cultivate a sense of wareness to what is happening and speaking for a huge outcry against that form of abuse.

I'm not defending Newsweek here for their truly irresponsible behavior, but it's also important to note out that the American Red Cross has a number of times before cited incidents of Quran descecration, which its origin is said to link back to the 1980's when it was done in Afghan-Russian conflicts. It's also interesting that Condoleezza Rice, though condemning Newsweek's actions, hasn't said the story was untrue.

quote:
As I have said before, over the past so many months, terrorists have kidnapped civilians, distributed video of them beheading innocent victims, bombed churches, shopping centers, schools and killed countless Iraqi citizens and the majority of the headlines have been composed of The US insensitivities to prisoners. We shot pictures of them naked. We flushed their holy book down the toilet. (Oops, was that a head rolling by?) The terrorists don't need to do anything. The greatest weapon they have is our own media.
Our media and their hatred of Bush is the most powerful weapon the terrorists have. Our media has done more damage that any terrorist could ever hope to accomplish. If the terrorist groups were able to get together and hand out medals, the United States media would receive their highest award....and CBS might even televise the event!    But, hey, let the heads roll where they may. The media is exercising their right that the country they are abusing with their power gave them. Nothing is their fault because they are just innocent bystanders reporting the news. If the stick they jab the beehive with causes bees to come out and sting people....hey, they didn't tell the bees to come out and hurt anyone!

May they all feel very proud.....


Aside from your claims that the media portrays a generally antagonistic attitde towards Bush and his agenda, which I strongly disagree with and believe that the media actually has a generally favorable view of this administration, I absolutely agree with you that our own media is the cause of so much of what is wrong with our culture and the world right now, and continues to fail to answer questions and only incite more problems and mass confusion.

I just believe our culture is being domianted by one of the single most deadly viruses; fear. Our media and society is being fueled by fear everyday, and it is terribly unhealthy for we and the children. I believe we have to return to a type of mentality where we don't let the threat of terrorism dominate our lives and water cooler conversations. I believe we can do that AND not being passive about it in this conflict management and resolution.

The fact that so much of our media landscape had come out defending Isikoff also affirms my understanding of where the media directs itself. They go out blasting on and on about Newsweek, but let Isikoff off the hook. That right there is an example of that "greatest weapon" you speak of.

quote:
Speaking of tabloids, The Sun has a new edition, with a photo of Saddam in very white briefs.  What The Sun quite failed to understand, or really didn't care about, is that the distribution of such a photo is a very clear violation of the Geneva Convention.  Whoever leaked/gave/sold that picture, and whoever printed that picture should be tried in accordance to the Geneva Convention.  I quite fail to understand the purpose of even taking such a photo, but whoever did on whomever's orders, both should be held by the same yardstick as the ones who distributed and printed it.


I absolutely agree with you there, Alicat, and I absolutely see where you see that Geneva Convention violation.

Look, there's no question Hussein is a murderous, barbaric man. Nevertheless, what type of message does it send the rest of the world when you go and present a sort of picture like that? There's no dignity, no class behind that, and to some it would only portray some negative indication of an American hegemony or something of that sort. America is unique because even when we're already aware and find obvious the cruel things many men have done, we still treat prisoners of war in true discipline, especially up until the time they are formally charged.

As a sidenote to that, what is particularly interesting is that The Sun and the New York Post are both Rupert Murdoch publications.

quote:
Personally, I think there is, depending on what results people are trying to obtain. In my opinion, the Newsweeks, Rathers, Jennings and other parts of the media have one unifying agenda - they want us to fail in Iraq or, at least, they want to make it as hard as possible. The why is a given. Success in Iraq might, in some ways, favor Bush. It could even validate some of his decisions. That thought is abhorrent to them. They spew out all of the negatives they can...any positives don't see the light of day. Does it matter that it makes everything so much harder on our soldiers there? Does it matter that it supplies ammunition to the terrorist movements? Does it matter that it dirties our reputation as a nation in the Muslim world? Not a bit. If their articles or reports can cause anyone to shower condemnation on the administration they consider all of these by-producrs worth it. If it means fabricating reports just before the election, a la Rather, or running off half-cocked at the smell of a juicy tidbit, a la Newsweek, they will do it. They DO do it! The alternative would be favorable light cast on Bush and that would not be tolerable for them. That's what they have to gain by lying, fabricating or engaging in tabloid sensationalism....just  IMHO.


I can sense you are very angry right now, and I can respect and understand why that would be, so I'll try and make my strong opinions here as brief as I can.

It didn't take me some sort of Newsweek story for me to understand that war is wrong. It didn't take me some Dan Rather or Walter Cronkite or Bruce Springsteen song for me to understand that war is cynical and disastrous. Certainly to some it may be that way, but I've always just felt it deep down from the tears and screams and agony alone, and where everything else just checks my perceptions.

Why I don't believe we should be in Iraq, or have ever been there to begin with, at the core, has nothing to do politically. It's all about reason, about what is sound. Why should tens of thousands of Iraqis who have nothing to do with terrorist camps have to perish or suffer like this? Why couldn't Bush and McClellan and others have that same sort of attitude towards Iraq that they have towards resolving the conflicts in Uzbekistan, which is home to a dictatorship no less brutal than Hussein's was. McClellan clearly said last weekend that we must resolve this through peace and that is their message to the world. And anyone has still failed to answer to me here why that couldn't be the attitude towards handling the conflict with Saddam and Iraq.

This war has clearly brought out the worst in both America and the world. Those critical of the Newsweek incident damaging America's image worldwide can say that all they want, but the fact is from the very beginning the opposition to the war worldwide has been massive, and we had huge Iraqi protests, car bombing after car bombing, beheadings, etc. well before that story ever got aired, not to mention staggering disapproval ratings by 2 out of 3 or 3 out of 4 margins in almost every country to the war. And I do believe Newsweek's irresponsibility inspired that outburst of violence, but the fact is this war already inspired this massive tension and antagonism in the region.

In the end, I find, the bottom line is that this administration took us to war on absolutely false claims, and Newsweek encouraged that incident of violence. The only difference is Newsweek, even when you can't really measure sincerity and I agree could have been disingenuous, apologized, and the Bush Administration hasn't.

I want this Iraq mission to be aborted simply because I believe this tension is not going to start ending until we stop the occupation. I want this mission to be aborted because I don't want any more innocent people hurt. I want this mission to be aborted because I want our credibility to be restored and our international relations to be rebuilt. Finally, I want this mission to be aborted because it's this mission that's bringing out the worst in us all.

I recognize I've expressed myself very passionately here, so I'd like to try and end on a more encouraging note.

Every day for a long time I shook my head at what I've seen on the news, with all the propaganda and lack of truth-telling.

You know what I did? I recognized the familiar saying, "Don't hate the media, become the media!" And that certainly doesn't mean conform either. It means if you don't like what you hear, well, work to see how you can be heard.

So I've been volunteering a lot at KBOO, my local community radio station. They follow a charter where we promote unpopular opinions that focus on international relations, human rights, environment, peace studies, etc. I'm blessed to be among them. Here, I'm proud to present to you my first story I've reported on:
http://www.kboo.fm/admin/audio/mp3/3%20KBOO%20News%200520.mp3

The point here is, this is only one small step to progress to having our desired voices heard and it may not solve many of the problems with our media now, but if you are truly frustrated over what you're seeing, I encourage you to take some time and volunteer at your local newspaper or, perhaps you have a community station near your community. I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'd be happy to see you get your voice heard!

As far as everything else goes, we just must be ever vigilant and play a role in holding these outlets accountable. I know that may sound terribly cliche and hopeless, but I remain optimistic we'll eventually find a middle ground and try and suit one another's needs.

Whew, I said a lot. Until tomorrow, g'night to y'all!

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


71 posted 05-21-2005 07:15 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

The second government official objects to some of the information but doesn't mention the Koran-in-the-toilet incident.

Newsweek takes this as confirmation (obviously a huge mistake and just plain lazy journalism.)

Newsweek prints the story?  Why? Because they are in the BUSINESS of delivering the news and always hope to deliver it before anyone else does.  There is absolutely nothing to be gained by fabricating a story or printing one from someone else they believe is lying because the military report is going to be released and the item either is or is not in there.  The second government official objects to some of the information but doesn't mention the Koran-in-the-toilet incident.

Newsweek takes this as confirmation (obviously a huge mistake and just plain lazy journalism.)

Newsweek prints the story?  Why? Because they are in the BUSINESS of delivering the news and always hope to deliver it before anyone else does.  There is absolutely nothing to be gained by fabricating a story or printing one from someone else they believe is lying because the military report is going to be released and the item either is or is not in there.  The story remains in the mediasphere for eleven days before someone in the Pentagon says -- oh -- not true.

Isikoff goes back to the original source who says 'gee I can't really remember where I read that.'


If this was Propaganda Mike -- then it was about to be released by the Military itself -- Newsweek thought it was scooping the report -- how is THAT propaganda?


That's where it all falls down on Newsweek's shoulders, reb. Newsweek thought they were scooping the Pentagon but, due to their "lazy journalism" and their rush to get it out and get at Bush, they wind up printing a story that was not even going to come out. The riots and the deaths occured because of the non-story THEY ran with that was not even part of the news release they were trying to beat. Shoddy....no, criminal.

Best wishes to your son on his birthday

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


72 posted 05-21-2005 07:31 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Me: What made this issue vital to be aired?

Noah: The answer's simple, Balladeer. Because it is wrong.


Fine, Noah. Tell that to the victims who died in the riots it caused. Tell it to our soldiers bearing further hardships because of it. Easy for one to sit there untouched by it all and wax  righteously in much the same way you say how ousting Hussein was so wrong and  too bad that thousands of children were dying of starvation and people were filling mass graves under Hussein's rule.
Why should tens of thousands of Iraqis who have nothing to do with terrorist camps have to perish or suffer like this?
Noah, where was that concern when tens of thousands were suffering and dying under Hussein's rule?
I want this mission to be aborted because I don't want any more innocent people hurt.
Noah, it's the terrorists killing them.

So easy for us to be righteous out of harm's way. Problem is the thing that was wrong reporting that information to the public was the information itself. People died because Newsweek was not professional enough to verify its actions. Because it's wrong? That would be small comfort to the mothers of the victims, Noah.

You did make some good points, however, ans when I have time I'll address them.....peace.
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


73 posted 05-21-2005 10:59 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

I never said that Saddam shouldn't be ousted. I've just been saying from the beginning, "Why was war the inevitable way in ousting him?". Why couldn't we have resolved this in the same manner McClellan wants to make towards Islam Karimov?

There's another question I have, by the way.

Earlier this week, as you know, Bush and others went out to condemn what Newsweek did in a press meeting.

However, in response to the new Saddam photos published in The Sun while appearing with Denmark's prime Minister Anders Rasmussen, he says this:

"I don't think a photo inspires murders. I think they are inspired by an ideology that is so barbaric and backwards that it's hard for many in the Western world to comprehend how they think."

Is this just simply another double standard?

In that I mean Bush would go out to condemn a publication that is often argued among pundits in favor of his policies to be liberal for the press they release, yet doesn't express the same attitude towards two papers that perform a similar sort of stunt, which also happen to be Rupert Murdoch-owned and papers which endorsed his re-election campaign in 2004.

I really am concerned here. Thoughts and opinions please.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


74 posted 05-21-2005 11:11 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

Two points.

1: 12 years of failed and corrupted diplomacy towards Iraq and Saddam.  Only a few years diplomacy towards Iran, Korea, and a few other places who's -istan name eludes me.

2: Since Fox News believes in and practices disclosure, Murdoch's connection to the Sun and other one were disclosed.  The 'parent company of this network', to quote more accurately.  Also, unless Mr. Murdoch is the most anally retentative micro-manager, he merely owns those publications and networks, not runs them.  If you could quote the question to which you quoted President Bush's answer, that would be very helpful in putting his answer into proper context.  I think the question was along the lines of 'Do you believe this photo will lead to more violence?'  To which President Bush answered as he did.

I have very little doubt that it was Al-Jazeera and like-minded stations that gave massive airtime to the Newsweek fabrication, claiming it as gospel truth.  I would not in the least bit be surprised, given their track record and leanings.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> All the News Unfit to Print...   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors