Propaganda - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-26-2003, 11:23 AM   #1
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Basstrap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 10,726
Local Time: 09:34 AM
Propaganda

I hear a lot of talk about the "Iraqi Propaganda machine" cutely labeled the IPM

I was just wondering if the Fine US citizens here seriously believe they are not on the receieving end of a lot of propaganda
__________________

__________________
Basstrap is offline  
Old 03-26-2003, 11:27 AM   #2
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 07:04 AM
Did I mention that one of the reasons I am so happy not to be living in the USA at the moment is because I don't have to rely on that propaganda machine? ugh.
__________________

__________________
"I can't change the world, but I can change the world in me." - Bono

sulawesigirl4 is offline  
Old 03-26-2003, 11:34 AM   #3
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
kobayashi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: the ether
Posts: 5,142
Local Time: 08:04 AM
embeds are your friends
__________________
im the candyman. and the candyman is back.
kobayashi is offline  
Old 03-26-2003, 11:44 AM   #4
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Kristie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: back home again in Indiana
Posts: 6,386
Local Time: 07:04 AM
there's a LOT of US citizens that think their news (whichever one they may watch/read) is 100% accurate and not slanted in any way.
Makes me sad.
__________________
Kristie is offline  
Old 03-26-2003, 11:49 AM   #5
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 12:04 PM
There's no doubt in my mind that we're on the receiving end of a propaganda machine. The American Friends Service Committee (the Quakers) has an "alternative" news source based in Amman, Jordan. It's called "The Human Face of War". I don't have that URL handy but look for the AFSC on your friendly local search engine. It's honest, non-governmental news.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 03-26-2003, 12:00 PM   #6
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,572
Local Time: 07:04 AM
During war, it seems that a journalist's three main sources of information are:

1. Military sources.
2. Direct observation.
3. Individual conjecture.

It is fair to criticize networks in the US for relying on (1) too much, but I can't think of an incident where a piece of information obtained from military sources was not identified as such.

In contrast, I have noticed that a lot of foreign sources rely on (3) without always clearly portraying it as such.
__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 03-26-2003, 12:01 PM   #7
War Child
 
Tip Top Prince's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Americaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!
Posts: 525
Local Time: 08:04 AM
What makes anyone, anywhere in the world think they are not subjected to any form of propaganda?

It's kinda sanctimonious to think only the US media engages in 'selective' reporting. From where I stand, there aren't too many perfect places (worlds/people..etc).
__________________
Tip Top Prince is offline  
Old 03-26-2003, 12:04 PM   #8
Blue Crack Addict
 
meegannie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Norwich, England
Posts: 15,798
Local Time: 12:04 PM
Here's some info on it: http://www.peaceresponse.org/face.shtml
__________________
meegannie is offline  
Old 03-26-2003, 12:06 PM   #9
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 04:04 AM

Stop this nonsense. You are using the term "propaganda" to include everything from selective reporting or "spin" to outright lies. Also, evaluate the control the respective governments have over the media.

You cannot simply create the presumption that everything we hear in the United States is propaganda and, therefore, unreliable. Given the vast amount of information flowing into the country and number of independent reporters given front line access, to any way equate the US media with the Iraqi Minister of Information or Al Jazeera is fraught with ignorance.

Alternative news sources have their own agendas and, according to the suggested analysis, should be considered “propaganda”.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 03-26-2003, 12:08 PM   #10
Blue Crack Addict
 
meegannie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Norwich, England
Posts: 15,798
Local Time: 12:04 PM
Al Jazeera's slogan is "objective and balanced."
__________________
meegannie is offline  
Old 03-26-2003, 12:11 PM   #11
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
kobayashi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: the ether
Posts: 5,142
Local Time: 08:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer
During war, it seems that a journalist's three main sources of information are:

1. Military sources.
2. Direct observation.
3. Individual conjecture.

It is fair to criticize networks in the US for relying on (1) too much, but I can't think of an incident where a piece of information obtained from military sources was not identified as such.

In contrast, I have noticed that a lot of foreign sources rely on (3) without always clearly portraying it as such.
(1) is relied because it is the main source of information-it is where the news happens. yes the source is cited and it is a very trustworthy source (ex. 'the pentagon', 'the administration', 'officials', etc.). this is easy information to collect for the news outlets because it is cheap (free) and immediately available.
this source role puts institutions of power in a position to distribute whichever information they want. that is a bias that is inherent in the system.
but the news source can play it up to the point that a viewer is desensitized to a lack of pluralism of viewpoints being presented to them.

this barrier has seeminlgy been broken down with the utilization of 'embedded' journalists in this conflict. approximately 600, from what i've seen so far they are either american or british, journalists are placed within a division or section of the military offensive. this move has positives and negatives for viewers. we are getting footage unlike any we've ever seen before and this footage is coming at a speed we are unaccustomed to during war time. however some evidence of control over those images has already come about. there is, of course, a natural clash of cultures between journalism and the military. so some of these differing opinions on what should be shown are inherent and some are purposeful methods of control.
in my opinion embeds are bad. while we are given unprecedented access, this access is easily shaped to further fit the needs of the military.

could you provide examples of what you mean by (3)?
__________________
im the candyman. and the candyman is back.
kobayashi is offline  
Old 03-26-2003, 12:15 PM   #12
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 04:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kobayashi
however some evidence of control over those images has already come about. there is, of course, a natural clash of cultures between journalism and the military. so some of these differing opinions on what should be shown are inherent and some are purposeful methods of control.
in my opinion embeds are bad. while we are given unprecedented access, this access is easily shaped to further fit the needs of the military.
Can you provide evidence of what you are describing. I realize reporters cannot disclose their position (for obvious reasons), but what other "evidence of control" are you referring to?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 03-26-2003, 12:16 PM   #13
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
oliveu2cm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Live from Boston
Posts: 8,334
Local Time: 08:04 AM
I was going to start a new thread but I didn't know.. ANyway- do we know if the Iraqi people really want us there? I know that they do not have free speech and cannot speak out against Saddam w/o fear of death, but is there anything?? Cheering by the people as the US military comes to "free them"? Anything?
__________________
oliveu2cm is offline  
Old 03-26-2003, 12:19 PM   #14
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 04:04 AM
oliveu2cm,

See this Thread
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 03-26-2003, 12:23 PM   #15
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
kobayashi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: the ether
Posts: 5,142
Local Time: 08:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Can you provide evidence of what you are describing. I realize reporters cannot disclose their position (for obvious reasons), but what other "evidence of control" are you referring to?
nothing that wasnt unexpected or predictable in my opinion.
Quote:
ABCNews.com
Tight Lips
Embedded Journalists Learn About Restricted Access Early On

Reporter's Notebook
By Ron Claiborne

A B O A R D U S S L I N C O L N, March 14 — The media who have been "embeded" with military units have been promised unprecedented access to cover the build-up to a possible conflict with Iraq and a war itself, if it happens.

But less than a week into the embedding, there is already a lot of bristling among some of the journalists aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, an aircraft carrier deployed to the Gulf region. Some of them — us — began muttering when we were told we had to be accompanied by our escorts — members of the ship's crew including some public affairs officers — everywhere we went except the restroom. The escorts also monitor our interviews with ship's personnel.

A few days into the embed, they were told to keep a record of who we speak to and what we talk about. We were told it was so they would have a log of how many people were spoken to and for what stories. Reporters are famously resistant to anyone monitoring them working.

Ordered to Leave

This week, Admiral John Kelly, head of carrier Task Force 50, had an "admiral's call" for enlisted sailors in the ship's cavernous hangar bay. Some of us were informed just before it took place that we should steer clear of the meeting because it was private. But not everyone got the word.

Witnesses say when two photographers accidentally wandered into the hangar bay during the meeting, the admiral stopped suddenly and barked at them. According to one reporter, the cameramen were confronted by armed guards and ordered to leave.

Another newspaper reporter who planned to do a story about the Navy's policy prohibiting fraternization between the sexes said interviews she had arranged with ship personnel were abruptly canceled because, she said she was told, the admiral did not like the subject matter.

Cynics had predicted that the military and journalists would never mix. The cynics are no doubt chuckling to themselves.
__________________

__________________
im the candyman. and the candyman is back.
kobayashi is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com