frenchbread Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 Originally posted by dnice35 I was being sarcastic, you ass.... anyways they wont say that in public, but knowing those opportunistic bastards, I wont doubt that wasnt said behind closed doors. oh so now you're clairvoyant? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dnice35 Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 Originally posted by frenchbread oh so now you're clairvoyant? No, just realistic..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchbread Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 Originally posted by jesseh49 Right but you said in your post before that our media is run by the gov't. I was simply stating that it wasn't. So why did you say that our media is controlled by the gov't if it really isn't. damn...do i need to spell it out for you?...media owned by 6 people...very easy for the gov't to control...all you gotta do is be friends with 6 people some way or another...oh wait...oh the guy that owns fox is one of bush's best friend...no...that couldn't be why fox is the most pro-war of all chanels...Originally posted by jesseh49 You don't really believe in any iformation that the US releases you think it is all a conspiracy for some reason you're wrong again...i do listen to everything...i then do my own synthesis...i don't think it's all conspiracy...i even watch fox in small doses...and in this case (the palestine hotel incident), i took in the governement's info: "it was a mistake...we [thought we] were under sniper and rocket fire"...plenty of independant journalists that were there and that come from all parts of the world (both inside and outside the hotel):"there was no sniper...very calm...we saw the tank take aim...then wait a good 2 minutes...then fired"...then there's the video...i took in all the info, and can safely say that they fired intentionally and not in self defense...and top of that this comes at the same time that they bomb "by accident" (again) 2 tv stations...meanwhile, the military say they found a barrel with something in it and you all shout "see they have wmd's...told you...see..."...then the next day, the military retracts and says it was pesticide...so what were you saying?... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jesseh49 Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 Originally posted by frenchbread damn...do i need to spell it out for you?...media owned by 6 people...very easy for the gov't to control...all you gotta do is be friends with 6 people some way or another...oh wait...oh the guy that owns fox is one of bush's best friend...no...that couldn't be why fox is the most pro-war of all chanels... Look at the New York Times they ran stories that many felt were questioning the US's authority? So again you are wrong. Our gov't doesn't run the media. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dnice35 Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 Originally posted by jesseh49 Look at the New York Times they ran stories that many felt were questioning the US's authority? So again you are wrong. Our gov't doesn't run the media. fuck it, juet let it be.... Frenchy your right, were wrong!Iraq is free, cause of our wrong doing! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchbread Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 Originally posted by dnice35 No, just realistic..... right you're realistic, therefore you can tell what a whole country is thinking...uh huh...you're sane...not delusional...noooo... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchbread Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 Originally posted by dnice35 fuck it, juet let it be.... Frenchy your right, were wrong!Iraq is free, cause of our wrong doing! and again...i NEVER argued that the iraqi wouldn't be better off without hussein...you guys are so dense...how many times do i need to tell you?...i dare you to quote me saying that it wouldn't be good for the iraqi to be liberated from hussein...this is getting old...i am telling you that this war is illegal...it's wrongly conducted, and our gov't are just using this as a reason to go there...they couldn't care less about the iraqi people...(obivously...dumping bombs with 120 meters blast radius in urban area to do surgical bombing......you just roll everything altogether so that you can justify our gov't's action...are you sure you don't actually work for the gov't?... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cintron Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 Originally posted by frenchbread it's not a strong argument...it's no argument at all, because iraq did not pose a clear and immediate threat to us...and your words not mine: "see how it can be used as an excuse well, I suppose the main argument that everyone's hinging on, is whether or not Iraq truly did pose a clear and immediate threat. That's the core of the issue right there.Some say they weren't, some say they were... and the general language of the UN resolution is really fuzzy. tough call, but on the whole, i'm glad we did something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr mahs Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 Originally posted by jesseh49 Look at the New York Times they ran stories that many felt were questioning the US's authority? So again you are wrong. Our gov't doesn't run the media. My thoughts exactly...I was in miami and had the Times delivered to my room and by the articles I read it looked like we were getting our asses handed to us.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchbread Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 and here's about the great unbiased media...front page photo of the l.a. times was touched up to make things look more dramatic...now why would they do that?...p.s.: lucky he some people caught that, otherwise he'd still have his job...i wonder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cintron Posted April 10 Report Share Posted April 10 Originally posted by frenchbread and here's about the great unbiased media...front page photo of the l.a. times was touched up to make things look more dramatic...now why would they do that?...p.s.: lucky he some people caught that, otherwise he'd still have his job...i wonder one word: Ratings.the musical soundtrack and special-effect animation they have before they report on "the war in iraq" usually features some dramatic action-movie-sounding music, and some bold drama-inducing title. It's all about the ratings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchbread Posted April 10 Report Share Posted April 10 Originally posted by cintron one word: Ratings.the musical soundtrack and special-effect animation they have before they report on "the war in iraq" usually features some dramatic action-movie-sounding music, and some bold drama-inducing title. It's all about the ratings. exacty my point...they will feed whatever the mass wants to hear as long as it ensures better ratings than the next network...example:msnbc hiring mike savage to try to pick up the extreme right viewers from fox...here are some of savage's most notable comments:"We need racist stereotypes right now of our enemy in order to encourage our warriors to kill the enemy," (San Francisco Chronicle, 2/6/03)Speaking about kids killed by guns, he said, "They're not kids, they're ghetto slime... they're the same kids that are in Sierra Leone toting AK47s." (Savage World, 5/15/00)so the result is exactly what i am pointing out...for ratings, the media is willing to do anything...in the case of l.a. times, compromise and falsify information...and what's the best way to look 100% "patriotic" in times of war (at least here in the u.s.)?...that's right...support your gov't... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jesseh49 Posted April 10 Report Share Posted April 10 Originally posted by frenchbread and here's about the great unbiased media...front page photo of the l.a. times was touched up to make things look more dramatic...now why would they do that?...p.s.: lucky he some people caught that, otherwise he'd still have his job...i wonder I said the NY Times not the LA Times. All of the media does not take a Pro-Bush Pro-War stance. The Gov't does not directly run our media. The whole world isn't out to get you...Or is it? :laugh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchbread Posted April 10 Report Share Posted April 10 Originally posted by jesseh49 I said the NY Times not the LA Times. All of the media does not take a Pro-Bush Pro-War stance. The Gov't does not directly run our media. The whole world isn't out to get you...Or is it? :laugh: "i said nytimes not latimes...boo hoo hoo"...did i ever said you were talking about the l.a. times?...i'm giving you an example of how pushing this "pro-gov't is the only way" is dangerous and translates into immediate false information...just forget it man... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cintron Posted April 10 Report Share Posted April 10 Originally posted by frenchbread exacty my point...they will feed whatever the mass wants to hear as long as it ensures better ratings than the next network...example:msnbc hiring mike savage to try to pick up the extreme right viewers from fox...here are some of savage's most notable comments:"We need racist stereotypes right now of our enemy in order to encourage our warriors to kill the enemy," (San Francisco Chronicle, 2/6/03)Speaking about kids killed by guns, he said, "They're not kids, they're ghetto slime... they're the same kids that are in Sierra Leone toting AK47s." (Savage World, 5/15/00)so the result is exactly what i am pointing out...for ratings, the media is willing to do anything...in the case of l.a. times, compromise and falsify information...and what's the best way to look 100% "patriotic" in times of war (at least here in the u.s.)?...that's right...support your gov't... Well, i can't speak for the editorials they sometimes do, or the interviews they have with pundits and their opinions.I do agree that sometimes they sensationalize their reports, to give the story a bit more "flair." Fox news seems to do this a little more. Just a bit of speculation here, or a sentence there during a report that suddenly doubles the drama level for all involved. Naturally, i wouldn't say they intentionally falsify their reports. If a news station chooses to lie or alter the truth, they stand to be discredited when another news station reports what's really going on. Usually this is exactly what happens between Fox news and CNN. While i wouldn't say Fox news has inaccurate reporting, i definitely think some of their reports tend to be somewhat slanted towards pulling in the viewer, instead of just reporting what's going on. Moreso than CNN. whatever, i don't like journalists anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jesseh49 Posted April 10 Report Share Posted April 10 Originally posted by frenchbread "i said nytimes not latimes...boo hoo hoo"...did i ever said you were talking about the l.a. times?...i'm giving you an example of how pushing this "pro-gov't is the only way" is dangerous and translates into immediate false information...just forget it man... You go on Ranting and Raving about how the Gov't controls all of our media. That there is no seperation like there is in France. I gave you an example of the NY Times of how the gov't doesn't control our media. You then send some picture of the LA Times and a picture that is manipulated. All you did was avoid the question. Just like the French were avoiding the problem in Iraq. You probably think the US gov't has you on some hit list right now because you are speaking out against it on CP. Is that new person sitting next to you really Jim from accounting or a CIA operative gathering information on you? :laugh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.