Our Beloved Media

Discussion in 'Other Conflicts' started by preacherbob50, Nov 11, 2014.

  1. preacherbob50

    preacherbob50 Active Member

    It is really hard to figure what is really going on in the Middle East or any other stressed areas any more when we rely on our news media.
    3 days ago: Al Bagdadi was injured in an air attack.
    2 days ago: Al Bagdadi was critically injured according to the Arab news said Fox.
    1 day ago: Al Bagdadi was mortally wounded and is on the critical list.
    Again 1 day ago: It is not known how badly Al Bagdadi was injured in the air attack or if he was injured at all.

    A couple of weeks ago we finally found out the Kim J Un had gout which is why everyone thought he had been ousted from office by his sister. He decided to stay off of his feet for a couple of weeks and everyone thought he was B.U. because no one had seen him around.

    Is dadi alive or not or did he just stub his toe? Who would step up to the plate if dadi did bite it? Would the war suddenly stop?
  2. Interrogator#6

    Interrogator#6 Active Member

    What?? Don't you recall the US Media story of 6-8 weeks ago (when we earlier discussed Bagdadhi) which boldly proclaimed him a victim of a drone strike?
  3. DancingLady

    DancingLady Member

    Maybe they should stop naming names when they are not 100% sure who was actually at the target site at the time of the strike. There are many ISIS members who may have been or not been present at any given location at a particular time. They may have some intelligence on a leaders location, but ultimately they can only make the best possible guess as to where they are and strike accordingly. Unless ISIS announces he has died and a new leader appointed, or we find the body, there is no way to no for sure until more conclusive evidence emerges. Being too hasty can prove really embarrassing.
  4. preacherbob50

    preacherbob50 Active Member

    Thanks for the spell check psyops! I not only did not relate the earlier incident but also spelled his name wrong.

    It seems as though Bagdadhi has more lives than Hitler! Either that or he has a fantastic medical staff. I wonder how our present media would have handled items of monumental historical value in WWII like all of the attempts on Hitler's life? I am inclined to believe they would have had him killed off on a number of occasions.
  5. DancingLady

    DancingLady Member

    Most likely they would have. I think sometimes they make stuff up just to boost their ratings, hoping they got it right.
  6. Kate

    Kate Active Member

    Seems as if a lot of it is now about getting the scoop first whether or not it's going to be proven to be true... while in the past it was more about integrity. Sensationalism... ugh!

    *BUT* as long as people keep buying the papers or subscribing online, it's going to continue. You train sloppy journalists and you get sloppy journalism. No shock there.
  7. joshposh

    joshposh New Member

    The media is controlled and influenced by advertisers and government officials. They have known to mislead you or use scare tactics because it boost ratings.

    It's interesting to see different new cast from different parts of the world. Check out Aljazerah sometime. It will blow your mind as to how different it is from what you are use to.
  8. Interrogator#6

    Interrogator#6 Active Member

    May I correct you, Josh. US media is NOT supposed to be influenced by any US Intelligence agency, at least in times of peace. This is, or was, by LAW. There are ways by which this has been circumvented or perverted ever since the "Patriot Act" was passed, coupled with some other nonsence, but by Constitution there is supposed to be a seperation of Government and Press. Indeed, the Press is the only non-government body mentioned in the Constitution (if I am not mistaken).

    There have been ways to get around this. For example, the CIA has gotten stories planted in foriegn Press, which then get reprinted (rebroadcast) in American Press.

    Yes, Al Jazeera is a media owned outside US control. The name means "the island" in Arabic (Al = "the"). If I am not mistaken it is owned by Qatar but is editorially free from government control (similar to BBC).
  9. DancingLady

    DancingLady Member

    Just because it is the law, doesn't mean the law is followed. Our government does whatever if wants to do and people just let them. Most of the people who would speak up are probably unaware of many of the things going on because they are kept secret or they don't know where and how to voice their opinions.
    Kate likes this.
  10. Kate

    Kate Active Member

    You got it, @DancingLady ... and one of the reasons (as I've witnessed over the past few years) is probably that as soon as anyone *does* speak up against policies or cruddy legislature these days, the "other camp" starts throwing around the racism card. Sad but true... *ANYTHING* said against the administration now is attempted to be turned into racism. Juvenile and pathetic, but true. :(
  11. Interrogator#6

    Interrogator#6 Active Member

    Does anyone recall a small blip on the skin of America' body politic from a few years ago called "Occupy Wall Street"? This movement spread nation wide, over a period of a few weeks. It involved thousands of people but its message was unclear. It was a populas movement attempting to raise the the conscience of the nation. Remember?

    Don't worry if you don't. US Corporate Media didn't cover it, or at least tried not to. OWS got no coverage even though thousands of people were involved, with the NYPD assaulted and arrested. At least media did not cover the movement until a dozen or so "Tea Party activists" counter-protested. The small party protest got coverage, which forced the media to have to explain what OWS was, what the context was.

    The OWS movement was fueled by a lot of RAGE, on both sides. Oddly enough the Occupants were mostly peaceful while it was the rage of individual police officers that started the violence. Now new laws make even peaceful demonstration dangerous.
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2014
  12. preacherbob50

    preacherbob50 Active Member


    I did recall a little about the "OWS," but had to look up a few details on how much affect, if any, the movement had. I didn't hook up with the violent side, at least not yet, but I do remember there was some. I am trying to remember what the cover-up story was at the time but I have a mental block.

    I have discovered that lately, instead of not covering a story, the media will put out a short "blurb" and then run something important like the sex life of the Mexican swamp rat.
  13. preacherbob50

    preacherbob50 Active Member

    The media reported tonight that dear old Bagdadhi is alive and doing well.
    It appears that he is snubbing his royal nose by doing some "tweets." I looked up the tweet thing and while I was reading down the list I realized I could not read nor speak Arabic or any one of its branch languages with the exception of those English words influenced by previously said language. Therefore, I wouldn't know what the heck he said.
    Nonethless, he's kicking.
  14. Kate

    Kate Active Member

    I assume there was confirmation that it was actually him tweeting? I've often heard of someone other than the account holder tweeting and/or Facebooking, etc. from someone else's account.

    That's why there are generally photos to prove survival, and it's been like that for decades after a death report. Interesting, eh? I'll be waiting to see how this turns out... I would have thought he'd get his mug onto pictures. Of course, those dudes usually have doubles for pics when they're injured, threatened, etc. so that's not 100% proof either.
  15. Kate

    Kate Active Member

    I'm sorry, but this just isn't a true statement. The media DID cover the OWS gatherings all over the country... ad nauseum to the point that I stopped watching the coverage totally.

    Are you from the U.S., Interrogator? I'm thinking you said in the past that you are, but I'm also thinking there's no way an American would have missed all that Occupy coverage going on for much too long. Maybe it's due to the choice of media you opted to follow? In any case... yes, it was covered here in America. Heavily at times.
  16. Interrogator#6

    Interrogator#6 Active Member

    Kate, I am sorry if you got the impression there was absolutely no coverage for the Occupy movement. I meant to say it was initially very under-covered. And it remained under-covered except where there was violence. And though the media implied the violence was caused by the protesters or demonstrators, careful examination of the record has revealed the violence was invariably begun and conducted by the police.

    I believe I said initially there was a moritorium on coverage of OWS thousands of protesters until tens of counter-protesting Tea Party got prominant coverage in the mainstream media.

    One of my favourite bit of non-news not covered by mainstream media was the oddity which came out of Minneapolis. Apparently in an attempt to disrupt the vigil conducted by Occupants police officers began offering free drugs (narcotics) without reprocussions to the recipiants.

    While in Oakland, in responce to a one-day closure of the seaport by Occupants resulted in a multi-week running battle by the militarized police. This included at least one death by the police of a non-violent protester.

    Oh, I am an American. I was born in the USA. I have served in the US Navy (two weeks, medical discharge, poor eyesight) and in the US Army (six years, honourable discharge). You may occasionally notice British spelling from me, as when I was a lad I read many volumes of British childrens literature. I always thought "colour" was classier than color. And it is a homage to my mum's parents being both Canadians. (Mum's 100% American, but also loves British lit.)

Share This Page