liberal media - send email complaints
-
I think you're reading things that simply aren't there. :~ I've read and re-read Mike's posts and I'm just not seeing anything like that. I think it's safe to say that a left leaning media outlet wants the current administration to look as bad as possible. So they tend to concentrate on the negative aspects of the current situation in Iraq. Likewise, a right leaning media outlet wants to show the administration in the best possible light so they tend to concentrate on the positive aspects. It's not rocket science. Whether or not constantly reporting negative news motivates the people attacking US troops is a whole other issue. I seriously doubt it has much effect. Mike Mullikin O.E.I. Beauty is only a lightswitch away.
Mike Mullikin wrote: Whether or not constantly reporting negative news motivates the people attacking US troops is a whole other issue. You are correct that they are 2 different issues. I still haven't figured out why he tends to begin shrieking "Freedom of speech violation!!!!!" when that issue wasn't even raised. Mike Mullikin wrote: I seriously doubt it has much effect. "much" is the key here. A Syrian youth who is smart enough to not believe Al Jazeera might be swayed by constant CNN pieces. The less weaselly thing for him to say would be "I believe in a free press. I am not ferfish enough to think that the US media has no influence on borderline fanatics. I don't care if a US soldier is killed by a terrorist who was emboldened by anti-US stories being run by CNN. That is the price we pay for a free press. Oh, and I don't plan on ever going in harms way myself."
-
Terry O`Nolley wrote: There are hundreds of terrorists moving from iran and Syria into Iraq to define "terrorist", please. Terry O`Nolley wrote: My *personal belief* is nothing more than that. If I owned a TV station and our nation was at war, I would make sure I aired things that didn't tend to glorify our enemies. well, there ya go. just like i said: you'd prefer it if people just whistled a happy song. no bad news, cause that encourages the bad people. no matter how bad the citizens of this representative republic think their leaders are fucking up, they should STFU until The Leader gives the "all-clear!" sign. Terry O`Nolley wrote: I am not telling you what to think, I am not telling you what to say, I didn't do anything except list 2 mutually exclusive possibilities. nah. that's not what you did. you gave two choices: one was the obviously incorrect one, and the other was nearly correct but was saddled with an invalid conclusion. nice try, but we're onto your little tricks. ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
Chris Losinger wrote: define "terrorist", please. Come off of it. if you don't know by now then any definition I give won't help you. Chris Losinger wrote: nah. that's not what you did. you gave two choices: one was the obviously incorrect one, and the other was nearly correct but was saddled with an invalid conclusion I think you know this isn't true. I'll list the choices again without any conclusions. 1) The media influences peoples thoughts and actions 2) The media doesn't influence peoples thoughts and actions Now, I understand your all getting upset because you are being presented with a belief-system conflict. You can't say truthfully that the media doesn't influence peoples actions, but you do not want to admit that constantly airing reports showing the US involvement in Iraq is wrong could embolden people to take up arms and drive across the border into Iraq. So you rail against my percieved attempt at subverting the first amendment when even you know that I have made no such suggestion. Chris Losinger wrote: nice try, but we're onto your little tricks You'll sleep better if you just admit it: You know the media has influence with middle-eastern people who are sitting on the fence between killing Americans or waiting to see how this whole Iraq thing shakes out, but your political leanings cause you to ignore the fact Americans could die because of the stories that media chooses to air. You value a "fair-and-balanced" reporting of the news more than American lives.
-
Chris Losinger wrote: define "terrorist", please. Come off of it. if you don't know by now then any definition I give won't help you. Chris Losinger wrote: nah. that's not what you did. you gave two choices: one was the obviously incorrect one, and the other was nearly correct but was saddled with an invalid conclusion I think you know this isn't true. I'll list the choices again without any conclusions. 1) The media influences peoples thoughts and actions 2) The media doesn't influence peoples thoughts and actions Now, I understand your all getting upset because you are being presented with a belief-system conflict. You can't say truthfully that the media doesn't influence peoples actions, but you do not want to admit that constantly airing reports showing the US involvement in Iraq is wrong could embolden people to take up arms and drive across the border into Iraq. So you rail against my percieved attempt at subverting the first amendment when even you know that I have made no such suggestion. Chris Losinger wrote: nice try, but we're onto your little tricks You'll sleep better if you just admit it: You know the media has influence with middle-eastern people who are sitting on the fence between killing Americans or waiting to see how this whole Iraq thing shakes out, but your political leanings cause you to ignore the fact Americans could die because of the stories that media chooses to air. You value a "fair-and-balanced" reporting of the news more than American lives.
Terry O`Nolley wrote: My *personal belief* is nothing more than that. If I owned a TV station and our nation was at war, I would make sure I aired things that didn't tend to glorify our enemies. well, there ya go. just like i said: you'd prefer it if people just whistled a happy song. no bad news, cause that encourages the bad people. no matter how bad the citizens of this representative republic think their leaders are fucking up, they should STFU until The Leader gives the "all-clear!" sign. ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
-
Terry O`Nolley wrote: There are hundreds of terrorists moving from iran and Syria into Iraq to define "terrorist", please. Terry O`Nolley wrote: My *personal belief* is nothing more than that. If I owned a TV station and our nation was at war, I would make sure I aired things that didn't tend to glorify our enemies. well, there ya go. just like i said: you'd prefer it if people just whistled a happy song. no bad news, cause that encourages the bad people. no matter how bad the citizens of this representative republic think their leaders are fucking up, they should STFU until The Leader gives the "all-clear!" sign. Terry O`Nolley wrote: I am not telling you what to think, I am not telling you what to say, I didn't do anything except list 2 mutually exclusive possibilities. nah. that's not what you did. you gave two choices: one was the obviously incorrect one, and the other was nearly correct but was saddled with an invalid conclusion. nice try, but we're onto your little tricks. ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
Chris Losinger wrote: but we're onto your little tricks. I was wondering when someone other then me would notice them. But, I do think that when a country is at war, they shouldn't air locations of troops and whatnot. That's just bad planning.
-
Chris Losinger wrote: define "terrorist", please. Come off of it. if you don't know by now then any definition I give won't help you. Chris Losinger wrote: nah. that's not what you did. you gave two choices: one was the obviously incorrect one, and the other was nearly correct but was saddled with an invalid conclusion I think you know this isn't true. I'll list the choices again without any conclusions. 1) The media influences peoples thoughts and actions 2) The media doesn't influence peoples thoughts and actions Now, I understand your all getting upset because you are being presented with a belief-system conflict. You can't say truthfully that the media doesn't influence peoples actions, but you do not want to admit that constantly airing reports showing the US involvement in Iraq is wrong could embolden people to take up arms and drive across the border into Iraq. So you rail against my percieved attempt at subverting the first amendment when even you know that I have made no such suggestion. Chris Losinger wrote: nice try, but we're onto your little tricks You'll sleep better if you just admit it: You know the media has influence with middle-eastern people who are sitting on the fence between killing Americans or waiting to see how this whole Iraq thing shakes out, but your political leanings cause you to ignore the fact Americans could die because of the stories that media chooses to air. You value a "fair-and-balanced" reporting of the news more than American lives.
Terry O`Nolley wrote: Come off of it. if you don't know by now then any definition I give won't help you. i'm asking for your definition. is it "anyone who takes up arms against the US military ?" cause, in every other war, that's something that the term "enemy combatant" would cover pretty well. Terry O`Nolley wrote: You can't say truthfully that the media doesn't influence peoples actions, i never even tried to say that. Terry O`Nolley wrote: but you do not want to admit that constantly airing reports showing the US involvement in Iraq is wrong could embolden people to take up arms and drive across the border into Iraq. i never said that either. but thanks for putting words in my mouth. a huge number of people in this country think the US involvment as executed was a long string of bad ideas. yet you say that everyone who dares speak those words is encouraging The Enemy. that's utterly wrong. by criticizing Bush and his gang, we're saying "look, we think you're doing it wrong. there could be a better way that gets this whole thing over with in a way that's better for everyone involved than what you're doing." and by "everyone involved" we definetly include the troops. ie. their safety is at the core of our complaints. ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
-
Terry O`Nolley wrote: My *personal belief* is nothing more than that. If I owned a TV station and our nation was at war, I would make sure I aired things that didn't tend to glorify our enemies. well, there ya go. just like i said: you'd prefer it if people just whistled a happy song. no bad news, cause that encourages the bad people. no matter how bad the citizens of this representative republic think their leaders are fucking up, they should STFU until The Leader gives the "all-clear!" sign. ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
Chris Losinger wrote: no matter how bad the citizens of this representative republic think their leaders are f***ing up, they should STFU until The Leader gives the "all-clear!" sign. I think there is some area between the two positions. In the west, we have free speech, but it's still not legal to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater if no fire exists. Just because someone thinks the "liberal" media glorifies the actions of those killing US soldiers, doesn't mean they are against any and all criticism of the administration. I think you're seeing this a black and white issue when in fact there is mostly grey. Mike Mullikin O.E.I. Beauty is only a lightswitch away.
-
Chris Losinger wrote: no matter how bad the citizens of this representative republic think their leaders are f***ing up, they should STFU until The Leader gives the "all-clear!" sign. I think there is some area between the two positions. In the west, we have free speech, but it's still not legal to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater if no fire exists. Just because someone thinks the "liberal" media glorifies the actions of those killing US soldiers, doesn't mean they are against any and all criticism of the administration. I think you're seeing this a black and white issue when in fact there is mostly grey. Mike Mullikin O.E.I. Beauty is only a lightswitch away.
Mike Mullikin wrote: I think you're seeing this a black and white issue when in fact there is mostly grey. the thread started with a black and white conclusion: "We may need a few credible Baghdad Bobs to undo the harm done by our media. I'm afraid it is killing our troops." i'm opposed to that viewpoint. -c ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
-
Terry O`Nolley wrote: My *personal belief* is nothing more than that. If I owned a TV station and our nation was at war, I would make sure I aired things that didn't tend to glorify our enemies. well, there ya go. just like i said: you'd prefer it if people just whistled a happy song. no bad news, cause that encourages the bad people. no matter how bad the citizens of this representative republic think their leaders are fucking up, they should STFU until The Leader gives the "all-clear!" sign. ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
Chris Losinger wrote: Terry O`Nolley wrote: My *personal belief* is nothing more than that. If I owned a TV station and our nation was at war, I would make sure I aired things that didn't tend to glorify our enemies. well, there ya go. just like i said: you'd prefer it if people just whistled a happy song. no bad news, cause that encourages the bad people. no matter how bad the citizens of this representative republic think their leaders are f***ing up, they should STFU until The Leader gives the "all-clear!" sign. If I offer an opinion of what I, personally, would do and you say that I am telling people they should STFU until their leader gives them the all clear sign. Don't you see how those two things are unrelated?
-
Terry O`Nolley wrote: 2) propaganda does affect the will of people to fight Terry O`Nolley wrote: If you believe #2, then you should understand that by trumpeting the successes of terrorists and playing up the failures of the USA you are causing danger to the troops stationed in Iraq to help transition that country to democracy. That is only true if the propaganda is directed at those troops. In this situation the propaganda is being directed at the US Congress. How does that have an effect on the servicemen stationed in Iraq? PS. Neat looking medal. :) Chris Meech If you spin a Chinese person around, do they become dis-oriented? Why do people in this time period worry so much about time traveler's destroying their worldline when they have no problem doing it themselves every day? John Titor.
Chris Meech wrote: That is only true if the propaganda is directed at those troops. In this situation the propaganda is being directed at the US Congress. How does that have an effect on the servicemen stationed in Iraq? It isn't so much a morale issue with the troops - no troop I was ever stationed with would want to desert just because CNN aired anti-war propaganda. But CNN is carried in the arab world and some 18 year old kid with a chip on his soldier might just get the idea that even America is against this "unjust" war and so might feel emboldened enough to go down to his friendly neighborhood mosque and sign up to kill Americans. To discount that possibility is to discount media having an influence on people's actions. Chris Meech wrote: PS. Neat looking medal. Thanks! I earned-ed it all by myself!
-
Chris Losinger wrote: Terry O`Nolley wrote: My *personal belief* is nothing more than that. If I owned a TV station and our nation was at war, I would make sure I aired things that didn't tend to glorify our enemies. well, there ya go. just like i said: you'd prefer it if people just whistled a happy song. no bad news, cause that encourages the bad people. no matter how bad the citizens of this representative republic think their leaders are f***ing up, they should STFU until The Leader gives the "all-clear!" sign. If I offer an opinion of what I, personally, would do and you say that I am telling people they should STFU until their leader gives them the all clear sign. Don't you see how those two things are unrelated?
Terry O`Nolley wrote: I am telling people i think my words were : "you'd prefer it if..." ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
-
Terry O`Nolley wrote: Come off of it. if you don't know by now then any definition I give won't help you. i'm asking for your definition. is it "anyone who takes up arms against the US military ?" cause, in every other war, that's something that the term "enemy combatant" would cover pretty well. Terry O`Nolley wrote: You can't say truthfully that the media doesn't influence peoples actions, i never even tried to say that. Terry O`Nolley wrote: but you do not want to admit that constantly airing reports showing the US involvement in Iraq is wrong could embolden people to take up arms and drive across the border into Iraq. i never said that either. but thanks for putting words in my mouth. a huge number of people in this country think the US involvment as executed was a long string of bad ideas. yet you say that everyone who dares speak those words is encouraging The Enemy. that's utterly wrong. by criticizing Bush and his gang, we're saying "look, we think you're doing it wrong. there could be a better way that gets this whole thing over with in a way that's better for everyone involved than what you're doing." and by "everyone involved" we definetly include the troops. ie. their safety is at the core of our complaints. ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
Chris Losinger wrote: we're saying "look, we think you're doing it wrong. there could be a better way that gets this whole thing over with in a way that's better for everyone involved than what you're doing." Cool. I'll agree that nobody's perfect and there will always be room for improvement.