|
|
Post by Shadyy on Oct 14, 2004 9:39:03 GMT -5
Well I just had a very intersting class today. About manipulation in the media, or what a simple photograph can prove. Or is it also a fake photograph? How can we be sure of anything anymore, especially in politics(national and international) These are some examples that were given to us: - www.isbushwired.com/- www.snopes.com/photos/politics/kerry2.asp-The death of Mohammed Al Dura - Campaign Bush-Gore, where the word RATS flashes across the screen as it showes bureaucRATS. - Also the Embedded Journalists in Irak; e.g. Michael Wolf getting kicked out of the CenCom (run by General Brooks) Tons more stuff, but I couldn't find it on the net. So what do you think of Media impact and of it's faithfulness. What can you trust? So fire away...  |
|
|
|
Post by Rider on Oct 14, 2004 11:31:23 GMT -5
[glow=red,2,300]Please. *cringe* I don't know who to believe anymore. The media has control over the election. The American people just follow like ducklings. Sure, there are a few people bright enough to say, "Does it freakin' matter what Kerry did when he was young and foolish?" But most people are so quick to condemn...
Negative messages stick. It's been proven. So both sides run negative ads against each other. people get discouraged, thinking theat both candidates are greasy sleezeballs. That's part of the reason why no one votes, or takes thier voting rights seriously.
I don't know what else to say, except, "I don't want to be an American Idiot."[/glow]
|
|
|
|
Post by irishdragonlord on Oct 14, 2004 16:06:35 GMT -5
I HATE the media. "And today, a deadly bombing in Baghdad..." Woah. Back up. There are NON-deadly bombings?  Some people say, "The econonmy is awful! DIE BUSH!" or "Kerry's a hypocrite! DIE KERRY!" But how much does the President manage to affect the economy? Who ISNT a hypocrite in politics? The smart people are the ones who think about how it does/nt matter what Kerry did 30 years ago, or what his inconsistency would mean, and the same for those who look at the current presidency and see what they think. The SMARTEST do BOTH and condemn and condone BOTH candidates according to what they did, not follow the dead-split media that can't tell the truth or stop being hypocritical. |
|
|
|
Post by Rider on Oct 16, 2004 10:22:13 GMT -5
[glow=red,2,300]Yesyes.
And the worst thing about the media coverage of the war is: They're making our soldiers out to be the #1 victims. My heart goes out to those soldiers, but they signed themselves up for this. The Iraqi civilians didn't. (The point of this post was... give me a minute here...)[/glow]
|
|
|
|
Post by The Angry Artist on Oct 17, 2004 1:43:46 GMT -5
[glow=red,2,300]Yesyes. And the worst thing about the media coverage of the war is: They're making our soldiers out to be the #1 victims. My heart goes out to those soldiers, but they signed themselves up for this. The Iraqi civilians didn't.[/glow] Well, that's just folly to think the soldiers knew what they were getting into when they invaded Iraq. Did you think it would be like this, with all the bombings and shootings by terrorists? No, you probably didn't. And neither did I. Not to mention the Army Reserve, of which many people are also in Iraq. Before the war many people viewed the Army Reserve as a way of being in the army without actually fighting. Now if you enlist in the Reserve there is a good possibility you'll be called up for active duty. |
|
|
|
Post by Rider on Oct 17, 2004 9:17:48 GMT -5
[glow=red,2,300]Point taken. But they had a better idea than the civilians.
(Yes, I'm just going to go and edit my last post now...)[/glow]
|
|
|
|
Post by TheEaterofWorlds on Oct 17, 2004 16:21:38 GMT -5
While the troop are not the *only* victims, they are victims of this war in my opinion. There are many people over there who were serving even before Bush was president. Even if they don't agree with the war or like their comander in cheif, soldiers follow the orders that their leaders in congress and the house and the White house (and by extension, the American people) give them. They signed up to protect America, or to get some money for college, or to continue a family history of military service. What they got was a war that they don't always agree with.
That's the thing about military service. You don't get to say "I'm going to sit this one out because I don't agree with it" you can be... what's the phrase? A conciencious objecter? but when your country calls you, you answer. It is not the troops fault that they are there, it was the desicion of the government.
I hate the war, I never agreed to it, but our troops deserve to be supported and I want nothing more than to see them back at home and safe. I don't think it's a soldiers fault when someone else kills them, just because they 'signed up for it'. They didn't sign up to die. They knew it was a possibility, but no one goes over there thinking that they are really going to be the one not to go home.
Also, most civilian deaths in Iraq were accidental. The people killing and being killed by troops are violent radicals. These people did 'sign up for it'. They are not coming to negotiations, they refuse to take part in the restructuring of the country, and instead decide to bomb things and shoot people. I think there are better ways they could go about this. As it is I can't blame troops for shooting back when shot at. It's not really the civilians so much. (However some of the extremist groups are killing forgein civilians, reporters, contractors, etc..)
Anyway it's a very complicated situation over there. Both sides have made mistakes, no one is completely 'right' or 'wrong', which is actually usually the case in wars.
IDL; there are sometimes Non-deadly bombings. A bomb is planted, it explodes, and sometimes no one is in the way, or they are injured without dieing. I do see what you mean, it is a pretty misleading statement. I've heard about bombings with high numbers of injuries and no fatalities; a non-deadly bombing.
|
|
