The War You Don't See

[jumpy]

http://www.itv.com/itvplayer/video/?Filter=198443

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheMediaCorruption#p/p (youtube)

John Pilger investigates the media's role in war. He traces the history of 'embedded' and independent reporting from the carnage of WWI to the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

(25 days left to view)

Not a country bashing thread, people.

This says and confirms much of my own feelings and thoughts toward the war in the ME and our reasons to be over there, political or otherwise.

Like many in the UK, I was all for invasion of iraq - saddam was a ruthless dictator, but much of what was offered from government, disseminated by our media, was a lie and a deception.
Much of what is/was reported has been very misleading and in some cases utter falsehood portrayed as fact, incontrovertible and unassailable - to question it is to be labelled as un-patriotic, amongst other things.

If even half of the figures quoted in the program are only half true, they are some shocking statistics.

This is a trend in our media that extends beyond issues like war, but to more recent civil disturbances at home - the student protest here and the slant presented by the BBC (in particular the BBC), the killing of jean charles de menezes, the shooting of 'terrorist suspects' in their own homes who turned out not to be anything of the sort.

All these 'threats to our way of life' are more obvious targets for misinformation (you can argue the culture of 24 hour news reporting incomplete knowledge as fact, or that there's a deliberate collusion of state and media to portray events with 'spin') but if this is endemic within reporting of terrorism at home or abroad, how far does it extend to domestic news, like the economy or political debate?

To be honest, I found the whole program to be very disturbing; not necessarily the war reporting side (though this is harsh in itself) but the questions it raises about the independence of reporting in national and international media and the wikileaks thing and the moves to control, by any means, information distribution over the internet and from other outlets.

Wikileaks is a good current example of this and the lengths governments will go to silence information sources they do not sanction (leaving aside the motives for releasing the information on wikileaks), using pressure on businesses, financial institutions and the foundations of law in foreign and domestic situations and media smear campaigns. I don't doubt that the US state will make new laws in order to bring Assange to their justice, claiming precedence over the laws of other countries, directed towards a man who is not a citizen or denizen of the US - arguments of international co-operation and extradition orders explain away many things - but do not hide the fact that great pressure is being directed against an individual who has broken no laws of the country in which he resides.
This to me seems very wrong and is suggestive of the political and state attitude of many countries, including my own, when it comes to maintaining the status quo.

Getting back to the media. I have long held a suspicion of reporting; and with access to the internet have tried to view as many separate reports of certain events by as many outlets as possible. The difference in some of my own country's news reporting is often quite subtle but can also be very blunt. Take the Daily Mail (fail) and other more obvious tabloids like The Sun newspapers - they are quite direct in their prejudice, even proud of it, whereas with the BBC, it's always more about what they don't say or report that is the most telling in their 'reporting' of events.
Some of the interviews in the link (like the ones with the bbc) raise terribly important questions, which in some ways are dismissed with 'impartiality bias' (as I like to call it) - how far are the media failing to do their job of asking difficult questions, explaining this question away as 'semantics' and such like?

We look back on what we call the 'propaganda' of the 40's and 50's - simplistic manipulation of the populace in time of war, yet we seldom question the subtlety, sophistication and depth to which the modern propaganda (media) extends in our lives. Had the facts been impartially reported in our british press, there's no way tony blair could have convinced our nation to embark on a war with no national imperative or clear goals. As it, was most of us fell for it hook, line and sinker, proving beyond doubt that we are all vulnerable to being manipulated toward somebody else's agenda and reluctant to question what we are told. After all, how could we be lied to so blatantly and not spot the lie, surely we are more intelligent than that? I think that is the essence of the trap we fall into believing... that we are smart enough to see the truth/lies told to us by our leaders.

Most of the time we are ignorant and it is only much later, when events have turned and information is leaked, do we have possession of both sides of the facts in order to see the truth/lie revealed. By which time it is always too late. Sometimes individuals will be held to account as scapegoats (like our expenses scandal in parliament - it took an outside leak to make our elected representatives act on something they all viewed as common knowledge), but the apparatus remains untouched, to continue as before.

Some of you might laugh or say 'so what? the world is a rough place, what do you expect?'. Well for a start, having the hypocrisy of government acting in our name revealed for what it is - to be 'accountable to each other' (to quote the film). It would be a good place to begin, but beyond that I have no more answer than you, other than to say 'it should be better than it is, and if we give in to the reality as inevitable and unchangeable, then we are lost to it'. We don't live in '1984' but sometimes I do wonder how close we really are to it.

[Oberon]

I'll have to have a look at this. Sounds interesting.

I think part of the problem is what the media is allowed to say. I mean, reporters have to be careful what questions they ask certain people so as not to cause offense, but yes, I noted the careful absence of casualty figures for protesters in the tuition fees protests lately.
I would not be entirely surprised if such misleading reporting has been going on for years now, and only the people caught up in the event know any difference, but now that those people can go on the internet and say what they saw, the general public are able to piece together the picture for themselves without the news corporations piecing it together for them in their own particular way. Of course, it's not done in drastic ways like changing entire events, but subtly not mentioning things, or drawing more attention to one thing over another, it's easy to manipulate people through mass media, it always has been...

Originally Posted by Goering

Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

Originally Posted by Hitler

All propaganda must be so popular and on such an intellectual level, that even the most stupid of those toward whom it is directed will understand it... Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise.

Originally Posted by Goebbels

“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over”

The agendas may be different, but the principle is the same.

[Gerald]

There seems to be interesting, unfortunately I had no contact, may be due to the current connection...

[Tessa]

Originally Posted by jumpy

Some of you might laugh or say 'so what? the world is a rough place, what do you expect?'. Well for a start, having the hypocrisy of government acting in our name revealed for what it is - to be 'accountable to each other' (to quote the film). It would be a good place to begin, but beyond that I have no more answer than you, other than to say 'it should be better than it is, and if we give in to the reality as inevitable and unchangeable, then we are lost to it'. We don't live in '1984' but sometimes I do wonder how close we really are to it.

I believe we are dangerously close to fullfilling the warnings that all the great thinkers of past warned us about (like Bradburry with Farenheit 451 or Orwell with 1984) and just now starting to realize what we have let happen. Many writers/philosphers/historians knew what could happen, and we still can't seem to learn from our own mistakes.

After 9/11 some people summized that in order to "feel safe" would require us to give up some of our liberties and rights in order to allow the safeguards to be put into place to help try and prevent future events. I agree to a certain degree that this is true and necessary, though the government doesn't seem to think it has to stop and continues to trample over our rights and is trying to "do our own thinking for us" instead of us having to expend the energy to think on our own.

Even though we live in two different countries I believe one truth applies to both - The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants [Thomas Jefferson]. While I wouldn't advocate something as extreme as civil war, we the people have become far to complacent as a group and just now starting to wake up to what history has been telling us for past several hundred years. We've let big brother grow and grow to become more real now than ever before; which scare the crap out of me; and other's still don't see it. Pretty soon I'll begin waiting for my own telescreen to be installed in my place for my own protection, and wait for my turn to go into room 101.

[the_tyrant]

"Originally Posted by Goering"


Goebbels Mass Media- catering to governments everywhere

[jumpy]

Originally Posted by Oberon

I'll have to have a look at this. Sounds interesting.

I think part of the problem is what the media is allowed to say. I mean, reporters have to be careful what questions they ask certain people so as not to cause offense, but yes, I noted the careful absence of casualty figures for protesters in the tuition fees protests lately.
I would not be entirely surprised if such misleading reporting has been going on for years now, and only the people caught up in the event know any difference, but now that those people can go on the internet and say what they saw, the general public are able to piece together the picture for themselves without the news corporations piecing it together for them in their own particular way. Of course, it's not done in drastic ways like changing entire events, but subtly not mentioning things, or drawing more attention to one thing over another, it's easy to manipulate people through mass media, it always has been...






The agendas may be different, but the principle is the same.

Indeed, the 'impartiality bias' I mentioned is exactly what you said - they can only report what leaders say and what that possibly means, rarely is there any contradiction or refuting of those statements at the time of release - in order to not report mere opinion and stick to the 'facts' (as released from elected officials) the media perhaps are undone by their own standards, becoming unwitting mouthpieces of state information dissemination. The case of independent reporters and investigative journalism is not generally constrained by such unwritten standards as held by larger media organisations. The program mentions the type of association with which investigative/independent journalists are grouped with by the MOD. Hardly surprising given the nature of the MOD, but amusing nonetheless.

This also brings into focus, the current role of the 'new media' journalism/whistle-blowing (online and independent of nations or states) and the reaction it is likely to receive. I think many people will view the wikileaks with two minds: firstly, they don't like the idea of having their countries secrets aired in public, mostly due to the effect it might have upon their fellow countrymen serving abroad (one can, after all, support the troops without supporting the mission) and secondly, they don't like some of what they hear about their own governments actions.

It can only mean troubled times for independent media and also, indirectly perhaps, the internet - there's an article online recently about the UK getting isp's to ban all internet pornography, ostensibly to protect the children (this proposal even has an MP 'speaking as a mother...' as its originator), making access to such content an 'opt in' choice for internet customers.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12041063
The possibility is that such a system would be very easy to use in other ways too;

Originally Posted by bbc article

Mr Davies also feared that any wide-scale attempt to police pornographic content would soon be expanded to include pirated pop songs, films and TV shows.
"If we take this step it will not take very long to end up with an internet that's a walled garden of sites the governments is happy for you to see," he said.
His comment was echoed by Jim Killock, chair of the Open Rights Group which campaigns on digital liberties issues.
"This is not about pornography, it is about generalised censorship through the back door," said Mr Killock.
"This is the wrong way to go," he said. "If the government controlled a web blacklist, you can bet that Wikileaks would be on it."

Your Goebbels quote has it exactly right though. In relation to the program, 24hour news is very easy to manipulate in this respect; something Rageh Omaar (bbc reporter, for those who don't know) speaks of, with some sheepishness, it must be said.


Vendor, It's available on youtube as well if you can't get the ITV site:
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheMediaCorruption#p/p

[Castout]

Can't watch the video. Greeted with video can't be found message.

Anyway yeah the world is largely corrupt and many of world leaders are actually suffering from psychopathic tendencies either by genes or environment but mostly probably the first.

With that perspective it's very easy to explain why much of the world is at its current state. Sufferings, persecution, injustices, selfishness, hatred breeding hatred, massacres, violations to human rights, etc.

Like it or not the world is largely run by less than noble characters. Sooner or later this will cause the whole world the planet. I'm sure of it. It's just a matter of time. The problem is psychopaths or the not so nice guys are winning the battle of breeding creating no propelling worse future generations and spoiling the global gene pool in general and the mankind tree of life.

Kids these days are nasty! Am I correct? Sure I am. These nasty kids have far greater propensity to grow up into psychopaths than even their parents. Good people are already a rarity these days and will become rarer even in the future.

Mankind have thought to look into the world in order to increase his knowledge but have largely forgotten to look inside for answers and awareness. Too many people just regard themselves as just being another animal already but the problem is not that but that people are what they think! They think so they will be(in behaviors and attitudes and actions and thoughts and feelings)!

Anyway it's just my own opinion or two cents worth.

[Penguin]

Jumpy, could you include your youtube-link into your first post? Due to british copyright laws, television broadcast streams are only accesable from the UK and Ireland. The film looks indeed very interesting and I think many people should watch it.

I will watch it when I finally have my holidays, then I can comment on its content. So for now I can only throw in some random thoughts:

copy/paste from another thread (FCC "net neutrality" proposition):
Any idiot can make a photo with his cam phone, write something under it and put it up on the web. Who of us has the resources to work on a story for several months, do the research, try to include several pov's, etc? This is what the quality media used to do, and some of it still do.
This is an aspect one cannot underestimate: you need money and time to do investigative journalism.

Having said that, you guys brought some good points into the discussion.

The role of embedded journalists:
In modern terms, Orwell could also be called "embedded" when he took part in the Spanish Civil War, yet he wrote one of the greatest books about it. Being/fighting with the troops doesn't necessarily make one free of his own thoughts. A limited POV can lead to interesting reports. A recent example would be Evan Wright with his book "Generation Kill" - this also led to a great TV series by the same name.

The events that the media does not report:
I cannot stress this point enough: (Involuntary) censorship starts at this point. You should always keep in mind that the choice about what gets reported and what not is always a manipulation per se.

The role of the media in preperation for war:
Having been in the US in the summer of '03 and watching the media I felt like I was in a contemporary version of the Wochenschau. There were virtually no critical voices in the mass media, it all felt like a giant preperation for the upcoming Iraq war. Beeing critical of the war equaled being against the troops, a statement which is absolute bs. That's why I am especially interested in the film and its documentation of the role of the british media at this time.

The "unballyness" of reporters:
The good old saying of biting the hand that feeds you fits best to this. How can you do a critical report on corporations who run advertisements in your paper/station? Or how can you do a critical interview with a politician who grants you "exclusive" insights, or grants you the honour to talk with you at all? A remarkable exception was the german magazine "Der Spiegel". In the dark era of Helmut Kohl, the chancellor (and many other government members) refused to talk to its reporters. Yet they walked their way and kept on reporting critical. Butthurt politicians are a proof that journalism can be stinging!

[jumpy]

^^
so edited.

Much of what you speak of has some coverage in the program, particularly the parts about the media drums, beating for war and how journalists are aware of having to tread carefully with their 'official sources' lest those officials take a dislike to their reporting and refuse to speak - something that is disclosed quite plainly with the british government.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Tessa

I believe we are dangerously close to fullfilling the warnings that all the great thinkers of past warned us about (like Bradburry with Farenheit 451 or Orwell with 1984) and just now starting to realize what we have let happen. Many writers/philosphers/historians knew what could happen, and we still can't seem to learn from our own mistakes.

Reminds me of this comic. It says Huxley was more right than Orwell: http://www.recombinantrecords.net/do...-to-Death.html

Due to british copyright laws, television broadcast streams are only accesable from the UK and Ireland.

It appears not, "this video is only available to be viewed within the United Kingdom".

[jumpy]

Not even the youtube link? hmmm

has anyone searched google video? http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=the...firefox-a&aq=f
I found it listed, but with the .co.uk suffix, so I don't know what that means for anyone outside the UK

Not even the youtube link? hmmm

Was the comment about the youtube link? hmmmm

[jumpy]

how should I know? I'll think better for trying to help out with a link in future eh?
Either you're taking the piss or there's a smiley missing in your post.

how should I know?

If something is quoted then followed with a comment relating to that quote then it should be fairly obvious that the comment is about what was quoted.