The War You Don't See

[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.

[krashkart]

Originally Posted by Penguin

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.

Did you happen to watch any of the histories of Iraq on the Discovery and History channels while you were here? The government used every avenue they could to get us geared up for the invasion.

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by krashkart

Did you happen to watch any of the histories of Iraq on the Discovery and History channels while you were here? The government used every avenue they could to get us geared up for the invasion.

Nope, my relatives didn't have cable at this time, I just watched the mainstream channels or read the local SF papers. On them it was more like history of the Saddam regime in a time lapse. Time magazine covered some more background infos.
I noticed an increase in car flags though!

[jumpy]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Was the comment about the youtube link? hmmmm

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Yes, but it had nothing to do with what was written so it wasn't and then he appears to take personal offence at something which wasn't even directed to him.

I've left this thread alone for the last 12 hours or so, so that I can come back to it and decide if I last posted in haste (having less tolerance for things that annoy me these days).

In the past I have found 'content blocking' from television sites and from certain youtube channels.
As some were interested in the links, I decided to try and question what was missing and reply with something useful that others could see. There's usually more than one source location online these days, so I thought I'd do a little of the leg work myself, seeing as I started this topic.

I took offence of your parroting of my last post with what I took to be obvious sarcasm (and if it wasn't directed at me, why did you quote it?). I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that your intent was lost in translation somewhere, but I must ask - Other than showing yourself for a pedant, what have you positively contributed to the subject of this topic so far and what will you post next that has any relevance to it? Think carefully before you answer.