News Bush stacked news media with military anlysists

  • Thread starter Thread starter edward
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Military News
Click For Summary
The Pentagon's influence over military analysts appearing on news programs has raised concerns about biased reporting, as many analysts have ties to defense contractors benefiting from military policies. The Bush administration allegedly used these analysts to promote pro-war narratives, leading to accusations of state propaganda. Critics argue that the media's failure to disclose these conflicts of interest undermines journalistic integrity and misleads the public. The discussion highlights the need for transparency in media reporting, particularly regarding the affiliations of military experts. Overall, the manipulation of news by the administration and the complicity of the media have serious implications for public trust in journalism.
  • #31
Art said:
The BBC is state funded but by the terms of it's charter is fully independent
Yes I know - I was comparing it's journalistic standards to the totally free and independant news coverage of for example 'Fox' !
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
drankin said:
Hmmm, if I knew of a military leader of an organization that could be bombed by aircraft at any moment in my neighborhood, I think I'd move.
But what if you only found out when someone read the news to you in hospital, while your limbs were being stitched back on?

I wouldn't be so quick to assume that all bystanders are "innocent".
Guilt by proximity? Guilty until proven innocent or dead, whichever happens first?
 
  • #33
drankin said:
Hmmm, if I knew of a military leader of an organization that could be bombed by aircraft at any moment in my neighborhood, I think I'd move.

I wouldn't be so quick to assume that all bystanders are "innocent".
Yep, that's the arrogant 'who gives a fcuk' type of attitude I referred to.

I'd be interested to see if you would have had the same smug, arrogant attitude if the British had launched missiles at the houses of IRA sympathisers in the US killing their families and neighbours? And the British would have had more justification because they had actually been attacked by the IRA.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #34
At this years North Atlantic Treaty Organization they gave an award to the former british prime minister, the highest ranking us general, and the ceo of the largest news conglomerate in the world. Their roles were fundamental to the success of the organization. The OK and support for action, the method of action, and reasoning and justification for action. We couldn't have done it if our allies didn't first give us the permission, we couldn't have done it without the force of the military, and we couldn't have done it without support in the media.
 
  • #35
drankin said:
Hmmm, if I knew of a military leader of an organization that could be bombed by aircraft at any moment in my neighborhood, I think I'd move.

I wouldn't be so quick to assume that all bystanders are "innocent".

I seriously hope you are trolling. For your sake.
 
  • #36
For crying out loud, they killed the enemy. How else are they supposed to do it?
 
  • #37
I weep for this country. But I'm still getting the hell out. If people like you are the norm, then it will crumble very soon.
 
  • #38
But hell, that probably flew right over your head, so let's do it in math/logic terms.

Enemy is bad because it they kill innocent civilians.
We have to kill enemy in order to save civilians.
We end up killing civilians with enemy.
We are bad.
We are enemy?
 
  • #39
Poop-Loops said:
But hell, that probably flew right over your head, so let's do it in math/logic terms.

Enemy is bad because it they kill innocent civilians.
We have to kill enemy in order to save civilians.
We end up killing civilians with enemy.
We are bad.
We are enemy?

Take a look the history of warfare during the course of human existence. Once upon a time you would roll in with a massive army and slaughter every living thing just because they are in your way. Now, at least, we can pin-point an attack and minimize collateral damage. But, you can't get around collateral damage! It sucks, it's warfare, people on both sides are playing with lethal weapons, if you are in the neighborhood you are in bad proximity. Like I asked, "How else are the suppose to do it?".

Enough with the insults, poops.
 
  • #40
Poop-Loops said:
I weep for this country. But I'm still getting the hell out. If people like you are the norm, then it will crumble very soon.

I find this interesting. If people like me are the norm our country will crumble very soon? This country has been this way from the beginning when it comes to bloody war and it hasn't crumbled yet. In fact, it took being this "way" to have a freakin country. While you are getting the hell out, millions are trying to get the hell in every year! Why? Because it's soooo aaaawful here!
 
  • #41
Forget it. It's just too easy to deny the pain of someone else's suffering when you've never been through it. I hope you never have to, either.
 
  • #42
Poop-Loops said:
Forget it. It's just too easy to deny the pain of someone else's suffering when you've never been through it. I hope you never have to, either.

Well, we are getting off topic but what kind of suffering are you talking about that I have not been through?
 
  • #43
Exploding?
 
  • #44
Poop-Loops said:
Exploding?

Got me, never experienced that. I'm sure it hurts, I don't "deny" it as you accuse. Now, please, answer the question: How else would you have the military take out that particular target?
 
  • #45
Wait until he leaves? Get some infantry in there? Deliver a package that explodes once it's inside, not a frickin rocket?

Or here's a radical idea, how about not solving all of our problems by using the military?
 
  • #46
Poop-Loops said:
Wait until he leaves? Get some infantry in there? Deliver a package that explodes once it's inside, not a frickin rocket?

Or here's a radical idea, how about not solving all of our problems by using the military?

Deliver a package? Look, the military doesn't contract UPS to deliver bombs. And even then, the likely hood of collateral damage is huge. Personally, I like the idea of sneaking in special ops guys but they probably are already doing that, we just never hear about that specifically. For some reason this is how they had to get this particular target.

Your idea isn't radical, it's just not going to solve ALL problems. If that were the case, we wouldn't need a military, now would we? As long as someone else has a military, we HAVE to have one too.

Getting way off topic. If you want to discuss that further, start another thread about the benefits of not having a military, how we should dissolve it, and how we will be secure as a world power without it.
 
  • #47
Poop-Loops said:
Or here's a radical idea, how about not solving all of our problems by using the military?

Peace is an illusion. You either have military force or deceptive force (aka Ghandi).
 
  • #48
drankin said:
For crying out loud, they killed the enemy. How else are they supposed to do it?
Enemy? When did the US declare war on Somalia? I must have missed that bulletin.

Still waiting for you to respond on whether you think the British would have been justified in using missile strikes in residential areas to take out IRA sympathisers in the US :rolleyes:

Fact is if the British had even attacked targets in Dublin like that during the troubles there would have been uproar in the US media but because this was an attack on impoverished black Africans it hardly warrants a byline and then Republicans feign shock and surprise that these people hate them. Give me a break :rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #49
Art said:
Enemy? When did the US declare war on Somalia? I must have missed that bulletin.

Still waiting for you to respond on whether you think the British would have been justified in using missile strikes in residential areas to take out IRA sympathisers in the US :rolleyes:

No, I don't think they would be justified. See, they could enlist us to take care of that problem. But, in Somolia, I don't think we have folks that would do that for us so we have to. I don't think you have a good comparison argument here.
 
  • #50
How about this idea, hire mercenaries who need not follow laws and let them do the dirty work.
 
  • #51
drankin said:
No, I don't think they would be justified. See, they could enlist us to take care of that problem. But, in Somolia, I don't think we have folks that would do that for us so we have to. I don't think you have a good comparison argument here.
Who do you think funded the IRA's campaign Drankin? And by virtue of the fact the leaders of Noraid for example were not arrested your contention that you would take care of it is obviously false. Extradition requests from Britain for specific individuals were routinely turned down or thrown out by the US courts but I somehow doubt that even given these facts you would have condoned a military strike on US soil by Britain. It seems you agree with the Bush maxim of 'do as I say, don't do as I do'

Still waiting for you to provide a link to show when the US and Somalia went to war with each other.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #52
Art said:
Who do you think funded the IRA's campaign Drankin? And by virtue of the fact the leaders of Noraid for example were not arrested your contention that you would take care of it is obviously false. Extradition requests from Britain for specific individuals were routinely turned down or thrown out by the US courts but I somehow doubt that even given these facts you would have condoned a military strike on US soil by Britain. It seems you agree with the Bush maxim of 'do as I say, don't do as I do'

Still waiting for you to provide a link to show when the US and Somalia went to war with each other.

I never said we went to war, Art. It's a third world country in chaos. How can you compare Britain and the IRA with this situation?? Apples and Oranges.
 
  • #53
drankin said:
It's a third world country in chaos. How can you compare Britain and the IRA with this situation??
I don't follow your logic.

It's a third world country in chaos, so it's okay if we blow up a dozen or so of them?
 
  • #54
drankin said:
I never said we went to war, Art. I
You said
Take a look the history of warfare during the course of human existence. Once upon a time you would roll in with a massive army and slaughter every living thing just because they are in your way. Now, at least, we can pin-point an attack and minimize collateral damage. But, you can't get around collateral damage! It sucks, it's warfare, people on both sides are playing with lethal weapons, if you are in the neighborhood you are in bad proximity. Like I asked, "How else are the suppose to do it?".
You seem to be confused as to whether the US and Somalia are at war. On the one hand you say they are not and on the other you use warfare as a justification for the mass murder of civilians. Explain!

t's a third world country in chaos. How can you compare Britain and the IRA with this situation?? Apples and Oranges.
Enlighten me. Please tell me why the lives of citizens of 3rd world countries are worth less than the lives of 1st world citizens which is the obvious inference to draw from your statement.
 
  • #55
Art said:
You said You seem to be confused as to whether the US and Somalia are at war. On the one hand you say they are not and on the other you use warfare as a justification for the mass murder of civilians. Explain!

The use of the means of warfare does not require a party to actually be IN A WAR. I was referring to the use of the military. You are suggesting that in order for the military to strike it needs to be in a formal war, you know that isn't so. So why are you trying to say that is what I meant? Are you just mincing words for no reason but to argue?

Art said:
Enlighten me. Please tell me why the lives of citizens of 3rd world countries are worth less than the lives of 1st world citizens which is the obvious inference to draw from your statement.

There you go, putting words in my mouth. You apparently think that my attitude is that Somalian citizens are worth less than 1st world citizens. I assure you, that is not my attitude. Are you enlightened, yet?
 
  • #56
drankin said:
The use of the means of warfare does not require a party to actually be IN A WAR. I was referring to the use of the military. You are suggesting that in order for the military to strike it needs to be in a formal war, you know that isn't so. So why are you trying to say that is what I meant? Are you just mincing words for no reason but to argue?
Not at all just trying to make sense of your ramblings. You see when I check the definition for warfare I get.

war·fare Audio Help /ˈwɔrˌfɛər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[wawr-fair] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the process of military struggle between two nations or groups of nations; war.
2. armed conflict between two massed enemies, armies, or the like.
So you can see why I saw a conflict in your two statements.

Now obviously you have a different definition so perhaps you can supply your reference and also explain how a Somali is an enemy of the US?
drankin said:
There you go, putting words in my mouth. You apparently think that my attitude is that Somalian citizens are worth less than 1st world citizens. I assure you, that is not my attitude. Are you enlightened, yet?
No I am not enlightened. As I obviously missed your cryptic meaning perhaps you would be so good as to explain it to me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #57
Ok, Art. I was wrong on my choice of words. I apologize if you were confused. But, we are at war with "terror" which is supposed to be Al Qaida. And the target was an Al Qaida leader in a country where many are trying to get rid of them.

Remember the "Blackhawk Down", incident? Same place. Instead of flying in and "extracting" the target like the last time, they figured it would be cleaner to just blow him up. Most likely, LESS lives would be lost on both sides, civilians and combatants, if we didn't do that again.
 
  • #58
drankin said:
But, we are at war with "terror"
There is also a war on drugs - I hope the DEA don't get helfire missiles, just in case there's a grow-op in my neighbourhood.
 
  • #59
mgb_phys said:
There is also a war on drugs - I hope the DEA don't get helfire missiles, just in case there's a grow-op in my neighbourhood.

I agree that it's unsatisfyingly ambiguous. But, in this case the target was Al Qaida. BTW, there probably is a grow-op in your neighborhood.
 
  • #60
So, it's the "war on Al Qaida", not the "war on terror"?
 

Similar threads

News The US military & the Iraqi press
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
News Is the Media Really Liberal? A Closer Look
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
News Media Bias - Is the media becoming more conservative?
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
13K
News Many Americans are Simply Dumber Than Bush
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
News Weapons of Mass Destruction found already.
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
7K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K
News Bush NOT Honest & Trustworthy/Republican Lies
  • · Replies 238 ·
8
Replies
238
Views
28K
News The lie of media liberal bias continued.
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K
News U.S. Image Damage: Bush Administration's Impact Abroad
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
News 3rd Pundit revealed as being on Bush Admin's payroll.
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K