Do American people get the real news of the World?

[builder]

Not being American, I can clearly see that most Americans read their own news, and not the news of the rest of the World.

 

Do you believe that your Government keeps you informed of what is really happening outside of your borders? Or do you think that your news is sanitised and controlled by your Government?

 

More particularly, do you believe that what you are presented with in regards to the "war on terror" is what is the reality?

 

Disregarding the likes of MRIH, would you read sources of news, other than those okayed by your gov?

[Mohammed_Rots_In_Hell]

Builder, you are such a moron.

 

1) In the US the press is free and is guaranteed its freedom by the 1st ammendment. The Government is barred by law to force, coerce, deny, or alter any news source or news agency.

 

2) They obviously can, and do, manipulate their own sources for propoganda purposes, like every other government, corporate entity, and individual in the entire world, including Australia, and even you builder.

[builder]

MRIH, now I know why so many here think you're fucked up.

 

 

Do you research? Or do you take the bitter pill offered by your gov, and swallow it with a six-pack of budweiser?

 

Your press ain't free. It's stultified and deleted by your gov. You crack me up.

[Hugh G. Rekshun]

As an American I give less than a shit about what is happening beyond our borders..especialy in OZ, mate!

[Mohammed_Rots_In_Hell]

MRIH, now I know why so many here think you're fucked up.

 

 

Do you research? Or do you take the bitter pill offered by your gov, and swallow it with a six-pack of budweiser?

 

Your press ain't free. It's stultified and deleted by your gov. You crack me up.

OK, shit-for-brains... at least offer some evidence of your claim. -or- Are you one of those conspiracy theory whack jobs who believe this crap without any proof whatsoever?

[builder]

As an American I give less than a shit about what is happening beyond our borders..especialy in OZ' date=' mate![/quote']

 

Yes, little hughyboy, that seems to be the problem that pervades the psyche (or lack thereof) in your cuntry. No respect for other people.

 

When you learn respect, which is not gonna happen in your short shit-filled lifetime, your cuntry might just make some friends in the world, rather than bringing all sorts of shit down on your arses.

 

Point in question. No other nation in the history of mankind has had the type of shit that 11/9 entailed rained down upon their collectives arses. Think about that, pindick. No other nation. Just yours.

[builder]

OK, shit-for-brains... at least offer some evidence of your claim. -or- Are you one of those conspiracy theory whack jobs who believe this crap without any proof whatsoever?

 

 

Not at all, MRIH. I'm one of those enlightened souls who refuses to eat the shit that is fed to you by a bigotted money-hungry gov, who sees war as opportunity for personal financial advancement, at the cost of lives and your country's economy.

[Mohammed_Rots_In_Hell]

Not at all, MRIH. I'm one of those enlightened souls who refuses to eat the shit that is fed to you by a bigotted money-hungry gov, who sees war as opportunity for personal financial advancement, at the cost of lives and your country's economy.

Uh,,, EVIDENCE? I'm not going to (and I would hope most people wouldn't) follow your lunacy blindly.

[builder]

I won't be force-feeding you, MRIH. Education takes time.

 

In 1953, the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran

[eisanbt]

Uh,,, EVIDENCE? I'm not going to (and I would hope most people wouldn't) follow your lunacy blindly.

 

Well i posted theis elsewhere and got no response but maybe it will be relevent here.....

 

 

In 1950 the US was ran about %50 of the world's trade. Just coming off a successful war the economy was in kik ass shape and this appealed to the highers up (obviously). The use of a wartime economy to keep your country powerful is nothing new. Tied in with imperialism, a war economy keeps the industrial engine running and feeds itself with newly 'aquired' resources. With the british it was cotton, spices, furs, gold and the like. Today the biggy is Oil, but we'll get there in a second.

 

Now back to the 50s. Following WW2 we enter the cold war, while no real war was happening between the main contenders (The US and Russia) there is anger on both sides of the fence. This gave their respective governments an excuse to do pretty much whatever they wanted under the guise of 'fighting communism/capitalism'. The wars in Korea and Vietnam come to mind but they certainly wern't the only ones. The 'secret wars' in countries like Laos, Nigeria, and Cambodia as well as the CIA opertaions in the middle east and south america (Chilie, Nicaraugra, Brazil, Colombia) these were all justified by the "War on terrorism, err Communism " Also the assinations of dozens of democratically elected officials who were then replaced by cruel dictators by the CIA so the US could maintain control and not the people of these countries (these are documented facts, not liberial hippy BS). All the while the American people were just being lied to, for the most part completely unaware of the BS being commited by their government. The russians knew about, the people of Laos sure as hell knew there was bullets being fired at them, and pretty much every third world country being stomped on by the US knew and still know today. (Why were their some who got off you ask? The ability to retaliate; ISBMs and Nukes etc. I Wouldn't trust a world where the US were the only ones with ICBMs, the rest of us would be fucked up the ass)

 

Just a quick example that i'm sure you all remember. As part of a secret deal to purchase the release of American hostages held in the Middle East, the White House agreed to sell arms to the government of Iran. But that was really just the catalyst for their real objective. The NSC sold Iran weapons, and then funneled some of the proceeds to the Contra insurgency in Nicaragua. This was a blatant and intentional violation of federal law. This was 86 i believe? (Sorry i don't have my fact checker ) Sadly examples such as this aren't hard to find, though this one accually made the News. (Speaking of which, why the fuck don't your reporters broadcast all the BS being done TODAY, so that the otherwise good people of america can say "Wait a minute, We've been dupped!!" )

 

Anyhow, with the end of the cold war the US gov lost its excuse to do shit, it had no war time economy and those in power could nolonger turn the PROFIT, for themselves, that they once could using the resources provided by the Taxpayers. (Just a note for yous who condone this BS, NOT ONCE has ANY of the illegal opertaions conducted during those periodes benefited the Country only the interestes of those in power, they infact cause great finacial loss to the country as well as giving the US a horrible reputation, Justly of course, but again its not the people's fault) So for about 12 years the Gov had lost it's excuse to commit terrible crimes because it is afetr all a democracy and eventhough they keep the people quite uneducated they can still reason, what the Gov needed was some tag of fear that they could use to blind the reason of the masses.... KABOOM!! 9/11.

 

Now instead of hoping into Chilie they hop into Iraq under false pretenses and boot out a man that they themselves put in, 'liberating' the people form a horrible life that they create with Sanctions from the UN (AKA the US) that left them living in a shit hole after Desert Storm, and being the 'liberators' they create a relationship where they become the soul source for their survival, through defense from the ARMED RESISTANCE groupes and trade dependancy (Kinda like a international "Protection" ring, which was another tactic used by the British empire, and the French and the Mafia...). The thing is that Neo-Imperialism is very real, it comes form 'Protection' and creating a trade dependency on the empire so it can maintain 'control' without 'controlling' the conquored country. (In this case, Iraq) and until they can nolonger use the war on terror as an excuse this trend will continue.

 

As i mentioned before the US used to control %50 of global trade, that has dwindled down to %20 with the EU above them and China looking like the next big one, not immedatly, but 100 years down the road. This war on terror is mainly just a bases by which the US wishes to regain its gusto. (Again i'm not blaming the People of America, its the fucked up gov)

 

 

 

As was said earlier though, its not just the US gov, its pretty much all governments and especially the powerful ones (Like pretty much ALL G8 countries) Fuck with the world as to maintain their power, by keeping people apathetic and in the dark the idiots/powers that be want us to be passive observes so they can turn a buck or a trillion. Finding ways to control the media is a great way to do so (Yah its against the law to directly fuck with it, unless national security BS need-to-know etc comes into play, but that dosn't mean that folks can't greese the wheels to keep their interests, intersting

[Mohammed_Rots_In_Hell]

What do you ADHD fucks do to keep your attention on the question at hand: The question is:

 

WHAT - PROOF - DO - YOU - HAVE - THAT - THE - US - GOVERNMENT - HAS - A - MONOPOLOY - ON - THE - PRESS ?

[TheJenn88]

What do you ADHD fucks do to keep your attention on the question at hand: The question is:

 

WHAT - PROOF - DO - YOU - HAVE - THAT - THE - US - GOVERNMENT - HAS - A - MONOPOLOY - ON - THE - PRESS ?

 

Hm. I don't necessarily think that people are saying that there's a "monopoly" controlling the press, but rather, a bias. But, of course, that can be found in ANY country. At least that's my take on this thread. Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding what builder was getting at

[Mohammed_Rots_In_Hell]

The Jenn88,

 

This is what builder claims...

 

Your press ain't free. It's stultified and deleted by your gov. You crack me up.

 

I simply asked for some proof. If he believes it so strongly, i would think there would be some evidence for it.

[Msixty]

he has no proof, hes probably going by what his press told him

[ALLAH IS GREAT]

And were is the evidence that what the press says is true?

There's no way of telling which is true and which is false.

I think we shouldn't blindly believe everything or blindly reject it all.

It's up to us really.Though I agree alot is withheld from american citizens.

I personally feel that british news is far more reliable.

[jokersarewild]

Please don't hold this against me, but I think AIG has a point. We have no way in hell of knowing that what is said is or isn't true. The media has a bias, so some things are told differently. We don't know which things unless we examine them closely. Do you think the average person has that much time? Doubt it. They have to work...

[Crazywumbat]

I agree with AIG and JAW.

And I KNOW the government regulates what we hear and what we don't.

 

Here's a nice little blog from a band I listen to (the beginning is a little silly, but try to read it anyway):

 

When I was in High school I lived with this cute little red haired girl who was a freshman in college. Actually, that�s probably not completely true since she was only taking one credit hour in college, just enough to get her parents to pay her bills. Not a bad deal, really. She was really sweet and a lot of fun but she had absolutely no clue how to manage money. I'm going to call her "M" because I've always liked that letter. It's way symmetrical.

 

She had bought a car from a friend of ours and she still owed her about a grand. I'm going to call this girl Rachel because that was her name and I'm tired of hiding behing letters. One night we were out at a local Chicago Club where M was in a fashion show. (I stopped doing fashion shows for friends after Mandra put me in a completely see through suit and shaved my head. Bald and naked. That's how I like to hang out in front of a nightclub full of people.) I went "backstage" and M, in a pair of underwear and nothing else, dragged me out the back door. Apparently, Rachel was there and M needed to hide from her because she didn't have a thousand dollars on her. So we hid out in the alley for a while. Eventually, while sitting on a coldish metal dumpster, I asked that question;

 

"Hey. Is it really easier to hang out all night in the alley in a pair of panties than to just talk to that girl?"

 

This is a big question. M told me later about all the ways she used to use to avoid ever having to talk to people she owed money to. Dropping a class. Hiding in the closet. Moving to Michigan. Apparently a significant percentage of people who live in Michigan are hiding out from a debt. No shit.

 

At the end of the day, I think she figured out that when you owe people money, you need to overcommunicate with them, not ignore them. You need to let them know what's going on and what to expect. Communication is a natural human event. It happens with or without our participation. If you don't communicate, information is still communicated, only the information that gets transmitted is "I suck and I'm blowing you off- I don't respect you". Probably not what you intended.

 

I was thinking about this fantastic lesson lately because it's become obvious that our government never learned it. Our government is actually wandering around half naked in the alley trying to avoid communicating. This is not a good look for a government. They have something to say and they're not saying it. And because they're not saying it, the message is louder and stronger than it would have been. "We suck and we're blowing you off".

 

A few days ago, the US government filed sealed documents in US district court in Manhattan to prevent dozens of new photographs of prisoner abuse at American run prison facilities from being released. Amrit Singh, a staff attorney with the ACLU said in response, "We obviously express skepticism about the latest move on the government's part to withhold information the public is clearly entitled to, Instead of releasing these records and holding officials accountable for detainee abuse, the government now seeks to shield itself from public scrutiny by filing these reasons in secret,"

 

The new photos, as everyone knows, are of new abuse committed at Abu Ghraib while the prison was under US control. Abu Ghraib became famous in April 2004 when a U.S. television network publicized graphic and disturbing photos of prisoner abuse by U.S. military personnel.

 

The most recent effort by the government to withhold these pictures was motivated by a government letter claiming that these photographs and videos of abuse, more grave than the previous ones released (on reason why the court had previously ordered them redacted for future release) "could result in harm to individuals" for reasons that will be set forth in a memorandum and three declarations that the government will file under seal with the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York.

 

Under the government's proposal, the documents explaining the government's reasons for withholding the images of abuse will not be available to the public except in redacted form, and the photographs and videos may never be made public. So we don't get to hear what our government owes us AND we don't get to see them in their underwear.

 

The government's point here is that if the photos get out, people may see what's happened, get upset and start to blow things up. They think they can control the communication. Unfortunately, no one controls communication. If they choose not to communicate what happened, then communications will STILL HAPPEN. No one will be safer, just more confused. And the final communication that the world will hear is "We suck and we're blowing you off- we don't respect you." What are the chances that this is a worse piece of communication?

 

Right now, some of the same people who support our government's failure to communicate called out the world muslim community for its failure to communicate after September 11th. These were the people who asked where the outrage was and they had a point. Did the Muslim community owe the world a conversation about Islamic terrorism and where they stood? Yes, definitely. Does the US now owe the world a conversation about Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay and our commitment to Human rights today? Yes, definitely. The same rules apply to us. If you don't communicate, you lose the ability to have a voice in the conversation. But the conversation, as always, goes on. Do we want to be a part of it?

 

Or do we just want to move to Michigan?

[Msixty]

i never said i trusted the media myself, but he still has no proof

[Crazywumbat]

i never said i trusted the media myself, but he still has no proof

 

Well the above post is proof that the government is with-holding information from the American people so..

[eisanbt]

the point of my earlier post is that the media is sensored, most of the wars and operations i mentioned were know by people in the media and obviously the government but they were not shown to the people becasue those in charge denied it or atleast kept people quit about it. Now that is not so incrimnating, knowledge about things like dumshit CIA operations have been spreading around and there is no doubt in my mind that 20 years down the road we'll hear about some of the shit that is going on now.

 

You can say "that was then, this is now" but do you think that the gov has at all loosened up about things like these over that past few decades? I think not, it is still under the stewardship of the rich and greedy and they know/stick with what works. There were just as many people who thought nothing of leaks that there was a war being waged in Laos back in the 60s as there is now saying "The media would show it if it was happening in Iraq/whereever" We certainly know now that it happened and the public will know later what attrocities are being commited now. (Please note that the son of the Ex head of the CIA who was incharge during many of its illegal over-seas operations is now the president, just a thought you know...)

[hugo]

The fact is that some information has to remain classified for national security concerns.

[tizz]

American news is aimed at being entertainment. As americans we aparently demand it. Our wars get titles and credits, our daily happenings become horror stories to draw you into watching, Michael Jackson is the biggest thing since the sinking of the lusitania, and gossip between political parties on news networks rivals ET and Current Affair. The real news of the world is left out because it isn't entertaining, it is a downer. Americans don't want it. Personally (though many, mostly right winger will totally disagree) I find the best easily available news source in teh US to be NPR news. It spans teh globe and although puts it's own spin on things, at least covers more than teh major networks.

[builder]

i never said i trusted the media myself, but he still has no proof

 

You don't see a contradiction in your statement, Msixty?

[Msixty]

You don't see a contradiction in your statement, Msixty?

 

no i do not, i don't trust the media because they wont tell the true or whole story, but they do it for ratings and a good story, greed not the government powers what they do

[builder]

no i do not, i don't trust the media because they wont tell the true or whole story, but they do it for ratings and a good story, greed not the government powers what they do

 

I disagree with you entirely, Msixty. I know you are young, but you seem to be interested in your future. Read on.

 

Written in cold, empirical think-tank language, the report postulates that war is the fundamental basis for all political, social, and economic unity.

 

The report also suggests, in somewhat Machiavellian fashion, initiating "ritual blood games," renewing "slavery," and creating an "omnipotent" international police force as mitigating substitutes for the alleged socio-economic void created by a post-Cold War society. The report defined the sociological implications thusly:

 

War, through the medium of military institutions, has uniquely served societies, throughout the course of known history, as an indispensable controller of dangerous social dissidence and destructive antisocial tendencies