Americans Want To Be Lied To! MSM Proves It!

I was browsing CNN today, when a poll on the site caught my attention. The Simple question was, "Should The Media Keep Stories Secret To Protect People From Harm". I laughed out loud, thinking that this was such a crazy poll. I thought that no one would vote YES. So of course, being the information seeker that I am, I voted NO, and viewed the results. Let's just say my jaw dropped when I saw them.

RESULTS

80% said YES , while only 20% said NO . Can you believe this? I was and am disgusted by these results. Obviously the Main Stream Media was trying to test the waters on cover-ups and censoring media. For what purpose, you take your pick. Guess what, the "Water" is perfect. Americans aren't appalled by the idea, but actually supporters of it. Has our country drooped this low. I guess my answer is a resounding yes by a margin of 65,000 votes. What are your views on this?

Who did they poll? People working for the government? I think a poll like this is just trying to tell us how we should think. I do not believe that it is legit.

reply to post by Blueracer


They polled the people that visit there site as it's an online poll and not considered scientific.

They based the question on the fact that the magazine in Australia outed that Prince Harry was deployed in Afghanistan.

It's on there front page if you want to see the most current results.

As my buddy Jack once said, "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"

Perhaps he was right.

I understand that this poll isn't sceintific, but who would sign on numerous times to post yes. (Government Agencies?) HAHA. This article is related to the Prince Harry story, but is it hiding behind this story? Is it a good reason to cover up other stories if they deam said story "unsafe" for the general public. An alien contact could be the breath of fresh air the world needs, but the government could see this as a "risk" to everyone and censor/block all MSM coverage of said event. Just and example...

reply to post by Halcy0n


I believe they do that already HalcyOn. Google Underreported stories of 2007 or Most suppressed stories of 2007. You'll see it is already a well established practice by MSM. Some of the stories, like the Barksdale Nukes story, didn't/wouldn't get any coverage in the MSM. It's easier to pretend that it didn't happen than hold an honest discourse on the matter and maybe really find out what happened.

I think it's very simple
Their job is to misinform and confuse people.

If 80% says NO then CNN will show 80% YES

In my opinion they have proven with this poll that MSM lies for about 80 % of the time.

I beleive they all do it. I was watching cnn's latest debate,Hillary was staring into obama's forehead as to give him a tumor,nodding like a bobblehead dog in the back window of a car. She lifts her water glass to her lips still nodding(cut to obama,laughter erupts in the audience),my guess is that we will never see if water ran down her smug face(with laser eyes),or not. I noted water glasses were not visible in later debates. Pat Paulson for prsident!!!

It was based on the whole Prince Harry in Afghanistan story.

So I think most people answered it thinking the question meant basically: "Should the media keep stories about individuals secret to protect thiose individuals?"

I know I did.

Put in context, it's not as creepy a question as it sounds.

I can live with the media sitting on the story about Prince William being in Afghanistan, as it would have made him a prime target.

What is missing from the OP is the context.

This matter was discussed this evening on Fox and probably other outlets.

Prince Harry has been in Afghanistan for the past six months, a fact that has been kept quiet with the complicity of the media until yesterday when for some reason someone broke the story, just weeks before Harry was to rotate.

Harry has been described as a bullet magnet and the truth is that he has a price on his head and yet he was willing to serve his nation in combat.

Now the British Army is busy getting him out of the country before he gets himself and his troops killed by terrorists hot to get the bounty.

In this context, I believe that it is the responsiblility of the media to keep some secrets and whoever broke the story should be held accountable. They endangered the lives of the coalition's fighting men and jeopardized a mission. That's an intolerable thing to do.

In fact, if the media expect to remain free, they should honor governments' effort to keep certain things from the purview of the world, which happens to include our enemies.

It's the only way wars are won and this one, we really need to win.

www.reuters.com...

Google Search

I now see that xmotex has noted the facts of the case, as well.

Here's more:

The military confirmed his [Prince Harry's] assignment after a U.S. Web site broke the news blackout -- and Dannatt expressed displeasure at the report.

"I am very disappointed that foreign Web sites have decided to run this story without consulting us," Dannatt said in a written statement. "It was my judgment that with an understanding with the media not to broadcast his whereabouts, the risk in (deploying him to Afghanistan) was manageable.

"Now that the story is in the public domain, the Chief of Defence Staff and I will take advice from the operational commanders about whether his deployment can continue."

www.cnn.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 2008/2/29 by GradyPhilpott]

There are many places Harry can serve his country.I think he has the same need to put himself in harms way like many did before.
I think he watched too many Peter O'Otoole movies.

The means to be everywhere is here live with it and don't complain,or live outside it,this is it for me(the computer)no phone,no mail,soon to off the grid.

Brittney could live anywhere here,if she kept her yap shut she would fit in with any yahoo around here.

They don't wish to.

Forget them and concentrate on real matters of security that the(Times)likes to not suppress but let be known.


Hillary dribbles!!!

Originally posted by mule skinner
There are many places Harry can serve his country.I think he has the same need to put himself in harms way like many did before.

His uncle served in combat as did many of his ancestors.

Where he served is far less important than the fact that he was betrayed by those who swore an oath of secrecy.

I know how he felt and I respect him more than ever for his choice.

I'm saying someone with his profile is bound to be outed given todays media,it's amazing it was kept quiet this long.
I admire the bravery he and others have shown,but don't expect privacy to be easy when everyone now has a camera in a phone.
Like i was saying on the home front,if he hates attention,out a back door hit the road and stay away from the clubs(simple)!

Nudge,Nudge,Wink,Wink.

Trusting american media still?

What will it take?

I wouldn't trust American (or otherwise) media as far as I could throw it

But in this case the question wasn't what it sounded like...

I thought Drudge picked it up from a leeked australian source or am i mistaken?

Well you can say that I am putting this out of context, but let me ask you this. On the poll or page anywhere, does the poll reference that said article directly? Sure on the bottom in tiny blue text it says "see related article".To me the question was put forth without taking that said article into consideration. The question, when taken away of this article, is a scary question to ask. It is definitely presented as a poll in and of itself. Now if this poll was located in the article or right after, well that might be a different story. How it was presented, and the outcomes of the votes scare me...

reply to post by Halcy0n


I guess you would have to figure out what they meant by harm. If an asteroid is approaching and its gonna wipe some stuff out... Yes..i would like to know. If its a broadcast like Nancy Grace where she basically tries the suspect way before the court does...yes...it should be secret to make it fair for the accused. In other words "Nancy,,,shut up"

I think it depends on the situation. When it comes to what troops are where, and what they are doing, yes it should be kept out of the media. It's practically impossible to surprise your enemy and win the battle if they know up front what you are going to do and how many people you're going to do it with. After it's over, then they should report on it. But at least wait until it's over with. Saying "Hey, there are 10,000 troops coming to this city to drive out these people on this date" is like calling someone with a warrant on them and saying "Hey, just wanted to let you know we'll be there in an hour to arrest you". It doesn't make any sense.

There are tons of situations where I believe that the masses should be informed, but there are some where they should not. If it was my loved one out in the field serving his country I would not want every Tom, Dick and Harry to know where he was going to be on any given day. I would want that information kept out of the public eye so that he at least had a chance to get out alive.

Well people with high profile lives like Prince Harry in todays society they are more like Hollywood stars than just a respected and venerated member of Royalty.

He is a liability and a fiasco in the workings where he goes due to his status.

Even when he comes from a family that served his country and his ancestors did their part in the military, in this modern times life is not the same.

He should as done by his previous ancestors do his military service but he should stay away from where he will do more harm than good for the sake of himself and others.

[edit on 1-3-2008 by marg6043]