When a Great Power Goes Mad

US Media can't handle Iraq truth

english.aljazeera.com

.S. media can't handle the Iraq truth because this could mean that Bush and Cheney could be regarded as war criminals.

By Robert Parry

With the fifth anniversary of the Iraq War and the grim milestone of 4,000 U.S. dead, the nation has been awash with news retrospectives on the war and speeches by politicians, mostly offering sanitized versions of what's transpired.

With a few exceptions, these media/political reflections have had the feel of self-rationalizations, more than self-criticisms. They’ve conveyed a sense that the U.S. system is doing just fine, thank you, although a few mistakes were made.

So, you have President George W. Bush, the chief author of this catastrophic war, declaring that “normalcy is returning back to Iraq” even as fighting rages across much of the country and rockets rain down on the highly fortified Green Zone in Baghdad.

(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 7/4/2008 by khunmoon]

When will US and british journalist stop feeding lies to their audiences ? In sanitizing everything about the Iraq war and the grim reality of american/israeli foreign policy, they are becoming culprits in the worst crimes of recent human history.


english.aljazeera.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

And aljazeera is reliable....What?

And aljazeera is compatent....What?

And aljazeera is trust worthy....What?

You need to look at the entire situation of your post before spouting that the US media is lacking.

Don't put your bias on me!

Dorian Soran

Are you saying that AlJazeera is wrong and US media are not sanitizing and obfuscating the mass murders commited by the Bush administration ?

Hello,

I did not say that at all, I simply wanted you to take a look at your source, which, In my opinion, is FAR worse at reporting the truth than any western media source you are going to find.

Thanks,

Dorian Soran

Originally posted by ergoli
Are you saying that AlJazeera is wrong and US media are not sanitizing and obfuscating the mass murders commited by the Bush administration ?

He may not be saying that, but I'll be so bold as to put forth that notion. Al Jazeera, et al are nothing more than mouth pieces for every two bit America hater, terror organization, etc....
The sad thing is that all those who rile against the US/Western media for being biased, are perfectly willing to accept at face value anything that these organizations report, as it reinforces their preconceived notions.

As far as I can see the author is Robert Perry, Consortium news. Al Jezeras just knows where to get the true and credible stories.

A little honest ( eye opening ) research goes a long way.

That is how I came to the conclusion about aljazeera.

Everyone should try it, it's easier than one thinks, and can do your credibility a world of good before spouting off anti-western propaganda.

Thanks,

Dorian Soran

reply to post by Dorian Soran


But you obviously don't know who Robert Parry is.

We all know our MSM dresses up the truth, if they present it at all. If you want to know what's going on in the World, you have turn to the internet and international news sources.

Once the cat is out of the bag, then they'll start feeding you their "spinned" version of reality.

[edit on 4/7/08 by LLoyd45]

reply to post by LLoyd45


The difference is that our MSM requires a higher standard of journalism(i.e. multiple corroborated sources) before reporting info. Non western sources may get something right from time to time, but that's the exception not the rule. The fact that the MSM isn't as Anti West/Antil US as some here would hope for, doesn't mean that they're less objective than Al Jazeera, etc...

Originally posted by khunmoon
reply to post by Dorian Soran

 

But you obviously don't know who Robert Parry is.

I most certainly do. www.consortiumnews.com... about says it all now doesn't it.

He has worked for AP and newsweek and has had a democratic party slant for many decades.

In 1995, he established ConsortiumNews.com as an online ezine dedicated to investigative journalism. In 2000, shortage of revenue forced him to continue it on a part-time basis.

en.wikipedia.org...

This tells me that he will NOW print the most outrageous story he can find because, well, he needs REVENUE.

Dorian Soran


[edit on 7-4-2008 by Dorian Soran]

Well, Al Jazeera may not be the most credible source in our eyes, but it's definitely a Pot V. Kettle situation--most American media is owned by the very same military contractors who are making billions off the occupation. If you think that doesn't cloud the tone of American MSM reporting on the occupation, and that crucial facts aren't kept from us, then you really need to look deeper and follow the money.

Example: NBC. NBC is owned by General Electric. General Electric is a HUGE military contractor--supplying guns, engines, generators, electronics, etc. and making a ton of money in the process. The occupation is making them a fortune. Why would they tell the American people unpleasant truths about the occupation, thus increasing political resistance to it and possibly killing off their cash cow?

Short answer: They wouldn't.

Deregulation of media killed journalism in the United States of America. And it was a deliberate case of murder.

reply to post by The Nighthawk


And anti western/anti US media don't have agendas or sponsors that might have an interest in keeping the truth from you? How is that you can so easily believe the US media being nothing more than public affairs for defense contractors, but you don't scrutinize other sources with the same vigor?

reply to post by BlueRaja
you probably like to watch Fox news too.. They're the "self-proclaimed" fair and balanced new source for those in the know.

reply to post by LLoyd45


Ouch that stings. Yep, and I take all instructions from Rush Limbaugh, as I'm completely incapable of formulating an opinion by myself. If only Alex Jones could intervene, so that I could think for myself.

reply to post by ergoli


I remember seeing part of Frontline, "Bush's War", and i thought more
about the possibility of war crimes...

Good post!

Let's say some international court were to declare Bush, Cheney, & co.
war criminals...who would attempt to bring them in?

He's protected pretty well, with Marines and the military; or would THEY
try to bring him in?

U.S. Seeks Exemption from War Crimes Court



[edit on 4/7/2008 by FRIGHTENER]

You folks don't get it, this is coming from an all American news source of the very best stock.

Since you obvious have no idea about it, let me link you to the original wich like in Al Jeazeras version is called When a Great Power Goes Mad. The title the poster has given the OP is from AJ's editorial to the article, and it is thus not titled according to the rules for news submissions.

I wish when you find a story like this, that you would take that extra 5 minuttes research and find the original and link to that so prejudical bashing could be avoided.

In this case, if the it would had been the original, it wouldn't have been accepted in BAN, because the original is almost two weeks old.

Now I'll leave up to your research, to find out who Robert Parry is. All I will say, he is a great American.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
And anti western/anti US media don't have agendas or sponsors that might have an interest in keeping the truth from you? How is that you can so easily believe the US media being nothing more than public affairs for defense contractors, but you don't scrutinize other sources with the same vigor?

In fact I do. But to instantly label any news source as "Anti-US/Anti-Western" because their reports disagree with Faux News is ignorant and foolish. Yes, Al Jazeera has shown a bias against the US in much of their reporting--but, they are a mouthpiece for the Middle East (good or bad as that may be) and in case you haven't noticed we've kinda been d*cks to the Muslim world for a long, long time, so they have little reason to be "buddy-buddy" with us.

And, my assertion regarding the MSM and its ties to military contractors isn't "belief", it's incontrovertible fact. They have a vested interest in the indefinite continuation of this occupation. That, my friend, is called a "Conflict of Interest". In a properly-regulated America they would not be allowed to own media outlets that are supposed to be involved in serious journalism. As a necessary foil for government and the corporate world, Journalism should be a regulated profession, free of sensationalism and interference by corporate entities who could benefit by its manipulation. A free society requires independent, professional journalism to inform its citizens. Anything less is just propaganda for fascists.

Originally posted by khunmoon
Now I'll leave up to your research, to find out who Robert Parry is. All I will say, he is a great American.

That is nothing more than YOUR opinion sir.

I shall leave it at that.

You may worship al-zuhbunko and the GREAT Robert Parry if you wish. I will not, and I will continue to do MY VERY OWN research and not relay on you telling what a great American the OP/ED writer happens to be.

Have a good day.

Dorian Soran