Khun_Kong Posted November 17, 2004 Report Share Posted November 17, 2004 Damn. Tried to post this moments after KS locked the other thread. Not political, but if too sensitive, feel free to erase. I think it addresses the subject header without going over the edge. ___________________________________________________ khunsanuk said:Hi, Guys, unless we bring this back to the main issue, I will be forced to close this. Sanuk! Relating to censorship... On a recent visit to the States, just prior to the elections, I was dumbfounded at the ignorance exhibited even by people whom I call my friends, people who stood shoulder to shoulder with me around 1970-1971 in Washington DC on the Great Lawn, protesting against the war in Vietnam and, shortly afterwards, in a holding cell for expressing our beliefs (in non-violent, angry, but peaceful protests). These friends of mine, intelligent, (far) left-leaning people, expressed ideas that sounded completely foreign to me, as an Amerikan living overseas- with access to many different new sources. The most frequent was the association between Iraq and 9/11. GWB and Co. sure put a mighty spin on that one. This was often coupled with the phrase, "Well, anyway, the world/Iraqi citizens are better off without Saddam." Are they? IMO, the average Iraqi couldn't give a shit and would just like to get on with his/her life. I actually heard an acquaintance of my brother's, in response to my brother telling him, "You know, many Amerikans living overseas have a very different viewpoint" (referring to me, but the guy didn't know it), respond with, "Fuck 'em. They don't live here anymore. Why should we care about them." ! It was precisely the new style, real-time coverage of the Viet war that prompted so many Amerikans, including people of all regions, all faiths, all political persuasions, all ages, to express their massive discontent with what the government was doing in SE Asia. I think that the current "leaders" of Amerika realize with crystal clarity the power that coverage had in shaping people's opinions and the path that was taken towards ending that war. They want to avoid this at all costs. Hence, all of the pictures will be "...too graphic..." for the newly blanded (can that be a word?) Amerikan's tastes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sukhumvit Posted November 18, 2004 Report Share Posted November 18, 2004 Very apposite. Was just about to post meself. Re censorship of press, every govt has it. In the UK they have D notices. Sure the US has something similar. As an example of US censorship, big bro was in Oregon just after the first gulf war at a wedding. He got to talking with some pro-war guys, (as big bro was himself), and they didn't know that the highest number of UK war casualties was caused by a US A10 tank buster shooting up parked UK armoured vehicles. They claimed not to have any knowledge of it. Dunno if other US based peeps saw it reported or whether that was censored. Problem I see is that a lot of Americans see criticism of their administration as a direct assault upon themselves. It isn't. It's democracy. It's called living in a free world. I'm happy for people to criticize the UK administration providing it's valid, educated criticism and not just "I hate limeys/lefties/whingers etc". I was in Vietnam duirng the Kosovo crisis when a Stealth bomber was shot down. The news reports showed civilians in Kosovo jumping up and down with joy. The Viets in the cafe where I watched it sat impassively. The way I recall it, not speaking more than a few words of Vietnamese, was that the Viet news service presented the report in a non-declamatory manner. Considering that many rightwingers consider that country and its administration to be red commie scumbags worthy of bombing the fuck out of it was enlightening to see how a former enemy of the US presented the facts to its citizens. The question I ask is if for the last 60 years since the end of World War 2 the UK administration has spent its time dismantling its empire why does the US administration seem hellbent on building up its own empire and extending its sphere of influence? Why? Doesn't the US have enough issues at home to deal with? Why interfere elsewhere? What was the United Nations set up for? The soviet threat is no more and was redundant in real terms for the past 20 years. So why go on with empire building? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 18, 2004 Report Share Posted November 18, 2004 MaiLuk said in the closed thread: >>>The question that i cannot figure out is WHY the actual effects of conducting war in iraq is blacked out of the major news outlets. I suspect if this is not figured out and exposed then it may continue for a long time. <<< well, i think that you have answered your question in the preceding sentence yourself: MaiLuk said: >>>The US is a country of 260million, to get them to support foreign policy initiatives you have to appeal to certain concepts that are ingrained into the american psyche. You can lambaste the administration for doing that but it has always been that way and always will. The outcome is what is important and if you have good leaders then good things can happen. If you have incompetent leaders... The real criticism of the administartion is their failure to anticipate what would happen even when it was easily ascertainable. <<< and, MaiLuk said that the US government does not control the media. right, it does even not need to anymore. the media is a business, an industry, there to make profits, not to bring the public the "truth". the media depends on advertisement and ratings. the government pomotes what it considers "patriotism", feeds the media with fake information, and the misguided public will dominate what is shown to them. it has somehow become a self feeding perpetual mobile. the government says that certain photos are unpatriotic to be shown, show it, and you will anger you viewers (and the government), and you will lose ratings, and advertisement. embedded "journalism", another ridiculous invention, the viewer is somehow under the impression that he is "close to the action", but does he actually learn anything other than filtered information and how it looks when bullets fly? and then look at fox news. can you even call that journalism? an openly onesided propaganda channel whose key "journalists" have a very close relationship with the president, and other members of the cabinet. with the main news servers brought in line (occasional anti government stories allowed to be shown so that the pretension of independence is kept up) the few smaller truly independent media outlets are not relevant anymore as they reach only a very interested public, whose voices in the elections are a minor annoiance. and foreign media, whose work is actively hindered by the army (for example last time i was in germany there was a german team that had carried long before pictures of the later famous tortures, that team was beaten up and threatened in irak) is anyhow not relevant to the US government. do you see with which arrogance the present US government deals with any foreign dissenting foreign voices, supported by the american mob? and nowadays independent reporting out of irak is hardly possible anymore. the situation has deterorated so far that it simply is too dangerous for journalists to independently travel and work. they are stuck with the US army. and that army will hardly support anyone's work which is not in favour of their operations. that is what i call perfected manipulation of the medias. the medias are actually brought in line of the government's agenda without actually breaking any law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 18, 2004 Report Share Posted November 18, 2004 One of the major problems I see in US schools, which probably is true in most countries, is that history is taught out of books without any references (footnotes). The students are essentially taught at an early age to believe everything they are told. As an interesting side thought, look up the histotical document in which most of the West claim his a foundation document for their countries laws - that is the Magna Carta. Search for the word Jew in the document. Read each occurences of the word and then try rationalizing why some of are governments are based on this document. I suspect the reason is nobody ever really reads this document. we are told this is what it says but never really check it out for ourselves. When I am confronted with a fellow 'patriot' that I suspect doesn't have a clue, I mention that on Sept. 3, 1774 The first Continental Congress assembled in Philadelphia. And then I mention that on April 18, 1775, Paul Revere made his famous ride. Later on May 1775, the Second Continental Congress assembles in Philadelphia and George Washington, was elected Commander in Chief of the Continental Army. And then years later, on April 30, 1789, George Washington stood on a balcony of the Federal Hall on Wall Street in New York and took his oath of office as the first President of the United States. My question to these people are: Who was 'running' the country during this time period? Sad to say, when you investigate the matter, you might be surprised of the different lists available. Some list have more people on it then other lists have! There is a possibility this information may have been lost in history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pattaya127 Posted November 18, 2004 Report Share Posted November 18, 2004 The media and propaganda machine is so powerful that one of the big problems we have in the US is of people talking of talking about the News, not the News themselves. It's flagrant, and what you guys say in this new thread shows it. people are just not interested in questionning or learning real facts, they are interested in reacting to the dressing up of the News, as well as if or not fitting their "moral values" ::. Their positionning regarding that is more important. That is what led people to vote Bush back, though they might not exactly drink up everything he says.... Or even care! Anyone who asks to look at the facts was seen as patronizing and a damned bore! oppositely, progressives, liberals, whatever it's called here, have no intention to find out why people defeated them. They voted such, and that proves the "heartland" is ignorant and dim-witted. Much more convenient this way! We ironize on TTM and thais, but frankly, we are doing a great job of it, across the lines, here in the USA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FIGJAM Posted November 19, 2004 Report Share Posted November 19, 2004 Khun_Kong said:It was precisely the new style, real-time coverage of the Viet war that prompted so many Amerikans, including people of all regions, all faiths, all political persuasions, all ages, to express their massive discontent with what the government was doing in SE Asia. So imagine what a "new style, real-time coverage" of Thai Muslims beheading an adolescent Buddhist monk walking along the roadside or a postman delivering mails would prompt from the Thai audience... Or what a "new style, real-time coverage" of Saddam's sons raping at will Iraqi women, ordering self-mutilation as "proof of faith" from Iraqi commons, torturing sportsmen who have "underperformed" abroad in international events would have prompted from the Western audience... And speaking about the Western press censorship, why is it that we have plenty of "proofs" (from ourselves: other Westerners provide and divulge them) of how bad we Westerners are but very little of what goes on everyday and in the normal life in all the rest of the world? How many videos have you seen of men having their hands cut off in Saudi Arabia or Congo or woman having their faces being burnt with acid or being stoned to death in Talibans' Afghanistan or Iran or Ruanda or being infibulated in Somalia or children being raped in "pagan" rituals etc etc? How many reportages have you seen of underage slave sex sold to locals all over Asia? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jxxxl Posted November 19, 2004 Report Share Posted November 19, 2004 FIGJAM said: Khun_Kong said:It was precisely the new style, real-time coverage of the Viet war that prompted so many Amerikans, including people of all regions, all faiths, all political persuasions, all ages, to express their massive discontent with what the government was doing in SE Asia. So imagine what a "new style, real-time coverage" of Thai Muslims beheading an adolescent Buddhist monk walking along the roadside or a postman delivering mails would prompt from the Thai audience... Or what a "new style, real-time coverage" of Saddam's sons raping at will Iraqi women, ordering self-mutilation as "proof of faith" from Iraqi commons, torturing sportsmen who have "underperformed" abroad in international events would have prompted from the Western audience... And speaking about the Western press censorship, why is it that we have plenty of "proofs" (from ourselves: other Westerners provide and divulge them) of how bad we Westerners are but very little of what goes on everyday and in the normal life in all the rest of the world? How many videos have you seen of men having their hands cut off in Saudi Arabia or Congo or woman having their faces being burnt with acid or being stoned to death in Talibans' Afghanistan or Iran or Ruanda or being infibulated in Somalia or children being raped in "pagan" rituals etc etc? How many reportages have you seen of underage slave sex sold to locals all over Asia? Figjam, Very good points you make here. The political threads I read on this board just highlight the mass hysteria that is gripping so many people around the world. Its a complex time we live in and most people don't have the intellect necessary to think things through. So, they become delusional. Simple as that, mass hysteria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khun_Kong Posted November 20, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2004 Interesting article in today's International Herald Tribune, regarding US media censorship. Hard to C&P, so only the link is provided: Frank Rich: Alternate reality, in Iraq and at home Starts off with the refusal to show "Saving Private Ryan" on some 66 ABC TV affiliates recently. Best quote, in light of the New PC Amerika : "War is heck" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALHOLK Posted November 20, 2004 Report Share Posted November 20, 2004 Hi! Interesting article. If this is the kind of freedom the American soldiers are fighting for I sincerely hope they lose big time in Iraq. regards ALHOLK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FIGJAM Posted November 21, 2004 Report Share Posted November 21, 2004 ALHOLK said:Hi! Interesting article. If this is the kind of freedom the American soldiers are fighting for I sincerely hope they lose big time in Iraq. You are so right! The kind of freedom they had under Saddam was so much better... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.