BelgianBoy Posted November 24, 2004 Report Share Posted November 24, 2004 And your point is what Einstein? Is Fox representative of all Americans or American press? Is BBC the objective benchmark in journalism Insulting and bashing people does not meke people win arguments...... What you don't seem to understand is the difference between restrictions imposted by the American culture and censorship. There are regulations about decency and what appears on the airwaves. Many Americans don't want to see dead mangled bodies on TV. Nor do they want to see nudity or explicit language. These are restrictions imposed my the culture not government sponsored censorship. You and others may not like this, but that is a result of American culture. There are examples of this all over the world. I dont think you understand the difference here : the Americans are not even given the free choice to see it if they would wish so, because someone high up decided its not theirs to see..... You are saying there there is censorship in the US. Do you know what censorship is? Can you give me one example of the US government stoping, by order of law, something from being reported in the press? Do you have any specific examples to back up your Indictment? Just because you heard something in a odcumentary doesn't make it true? Do you believe what you hear from Michael Moore? Sure, enbedded journalism has been cited here before. As for Michael Moore, he made a documentary that played in movie theatres. you were free to view it or not. Most people bashing him did not see it - of course, but have the most loud opinions on it If you think Americans want to see dead Americans splashed accross the TV screen, you are very wrong. Just becuase people think Americans should be force-fed these images, and aren't, is not an example of censorship. If you want to find images of dead Americans, you can get them on the internet. Is it illegal to view certain internet content in the US? Is it illegal to use explicit language or view nudity? If you do want an objective view, they will have to....... Specially because you have already decided what they can see or not...... BB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jxxxl Posted November 24, 2004 Report Share Posted November 24, 2004 "I dont think you understand the difference here : the Americans are not even given the free choice to see it if they would wish so, because someone high up decided its not theirs to see....." What the hell are you talking about? What is it that Americans are forbidden from seeing" How are they forbidden? Who is forbidding them? Don't just give me your feable opinion, give me an example; cite a case. Sorry, it's difficult not to insult people when I read such stupidity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BelgianBoy Posted November 24, 2004 Report Share Posted November 24, 2004 *sigh* I quoted you to say : Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What you don't seem to understand is the difference between restrictions imposted by the American culture and censorship. There are regulations about decency and what appears on the airwaves. Many Americans don't want to see dead mangled bodies on TV. Nor do they want to see nudity or explicit language. These are restrictions imposed my the culture not government sponsored censorship. You and others may not like this, but that is a result of American culture. There are examples of this all over the world. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To which I replied : I dont think you understand the difference here : the Americans are not even given the free choice to see it if they would wish so, because someone high up decided its not theirs to see..... What too difficult for you to understand here ? BTW, explecit pictures is one of the reasons of all Vietnam protests, more reasons for the government to controll the press now. BB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jxxxl Posted November 24, 2004 Report Share Posted November 24, 2004 "I dont think you understand the difference here : the Americans are not even given the free choice to see it if they would wish so, because someone high up decided its not theirs to see....." No, they are given the choice to see it. I asked you several questions about who is forbidding access to this material and you failed to answer. Can you answer the question please? And, sorry, the Viet Nam war is not a good example in this case. It's much more complex than simply the media's coverage of the event. This debate is about "censorship'. You are saying there is. I asked you for an example. Put up or shut up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khunsanuk Posted November 24, 2004 Report Share Posted November 24, 2004 Hi, Wasn't someone imprisoned because (s)he leaked pictures of coffins being loaded into planes? Sanuk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BelgianBoy Posted November 24, 2004 Report Share Posted November 24, 2004 jxxxl said:"I dont think you understand the difference here : the Americans are not even given the free choice to see it if they would wish so, because someone high up decided its not theirs to see....." No, they are given the choice to see it. I asked you several questions about who is forbidding access to this material and you failed to answer. Can you answer the question please? And, sorry, the Viet Nam war is not a good example in this case. It's much more complex than simply the media's coverage of the event. This debate is about "censorship'. You are saying there is. I asked you for an example. Put up or shut up. *sigh* again...... You just stated that there is NO choice, if they want to see dead bodies, they have to search for it on the net..... hence the press is hiding this away.... where is the free choice to watch it ? As for Vietnam, I wrote it was one of the reasons...... I know its more complex than that, no need to patronise. Yes, the thread is about cencorship. Do read your first post again, you claim there is, I did not So shut up then...... Cordially BB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jxxxl Posted November 24, 2004 Report Share Posted November 24, 2004 Yes, I believe that's true, but that incident went against the military's regulations in the war theater. This is very different than the urle of law that governs civilians inside the US. Now, you could argue that the US military is wrong in terms of how it manages the war, but that is separate than censorship. There is all sorts of information available in the US to anyone who wants to read it. And, plenty of examples of information that is extremely damaging to the military and the administration that appears in the press continuously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BelgianBoy Posted November 24, 2004 Report Share Posted November 24, 2004 jxxxl said:Yes, I believe that's true, but that incident went against the military's regulations in the war theater. This is very different than the urle of law that governs civilians inside the US. Now, you could argue that the US military is wrong in terms of how it manages the war, but that is separate than censorship. There is all sorts of information available in the US to anyone who wants to read it. And, plenty of examples of information that is extremely damaging to the military and the administration that appears in the press continuously. In any democracy its an elected democratic civilian goverment that tells its military what and how to do it, not the opposite. Its the responsability of the press to bring correct info to the people / subscribtors / viewers, not the oppositive. BB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorro Posted November 24, 2004 Report Share Posted November 24, 2004 jxxxl I am afraid that you wouldn't recognise censorship if it ran you over. Not showing the dead bodies of US soldiers on tv is censorship my friend. Are there dead bodies? Answer yes...then why are they not shown on tv? The use of embedded journalists is a form of propaganda and also a form of censorship as the major news stations have to rely on them for their war reports who in turn are fed whatever the military decide to feed them. In this way we only get what the US military want us to get. This my friend is also censorship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALHOLK Posted November 24, 2004 Report Share Posted November 24, 2004 Michael Moore would be roughly as reliable as GWB with his blatant lies about WMD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.