Regarding Press Censorship

[jxxxl]

Zorro said:

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.

 

Then explain this, o wise one: if censorship is so rampant in the US, why is it that the US government/military allowed the Abu Graib incident to be exposed?

 

I recognize what the military is doing and why, but it is not censorship within the US. I ask you again, name one incident of the US government actually prohibiting content or images from being shown in the US. Please name one i.e., put up or shut up.

[Steve]

Zorro said:

 

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 geneva convention has restrictions on how a country depicts POWs and dead bodies in the press I believe, is this censorship on all countries as well?

 

The internet has changed everything. Anyone that wanted to see the decapitation of any captured person could do so with a click of the button. A case can be made for the media showing it as well, but is it really accurate to say an American can not see dead bodies or soldiers or anything with the internet so unrestricted?

[Steve]

ALHOLK said:

Hi!

 

I strongly believe that cansorship, including press censorship, imposed by religious fanatics in the US is quite relevant to this thread. I personally overheard the leading bible thumper say in an interview after the election that they want to spread their values to other countries and are prepared tu resort to millitary force to do so.

 

regards

 

ALHOLK

 

Hmm, one could replace "U.S." with al qaida or possible certain middle eastern countries or about 20 years ago, USSR.

 

Any bible thumper can say what he wants but doesn't represent close to 300 million people. Its wishful thinking more than anything is what it sounds like. More than likely the newsperson who had him on there did it show how much of a nut they think he is.

 

Question. If Americans are censored so much then how does one explain the huge demonstrations that occured in the states over the war in Iraq and how did the millions that voted for Kerry based on Bush's involvement in Iraq know about the supposed number of civilians killed in Iraq, etc?

[MaiLuk]

>>The internet has changed everything. Anyone that wanted to see the decapitation of any captured person could do so with a click of the button. A case can be made for the media showing it as well, but is it really accurate to say an American can not see dead bodies or soldiers or anything with the internet so unrestricted? <<

 

The situation is that the vast majority of americans get their news from TV. Technically it is correct to say that americans are not prohibited by anyone from determining the truth of matters.

 

That is the beauty of the current "censorship", a term I use loosely. There are no legal or statutory restrictions. If there were they would be knocked down by the courts. There is a more subtle form of censorship going on, the ultimate effect is that the majority do not see the real effects of dropping bombs on people. Yes, people *could* check the internet but the reality is that they just watch the TV. And TV is not showing dead bodies or anything else about the real aspects of war.

[Sukhumvit]

 

So is anyone that doesn't share your views is "extremely defensive", "paranoid", conditioned? Figjam provided a well thought arument without emotions or basless accusations.

 

 

1. No. Your deduction is wrong. As for his argument being without baseless accusations or emotion please tell me where in my previous posting you see this. Perhaps my last point in my second post was not obviously jocular enough for you. I don't really belive those things however I was surprised that a posting about press censorship which had led onto the US media manipulation of facts could lead to somebody referring to the fact that there were countries where child sacrifice takes place as if there were something that the US govt could do about it.

 

 

 

If people like you want to have an ounce of credibility, you have to leard how to debate wihtout getting hysterical.

 

2. Who are people like me? Enlighten me. As for having an ounce of credibility or wanting to have the same I do not think that I have any credibility where it matters i.e. amongst the decision makers and spin doctors. As for wanting it, I don't. Thank you for telling me that I need to learn how to debate without getting hysterical. I could deflect the same coment back to you however I have re-read my postings again and I don't see hysteria. Where do you see the same? Do you understand the meaning of the word hysterical? Are you in fact guilty of hysteria and trying to whip up an argument out of nothing?

 

I really think that some of the people like you should be forced to take IQ tests before they hit the keyboard. Really. ::

[Steve]

MaiLuk said:

 

The situation is that the vast majority of americans get their news from TV. Technically it is correct to say that americans are not prohibited by anyone from determining the truth of matters.

 

That is the beauty of the current "censorship", a term I use loosely. There are no legal or statutory restrictions. If there were they would be knocked down by the courts. There is a more subtle form of censorship going on, the ultimate effect is that the majority do not see the real effects of dropping bombs on people. Yes, people *could* check the internet but the reality is that they just watch the TV. And TV is not showing dead bodies or anything else about the real aspects of war.

 

I understand your point. A lot of people though would not want to see it frankly, that's just my opinion of course. People don't want to see dead U.S. soldiers or dead people on the television. I'll admit I'm queesy about it. Parents don't want their kids to see it. Also, I think this issue of America being censored falls along ideological lines. I don't think there are many Republicans, no matter how informed they are would argue that there is censorship but people who are Democrats and/or anti-Iraq war would argue the opposite. I would even think, and again, only a guess, that even parents who are against the war don't want to have dead bodies plastered on the nightly news. If the public wants, the public would ask for it I think. The gulf war was popular with mostly everyone and the dead weren't shown. There was no wide spread talk of censorship then.

The bottom line I think is that the '91 Gulf war was a 'popular' war for the most part and this one is not popular with a fairly large number of Americans and those of us Americans that say we are against it are perturbed that more people aren't and are saying censorship is one of the reasons its not gotten more support against the war.

Lets suppose we were in a war or some sort of action that was widely supported in America and around the world. For instance something huminatarian like stopping a country from a genocidal act (Rawanda, Sudan, or the like). Lets say it had the full support of the UN and Europe. I am not so sure that under that scenario people would still say its censorship if dead bodies of U.S. and other 'peacekeeping' soldiers were shown on TV. Why? Because of the fear it would lose support. Fears of questions such as 'why are we risking our lives for someone else that doesn't threaten the U.S.' possibly. Bosnia comes to mind. A noble act for NATO to stop the bloodshed but it wasn't a popular war in the U.S.

If bodies are going to be shown, then the risk of having the pubic not support a military intervention that 'should' be taken has to be considered as well.

 

As for most people getting their views from the nightly news, there are a large percentage of people against the war who only get their news from the nightly news on TV. I wouldn't say that those against the war are the only 'informed' ones. People are lazy. Practically everyone has access to the internet either at home if not at work. A lot of folks don't want to be more informed than they already are. My mother doesn't read much newspapers, watches the news sometimes while she's preparing dinner but is against the war. Not that she is typical but there are a large number of folks like her.

[Guest]

This has gotta be the funniest thread I've read on the board! I especially enjoyed Fly's contributions which combine profound ignorance of the U.S. media and politics, with highly eloquent reasoning, e.g., racist crap ... same old bullshit hanky-panky ... same old infantile shortsighted kneejerk explanations ... same old boring shite and, my personal favorite, just fuck off. I almost hurt myself laughing!

 

But, seriously, there are a few points that no one has made so far (or I might've missed them while I was laughing!).

 

Yes, the U.S. mainstream media do play more or less the same fiddle, but it has nothing to do with censorship or advertising profits as the neo-Marxists would have us believe. It is simply because most of the U.S. journalists are liberals; I don't remember the exact numbers but if 90%, or even 75% of them vote for Kerry/Gore/Clinton, you can't expect them to bring you unbiased news or a wide range of opinions.

 

The mainstream media (including CNN, New York Times, Washington Post, L.A. Times, etc.) have all been consistently opposed to Bush and the current administration; if anyone needs a proof of bias just consider that they waited for 14 days to report the Swift Boat Vets story, whereas Dan Rather rushed with an anti-Bush story so much he didn't have time to find out he was presenting forged documents. Yet, there has been no government action of any sort to suppress or control the media.

 

The same was true under the Clinton administration. While the mainstream media was mostly supportive of Clinton, a lot of alternative media gained prominence during those years, such as Rush Limbaugh show, Michael Savage, etc. Clinton did occasionally complain about them but, again, there were no attempts to censor any of the anti-Clinton oriented media.

 

Fortunately, it is not true any more that the U.S. public opinion is formed exclusively by the three networks (TV) and the other mainstream media. Matt Drudge, WorldNetDaily, the radio talk, even Fox News to a degree, are creating a healthy check on the one-sided reporting that we used to have just a decade or two ago.

[Zorro]

CS said

The geneva convention has restrictions on how a country depicts POWs and dead bodies in the press I believe, is this censorship on all countries as well?

 

They show plenty of dead bodies over here in the ME on the local TV.

I don't think that there are any restrictions in this regard.

 

jxxl said

Then explain this, o wise one: if censorship is so rampant in the US, why is it that the US government/military allowed the Abu Graib incident to be exposed?

 

I am sure they would have liked to have suppressed it if they could have.

Again you fail to recognise the more subtle forms of censorship that i have outlined in previous posts.

We must also realise that Fox CNN have world wide media exposure via satellite and many people around the world use this as their basis for forming views about the west and the US in particular. Unfortunatley they have in regards to the Iraq conflict more often than not just spun the govt line.

Propaganda at its worst.

[ALHOLK]

Hi!

 

Hmm, one could replace "U.S." with al qaida or possible certain middle eastern countries or about 20 years ago, USSR.

Absolutely, although you don't have to go back 20 years to the USSR. The freedom of the press today isn't all that great although it is better than it used to be.

 

This was in fact a part of my point. Fanatics are the same anywhere in the world regardless of what they call their god. Icidentally ther is not any detectable difference between political fanatics and religious ones.

 

Question. If Americans are censored so much then how does one explain the huge demonstrations that occured in the states over the war in Iraq and how did the millions that voted for Kerry based on Bush's involvement in Iraq know about the supposed number of civilians killed in Iraq, etc?

 

There are degrees of everything. The US is a much to open society for censorship to be fully effective. Not even in the old European communist countries did they manage to completey withhold all information from the people. The problem is that those who might benefit from seeing the world how it really is probably wont seek the information that is available. There is also a significant rift between American and European thinking. I remember once when I was young and tried to explain to an American the I was an atheist and an anti communist. He just couldn't understand the concept as these two words were synonymous to him.

 

regards

 

ALHOLK

[Guest]

Check our a recent Economist article about the demise of Dan Rather. It talks about some of the issues mentioned in this thread.