• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

More R-wing Bias In The News (Bought & Paid For)

KidRocks

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
16
Location
right here
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
AHA!

Just as we suspected all along! The brainwashing of America continues via the well financed r-wing propaganda machine. Now you know how President Bush was elected and re-elected.




http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_334123206.html

Report: U.S. Paid Iraqi Press For Positive Stories

The U.S. military secretly paid Iraqi newspapers to plant favorable stories about its efforts to rebuild the country, the Los Angeles Times reported Wednesday.

The newspaper quoted unidentified officials as saying many of the stories in Iraqi newspapers are written by U.S. troops and while basically factual, sometimes give readers a slanted view of what is happening in Iraq. Some expressed fears that use of such stories could hurt the credibility of the U.S. military worldwide, the newspaper said.

The Pentagon hired the Lincoln Group, a Washington-based firm that translates the stories into Arabic and places them in Baghdad newspapers, the newspaper reported. The organization's staff or subcontractors in Iraq occasionally pose as freelance reporters or advertising executives when they hand over stories to Iraqi media outlets, it said.

Laurie Adler, a spokeswoman for the Lincoln Group, said Wednesday she could not comment on the contract because it is with the U.S. government. Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said he had no details on the issue, and said he is looking into it. He added that if the elements in the report are true, "there are some things in there I find troubling."

Military officials who spoke to the Times on the condition of anonymity said the "Information Operations Task Force," part of a multinational corps with headquarters in Baghdad, bought an Iraqi newspaper and took over a radio station to put out pro-American messages. Neither outlet was named because of fear that they would be targeted by insurgents, the newspaper said.

The stories in Iraqi newspapers often praise the efforts of U.S. and Iraqi troops, denounce terrorism and promote the country's reconstruction efforts.

The Baghdad-based newspaper Al Mutamar, which is run by associates of Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Chalabi, have used some of the pro-U.S. stories. Chalabi is the former Iraqi exile tainted by the since-discredited claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

The Times said documents it obtained showed Al Mutamar was paid about $50 to run a story with the headline "Iraqis Insist on Living Despite Terrorism" on Aug. 6.

Luay Baldawi, Al Mutamar's editor in chief, said the articles have come to him via the Internet and are often unsigned.

"We publish anything," he said. "The paper's policy is to publish everything, especially if it praises causes we believe in. We are pro-American. Everything that supports America we will publish."

The Times said nearly $1,500 was paid to the independent Ad-Dustour newspaper to run an Aug. 2 article titled "More Money Goes to Iraq's Development," according to documents. The newspaper's editor, Bassem Sheikh, said he had "no idea" where the piece came from but added the note "media services" on top of the article to distinguish it from other editorial content.
 
H

hipsterdufus

Is anyone surprised?

Remember this is the same administration that:

1. Paid "journalist" Armstrong Williams $240,000 to promote NCLB in his syndicated columns and radio show.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-06-williams-whitehouse_x.htm

2. Produced mockumentaries sent to local TV channels who in turn passed these stories off as news.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/14/152202

3. Twisted quotes from participants at Social Security meetings to make it seem as though the people were FOR privatization, when in fact they were AGAINST it.

http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=522

4. Gave full Whitehouse press credentials to Jeff Gannon - male prostitute, fake journalist for a fake news organization- to lob softball questions to the president.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ articles/A36733-2005Feb18.html

5. Paid syndicated columnist a Maggie Gallagher $21,500 to promote the president's $300 million marriage promotion initiative.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_01/005523.php

And so it goes...
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
I was planning to start a thread on this very topic. I am so disheartened with how unethical this administration is. How can they not see how totally inappropriate this is? Restore honesty and integrity to the White House? My a$$. Not only am I disheartened, but disgusted as well. I know I shouldn't be surprised, but I am. Just when I think they have stooped to their lowest level, they stoop even lower, and I didn't think that was possible.

I just cannot imagine what goes through these people's heads in thinking that deceiving others is ever okay. I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I pulled that kind of $hit. How do these people sleep at night?

They are making us look like a totally unethical country. What could they be thinking? Did they really think that the truth wouldn't come out? Are they that desperate for positive feedback that they would risk our country's integrity? Yup. They clearly are. Desperate people do desperate things.
 
Last edited:

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
aps said:
I was planning to start a thread on this very topic. I am so disheartened with how unethical this administration is. How can they not see how totally inappropriate this is? Restore honesty and integrity to the White House? My a$$. Not only am I disheartened, but disgusted as well. I know I shouldn't be surprised, but I am. I just cannot imagine what goes through these people's heads in thinking that deceiving others is ever okay. I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I pulled that kind of $hit. How do these people sleep at night?
Probably alot better knowing that there are less people willing to attack us because they believe slanted coverage instead of the terrorists' outright lies...

Propaganda in a war...wow...what a revelation...:roll:
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
cnredd said:
Probably alot better knowing that there are less people willing to attack us because they believe slanted coverage instead of the terrorists' outright lies...

Propaganda in a war...wow...what a revelation...:roll:
Really, cnredd? You don't have a problem with this? :(
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
aps said:
Really, cnredd? You don't have a problem with this? :(
I think it should be endorsed...

In case you haven't noticed...This is a war...

We have the ability to wipe Iraq off of the map in 20 minutes...and that's with a smoke break...

There used to be a time...If the enemy was holed up in a house, but they didn't know which one, they'd just blow up the whole damn block...

Now they go house-to-house, putting their own lives in danger over the "collateral damage" that would've been done from the beginning of time up until the last 40 years, just to go out of our way to show "compassion"...

Notice the hypocracy?...We are showing compassion in a war!...When was the last time a country attacked another country and BROUGHT FOOD WITH THEM for the locals?...Do you realize that this is the first time in the whole damn history of warfare where the attacking forces went out of their way NOT to destroy the other forces?...When has an armed force tried to take out the leadership without going through the enemies' forces first?...We did that in what?...3 months?...AND left most of them standing!...We disbanded them...any other war, they would've been dead...

So we have bent over backward to appease the global community to show that we are in a "compassionate war"...Bullshit!

So if we have a chance to buy off a couple of newspapers willing to get paid under the table to increase our chances of winning, I say "Fork up as much cash as you got!"...

Enough of this "We should win, but we should win fairly" nonsense...If these reports turned a possible terrorist teetering on the fence into a fan of a democratic government, I guess you should want him(her?) to not listen to us and make the decisions for himself?...

The extra dead soldiers will thank you when you meet them...If your going that way...
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
House to house my ass. Tell that to Falluja, where we
destroyed 75% of a city of 300,000 people.



That's not car bomb damage!
 

Shoey

Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2005
Messages
51
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I recall Dan Rather getting fired for reporting a false story about President Bush and his military record. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that CBS/CNN=radical left wingers.
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by Shoey:
I recall Dan Rather getting fired for reporting a false story about President Bush and his military record. Anyone can easily figure out CBS/CNN=radical left wingers.
Did you have a point you were trying to make?
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Billo_Really said:
Did you have a point you were trying to make?
LOL The point was to bash CNN and CBS, which is totally irrelevant to this thread.
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by aps:
LOL The point was to bash CNN and CBS, which is totally irrelevant to this thread.
I don't know. Maybe his post was bought and paid for by the Republican Party. Do you ever get the feeling there are professional posters out there earning a living by going on websites and argueing the good fight?
 

Shoey

Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2005
Messages
51
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Billo_Really said:
Did you have a point you were trying to make?
Well did Dan Rather get fired or not??? Oh, he resigned. My point is clear and that is CBS/CNN are left wing media. Do you agree or disagree?
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Shoey said:
Well did Dan Rather get fired or not??? Oh, he resigned. My point is clear and that is CBS/CNN are left wing media. Do you agree or disagree?
Shoey, you are making no sense in this thread. If you want to trash CBS/CNN and Dan Rather, why not go into the "Bias in the Media" topic and start a thread.

BTW, I disagree with you about CBS and CNN being left wing media.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Billo,

If you want to talk about Fallujah, you really ought to do a bit more research. Lets go back to the 'first' confrontation at Fallujah - remember when the corpses of civilian contractors were set on fire and mutilated and strung up on the bridge?

Afterwards, we started an operation to root out those responsible, but acceded to the demands of various clerics and others to hold off in return for Iraqis policing of Fallujah. We waited. While we waited, the Iraqi "Fallujah battalion" faded away and Fallujah became a terrorist haven.

This time, knowing that Fallujah was the source of many car bombs and terrorists activities, we didn't. But, and this is an important but, we gave any and all civilians who wanted to leave the opportunity to do so. Sure, we watched as they left, trying to pick from the crowds any likely looking terrorists, but all women and kids and noncombatants were urged to leave and those who wanted to leave, did so. Even so, our rules of engagement still emphasized the avoidance of civilian casualties and collateral damage.

Were buildings and homes destroyed? You betcha. But they were destroyed because insurgent forces were using them as redoubts and refuges, to fire on our forces. Our rules of engagement are first and foremost, 'protect yourself'. Nothing was destroyed indiscriminately, as you imply.

Billo, there are lots of links and lots of info on Fallujah as well as US ROE (rules of engagement). Are you as well informed about the events and conditions there as you need to be in order to make this assertion?
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The libs are just angry about the paid media slant because they have been giving that service away for years. :2razz:
 

Cremaster77

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
962
Reaction score
199
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
cnredd said:
I think it should be endorsed...

In case you haven't noticed...This is a war...
Exactly what role does distorting town hall meetings about Social Security having in winning the war in Iraq?
 

KidRocks

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
16
Location
right here
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
It's all about political-correctness to some of these r-wing dittoheads on this forum and elsewhere.

You see, it's ok to torture, abuse, and murder prisoners of war, it's ok to kill abortion-doctors, it's ok to "cut and run" from terrorists, it's ok to spy on Americans, it's ok to lie, cheat and steal as long as the Republicans do it... anyone else doing any of the above and instantly you are a traitor, an anti-American and should be shot on the spot!

Ah, the r-wing hypocrisy of it all!
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Kid Rocks, the right wing hypocrisy of it is no different then the "left wing" hypocrisy of it. The reason for it all is because of the immoral two party system of our country. Idiots who follow democrats blindly are no worse then those idiots who follow republicans blindly. Especially when they start calling each other libs or cons. Even neocon or neolib isn't a correct term for either. Its even worse when parties attack each other because they aren't "as good as they used to be" when their party is doing the same thing. And were they really ever better? I don't think so. I think people have just had their head up for the longest amount of time. Hell JFK and Ronald Reagan weren't that great anyways. **** em I say.
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
cnredd said:
Probably alot better knowing that there are less people willing to attack us because they believe slanted coverage instead of the terrorists' outright lies...

Propaganda in a war...wow...what a revelation...:roll:
Propaganda in a war is expected. The bigger problem, though, is a pattern of behavior that uses propaganda to change the opinions of Americans at home by pushing information at them that is fabricated, and has nothing to do with the war. When the government reports 'news' that is not true, it is committing an illegal act. The Armstrong Williams charade caused Congress to clarify an enacted law, that the current administration was ignoring, which made the reporting by government of untrue 'news' as if it were accurate a crime.

The military should be more careful about some of its propaganda, like the Tillman death. He was the pro football player who volunteered to go, even though he had a multimillion dollar contract to play ball here. Anyway, the military fabricated a heroic story about his death in Afghanistan, but it was revealed later he was killed accidently by friendly fire. This was unnecessary, and undermined credibility for no reason.
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by oldreliable67:
Billo,

If you want to talk about Fallujah, you really ought to do a bit more research. Lets go back to the 'first' confrontation at Fallujah - remember when the corpses of civilian contractors were set on fire and mutilated and strung up on the bridge?

Afterwards, we started an operation to root out those responsible, but acceded to the demands of various clerics and others to hold off in return for Iraqis policing of Fallujah. We waited. While we waited, the Iraqi "Fallujah battalion" faded away and Fallujah became a terrorist haven.

This time, knowing that Fallujah was the source of many car bombs and terrorists activities, we didn't. But, and this is an important but, we gave any and all civilians who wanted to leave the opportunity to do so. Sure, we watched as they left, trying to pick from the crowds any likely looking terrorists, but all women and kids and noncombatants were urged to leave and those who wanted to leave, did so. Even so, our rules of engagement still emphasized the avoidance of civilian casualties and collateral damage.

Were buildings and homes destroyed? You betcha. But they were destroyed because insurgent forces were using them as redoubts and refuges, to fire on our forces. Our rules of engagement are first and foremost, 'protect yourself'. Nothing was destroyed indiscriminately, as you imply.

Billo, there are lots of links and lots of info on Fallujah as well as US ROE (rules of engagement). Are you as well informed about the events and conditions there as you need to be in order to make this assertion?
I understand your point. I also believe our armed forces take their job very seriously and do it as professionally as the situation permits. I am also receptive to any related information that should be taken into consideration. Good or bad. It is all part of the mix.

But I did not say (or imply) that we were destroying structures indescriminately. My point had to do with the size of the city (300,000 residents) and the level of destruction (75% of city) as a result of our attack. There are also reports that we weren't letting everyone that wanted to leave go. Many young males were not permitted to leave. So the conditions where innocent people may be hurt or killed is increased.

But the size of the population there really bothers me. Are you trying to tell me that the city had 225,000 terrorists or insurgents there? That's an army! Or just being modest and saying a third of that were insurgents, that's 70,000-80,000. Are you telling me that city had 80,000 insurgents? I think we only captured 1200.

We bombed their hospital. A kid died because he was hit by shrapnel and his parents couldn't get him to the hospital with all the fighting going on. We closed off the city and turned off all their water and power services. This is a city the size of Long Beach, California. It's not some little town. Many of its residents are living in tents. This is all our fault. But we are too arrogant and narcississtic to even care.
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by Shoey:
Well did Dan Rather get fired or not??? Oh, he resigned. My point is clear and that is CBS/CNN are left wing media. Do you agree or disagree?
I disagree. I also think Bush is a deserter.
 

Lantzolot

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2005
Messages
67
Reaction score
1
Location
Arkansas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Its not as if liberal news stations, radio hosts, and newspaper reporters dont outnumber conservative ones 5 to 1. THAT sounds biased.
 
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
1,011
Reaction score
306
Location
Geelong, Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
aps said:
Shoey, you are making no sense in this thread. If you want to trash CBS/CNN and Dan Rather, why not go into the "Bias in the Media" topic and start a thread.

BTW, I disagree with you about CBS and CNN being left wing media.

How are CBS and CNN left wing? When was the last time you heard either of the two discuss issues that were blatently anti-capitalist, blatently anti-corporation.

Left wing implies economic collective thinking, U.S media is not left wing. Sure the so called liberal media may be, socially liberal, but economically the vast majority of journalists seem to support capitalism.

Jeez if you think that CBS and CNN are left wing, you might as well say that Bill O'Reilly is a communist. - I was amazed that a man that seems to support capitalism, was suddenly bitching about oil companies making record profits. Isn't that what corporations are designed to do, make profit?

Anyway my point is that the Washington Post, and New York Times, are socially Liberal but not economically left.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
But I did not say (or imply) that we were destroying structures indescriminately.
Fooled me.

There are also reports that we weren't letting everyone that wanted to leave go.
True. We were watching pretty closely, IIRC, for young males who might have been insurgents. Once word got around, they tended to stay rather than flee.

CNN estimated that the remaining population was about 50k before the assault started.

The WP had an interesting article on Fallujah. Interesting for two reasons, one, the content, and two, the content was pretty realistic and not the usual anti-Bush rhetoric - striking because it was written by frequent Bush critic Wesley Clark. A couple of excerpts:

"If we are to succeed in the democratization of Iraq, the interim government and its U.S. and coalition allies must have a "monopoly" on the use of force within the country's borders. There can be no sanctuaries for insurgents and terrorists, no fiefdoms run by private armies. Fallujah could not continue to be a base for those waging war on the Iraqi government and a no-go place for those organizing elections."
...
"We will take the city, and with relatively few U.S. casualties. And we will have killed a lot of people who were armed and resisting us.

But in what sense is this "winning?"

To win means not just to occupy the city, but to do so in a way that knocks the local opponent permanently out of the fight, demoralizes broader resistance, and builds legitimacy for U.S. aims, methods and allies. Seen this way, the battle for Fallujah is not just a matter of shooting. It is part of a larger bargaining process that has included negotiations, threats and staged preparations to pressure insurgent groups into preemptive surrender, to deprive them of popular tolerance and support, and to demonstrate to the Iraqi people and to others that force was used only as a last resort in order to gain increased legitimacy for the interim Iraqi government.

Even the use of force required a further calculus. Had we relentlessly destroyed the city and killed large numbers of innocent civilians, or suffered crippling losses in the fighting, we most certainly would have been judged "losers." And if we can't hold on and prevent the insurgents from infiltrating back in -- as has now occurred in the recently "liberated" city of Samarra -- we also shall have lost.

The battle plan was tailored to prevent significant destruction. It called for a slow squeeze, starting with precision strikes against identified targets, and followed by a careful assault directed at taking out the opposition and reoccupying the city, while minimizing civilian and friendly casualties. [emphasis added] We have superior mobility, with heavily armored vehicles; we have superior firepower, with the Bradley's 25mm cannon, M1A1 Abrams tanks, artillery and airstrikes; we have advantages in reconnaissance, with satellites, TV-equipped unmanned aerial vehicles and a whole array of electronic gear. But urban combat partially neutralizes these advantages. A weaker defender can inflict much punishment with only a meager force fighting from the rubble, provided they fight to the death. So this has not been a "cakewalk." This has been a tough battle, and the men and women fighting it deserve every Combat Infantryman's Badge, Bronze Star or Purple Heart they receive."


And btw, compare the above account by a retired Army general to that of Fred Kaplan writing for Slate (and we all know Slate's leanings).

"As for accomplishing the war's broader, long-term goal—crushing the insurgents and securing a stable, free Iraq—the offensive in Fallujah is at best a shot in the dark. If success is swift and civilian casualties minimal, even the operation's critics might come around or at least drop their resistance. However, urban warfare is rarely a neat affair, especially when the indigenous fighters have had six months to fortify defenses, prepare booby traps, and plan back-alley ambushes. The U.S. troops expect to face 3,000 to 5,000 insurgents, who are unlikely to give up the fight easily. A little over half of Fallujah's 300,000 residents have reportedly fled the city, but this means that a bit fewer than half have stayed. They were all warned to leave town. The offensive is going to be a massive undertaking; the city is going to be pummeled by fire from the ground and the air; it will be hard to distinguish innocent civilians from insurgent fighters; and, given the warnings and the waiting and the declared urgency of the mission, there will be little incentive to try."

Two opinion pieces: One by a retired general but nonetheless Dem and a frequently vociferous Bush critic. The other with unknown (at least by me) knowledge and experience of military matters but also a frequent vociferous Bush critic. Among the differences: one recognizes the ROE that minimize civilian damage and casualties; the other trumpets little incentive to do so.

Your pick as to most credible?
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
tryreading said:
Propaganda in a war is expected. The bigger problem, though, is a pattern of behavior that uses propaganda to change the opinions of Americans at home by pushing information at them that is fabricated, and has nothing to do with the war. When the government reports 'news' that is not true, it is committing an illegal act. The Armstrong Williams charade caused Congress to clarify an enacted law, that the current administration was ignoring, which made the reporting by government of untrue 'news' as if it were accurate a crime.

The military should be more careful about some of its propaganda, like the Tillman death. He was the pro football player who volunteered to go, even though he had a multimillion dollar contract to play ball here. Anyway, the military fabricated a heroic story about his death in Afghanistan, but it was revealed later he was killed accidently by friendly fire. This was unnecessary, and undermined credibility for no reason.
If you're going that route, then I tend to agree...

But I am referring to one aspect of propaganda, which was referred to in post #1...

If you reread my comments, NOT ONCE did I mention anything on the homestead...that is a totally different situation, and I don't condone it whatsoever...

But in reference to the articles being placed in Iraqi newspapers, I stand by my words...
 
Top Bottom