Anti-American

New_Departure06

There is undoubtedly a strong strain of anti-Americanism on the Irish left. However I don't think most people are anti-American. I think though that we are anti US bias towards Israel and empathise with the Palestinians in that they are seeking a state and are oppressed like us in a former life - even if their tactics sometimes cross a line into terrorism against civilians unlike our heroic founding fathers and mothers.

Diarmuid

enfant terrible wrote:

Thanks for the reply.
That's not proof of Fox's right wing bias though is it.
That sound's like one of the e-mails he reads out at the end of the show attacking him out of context.
My example was better would you agree(Dan Rather)
In fact nearly all mainstream media in America is far-left i.e New York Times, L.A Times, Boston Globe, Washington Post, CBS, ABC, and NBC.
Would you agree?

NO !

Outside of the US most of those far-left papers would be regarded as center and fox as far right,

You want proof of fox's bias. Here :
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php?nid=&id=&pnt=102&lb=brusc

"The polling, conducted by the Program on International Policy (PIPA) at the University of Maryland and Knowledge Networks, also reveals that the frequency of these misperceptions varies significantly according to individuals’ primary source of news. Those who primarily watch Fox News are significantly more likely to have misperceptions, while those who primarily listen to NPR or watch PBS are significantly less likely."



There are a tons more documented evidence like this if you really want the truth. However most people who watch Fox news don't want the truth. They just want their beliefs and biases affirmed.

lostexpectation

New_Departure06 wrote:

There is undoubtedly a strong strain of anti-Americanism on the Irish left. However I don't think most people are anti-American. I think though that we are anti US bias towards Israel and empathise with the Palestinians in that they are seeking a state and are oppressed like us in a former life - even if their tactics sometimes cross a line into terrorism against civilians unlike our heroic founding fathers and mothers.

for anti-americanism read anti-imperialism...

Hobbes

From now on anyone who disagrees with me is Anti-boards.ie and should be banned from the site. :v:

Calina

People bandying about accusations of anti-Americanism seem to equate America with Bush policies.

I find this difficult to understand. I equate America with the Grand Canyon, Times Square, the Florida Keys. All these are places. How can you morally object to them?

I'm anti-people-who-think-that-America-equals-George-Bush-and-his-team. There seem to be quite a few of them around. I'm anti-George-Bush too, but he won't be around forever. I don't think he is even a good representative of the Republican Party either. On the other hand, I am pro-the-Grand-Canyon-The-Pacific-Coast-the-Rockies and various other places, too many to list. Do you magically go from being anti-American to being pro-American if Hilary Clinton wins the next Presidential?

I've seen Bill O'Reilly in action at various stages. Personally I don't really know in too much detail what his politics are because frankly, I can't get past just how rude the guy seems to be. It's very unprofessional to yell down your interlocutor.

Akrasia

look, 'anti american' is the most stupid thing right wing people call non right wing people/ Even in america, americans who disagree with the war are called 'Anti American' so much so that 'Why do you hate america' has become a joke response to anyone who ever mentions one of the countless (and i do mean countless) reasons there are to despise the Bush administration.

Secondly, Fox news barely qualifies as a news broadcaster. People mention 'Rathergate' as evidence that CBS is equally as dishonest as FOX, but the key difference here is, CBS published a news story as fact when it turned out to be a forgery (they didn't check their facts properly) This is bad when you're a news broadcaster. but Fox deliberately publishes lies and distortions on a routine basis. (i would like to add that all the mainstream U.S. media is guilty of Lies by ommission on a regular basis, but Fox is the only real player that takes a proactive approach to lies and propaganda)

The difference between Fox and the 'liberal media' is while the liberals might make mistakes, Fox does everything deliberately. If there is a lie in a fox news broadcast, it's probably deliberate. There is a documentary about this called 'outfoxed' which is worth watching.

An example of Fox News acting in it's typical mode, is when they buried the story about how Monsanto's Bovine Growth Hormone posed significant health risks including cancer to humans, and the reporters were basically fired when they tried to push the story onto the airwaves. It went to court. Monsanto lost the case but then went to appeal where they won on the grounds that it is not illegal for news broadcasters to lie to the public And they have kept up this policy ever since.


As for Bush, He is the antichrist. He is either a complete idiot and utterly incompetent, or he is the most devious man on this planet (along with the rest of his administration)

mcgarnicle

Disagree with US foreign policy => you are anti-American

Disagree with Israeli foreign policy => you are anti-Semetic

There is nothing new here.

OK a 1 week ban for the two posters on this thread that have called the thread starter a troll.

Whether he is or not is up to the moderators to decide and the report this post function is the way you alert us.

Sir Random

FOX News is the most blatantly biased "news" show on TV.

A News agency should deliver news as impartially as it can, letting the viewer draw conclusions from the facts presented. Fox reporters add their own slant to everything, using 'labels' to identify friend from foe.

So, instead of saying
"Joe Bloggs, manager of CompanyName, has donated $1m to OtherCompany in Iran".

Fox would say:
"Saddam-lover Joe Bloggs, manager of the Anti-American CompanyName, has donated $1m to Bush-Hating OtherCompany in the Terrorist-Regime of Iran".

amp2000

Earthman wrote:

OK a 1 week ban for the two posters on this thread that have called the thread starter a troll.

Whether he is or not is up to the moderators to decide and the report this post function is the way you alert us.

Hold on a sec, the first reply to this thread calling him a troll was by a Moderator

DaSilva

enfant terrible wrote:

Thanks for the specifics DadaKopf.
Try at least watching Fox News some time and you'll see how dumb liberals are, George Clooney,Alec Baldwin etc.
Read Ann Coulter's book if you can bring yourself to do it.
If you are constantly fed one side you will believe it.

I'm sorry but your arguement about listening to Fox News is fair enough, to get both biases in a sense, liberal and conservative media.

But Ann Coulter? Oh Please, she isn't political at all, she is just a wind-up artist.

Diarmuid

amp2000 wrote:

Hold on a sec, the first reply to this thread calling him a troll was by a Moderator

I think he was power trippin so bad he didn't even notice !!

Sleepy

OP, if you want to watch both sides of the argument watch Fox and Al-Jazeera. If you want centrist coverage on the war in Iraq and American politics, watch the BBC.

As for an example of Reilly's blatent inability to be an impartial source of 'news' see his diatribe condemning the BBC for questioning the British government's role in the War on Iraq. To paraphrase him (because I don't memorise the lines of such an idiot) "Which would you rather: an anchorman who will openly question the actions of his commander in chief or one sitting here with the American flag on his lapel".

Sounds like an easy choice to me tbh.

enfant terrible

"But Ann Coulter? Oh Please, she isn't political at all, she is just a wind-up artist."

Fair enough she is OTT but I think she is entertaining.

BuffyBot

Hold on a sec, the first reply to this thread calling him a troll was by a Moderator

OT: The poster isn't the moderator of the politics forum..therefore, he's just another user on this forum.

Hobbes

enfant terrible wrote:

Fair enough she is OTT but I think she is entertaining.

yea I rountinely try to guess what media outlet will fire her. Think shes up to 4 so far.

amp2000

amp2000 wrote:

Hold on a sec, the first reply to this thread calling him a troll was by a Moderator

There are hundreds of mods on boards.ie.
There are only 4 mods of this board,Sceptre,Uberwolf,Gandalf and myself.

Any other mod is just an ordinary user here,the fact they mod their own board(s) is irrelevant-when there is a charter infraction and it comes to our attention,we will take action regardless of whether they are a mod of another board or not.

Now back on topic or rather more to the point this thread better have improved when next I see it or it will be closed.

Diarmuid

Diarmuid wrote:

I think he was power trippin so bad he didn't even notice !!

Indeed.
2 week ban for you

Pazaz 21

Sleepy wrote:

OP, if you want to watch both sides of the argument watch Fox and Al-Jazeera.

I was just about to post that !!

Fox showed tanks rolling into baghdad with nobody firing at anybody, bombs dropping in the night in dramatic fashion, no one was hurt of course,:rolleyes:

On the other end Al - Jazeera showed women and children with limbs missing, lying in hospital beds, or on the side of the street, waiting to die.

I would side with Al - Jazeera, its better to show the truth, no matter how gorey, instead of ignoring it altogether and pretending like it wasn't even happening.

Sand

Anti-Americanism isnt the refusal to watch Fox News tbh. Fox works from the wrong angle - It identifies a Democrat bias in media, so to combat this problem, it decides to be just as biased towards the Republicans. The thought of aiming (at least) through editorial balance (hire an arch Dem and an arch Repub to review coverage and snitch each other out for bias?) for unbiased coverage is apparently discounted as a solution.

I would side with Al - Jazeera, its better to show the truth, no matter how gorey, instead of ignoring it altogether and pretending like it wasn't even happening.

The truth would lie somewhere in between though wouldnt it? If you focus coverage on a particular incident and use that to extrapolate whats "generally" happening your going to end up with a different story than the guy who picks a different incident or angle to focus on.

As for anti-americanism itself, it was best defined (imo) as

an unfavorable predisposition towards the United States, which leads individuals to interpret American actions through negative stereotypes.

which occurs so often, and is so much a part of discourse that its not even noticed these days. The above definition btw is from here, an article on the concept (France focused as the writer is French herself). As an example any

Examples here:

As for Bush, He is the antichrist. He is either a complete idiot and utterly incompetent, or he is the most devious man on this planet (along with the rest of his administration)

American media coverage, especially fox is the most biased and unfair reporting in the world.

Well the first is just...yeah. Its so blatantly ridiculous and OTT that Akrasia wont stand over it if hes asked to. Incompetent/idiotic is arguable of course as Akrasia didnt claim he was *the* stupidest, but anti-christ? the most devious man on the planet? I dont even know where to begin. It does explain though why hundreds of thousands will protest any visit by any American dignitary (There was even some guy protesting in the Paddys Day parade against the US band marching in the parade?!?!) and yet cant find the time to be overly concerned by Chinese government visits, or Russian dignitaries. Clearly the actions of these governments are relatively okay. Even before we discuss the foreign policy of our EU partners, who are seemingly angelic.

The second is equally OTT and untrue. Ask Raul Rivero, who got a 20 year jail term in Cuba for reporting on the Cuba Castro doesnt want his arts student fanclub to know about. Ask Colbert even, who was able to lampoon the Bush to the world with Bush sitting 10 feet from him.

The statement clownbag made is obviously a load of cobblers, but its pretty typical of the complete ****e that pours out of "informed" debate. The US is a police state, its a dictatorship, its system of government isnt democratic, the US is the most racist country in the world, the US is a fundamentalist country etc. If theres a league table in any particular negative attribute then the US leads it according to conventional wisdom.

Neither of these posters would accept theyre anti-american. Why should they, whats remarkably anti-american about negative stereotypes when theyre taken for granted? I saw an article on African aid, where the writer criticised the US for spending 300 million on planting stories favourable to the US in foreign media claiming that if the US spent that money in Africa instead they wouldnt need the propaganda. Thatd be nice to think, but it operates on the principle that the main body of criticism of the US government and culture is reasoned or principled.

darkman2

IMO anti Americanism is sheer jealousy, ignorance and inferiority. No nation can realistically challenge them, other then their populations mouthing off. For me Im happy America is the world superpower. Preferable to China or Russia for example.:rolleyes:

Pazaz 21

Sand wrote:

The truth would lie somewhere in between though wouldnt it?

Yes it would, i was refering to what i would lean towards as the truth, but you are exactly right. You do have to watch it from both angles, even if only to see what the American and Arabic people are being shown, which usually gives you a good view of their mindset.

Well the first is just...yeah. Its so blatantly ridiculous and OTT that Akrasia wont stand over it if hes asked to. Incompetent/idiotic is arguable of course as Akrasia didnt claim he was *the* stupidest, but anti-christ? the most devious man on the planet? I dont even know where to begin. It does explain though why hundreds of thousands will protest any visit by any American dignitary (There was even some guy protesting in the Paddys Day parade against the US band marching in the parade?!?!) and yet cant find the time to be overly concerned by Chinese government visits, or Russian dignitaries. Clearly the actions of these governments are relatively okay. Even before we discuss the foreign policy of our EU partners, who are seemingly angelic.

People think he is something form a Nostradamus profacy or something, like he's going to bring about armaggedon. I think, as usual, people let emotions cloud their judgement.

Neither of these posters would accept theyre anti-american. Why should they, whats remarkably anti-american about negative stereotypes when theyre taken for granted?

I don't think their being anti-american, but anti-bush and his administration, with usually gets slapped down as being anti-american, just as being anti-israel makes you anti-semetic !!

I'm not too impressed with Bush and Co, or with some of Israel's policies, does that make me anti-american and anti-semitic ?

Lemming

Sand wrote:

Fox works from the wrong angle - It identifies a Democrat bias in media, so to combat this problem, it decides to be just as biased towards the Republicans.

Sand, that's not even near the mark. Fox isn't "combatting" Democrat bias considering that the rest of the US media is pretty much is right-of-centre. So what bias is there exactly? You've got right wing .. and errrr ... even more right wing (I'm not disparaging the fact that the mainstream is centre-right - it is at least centre after all). Hmmm, choices choices ..... Come on, your arguments are usually far better than that man!!

The thought of aiming (at least) through editorial balance (hire an arch Dem and an arch Repub to review coverage and snitch each other out for bias?) for unbiased coverage is apparently discounted as a solution.

This "editorial balance" of which you speak, found on shows like "Cross-fire" (is that the name? Can't remember rightly) isn't editorial balance, it's "entertainment" and it's hurting real debate and understanding. It encourages polarisation, and this is pretty much everything that is wrong within US politics (and by proxy it's inherent reaction from the rest of the world) at the moment. The entire country is polarised like never before. If you criticise the administration you're a "liberal", an "anti-american". Toe the line and be a sheep, meekly following what you're told or else face ridicule as they [the current republican administration and its followers] try to discredit you with false and morally bankrupt arguments.

You think that's healthy? People are afraid to stand up and ask a real question for fear of losing their jobs, being smeared, etc. They live in fear of their own government and media as much as they do "the enemy", which to be perfectly honest, has always been there.

As for anti-americanism itself, it was best defined (imo) as

a "polarisation" label. The slur of someone with no idea or morally bankrupt arguments.

Widgeon

Manic Moran wrote:

I have concluded that the problem is people who either cannot, or will not distinguish between the country, and the current administration.

NTM

The people put the administration in place twice so how can you separate one from the other?

Dirk Gently

The statement clownbag made is obviously a load of cobblers, but its pretty typical of the complete ****e that pours out of "informed" debate. The US is a police state, its a dictatorship, its system of government isnt democratic, the US is the most racist country in the world, the US is a fundamentalist country etc. If theres a league table in any particular negative attribute then the US leads it according to conventional wisdom.

Neither of these posters would accept theyre anti-american

Ok ok,
My statement that the U.S. media was the most biased in the world was a bit OTT. Obviously there are more totalitarian regimes in the world with less debate which are more one sided but in democratic countries with free media and public debate (which America is part of) the American media falls far short of the standards set by other free democratic countries. The whole anti-American smokescreen is just a way to dismiss opposition to the official Whitehouse line. If you disagree with American policy you are described as anti-American. If your an American and disagree with the government policy you are un-American. As for the comments about America being a police state, well there is a strong case for such statements. It doesn’t mean I am anti-American if I point out that political opposition, college lecturers, environmental activists and scientists who don’t conform with the official white house policy are investigated by the FBI and have there names blackened and discredited and funding cut off by the state.

The whole anti-American idea is an attempt by the state to deflect people’s disapproval of the administration and try and claim that if you disapprove of state policy you are in fact racist somehow against every American citizen.
I stand by my claim that I am not anti-American; I won’t allow myself to be labeled in that way as it is an attempt to discredit genuine concerns about the bush administrations policy on economics / environment / war. I would consider myself pro American in my belief that the bush administration should spend more time sorting out the many problems of the American people such as poverty, health care, racism, pollution, global warming and the fact that the administration is not focusing on these problems makes that administration anti-American or seen as they are American the correct term would be that the bush administration is un-American.

DaSilva

If we were having this discussion 40-50 years ago, the thread title would be "Communist", because this is the same saga all over again, except theres now a million Senator McCarthys.

There is a such thing as an anti-American, but it's rarely a true accusation, it's just a method of character assasination in an effort to discredit.

fly_agaric

clown bag wrote:

As for the comments about America being a police state, well there is a strong case for such statements.

What is the case that America is a "police state"? Do you have your own meaning for "police state" or something??

If anything, you can show contempt for the authorities more easily than you can here (where someone will sue you perhaps)!

clown bag wrote:

.. I point out that political opposition, college lecturers, environmental activists and scientists who don’t conform with the official white house policy are investigated by the FBI and have there names blackened and discredited and funding cut off by the state.

The Bush admin's efforts to shut down dissenting voices (esp. from within the govt.) may not be good but they don't make the US a police state.

clown bag wrote:

The whole anti-American idea is an attempt by the state to deflect people’s disapproval of the administration and try and claim that if you disapprove of state policy you are in fact racist somehow against every American citizen.

I don't think it is an invention of the state but it is sometimes used by US rightwingers in the same way that "fascist" or "imperialist" or "capitalist running-dog" would have been trotted out by communists in the past.
It's good for demonising people you disagree with. I suppose the left wing autoslur now is "neocon".:D

extragon

So 5% of the world's population has so much power - or has it really? - but people spend so much time looking at them, and thinking about them, and talking like good American patriots - and wishing them even more power.
( There is now Fox News on cable in Ireland? Last time in Dublin I could only find out about Europe on the internet, or on Euronews at about 1 am. )
And if you visit this land in which you mentally live you're fingerprinted - and maybe hauled off in chains if you stay too long. (But it's not really "foreign" -like France or Germany is, we're told, and it's on TV nonstop.)
It's not about Iraq. Many countries have done similarly foolish things, on a smaller scale. Anti-americanism is about resistance to brainwashing.
To know is to love. To be brainwashed is to hate.

BuffyBot

Preferable to China or Russia for example.

Eh, you do know that they are also world superpowers? Certainly China is, although Russia could be classed as a shadow of it's former self.

Akrasia

Sand wrote:

Examples here:

Well the first is just...yeah. Its so blatantly ridiculous and OTT that Akrasia wont stand over it if hes asked to. Incompetent/idiotic is arguable of course as Akrasia didnt claim he was *the* stupidest, but anti-christ? the most devious man on the planet? I dont even know where to begin. It does explain though why hundreds of thousands will protest any visit by any American dignitary (There was even some guy protesting in the Paddys Day parade against the US band marching in the parade?!?!) and yet cant find the time to be overly concerned by Chinese government visits, or Russian dignitaries. Clearly the actions of these governments are relatively okay. Even before we discuss the foreign policy of our EU partners, who are seemingly angelic.

I will stand by it. It's not a false dylemma, Either Bush's plans went hopelessly wrong, in which case he and his administration are woefully incompetent (and there is plenty of evidence to support this) Or Iraq is going pretty much how he always planned, in which case, he planned for there to be chaos in iraq at the cost of tens of thousands of lives and that is the most devious and callous thing i can imagine anyone doing)
There isn't really anywhere in the middle.