(Ab)Using the Media.

Victor

Akrasia wrote:

well, how many Qubth Ut Alla articles have you read? how many tv reports from the Al Manar network have you seen? (before it was bombed)

I understand Al Manar is currently being run by the Israelis.

Mick86

Manic Moran wrote:

We have two that come up from this. Firstly, given the assymetric nature of modern warfare, is this manipulation of the media considered acceptable, bearing in mind that third parties are basing their opinions on the media coverage, and the second is if we were hoodwinked because we were predisposed to believe that Israel would do such heinous travesties so they must automatically be true?NTM

Manipulating the media is not only acceptable, but absolutely necessary. During the Falklands War for instance the Argentinians were informed that the fuses on their Exocet missiles were malfunctioning. The story appeared in the British Press.:rolleyes: Imagine if the Mirror on June 4th 1944 carried the headline Invasion Fleet Sails for Normandy Beaches.

The media should be treated as an Islamic Fifth Column unless it is being utilised to disseminate disinformation. The Israelis for instance could have faked stories of Jewish schools struck by Katyushas in order to generate western sympathy. Mind you it probably wouldn't have made much difference since the pro-Islamists wouldn't mind anyway.

freddyfreeload wrote:

All parties abuse/use the media to their advantage in war. But I suspect the more developed military complexes have the most sophisticated propaganda machines. It would be a bit naive to assume otherwise.ff

A fair assumption. Western militaries, however, are bound by quaint notions of democracy, freedom and equality. The sort of thing that Hezbollah and co use as just another weapon against them.

Victor

Mick86 wrote:

Manipulating the media is not only acceptable, but absolutely necessary. During the Falklands War for instance the Argentinians were informed that the fuses on their Exocet missiles were malfunctioning. The story appeared in the British Press.

Yes, but strictly speaking, it was ordinary 'iron' bombs that were being used in the anti-shipping role, when they should have been modified.

metrovelvet

Manic Moran wrote:

Of late, though, we now have apparently a bunch of excellently done fake stories designed not so much for the domestic demographic, but for outside sources. For example, you have the faking of an Israeli airstrike on ambulances, http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/, of an Israeli missile strike on Reuters vehicles http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015118.php and the various posed photos of placed artifacts or people, notably in Qana. (Where rescue workers photographed carrying children suddenly would be photographed unconscous in pain getting rescued themselves a few minutes later). http://www.zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/.
They really were very well done, and accepted without question.

We have two that come up from this. Firstly, given the assymetric nature of modern warfare, is this manipulation of the media considered acceptable, bearing in mind that third parties are basing their opinions on the media coverage, and the second is if we were hoodwinked because we were predisposed to believe that Israel would do such heinous travesties so they must automatically be true?

NTM

I'm sorry but that is just bad journalism. It's the journalist job to check and recheck the information. Its not a case of "abusing the media" its more a case of hanckneyed journalists who are lazy and crappy at their jobs. Often it's the media which exploits the power of print.

sovtek

Mick86 wrote:

Manipulating the media is not only acceptable, but absolutely necessary. During the Falklands War for instance the Argentinians were informed that the fuses on their Exocet missiles were malfunctioning.

Nevermind that the Falklands War was fought for a rock that had a few sheep farmers. How necessary it was that the Brits won that war...for all civilization and whatnot.
Allah be praised.

freddyfreeload

Originally Posted by Mick86
A fair assumption. Western militaries, however, are bound by quaint notions of democracy, freedom and equality.

I think I'd replace "bound by quiant notions," with "unhampered by momentary lapses."

ff

Victor

Victor wrote:

I understand Al Manar is currently being run by the Israelis.

Really? Can i get some linkies?

RedPlanet

Related to this topic:

Republicans blocked an attempt by Sen. Bob Menendez on Thursday to prevent the Pentagon from using defense funding for a public relations campaign to put a better spin on the war in Iraq.

Menendez offered an amendment Thursday to the Defense Department appropriations bill for the 2006-07 fiscal year that would bar spending on pro-war public relations contracts in the future.

"The Defense bill should be about flak jackets for our troops, not PR flacks for the Bush administration," Menendez said.

http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2MDYmZmdiZWw3Zjd2cWVlRUV5eTY5ODk0NTcmeXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXky

I guess it shows that (a)using the media is an important part of the war effort.

Frederico

Some US official or US department claimed that since US forces had focused more on Baghdad recently the violence had dropped.. I even remember reading this and seeing it mentioned on tv news somewhere, I just took it as the truth, even though I am a total sceptic on these things..

Now it has just been revealed that 1500 people were killed in attacks in Baghdad in the last month. Just a very very slight decrease on July.

Lies and mistruths like this are very subtle and very effective.

Hizbollah have neither the means nor the skill to deliver disinformation like this to the Western Media.

Incredibly enough we can voice our support for Chechnyan rebels but not Hizbollah.. what if I said on the boards here that I fully support Hizbollah and their actions.. I think I'd most certainly get in trouble..

Aaahh Western indoctrination.. so powerful...

Chechnyan rebels haven't vowed the complete destruction of Russia, whereas Hezbollah have about Israel/Jews on repeated occasions. And oddly enough you'd probably get more "approval" on these boards in supporting Hezbollah, than if you said you supported Israel.

Lies and mistruths like this are very subtle and very effective.

Aren't they just... And well used by so many people and groups around the globe.

RedPlanet

Yeah, they claimed a 52% reduction in murders in Baghdad.
There's an article about it here:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/09/07/news/iraq.php

In finding a 52-percent reduction, the military counted only murders of individuals "targeted as a result of sectarian-related violence," including executions, said Lieutenant Colonel Barry Johnson, a spokesman for the American military here. Killings from other violent acts, like car bombings and mortar attacks, were not counted, he said.

:rolleyes:

bonkey

Frederico wrote:

Some US official or US department claimed that since US forces had focused more on Baghdad recently the violence had dropped.. I even remember reading this and seeing it mentioned on tv news somewhere, I just took it as the truth, even though I am a total sceptic on these things..

Now it has just been revealed that 1500 people were killed in attacks in Baghdad in the last month. Just a very very slight decrease on July.

Lies and mistruths like this are very subtle and very effective.

Its not necessarily a lie or mistruth.

Consider that you're looking at monthly averages.
Imagine if they broke down weekly as follows

July: 300/350/450/500 = 1600 for 4 weeks
August: 500/500/300/200 = 1500 for 4 weeks.

I'm not saying this is the case, just how the violence can be decreasing and decreasing significantly without the monthly averages reflecting it yet.

From a peak of 500/week to a trough of 200/week, with the final week being the best of hte 8 is significant improvement, but the monthly figures would still back up what you saw.

Obviously if September isn't significantly lower, then there's no real case to be made other than to agree that the "significant improvement" was a joke.

Its also worth bearing in mind that the way these alleged decreases were achieved....was to strip soldiers from other parts of Iraq.

This is what has previously been criticised as the "whack a mole" strategy, which is little more than an implicit admission that whats really needed is more US troops.

jc

Victor

For comparision, non-natural causes deaths* were at something like 150-160 in mid 2002.

* Accidents, murder, suicide, regime opression, etc.

Deleted User wrote:

Really? Can i get some linkies?

I've heard it elsewhere, but look at Hobbes(?) link above http://www.psywar.org/israellebanon.php - look for the word 'hack'.

Mick86

Victor wrote:

Yes, but strictly speaking, it was ordinary 'iron' bombs that were being used in the anti-shipping role, when they should have been modified.

I was just using the Exocet thing as an example of why the media needs to be controlled in wartime.

Akrasia

Mick86 wrote:

I was just using the Exocet thing as an example of why the media needs to be controlled in wartime.

The problem is, Israel is in a permenant state of war, (like america) and if the media is constantly being interfered with and manipulated by the state than that is extremely bad for democracy

Frederico

For instance, now its official that there was NO link between Saddam and Al Qaeda..

Its amazing the power the US administration has to just pick something out of the air, make it real and go to war partly based on it, the implications are unbelieveable.

I am not condoning Hizbollah or the Taliban, but are they given fair representation in the press?.. or are they "judged"?.. and the only mention ever given is a bodycount. I believe they are completely dehumanised by the press, almost on a par with World War 2 propaganda against the Germans, which makes it easier for us not to actually think of them as real human beings. Whose agenda does that suit?

Did anyone actually see any fighting between Hizbollah and Israel.. anyone being shot, blown to pieces, scattered bits of bodies, guys screaming out with no legs? No, of course not, that might turn off the Western appetite for exciting TV wars.

The media have quite obviously been manipulated and controlled quite well since the Vietnam war.

In my own opinion of the press, they are on a micro scale more critical of the war/Bush/etc but on a macro scale they push the war, indoctrinate us, push the Western agenda.

Frederico

Frederico wrote:

The media have quite obviously been manipulated and controlled quite well since the Vietnam war.

Actually I'd consider that its the media themselves that are manipulating others, rather then being manipulated themselves. The times they've went with the government spin its been in their interests to do so. Nowadays the Media is big business, and has its own tight ties to the politics of the regions. American media and american politics are bedfellows, and it shows in the way that the media supports or denounces certain causes or individuals.

Personally, I think the media across the worls marches to their own tune. They have their own agendas, which doesn't include fair and unbiased news. They have the ability to shape the impressions of millions of people worldwide, simply by publishing a single story. Facts that may not be facts, are taken without considering the truth. Unconfirmed reporting, liberal altering of information, doctoring images etc all give us a viewpoint of how the world is, through the opinions of our media's.