The alt right - Mod Warning in OP

Yourself isit

marienbad wrote: »

That is nothing like fake news stories . And the media by and large didn't buy into the US line . Some did some didn't

Reporting the Bush/Blair line is not endorsing it

Nice you've ceded the point. They did do it but it's not that big a deal.

Lying about WMD is far more important than the trivial and unbelievable fake news watched but probably not taken literally by partisans on some Internet sites, since this WMD news (which was very much fake) was designed to convince the non-partisans - and it caused the death of millions.

marienbad

Yourself isit wrote: »

Nice you've ceded the point. They did do it but it's not that big a deal.

Lying about WMD is far more important than the trivial and unbelievable fake news watched but probably not taken literally by partisans on some Internet sites, since this WMD news (which was very much fake) was designed to convince the non-partisans - and it caused the death of millions.

Please don't put words in my mouth . I haven't ceded any point .

Bush/Blair pushed a line on WMD , MSM reported that line , that is not an endorsement .

Some believed it some did not . Those that endorsed it believed it , they did not knowingly publish stories that they knew to be false .

There is a massive difference in being wrong and lying

Yourself isit

Tony EH wrote: »

Being an adult in 2003, I can recall many reports within the, so called, mainstream media questioning the vailidity of the WMD claim. I remember Jon Snow of Channel 4 News reporting clearly about it and interviewing the likes of Scott Ritter about how untrustworthy Bush and Blair's lies were. They also intervewed rebel Labour backbenchers too.

Even RTE news outlets had programmes about just how dodgy everything was about Bush's push for his oil war.

I'm largely talking about the US. Where I lived. All conservative and most "liberal" media supported the 2003 invasion.

Yourself isit

marienbad wrote: »

Please don't put words in my mouth . I haven't ceded any point .

Bush/Blair pushed a line on WMD , MSM reported that line , that is not an endorsement .

Some believed it some did not . Those that endorsed it believed it , they did not knowingly publish stories that they knew to be false .

There is a massive difference in being wrong and lying

You think that there weren't people in the US media who knew that the claims of WMD were a crock? There were people in government who knew it was a crock. It was a deliberate lie.

When did left-liberals get so supportive of Fox News and Bush II?

marienbad

Yourself isit wrote: »

I'm largely talking about the US. Where I lived. All conservative and most "liberal" media supported the 2003 invasion.

Yeah well we don't all assume the US experience is the only one .

Tony EH

Yourself isit wrote: »

I'm largely talking about the US. Where I lived. All conservative and most "liberal" media supported the 2003 invasion.

Well, then you'll have to qualify "MSM" as being American MSM.

In that case, I'll agree somewhat that they are largely useless to outright liars and are looked upon as a laughing stock by people in Europe and elsewhere. But this has been the case for many years with American news outlets.

One would be better off seeking their news elsewhere.

Yourself isit

marienbad wrote: »

Yeah well we don't all assume the US experience is the only one .

This thread is about the US.

Billy86

Yourself isit wrote: »

This thread is about the US.

This thread is about the alt right.

Still waiting on all of these MSM lies you claim there were regarding WMDs. The main criticism I remember was a lack of real probing into the lies by US media, which is a completely different thing and not much different to their lack of probing into the fake news stories circulating during the recent election cycle.

marienbad

Yourself isit wrote: »

This thread is about the US.

No it isn't , since when is Macedonia in the US ?

Yourself isit

Billy86 wrote: »

This thread is about the alt right.

Still waiting on all of these MSM lies you claim there were regarding WMDs. The main criticism I remember was a lack of real probing into the lies by US media, which is a completely different thing and not much different to their lack of probing into the fake news stories circulating during the recent election cycle.

Not enough probing? They were cheerleaders for the campaign.

We need to stop people like you with limited historical knowledge hijacking threads asking for links about recent history that everybody knows.

I could do a date search for 2003 to find the 100s of examples from the mainstream media but that would hijack the thread and probably annoy people who know stuff. You shouldn't be in this thread discussing anything if you don't know anything about the US media and how it works, which clearly you don't.

When the US went to war the majority supported it. The reason they supported it was the WMD lies. Since the US isn't north Korea and government propaganda isn't forced via one or two state owned media properties the majority believed what they believed because the mainstream media didn't question (on the left) or were active cheerleaders on the right of the WMD lies. Which is fake news.

Again. Manufacturing consent.

Yourself isit

marienbad wrote: »

No it isn't , since when is Macedonia in the US ?

It's about US consumed media.

Yourself isit

Interesting how Ireland "liberals" have a totally different view of a recent conflict than they used to. Because Trump.

Back onto Trump. He's a buffoon in many ways of course but he did say today again that he wanted to not engage in "nation building". You never know with the military industrial complex how far he can go of course. He's giving them more money and they like to use their toys. But it's a start.

demfad

Yourself isit wrote: »

Interesting how Ireland "liberals" have a totally different view of a recent conflict than they used to. Because Trump.
.

Im curious. What exactly do you mean by 'Ireland' liberals?
Almost 2/3 of the voting population voted for same sex marriage. Would you consider all these people liberals? If not then to whom are you referring?

marienbad

Yourself isit wrote: »

It's about US consumed media.

To you maybe , but when you keep flinging MSM about without any clarifiers why would you think it is confined to US media ?

Billy86

Yourself isit wrote: »

Not enough probing? They were cheerleaders for the campaign.

They were also elephants made out of pinks sky castles. That is how legitimate your point is until you back it up. That you have failed to do so, and point blank refuse to do so, really says all it needs to at this point.

And yes, I was fully following the story back in 2003 too so you can try better than your "limited historical knowledge" b*llocks, thank you very much.

K-9

Yourself isit wrote: »

Yes but you see the MSM also reports fake news. Along with standard propaganda produced by government. WMD in Iraq for instance. Supposed Russian interference in the US elections (hacking non connected electric voting machines for instance). Links between Saddam and Al Queda, the monstering of corbyn etc.

In fact this control of opinion used to be what the left worried about.

Reporting the news like WMD in Iraq doesn't mean the MSM endorsed, that's just er reporting the news. By that logic reporting on the millions who protested against the war makes the MSM anti the Iraq war.

K-9

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I never said that it wasn't ideological. TE itself is very open about its agenda.

From listening to their podcasts they can be surprisingly well rounded and not just Economically focused at times, but yes, it will have a pro business stance on most things. It's hardly shocking, the clue is in the name!

frostyjacks

demfad wrote: »

Im curious. What exactly do you mean by 'Ireland' liberals?
Almost 2/3 of the voting population voted for same sex marriage. Would you consider all these people liberals? If not then to whom are you referring?

Well, only 60% of the electorate turned out, so really only 40% of the voting population voted for gay marriage, which is why the result was brought before the courts (on the basis that the majority of the electorate did not vote in favour of gay marriage).

Poor Mike Flynn Jr lost his job over the Pizzagate story. Still hasn't been proven false yet.

20Cent

frostyjacks wrote: »

Well, only 60% of the electorate turned out, so really only 40% of the voting population voted for gay marriage, which is why the result was brought before the courts (on the basis that the majority of the electorate did not vote in favour of gay marriage).

Poor Mike Flynn Jr lost his job over the Pizzagate story. Still hasn't been proven false yet.

Has it been proven that trump isn't actually a lizard in a human skin suit?
Nonsense.
Good job yer man was fired totally irresponsible to spread unsubstantiated rumours like that lucky no one was killed.

Billy86

20Cent wrote: »

Has it been proven that trump isn't actually a lizard in a human skin suit?
Nonsense.
Good job yer man was fired totally irresponsible to spread unsubstantiated rumours like that lucky no one was killed.

Only fired after daddy (who also spread the same fake news story on Twitter) was given one of the top positions in the US government though.

Ferrari3600

frostyjacks wrote: »

Poor Mike Flynn Jr lost his job over the Pizzagate story. Still hasn't been proven false yet.

Lol. It still hasn't been proven false that Elvis is still alive and living on the moon either. It isn't very likely though.

Junkyard Tom

K-9 wrote: »

Reporting the news like WMD in Iraq doesn't mean the MSM endorsed, that's just er reporting the news.

An internal MSNBC memo was leaked to the press stating that Donahue should be fired because he opposed the imminent U.S. invasion of Iraq and that he would be a "difficult public face for NBC in a time of war.

Wikipedia.org

That's the MSM in the US actively silencing 'dissent'. Also there's this:

NBC’s owner General Electric designed, manufactured or supplied parts or maintenance for nearly every major weapon system used by the U.S. during the Gulf War—including the Patriot and Tomahawk Cruise missiles, the Stealth bomber, the B-52 bomber, the AWACS plane, and the NAVSTAR spy satellite system.

fair.org

I think that's an outrageous conflict of interest for a so-called mainstream (pro war?) media outlet to have.

By that logic reporting on the millions who protested against the war makes the MSM anti the Iraq war.

Pretty damn hard to ignore millions of people across the globe out protesting.

PopePalpatine

frostyjacks wrote: »

Well, only 60% of the electorate turned out, so really only 40% of the voting population voted for gay marriage, which is why the result was brought before the courts (on the basis that the majority of the electorate did not vote in favour of gay marriage).

Poor choice of argument.

frostyjacks

Ferrari3600 wrote: »

Lol. It still hasn't been proven false that Elvis is still alive and living on the moon either. It isn't very likely though.

Still a lot of question marks over the story. Why does a pizzeria owner have so much influence in the nation's capital? Why all the weird homoerotic artwork in a supposed family friendly restaurant? There's no smoke without fire.

K-9

It would also br pretty hard to ignore the fact the MSM played a big part in covering the death of the scientist (Kelly?) that resulted in the inquiry into the sexed up dossiers.

Look, I know people want to paint an easy narrative 15 years later but history isn't usually convenient and simple, it is nuanced and complicated. 2 terms that alt righters generally don't want.

The_A

Look just Because the majority supports something doesn't make it the right thing to do I could say that I am in support of democratic slavery the fact is that slavery is still wrong. Like with Bernie Sanders saying Oh no I'm a democratic socialist that's completely different. It's exactly like saying democratic nazism is ok because the word democratic is in front it but the problem is that your still a nazi.

ancapailldorcha

Cut out the nonsense please.

Yourself isit

Billy86 wrote: »

They were also elephants made out of pinks sky castles. That is how legitimate your point is until you back it up. That you have failed to do so, and point blank refuse to do so, really says all it needs to at this point.

And yes, I was fully following the story back in 2003 too so you can try better than your "limited historical knowledge" b*llocks, thank you very much.

OK I can remedially explain and link to what is general knowledge. I hate "links please" trolls as it's a way to curtail debate. And of course no link is good enough for the "links please" trolls. And this is a diversion anyway.

Sticking to liberal media.

Salon on the media failures in 2003.

http://www.salon.com/2007/04/10/media_failure/

CNN being self critical


http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/11/opinion/kurtz-iraq-media-failure/

Huff post on media cheerleaders 2003

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/2954774

New York times agrees and is self critical too.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2003/03/22/us/nation-war-media-critics-iraq-war-say-lack-scrutiny-helped-administration-press.html

There are literally hundreds more. There are literally dozens of books.

My apologies to everybody else. Sometimes you have to fees the links trolls.

Yourself isit

K-9 wrote: »

Reporting the news like WMD in Iraq doesn't mean the MSM endorsed, that's just er reporting the news. By that logic reporting on the millions who protested against the war makes the MSM anti the Iraq war.

The media itself doesn't agree. In retrospect at least.

If you think that democratic media should just report what government says then it's no different from putins media or pravda in the Soviet union.

And there was opposition in the US to the mainstream WMD narrative - from the Internet. Some of it from left wing sources, some libertarian, some paleoconservative.

marienbad

Yourself isit wrote: »

OK I can remedially explain and link to what is general knowledge. I hate "links please" trolls as it's a way to curtail debate. And of course no link is good enough for the "links please" trolls. And this is a diversion anyway.

Sticking to liberal media.

Salon on the media failures in 2003.

http://www.salon.com/2007/04/10/media_failure/

CNN being self critical

http://www.salon.com/2007/04/10/media_failure/

Huff post on media cheerleaders 2003

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/2954774

New York times agrees and is self critical too.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2003/03/22/us/nation-war-media-critics-iraq-war-say-lack-scrutiny-helped-administration-press.html

There are literally hundreds more. There are literally dozens of books.

My apologies to everybody else. Sometimes you have to fees the links trolls.

I think you are missing the point . No one is under any illusion how pathetic and useless the MSM can be but they don't knowingly publish stuff which is lies .

That is the difference.