Re: Massive Explosion in Lebanon
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LeDoux
It sounds like we will have to agree to disagree about the reliability of Barabara Starr's reporting.
My second paragraph was about the lack of objectivity in professions requiring (at least in theory) objectivity. If you can find it, I'd look at a documentary centered on a Noam Chompsky's book called "Manufacturing Consent." It changed how I viewed media.
I read the book decades ago, and even saw the movie. It’s an important work for anyone to read.
But Chomsky would be disappointed that you are putting your trust in the great military complex. The goal of “Manufacturing Consent” was not for us to distrust the media, but to distrust the corporations, military and government officials who are feeding them their information.
Starr was actually getting her info from people who were contradicting what the military officials were saying, from whistleblowers, not those in charge advancing the military’s agenda. Chomsky would be proud of the work Starr performed.
Re: Massive Explosion in Lebanon
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BuckeyeRed27
That is a good book, but I think it’s pretty outdated. Media models don’t work that way these days and the internet has kind of rendered that book useless for the most part.
I agree that the documentary needs an overhaul. The examples of East Timor and Cambodia, and the stress on the Vietnam War wouldn't mean much to a younger audience. That being said, I think the principles of the documentary are more relevant now than ever. The documentary talks about the strategies the media uses to control the framing of the narrative. Use of jingoisms, omitting unfavorable stories or facts, etc. I think these strategies are used with more frequency and audacity now then when the documentary came out. It also makes the point that the media right/left dichotomy serves to limit public viewpoints. You are allowed to parrot Fox News or CNN freely. But if you if take a stance outside this spectrum you are labeled a crazy conspiracy theorist. The media determines what topics are open to discussion and the limits on their debate.
Re: Massive Explosion in Lebanon
Quote:
Originally Posted by
757690
I read the book decades ago, and even saw the movie. It’s an important work for anyone to read.
But Chomsky would be disappointed that you are putting your trust in the great military complex. The goal of “Manufacturing Consent” was not for us to distrust the media, but to distrust the corporations, military and government officials who are feeding them their information.
Starr was actually getting her info from people who were contradicting what the military officials were saying, from whistleblowers, not those in charge advancing the military’s agenda. Chomsky would be proud of the work Starr performed.
Sorry. You think Stars is trustworthy. I caught her red-handed warping a story. I have her down as a hack. We will likely never see eye-to-eye on this. That's okay. We need not be enemies over the issue.
What is this about my support of the military-industrial complex? I think Chomsky would argue that big media, the federal government, and arms manufacturers are all part of the machinery manufacturing public consensus. I think a deep skepticism of the media is Chomsky's main point.
Re: Massive Explosion in Lebanon
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LeDoux
I agree that the documentary needs an overhaul. The examples of East Timor and Cambodia, and the stress on the Vietnam War wouldn't mean much to a younger audience. That being said, I think the principles of the documentary are more relevant now than ever. The documentary talks about the strategies the media uses to control the framing of the narrative. Use of jingoisms, omitting unfavorable stories or facts, etc. I think these strategies are used with more frequency and audacity now then when the documentary came out. It also makes the point that the media right/left dichotomy serves to limit public viewpoints. You are allowed to parrot Fox News or CNN freely. But if you if take a stance outside this spectrum you are labeled a crazy conspiracy theorist. The media determines what topics are open to discussion and the limits on their debate.
I think the difference being the model they talked about was driven by the majority of people getting their news from their local paper and the evening news. Those obviously still exist, but we are flooded with information now. Figuring out what is real and what’s not real is more of a pressing issue than what a single media outlet does say or doesn’t report on. Not to say those aren’t issues, but that’s THE issue in that book/documentary.
Re: Massive Explosion in Lebanon
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LeDoux
Sorry. You think Stars is trustworthy. I caught her red-handed warping a story. I have her down as a hack. We will likely never see eye-to-eye on this. That's okay. We need not be enemies over the issue.
What is this about my support of the military-industrial complex? I think Chomsky would argue that big media, the federal government, and arms manufacturers are all part of the machinery manufacturing public consensus. I think a deep skepticism of the media is Chomsky's main point.
You did not catch Starr red handed warping a story. Not even close, and I explained to you how problematic your accusation is.
You misunderstood Chomsky's point. He does not argue that the media is the same as the government, corporations, the military etc.. He argues that the media is a tool of the government, corporations, military, etc.. His point is that the media gets manipulated by these powerful forces.
He never argues that media is intentionally being dishonest or warping stories as you say. What he argues is that the stories they chose to cover and not cover, is based on their relationship with corporations, the military, the government, etc.. The stories themselves are all 100% trustworthy. He never doubts their validity. It is the choice of story that "manufactures consent," not the stories themselves.
Re: Massive Explosion in Lebanon
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BuckeyeRed27
I think the difference being the model they talked about was driven by the majority of people getting their news from their local paper and the evening news. Those obviously still exist, but we are flooded with information now. Figuring out what is real and what’s not real is more of a pressing issue than what a single media outlet does say or doesn’t report on. Not to say those aren’t issues, but that’s THE issue in that book/documentary.
I see your point. The way news is presented is much more diverse now than when the documentary came out. But are there more "beat reporters" now? I suspect their isn't. Overseas news bureaus are expensive and only feasible for the larger news sources. Most of America doesn't watch the evening news with Dan Rather anymore, that true. But that doesn't mean the news doesn't go through the same type of censorship/filtration as before. You add to all this the decision for the social media giants to censor and ban videos and posts they view as "harmful" and the advantages of the new media start to diminish. Like the same old stale cookies now available in hundreds of new packaging types.
But yes, there are still a few independent journalists out there, just like there were a few independent newspapers back in the day. But would anyone accept their stories as reliable if they defy the story from "official sources?" Are you open to independent media? If you are you are- welcome to the world of crackpot conspiracy theorists.
Re: Massive Explosion in Lebanon
Quote:
Originally Posted by
757690
You did not catch Starr red handed warping a story. Not even close, and I explained to you how problematic your accusation is.
You misunderstood Chomsky's point. He does not argue that the media is the same as the government, corporations, the military etc.. He argues that the media is a tool of the government, corporations, military, etc.. His point is that the media gets manipulated by these powerful forces.
He never argues that media is intentionally being dishonest or warping stories as you say. What he argues is that the stories they chose to cover and not cover, is based on their relationship with corporations, the military, the government, etc.. The stories themselves are all 100% trustworthy. He never doubts their validity. It is the choice of story that "manufactures consent," not the stories themselves.
Are you related to Barbara Starr? Read her story again.
Quote:
Without specifically acknowledging the US withdrawal is taking place quickly because of the Turkish invasion of northern Syria...
Nope. Withdrawal plans were being worked on for months prior to the announcement.
Quote:
This leaves the Pentagon scrambling.
Nope. Some officials, even higher ranking ones, may have been scrambling. Many in the pentagon knew exactly what was going on. She wrote "the Pentagon."
Hack.
And Chomsky thinks national news stories are 100% reliable!? C'mon! Are you just trying to get my goat? Whether you think the media are just puppets of these "powerful forces" or willing co-conspirators is in some ways irrelevant. The Gulf of Tonkin reporting helped escalate a war. The reporting about aluminum tubes and Saddam Hussein's barbarity helped start a different one.
Re: Massive Explosion in Lebanon
Apparently the PM and cabinet are resigning.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/...091228350.html
Quote:
"I don't think it [the government's resignation] will make a difference. All the ministers in Lebanon are just a face. Behind that are the militias who control everything," Rony Lattouf, a shop owner in Beirut, told Al Jazeera.
Re: Massive Explosion in Lebanon
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LeDoux
Are you related to Barbara Starr? Read her story again.
Nope. Withdrawal plans were being worked on for months prior to the announcement.
Nope. Some officials, even higher ranking ones, may have been scrambling. Many in the pentagon knew exactly what was going on. She wrote "the Pentagon."
Hack.
And Chomsky thinks national news stories are 100% reliable!? C'mon! Are you just trying to get my goat? Whether you think the media are just puppets of these "powerful forces" or willing co-conspirators is in some ways irrelevant. The Gulf of Tonkin reporting helped escalate a war. The reporting about aluminum tubes and Saddam Hussein's barbarity helped start a different one.
You are believing the military and government. Chomsky would be very disappointed in you. You doing the opposite of the what he fights for.
You are correct, we will never agree, so I’ll just leave it at that.
Re: Massive Explosion in Lebanon
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LeDoux
But yes, there are still a few independent journalists out there, just like there were a few independent newspapers back in the day. But would anyone accept their stories as reliable if they defy the story from "official sources?" Are you open to independent media? If you are you are- welcome to the world of crackpot conspiracy theorists.
Add in the FARA Act for RT, Telesur, Press-TV and CTGN; "Phillip Cross" on Wikipedia; gross censorship on social media; the prosecution of Assange; and the "fact-checking" sites that are complete toss.
Re: Massive Explosion in Lebanon
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rojo
Add in the FARA Act for RT, Telesur, Press-TV and CTGN; "Phillip Cross" on Wikipedia; gross censorship on social media; the prosecution of Assange; and the "fact-checking" sites that are complete toss.
Well, Assange was prosecuted for rape, not being an independent journalist.
Re: Massive Explosion in Lebanon
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RedTeamGo!
Well, Assange was prosecuted for rape, not being an independent journalist.
He has never been indicted, much less prosecuted for rape. He has only been indicted for espionage.
Re: Massive Explosion in Lebanon
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BernieCarbo
He has never been indicted, much less prosecuted for rape. He has only been indicted for espionage.
He fled the country and hid before he could be indicted and prosecuted.
Re: Massive Explosion in Lebanon
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RedTeamGo!
He fled the country and hid before he could be indicted and prosecuted.
Yes, I know. I’m just saying that he was never prosecuted for it, and has only been indicted for espionage. Sweden dropped the rape inquiry altogether.
Re: Massive Explosion in Lebanon
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BernieCarbo
Yes, I know. I’m just saying that he was never prosecuted for it, and has only been indicted for espionage. Sweden dropped the rape inquiry altogether.
And it wasn't a rape, it was a gray area charge. And he had agreed to fact the music in Sweden if he could be assured of no extradition to the US. No assurance was granted.
Assange might a creep of the first magnitude for all I know, but that's really beside the point. This is about prosecuting a journalist.