Quote from: Karpovage on Yesterday at 14:30:35
The enemy wants me, as an American citizen, to becomed angered, upset, and emotional about this and to lash out at my government to pull our troops from the fight - to run with our tail between our legs and lick our wounds. Guess what? I refuse. I am putting this in context. This is propaganda to sway my emotions. The use of global media to air these videos is really a successful form of the enemy propaganda to enter American households therefore my initial reaction to this is to bar the United States media conglomerates from giving enemy propaganda the airtime they are getting. Am I really missing anything of importance? It is a theoretical question not to demean the victim or his family but in the grand scheme of things why is an innocent American getting beheaded by lunatics any different than the three inner city kids in Baltimore getting there heads chopped off by their own cousins? Now, that didn't get alot of air time. heck, only a ticker of text along the bottom of the screen. Better yet, you want to talk about context, how about 40,000 innocent Americans dying from motor vehicle accidents last year alone. Or 90,000 dying from doctor's misdiagnosis and negligence. These are just some examples. So, why does one American get sensationalized? The media have played into the hands of the enemy, and the media is not accountable, they don't take responsibilty for their actions. If I was in change I would issue a directive to not air this kind of crap. Downplay it. Do not raise it to the level that the enemy wants it to be. Does being exposed to this suppress my civil liberties? Is this a question of freedom of the press, of speech to air these atrocities? These are tough times and tough measures need to be enacted. Propaganda is just one front of this war.
-----------
freedom of speech, censoring, etc, is a dangerous road to travel, especially in times of 'war.' in the war on Iraq we saw what censoring can do. showing almost a completely 1 sided opinnion of pro-war 'experts' etc. the embedded journalists not being allowed to photograph certain things... we (the people who aren't actually there when it happens) deserve to be informed in an unbiased, uncensored, mannor so we can decide how we want to react, instead of having spindocters tell us how to react.
I mean sure i've flamed the media when i was emotionally charged too... but the thing is, censorship should come in only in matters of national security, or releasing the information would jeapordize someone's or a group of people's lives (imbedded journalists etc). opening the door to censoring material that would aid the al-qaeda in frightening americans or riling them up, or anyting like that... that's just a path that shouldn't be trodded down. who decided what to ban? and when? you saw the type of flak they took when journalists tried to keep us (or anyone else that wasn't in the direct viscinity) invormed of what was going on in the war in Iraq. I mean... they were fighting for the right to disclose troop movements and locations... and people were listening... even when American live's were at stake... when no such lives are at stake what do u think the outcome would be in trying to get that type of material out of the papers and off the internet... true news is a competative business, if its going to bring in viewers, and another news agency has the 'scoop' than of course all the other one's will try to find the articles and photos, and it will be in every major news paper / news website in north america, and yes, this only happens when people are actually going to watch what's being shown, bad news and catastrophe's are what keep people glued to their tv sets... so yes it is a business, but they do keep us informed... so lets just take a breath or two before we say that CNN/CBC are aiding the terrorists agenda's by informing viewers of 'newsworthy' events overseas.
you are definetly right about propoganda being a part of any war, and don't you dare think for a minute that your government isn't doing the exact same thing. Influence your opinnions, brain washing you with their talented spin doctors, of course propoganda goes both ways...And i hardly think informing the public of things that go on in the middle east that involve or possibly involve al-qaeda qualifies as aiding the terrorists, if you are insinuating that they are a big part of the problem, i think you don't quite understand the problem. if you don't want to be influenced by the media, and you think they are advancing the terrorists' agenda, don't watch the news.
)