|
» GC Stats |
Members: 329,579
Threads: 115,662
Posts: 2,204,643
|
| Welcome to our newest member, isaacfrancesz90 |
|
 |
|
12-06-2004, 10:29 PM
|
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Now hiding from GC stalkers
Posts: 3,188
|
|
|
CNN Duped by Pentagon Into Portraying Iraq as 'Quagmire'
CNN Duped by Pentagon Into Portraying Iraq as 'Quagmire'
by Scott Ott
(2004-12-02) -- The Pentagon announced today it will launch an internal investigation to determine whether media reports that the Iraq war is a hopeless quagmire may have originated from Pentagon spokesmen engaged in "psy-ops" (psychological operations) to deceive the enemy.
The probe follows a report in the Los Angeles Times that CNN passed along Pentagon disinformation about the timing of the offensive to liberate Fallujah. A Pentagon source intentionally planted the false story to observe the reaction of terrorists to the announcement that an attack had begun.
If the 'quagmire' stories have also resulted from the Pentagon's psy-ops against the enemy, it could shatter the relationship of trust shared by reporters with their defense department sources.
"It makes me wonder whether things are going as badly in Iraq as we've been reporting," said one CNN producer. "If the defense department has tricked us into putting negative spin on U.S. progress in the war, the insurgents will have a false sense of confidence, which sets them up for a crushing defeat. And CNN has become an unwitting accomplice in this Pentagon scheme. I feel dirty."
|
12-06-2004, 10:53 PM
|
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,624
|
|
|
why the media would trust the government to begin with is beyond me- most of the higher-ups in the Bush Admin were around during Watergate and Iran-Contra.
|
12-07-2004, 10:02 AM
|
|
Super Moderator
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Posts: 18,667
|
|
|
If the media was so eager to report that without a credible source, it's their own fault. They're supposed to investigate and confirm things before airing them.
Of course, the Pentagon could only be investigating this as a psy-ops measure to make it look like the media was duped into using this phrase and to make it appear that things are going better.
__________________
SN -SINCE 1869-
"EXCELLING WITH HONOR"
S N E T T
Mu Tau 5, Central Oklahoma
|
12-07-2004, 12:33 PM
|
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Taking lessons at Cobra Kai Karate!
Posts: 14,928
|
|
|
Is this real??!?
-Rudey
|
12-07-2004, 01:58 PM
|
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Calgary, Alberta - Canada
Posts: 3,190
|
|
I thought Scott Ott was a satirical news-blogger...
Oh wait he is...
http://www.scrappleface.com/
__________________
Λ Χ Α
University of Toronto Alum
EE755
"Cave ab homine unius libri"
|
12-08-2004, 11:40 AM
|
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Mile High America
Posts: 17,088
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by IowaStatePhiPsi
why the media would trust the government to begin with is beyond me- most of the higher-ups in the Bush Admin were around during Watergate and Iran-Contra.
|
A little harsh, but it begs a couple of questions for me.
First, if the government isn't a credible source, what is?
Second, is the government a credible source?
Answer to number one: We should be able to believe what we here from the government. Can we? I don't think so.
Answer to number two: No, unfortunately, it isn't.
Which is why I object to immediately casting blame on the media whenever it says anything contraversial.
Talk about a rock and a hard place.
__________________
Fraternally,
DeltAlum
DTD
The above is the opinion of the poster which may or may not be based in known facts and does not necessarily reflect the views of Delta Tau Delta or Greek Chat -- but it might.
|
12-08-2004, 11:44 AM
|
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Taking lessons at Cobra Kai Karate!
Posts: 14,928
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by DeltAlum
A little harsh, but it begs a couple of questions for me.
First, if the government isn't a credible source, what is?
Second, is the government a credible source?
Answer to number one: We should be able to believe what we here from the government. Can we? I don't think so.
Answer to number two: No, unfortunately, it isn't.
Which is why I object to immediately casting blame on the media whenever it says anything contraversial.
Talk about a rock and a hard place.
|
The media is not itself out for the public's interest. The media is there to make some money, money, money and get ratings, ratings, ratings.
-Rudey
|
12-08-2004, 11:55 AM
|
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Mile High America
Posts: 17,088
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Rudey
The media is not itself out for the public's interest. The media is there to make some money, money, money and get ratings, ratings, ratings.
|
Nobody said the media is a not for profit. Except maybe NPR, PBS, and a few others.
But the comment I responded to is whether the government is/should be considered a credible source.
But, I guess I would respond to your comment that many (maybe most/certainly not all) politicians -- the ones who direct (notice I didn't say run) the government are not themselves out for the public interest. Politicans are there to make some money, money, money and power, power, power.
If they have to lie to the media and the American public along the way, is that OK?
__________________
Fraternally,
DeltAlum
DTD
The above is the opinion of the poster which may or may not be based in known facts and does not necessarily reflect the views of Delta Tau Delta or Greek Chat -- but it might.
|
12-08-2004, 12:08 PM
|
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Taking lessons at Cobra Kai Karate!
Posts: 14,928
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by DeltAlum
Nobody said the media is a not for profit. Except maybe NPR, PBS, and a few others.
But the comment I responded to is whether the government is/should be considered a credible source.
But, I guess I would respond to your comment that many (maybe most/certainly not all) politicians -- the ones who direct (notice I didn't say run) the government are not themselves out for the public interest. Politicans are there to make some money, money, money and power, power, power.
If they have to lie to the media and the American public along the way, is that OK?
|
Is it OK? For them yes, for others no. Will it keep on happening? Yes.
And the profits do matter when you decide to show only certain topics or to do investigative journalism that some might say single a person out or might even be wrong...
-Rudey
|
12-08-2004, 07:24 PM
|
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Mile High America
Posts: 17,088
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Rudey
And the profits do matter when you decide to show only certain topics or to do investigative journalism that some might say single a person out or might even be wrong...
|
I think I prefer a for profit system over a government owned/run system where the above is almost insured.
__________________
Fraternally,
DeltAlum
DTD
The above is the opinion of the poster which may or may not be based in known facts and does not necessarily reflect the views of Delta Tau Delta or Greek Chat -- but it might.
|
12-08-2004, 07:32 PM
|
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Calgary, Alberta - Canada
Posts: 3,190
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by DeltAlum
I think I prefer a for profit system over a government owned/run system where the above is almost insured.
|
I don't know... the "government" system in the case of the ABC (Australian Broadcst Corporation), CBC (Canadian Broadcast Corporation), and BBC (British Broadcast Corporation) all seem to do well when it comes to investigative reporting and objective journalism....
__________________
Λ Χ Α
University of Toronto Alum
EE755
"Cave ab homine unius libri"
|
12-08-2004, 07:40 PM
|
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Taking lessons at Cobra Kai Karate!
Posts: 14,928
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by RACooper
I don't know... the "government" system in the case of the ABC (Australian Broadcst Corporation), CBC (Canadian Broadcast Corporation), and BBC (British Broadcast Corporation) all seem to do well when it comes to investigative reporting and objective journalism....
|
In your opinion. I have read bias reports on the BBC's reporting in regards to certain areas. Also the BBC hand a nasty little affair that involved a scientist who died. I don't know as much about the other two because they lack the level of prominence.
DeltAlum, you're right. I do think that the private sector is the best way to do reporting, even if it has its faults.
-Rudey
|
12-08-2004, 10:34 PM
|
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Sand Box
Posts: 1,145
|
|
|
Pyschological Warfare...it's nothing new.
This has been done thousands of times in the past. Usually to ferret out moles in the gov't.
Riveria got in big trouble for showing a rough map on the news awhile back. I think it's perfectly fine for us to trick the media into passing false info to terrorists and insurgents in Iraq.
Besides, the gov't can't trust the media, why should the media think they can trust the gov't?
|
12-08-2004, 10:40 PM
|
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Mile High America
Posts: 17,088
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by RACooper
I don't know... the "government" system in the case of the ABC (Australian Broadcst Corporation), CBC (Canadian Broadcast Corporation), and BBC (British Broadcast Corporation) all seem to do well when it comes to investigative reporting and objective journalism....
|
Fine institutions all, but even BBC, while admired around the world, has had problems as Rudey correctly points out above. There was a huge reorganization at the top at BBC due to that. I certainly used to enjoy watching The National when I lived in Detroit and could watch CBC.
But those three are exceptions in that they aren't immediately under the control of whomever is in power. And, like the US, the administration(s) change with some amount of regularity through an orderly (?) process, so the government point of view changes. And they are democracies where freedom of the press is considered necessary (although sometimes a necessary evil by some).
What I had in mind was systems where the broadcasting/media are directly controlled and are little more than propaganda channels.
By the way, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought CBC (and maybe even BBC) are partially commercially supported due to cutbacks on government budgets. My memory could be wrong on that.
Kind of like PBS and NPR which now get little or no government funding and have to resort to commercial underwriting.
__________________
Fraternally,
DeltAlum
DTD
The above is the opinion of the poster which may or may not be based in known facts and does not necessarily reflect the views of Delta Tau Delta or Greek Chat -- but it might.
Last edited by DeltAlum; 12-08-2004 at 10:42 PM.
|
12-08-2004, 10:50 PM
|
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Mile High America
Posts: 17,088
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Coramoor
Besides, the gov't can't trust the media, why should the media think they can trust the gov't?
|
Taking your argument to its ultimate conclusion, nobody would end up trusting either government or the media.
The early leaders of our country felt that an adversary media was as necessary as the balance of powers in keeping the government on course.
That's why we have a First Amendment.
__________________
Fraternally,
DeltAlum
DTD
The above is the opinion of the poster which may or may not be based in known facts and does not necessarily reflect the views of Delta Tau Delta or Greek Chat -- but it might.
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
