How low the US administration can be?

[SuperR]

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Terrorism/

check this link guys...

Not content of using propaganda on its own citizens, the US wishes now to propage false info to other countries around the world???

Through what... CNN? CBS? NBC? ABC?

Shameful.

 

[VoodooAce]

Very nice.

How....'Soviet' of Duhbya. Another bureaucracy and more big government The Office of Strategic Influence????

Are you kidding me?

Of course, most will not have issues with this. The same that wouldn't have issues if Bush were to put together a mob of angry Floridians to go around dragging liberal dissenters away in the night.

Once again, hate to sound paranoid, but we just keep taking these baby steps toward becoming one of those ugly fascist governments of the 1930's.

We are such a small world, now, that news anywhere is news everywhere. There is no longer any way to do this without breaking the law.

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

I think their first victim was you two fellows!

The NY Times is a nortorius Left wing paper that often fabricates news against any Republican in office.

"Unnamed miltary said"......HA HA HA HA HA

Sorry boys, you have been had.

 

[VoodooAce]

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
I think their first victim was you two fellows!

The NY Times is a nortorius Left wing paper that often fabricates news against any Republican in office.

"Unnamed miltary said"......HA HA HA HA HA

Sorry boys, you have been had.

Hahahahaha " The NY Times is a nortorius Left wing paper that often fabricates news against any Republican in office."

Not the 'left wing media bias' stuff again.....

Puh-lease!

Where'd you hear this? Rush Limbaugh? The Wall St. Journal? Fox News?.....hehe

Besides, what is it that you dispute? The existence of the OSI? Their purpose? Their methods?

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

VooDoo, look at my Location field, and ask again if I don't know my home town papers.

Most of that stuff is typical Bush goofiness, but the stuff about prefabricating evidence is....

Don't tell me you actually believe that malarky? :crazyeyes

 

[Greadius]

I read that headline in the NY Times today and was just appalled. Either this is shotty journalism or shotty Pentagon operations.

What the hell would be the point of creating a ministry of propaganda and then ANNOUNCING that you're going to start circulating false stories. It doesn't make ANY sense.

It sounds to me more like cynical DoD officials with overactive NYT journalists read enough into what was really going on to write this story.

I'm a pseudo-liberal Democrat, but this story reaks of pure fabrication. The DoD hired PR managers that have been at work in Pakistan and other arab hotspots for months. It would be the complete antithesis of what Americans want to spread abroad if they purposely lie to people. Why would they now create an office that they announce is going to lie to you???
It sounds like a lot of fact with a little fabrication lead... like a round table meeting where someone circulated an idea that was shot down, and now made it to the front page of the NY Times.

 

[BlueMonday]

Yes, the journalism for that article is very suspect. Not like that matter to some of the people on this forum. Go on, let the argument begin...

 

[VoodooAce]

Hhhmmm....

Well, as far as 'fabricating' evidence, I might be a bit dubious. Mind you, I wouldn't put it past the Bush administration anymore than I would any other administration, though.

Regarless, Graedius, the existence of the department isn't in dispute. Nor is its overall purpose.....to influence the rest of the world with propaganda.

I think all that's debatable would be their methods.

Now if somebody were to tell me that this department would be cranking out propaganda to improve our standing around the world, but they would not stretch the truth, or even invent a few things, I'd say you were naive.

P.S. I fully believe that the Wall St. Journal (or Fox News, for that matter) are as or more biased toward conservatism and big business than the NY Times or CNN or the media in general is liberaly biased.

 

[CurtSibling]

Two old sayings, guys;

"Never trust everything you read in the papers"

"Never trust a journalist"

A jouranlist will lie to make the story interesting...

 

[VoodooAce]

Originally posted by CurtSibling
Two old sayings, guys;

"Never trust everything you read in the papers"

"Never trust a journalist"

A jouranlist will lie to make the story interesting...

No doubt that is true of some.

And so will a propagandaist (sp?)

 

[Greadius]

Never trusting a journalist is naive. You're more likely to find yourself ignorant than in possession of the truth.

I've never read the Wall Street Journal so I can't comment. I think the NY Times is about as liberally biased as Fox News is conservatively biased. I always have difficulty detecting CNN's bias; I've heard liberal ad naseum but haven't seen anything slanted.

The NY Times really overdid the purpose of the office.
The word propaganda in information is almost as overused as the word terrorism in conflict.

 

[CurtSibling]

Greadius
Let me tell you something, pal.

I am anything but naive.
But I see plenty of ignorance on this forum from time to time.
I keep up to date with the real news.

I'm not giving you any conspiracy theory stuff.
Also I do not read North American newspapers,
1. Because I am not American
2. American issues are not my problem, I am going by the junk in
UK tabloids.

Example; In the midst of global crisis and war on terror,
the UK tabloids were mor interested in 'pop-stars', a
pointless TV show, this curd made first page news,

Meanwhile Usama Bin scumbag still alive...

What can I say.

 

[amadeus]

Well, if CNN isn't biased...I'll never understand the first of the 2000 presidential debates. Why did Al Gore get 3 percent more screen space than George Bush?

Oh, just a 'technical' thing I'm sure (i.e. one of the mouth from the south's commands.)

 

[VoodooAce]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Well, if CNN isn't biased...I'll never understand the first of the 2000 presidential debates. Why did Al Gore get 3 percent more screen space than George Bush?

Oh, just a 'technical' thing I'm sure (i.e. one of the mouth from the south's commands.)

Oh no! Not 3%! Please, please tell me it wasn't 3%!

The humanity.

 

[CurtSibling]

I don't know why North Americans always argue over
who was a better presidential candidate, Gore or Bush...

They both seemed pretty awful at the time,
Glad I didn't have to choose between two such obvious androids.

At least Bush has some real statesmen around him.

 

[Hitro]

It's interesting that some people regard everything as false, bias or lies that doesn't fit their views. I'm not saying that this is the truth, I DON'T KNOW, but saying it's wrong just because some parts of the media report it, while on other occasions QUOTING (other parts of) the media seems pretty naive to me. So you think certain parts of the media ALWAYS lie while others are the source of pure truth? Very weird indeed...

More on topic: Even if it is true, what's new about that???
False information from the military and/or government is really nothing new in no part of the world. Modern propaganda didn'T end with Goebbels it STARTED with him.

 

[ApocalypseKurtz]

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
I think their first victim was you two fellows!

The NY Times is a nortorius Left wing paper that often fabricates news against any Republican in office.

"Unnamed miltary said"......HA HA HA HA HA

Sorry boys, you have been had.

So what you are saying is the NY Times, which has never questioned any of the administration's policies since 9-11, is now left-wing because it has objectively stated some news on the Pentagon??? Come on AoA, the truth is there is NO mainstream left-wing media outlet. They are all huge politically conservative right-wing conglomerates who favor the Republicans, who in turn shield them from government interference. I am in fact not surprised at all that the Pentagon wants to fabricate pro-American foreign propaganda to get the rest of the world on their side. Nor will I be surprised if most of America doesn't raise an eyebrow towards it.

 

[ApocalypseKurtz]

Originally posted by CurtSibling
I don't know why North Americans always argue over
who was a better presidential candidate, Gore or Bush...

They both seemed pretty awful at the time,
Glad I didn't have to choose between two such obvious androids.

At least Bush has some real statesmen around him.

I agree they both seemed, and are, pretty awful. But I voted for Gore to save the US Supreme Court. 2-3 Justices will likely be retiring between now and 2004 (Rehnquist, O'Connor, and possilby Stevens). Supreme Court Justices are chosen by the President, and appointed for life. We don't need Bush tilting the court even more conservative then it already is. I'll just have to hope that they hold out past 2004, but I'm sure at least one will retire.

 

[allhailIndia]

Thank God we do not have a Presidential system of elections where it might have a been a choice of 2 thugs. Instead ,we can now make choice between 1000 thugs in the 500 parliamentary seats

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

Originally posted by ApocalypseKurtz
So what you are saying is the NY Times, which has never questioned any of the administration's policies since 9-11,

You obviously don't read the times regularly, they do it almost daily!

is now left-wing because it has objectively stated some news on the Pentagon???

That is funny on so many levels!

Come on AoA, the truth is there is NO mainstream left-wing media outlet.

You couldn't be more wrong, but you can believe that if you like!

They are all huge politically conservative right-wing conglomerates who favor the Republicans, who in turn shield them from government interference.

Ha ha Ha, come on, stop, your killing me!

I am in fact not surprised at all that the Pentagon wants to fabricate pro-American foreign propaganda to get the rest of the world on their side. Nor will I be surprised if most of America doesn't raise an eyebrow towards it.

Would you be interested in some Enron stock?