Reasons for the crashing in WTC

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX
Your link goes to a private person's site who proposes a silly argument with no factual basis, and has nothing to do with liberal bias in the media. Nice picture of the kyaker though.

I dismissed it as BS at first too, for about a 6 months. Then, as the responses came printed, I came to the slow conclusion that there WAS no counterweight. There are literally dozens and dozens of media employees who are conservative and proud of it, and consider it the focus of their respective media outlets to show how conservative they are. Do liberals have such an outlet? Obviously not or you would have named them. The closest is perhaps the NY Times, but even then, its NOT proudly stating its alignment and making the purpose of its existence to attack the other side.

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX
I laugh out loud at her/him complaining about Tim Russert...you do realize he was a democratic party writer for quite a long time? Complaining about Stephanoloplus???? A Former high ranking clinton advisor and claiming he is biased to the right???

The same Tim Russert that pounded his fist on the table demanding that a Clinton official tell him the truth about his sex life? Yes, very partisan. And the same Stephanopolous who NOW makes a career out of tarnishing the Clinton administration? People change.

I don't believe for a second the media is conservative, but I think the liberal bias is an absolute fabrication. Specifics are hard to come by. If your definition of media is the 30 minutes Dan Rather gets on CBS, none of which is his opinion segments, then yes, the media is biased.

 

[allhailIndia]

Okay, granted that Afghans, Kuwaitis amd other Arabs also like the US. But they are being drowned by those who hate the US. Even in INdia, in certain pockets, there was rejoicing that the WTC had fallen down, till some Indians were among the dead. Why should a people have so much hate in their heart that death of civilians is a matter of rejoicement?? If it were a few nutcases, it would have been ok, but large sections of the Arab world were part of it. I come back to my original point that the US should be neutral observers or arbiters whereever they go. Unless they are being threatened, they should not try to impose a political solution to a problem. Dingbat rightly mentioned that painting the world black and white will only lead to a further complication. It may have been perfectly allright during WW2, but in this world of delicate diplomacy, it will not work.

Somalia failed because the US tried to impose a goverment , a unity on people who were fighting for several years. Instead they should have first concentrated on distributing food aid and when they were sure that the people were ready to accept democratic values, only then should they have gone ahead. I believe that the US should encourage regions to solve problems by themselves, only with a little necessary help from the UN and other agencies. In Afghanistan, it would be best of the US left Karzai and team to do their own work and then, say 3-4 years down the line prove to the world that they can intercede in a country for the country's benefit in a mature way.

 

[FredLC]

That's one of the things that worries me.

I believe that USA citizens demands will be met by it's government. But, as you said yourself, much of USA citizens know nothing about the rest of the world, a situation that you hope will change but that didn't yet;

And, as for some previous post from Greadius, you see that not only they don't know, but generally don't care, usually taking as "ok" whatever the government says the foreign policy is.

That makes them vulnerable target for manipulation and easy to make villains for them to hate. I remember a movie with Robert DeNiro and Dustin Hoffman called "Wag the Dog" that played with caractheristic.

To hide a sex scandal of the president (sounds familiar?) a few government employees "fabricate" a war against Albania, that never took place. But they manage to unite the nation against that "enemy" and buy time to bury the boss "sexcapades".

Of course it's a charicature, but it's a good example to ilustrate the worldwide worries. After all, in real life some manipulation could be done with much darker purposes.

Maybe, if you are rigth, and the day that the average USA citizen will open the eyes to the world is coming, all my reasons to worry will vanish.

Until there...

By the way, you are right, every country is able to affect others with their policies and to take the roles of "good guys" and "bad guys".

It's only that USA is, presently, the only one able to do so to any side and get away with it. See what happened to Milosevic and to the Afghanistan's Mullah.

Regards .

 

[Flatlander Fox]

My PC crashed...

But the gist of it was that Americans are not REALLY affected by worldwide events (excluding 9/11).

A war in Kuwait drives up oil prices.

A war in Kosovo drives up CNN's ratings.

A coup in Argentina, or the drug war in Columbia gives us stuff to talk about over coffee.

But to people who live in those regions, it means alot. We are lucky enough to live in a land where we have no enemies close enough to do harm to us. *shakes fist at Canucks*

That is a major reason why you get the "I don't care what our government is doing in country X, because it doesn't affect me" attitude.

As for the media, a skillful reporter can make an objective report, and STILL slant a story to the left or the right.

So Dan Rather's 30 mins on T.V. every night is very important.

Headline example:

U.S. bombs terrorist encampment, civilian targets receive light damage.

Or:

U.S. STRIKES FREEDOM FIGHTER SAFE HAVEN, KILLS 3 IN MATERNITY WARD

Same news, different reaction.

It's all how they get it written down!!!

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Originally posted by Greadius
I dismissed it as BS at first too, for about a 6 months. Then, as the responses came printed, I came to the slow conclusion that there WAS no counterweight. There are literally dozens and dozens of media employees who are conservative and proud of it, and consider it the focus of their respective media outlets to show how conservative they are. Do liberals have such an outlet?

Wait a minute now, there is a big difference between an endless list of conservative radio talk show hosts who are all trying to get Rush Limbaugh's contract. That's not news media, it's entertainment radio. By that standard then Jon Stewart's Daily Show on Comedy Central is a media outlet.

Liberals do have that format, as in every show on NPR except for Car Talk, and even then the Tap It Brothers can get off track sometimes. Those conservative shows would not be on the air if they didn't pull ratings, as they are not the "evening news". Perhaps there are not any such liberal shows (perhaps Tom Leykis?) in the commercial side because they don't pull ratings?

Under those formats they most definately say what their political leanings are, as they are talk shows in editorial mode. Rather than being a negative, I think that is a positive, as opposed to the NY Times and Washington Post which are both biased to the left, and downright inaccurate in reporting, yet they claim to be non-biased.

Likewise, you bash Russert for asking the question everyone wanted to know. You bash Stephanoplis for disagreeing with his former boss. That makes them now conservative??

The national news media is very far left biased, and that group includes NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, and all of their spawn. Fox News is probably right biased, but I am still deciding if it is just so shocking to see neutral news reported, or if they are truely biased as well.

The news media is what I thought the discussion was about, but if we want to expand the talk, so be it. I leave you with a question, why would there be so many conservative shows spawned in the open media (where again, they have to pull their own weight in ratings to stay on the air) if the news was being presented fair. People are not stupid, no matter how badly Hillary's gang wished they were.

 

[Sodak]

US National news is not at all left biased. I learned this while living overseas. During the Gulf War, my mother (who was in the US) and I exchanged news stories about all sorts of events. Most world news that I could understand (english, dutch, spanish) told a different story than any of the US news sources. The US sources took a clearly patriotic stance - understandable under the circumstances - and left out almost anything that went against the general grain of supporting the US' actions. Regardless of reason, a slant is a slant.

The same happened in Panama. Remember that the US invaded there? The US military tightly controlled all media for 3 years afterwards. Once that was lifted, newsmen rolled in the see what was happening. Again, the difference between what the US reported and what was reported elsewhere was very different.

Wartime will create extremes of this sort, but my point is that these were just exaggerations of the general approach news reporting takes. During peacetime, there is less extreme news to cover, so things take on more subtlety. It also takes on the form of how priorities are set, depending upon who is the subject of the news - how much attention the issue gets, how it is presented. I'd bet that those who argue that the US national media is left leaning have not had much exposure to foreign news. (just an assumption, it could be wrong)

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Originally posted by Sodak
US National news is not at all left biased. I learned this while living overseas. During the Gulf War, my mother (who was in the US) and I exchanged news stories about all sorts of events. Most world news that I could understand (english, dutch, spanish) told a different story than any of the US news sources. The US sources took a clearly patriotic stance - understandable under the circumstances - and left out almost anything that went against the general grain of supporting the US' actions. Regardless of reason, a slant is a slant.

The same happened in Panama. Remember that the US invaded there? The US military tightly controlled all media for 3 years afterwards. Once that was lifted, newsmen rolled in the see what was happening. Again, the difference between what the US reported and what was reported elsewhere was very different.

I have had much exposure to foreign news, having lived most of my life outside of the US. Nice try at a strawman though ;-)

Perhaps you could give me some specific examples of slanted reporting during the gulf war? I found most of it funny (uh, General, where will the main coalition attack occur at and when?)

Also, I am aware of NO such news blackout in Panama. US reporters, and therefore international journalists were on the ground reporting that night that it kicked off. Again, specifics here would help.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX
Perhaps you could give me some specific examples of slanted reporting during the gulf war? I found most of it funny (uh, General, where will the main coalition attack occur at and when?)

And if you're going to answer Bill, please, please don't start with the "they all reported the incubator story" thing. As a gulf war protester, I should note that even Amnesty International was taken in by that, so "conned" media should not be said to be same as "corporately manipulated" media. After all, "conned" supports the theory that deadlines matter more than the alternative.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Originally posted by Richard III


And if you're going to answer Bill, please, please don't start with the "they all reported the incubator story" thing. As a gulf war protester, I should note that even Amnesty International was taken in by that, so "conned" media should not be said to be same as "corporately manipulated" media. After all, "conned" supports the theory that deadlines matter more than the alternative.

Richard,

I am confused about your point here. I can't answer myself, and I am not sure what the incubator story has to do with my post. I want to understand your view, so please clarify.

Thanks!
Bill

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Originally posted by fredlc
Hi there, pal. I also see your point, i also understand your arguments. So lemme strike back :

<snipped remainder of good post.>

Sorry for the slow response.

I see your clarification, and apologize for misinterpreting it. I think we are on common ground here. I too agree that any country that exerts military force on the global stage should be watched with a critical eye.

THanks for the great follow up.

Bill

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX
Likewise, you bash Russert for asking the question everyone wanted to know. You bash Stephanoplis for disagreeing with his former boss. That makes them now conservative??

If the media is so liberal, why do they give them an open microphone? I don't think the media is conservative, I think that most people in the media try to be impartial, and in my opinion do a fairly good job of it. I just don't see that big leftward spin that is supposed to be there. Dan Rather is a democrat. That makes the media liberal

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX
The national news media is very far left biased, and that group includes NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, and all of their spawn. Fox News is probably right biased, but I am still deciding if it is just so shocking to see neutral news reported, or if they are truely biased as well.

Neutral? Take a closer look.
I think this may be more of a circumstance of seeing the story spin your way makes it look 'right' (or neutral).

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX
I leave you with a question, why would there be so many conservative shows spawned in the open media (where again, they have to pull their own weight in ratings to stay on the air) if the news was being presented fair.

The big 3 networks and CNN don't pull their own ratings? I'm sorry, the network news programs recieve quite good ratings.

I don't own a TV, so I'm really not an expert in how they're supposed to be heavily left baised. I think the biggest bias problem is with the viewer, not with the way the network presents it. Impartial news is impossible, so most people (myself included) prefer to dabble in a variety of sources. http://www.freerepublic.com is a GREAT place to find a variety of stories (peruse the message boards, they print them in their full text). If the media was truly THAT liberal, then only liberals would watch it. Invoke capitolism and turn off the TV.

Why has the liberal media never asked GW Bush how many times he's been arrested, or what he did community service for in Texas, or where he was serving with the Texas National Guard between 72-73? A liberal media would dig these things up... a liberal media wouldn't have hung on Monica Lewinsky 24/7. It just amazes me that Bernie Goldberg has been on every major liberal network and CNN telling us how liberal the media was. Why are they blowing their own cover?
Face it, TV is a slave to ratings. Watch the cable news networks more closely now Fox is winning that ratings war, they'll start leaning further to the right. For example, Alan Keyes now has a prime time show on a MSNBC, that liberal media network :crazyeyes:

 

[sysyphus]

This is probably too off topic, but I get asked about this so much, I think it'd be best to clarify it.

SSK wonders why the terrorists didn't strike a nuclear power plant instead. Maybe not, but perhaps they knew that it would be a futile thing to do.

I work in the nuclear industry, but I can fairly say that I am writing this without bias. I always discuss nuclear issues fairly and with an open mind. Also, what I write below is true specifically for Canadian reactors, and I am presuming true for America and other countries and having worked alongside engineers from other countries.

Anyway, nuclear plants are already designed to withstand the impact of a 747 moving at over 1000km/k. As well nuclear plants work differently than nuclear weapons, even if enough explosives to completely explode the entire reactor were detonated (good luck getting around the security to do so) it would not result in "a mushroom cloud".

Yes a quite unhealthy level of radioactivity would be released, but not at an apocolyptic level.

Also, kudos to Vrylakas on his quite insightful post. One important point to add though:

The politically motivated people he speaks of exist in every country in the world, and attrocities have been committed by people of every nationality, creed, religion etc.

Of course nothing matches the WTC attacks (with the obvious exception of the holocaust), but my ultimate point is that the true dividing line should not be bewteen coutries, religions etc. but rather than those who believe in "live and let live" and the scum who would harm others to further their cause and/or beliefs.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX
I am confused about your point here. I can't answer myself, and I am not sure what the incubator story has to do with my post. I want to understand your view, so please clarify.

Amongst Gulf War critics, particularly from the left, the fact that everyone reported the incubator stuff verbatim is often held up as proof that the media was baised in favour of war and Bush's positions on it. My point was that I wanted to see some other argument, because Amnesty International reported the incubator story as fact as well.

Beleive me, I'm no Saddam Hussein fan. I supported assassinating him, even as a Gulf War peacenik. The Iraqi army DID commit atrocities in Kuwait, no doubt about it. But it was later shown that the incubator story was urban legend, inflated by Hill and Knowlton on behalf of the kuwaiti government, which then sent the daughter of a kuwaiti diplomat to testify in Congress about the story without revealing that she was full of kaka. The story broke in the mainstream soon after that testimony. I'm a PR guy, and I can believe it: Hill and Knowlton is good, and I don't blame them for taking the story and building it up.

But the fallacy of the left using this famous instance against the media is that it proves my point, not theirs. The trouble with the propaganda was not that a corporation sponsored it, but that everybody beleived it - left, right, centre, Amnesty, Teamsters, you name it. Whether liberal or conservative, the trouble here was not that corporations were telling their reporters to believe it, it was that reporters had neither the time nor the inclination to check into the details with deadlines and competitive pressures on a hot, sexy story looming.

Does that make more sense?

As for Greadius' point, sure. I am trying to suggest that deadlines and the risk of "not being there with the story" is more important than "the corporate agenda" ever will be to reporting news. I think in general that liberal ideas are more present than conservative because reporters don't have time to check the side they might not like as much. But I'm not saying there's a "liberal conspiracy." Reporters are reporters. They will report sexy bad news - if they can find it. And the thing is, you'd be surprised how easy it is to keep them from finding it

R.III

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Originally posted by Greadius
If the media is so liberal, why do they give them an open microphone? I don't think the media is conservative, I think that most people in the media try to be impartial, and in my opinion do a fairly good job of it. I just don't see that big leftward spin that is supposed to be there. Dan Rather is a democrat. That makes the media liberal

Neutral? Take a closer look.
I think this may be more of a circumstance of seeing the story spin your way makes it look 'right' (or neutral).

The big 3 networks and CNN don't pull their own ratings? I'm sorry, the network news programs recieve quite good ratings.

I don't own a TV, so I'm really not an expert in how they're supposed to be heavily left baised. I think the biggest bias problem is with the viewer, not with the way the network presents it. Impartial news is impossible, so most people (myself included) prefer to dabble in a variety of sources. http://www.freerepublic.com is a GREAT place to find a variety of stories (peruse the message boards, they print them in their full text). If the media was truly THAT liberal, then only liberals would watch it. Invoke capitolism and turn off the TV.

Why has the liberal media never asked GW Bush how many times he's been arrested, or what he did community service for in Texas, or where he was serving with the Texas National Guard between 72-73? A liberal media would dig these things up... a liberal media wouldn't have hung on Monica Lewinsky 24/7. It just amazes me that Bernie Goldberg has been on every major liberal network and CNN telling us how liberal the media was. Why are they blowing their own cover?
Face it, TV is a slave to ratings. Watch the cable news networks more closely now Fox is winning that ratings war, they'll start leaning further to the right. For example, Alan Keyes now has a prime time show on a MSNBC, that liberal media network :crazyeyes:

I know that TV is a slave to ratings, that was my whole point to the other poster

Network news tries to position itself as neutral on all issues, but they are not, and ratings come to the news no matter what, so it is a better forum for presenting subtle ideas.

I could care less that Keyes has his own show. I don't think anyone takes him as non-biased at all, nor does he claim to be either. His show presents opinion. Or actually I show say shows like his, as I have neither the time nor inclination to watch.

My point is that for example, the CBS nightly news presents itself as neutral, when in fact they are not as all. That is the difference between the biased Rather and the biased Keyes.

The point on Lewinsky was that it was spun into a sex scandel, and while that it was, more importantly was that the bigger issue had nothing to do with sex at all, but when was that story ever told? It's pretty clear if you step back and see how it was done...I for one was impressed with the work.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Originally posted by sysyphus
This is probably too off topic, but I get asked about this so much, I think it'd be best to clarify it.

SSK wonders why the terrorists didn't strike a nuclear power plant instead. Maybe not, but perhaps they knew that it would be a futile thing to do.

I work in the nuclear industry, but I can fairly say that I am writing this without bias. I always discuss nuclear issues fairly and with an open mind. Also, what I write below is true specifically for Canadian reactors, and I am presuming true for America and other countries and having worked alongside engineers from other countries.

Anyway, nuclear plants are already designed to withstand the impact of a 747 moving at over 1000km/k. As well nuclear plants work differently than nuclear weapons, even if enough explosives to completely explode the entire reactor were detonated (good luck getting around the security to do so) it would not result in "a mushroom cloud"..

Further, would they know to target the little tiny containment building and be able to hit it directly with a plane rather than the big menancing, but non-important cooling tower?

I agree, a nuc plant is a nice terror target, but in terms of actual damage, people would be surprised to find that little problem would arise from it.

 

[allhailIndia]

Recently I saw a programme about gigantic dams and this set me thinking. Suppose a terrorist flew a plane into the Hoover Dam or any major dam, just imagine the damage. Why terrorist, if amy environmental freak blew up a part of the Hoover Dam, think of the damage it would cause. Also what would happen if the Three Gorges Dam in China was blown up? A recent report said that it would kill over 300 MILLION people and damages in TRILLIONS.

What do you guys think??

 

[DingBat]

Well, I think the Hoover Dam is pretty tough to get at with a plane, assuming you mean an attack like the WTC. An airliner isn't exactly a tactical fighter.

The U.S. just issued a warning regarding a possible attack today somewhere in the states (read, the Olympics).

I think you can always find someplace, somewhere, where a person of sufficient malicious thoughts can cause trouble.

I also think that, at least somewhere, there has to be a few budding terrorists who are thinking "Ya know, we blew up a couple of buildings and in return we saw a nation friendly to our cause overthrown, our safe havens destroyed, our leaders scattered and killed. Maybe this terrorist thing isn't all the brochures said it would be". Maybe not.

Whether you agree with the Americans or not, I think you have to admit that:

1) This is a war.
2) It's not over yet.

/bruce

 

[FredLC]

We Brazilians joke a lot about our neighbors, and it's also true that they joke about us. Those jokes, they have many degrees, from healthy fun to odious prejudice.

One that we hear a lot is that, if we went to war against them some day, we wouldn't even have to deploy the army.

All we would have to do is to blow the "Itaipú Dam". It's huge, and, allegedly, if we blew it, Buenos Aires would be totally destroyed, pretty much ending the war.

I don't know if the results would be so devastating... but that it would be a very promising target for a terrorist that hated Argentina, well, no doubt about it.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Something we can remind them of next time they come looking for the Falklands...more sensibly...it is amazing that there appear to be no counter-measures SHOULD a dam be broken.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Originally posted by kittenOFchaos
Something we can remind them of next time they come looking for the Falklands...more sensibly...it is amazing that there appear to be no counter-measures SHOULD a dam be broken.

Sure, but it is not as fun a popping a Trident down into Buenos Aires

I can't really think of any fast countermeasures for billions of litres of rushing water myself, save using explosives to block its path at a strategic point, if that is possible