Press behaviour

[Walsingham]

I want to make it clear that this is about the media, not a specific incident.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/mi...ck-1746485.html

 

The story is an interesting one, worth bringing up. I've read it in a few places. What is interesting is that while the stories make interesting reading, and seem plausible on general points, they are totally anonymous. They could be genuine, but they might equally well be fictional. However the fine readers of the Independent newspaper don't know that. Because the Independent doesn't bother telling them. Al Jazeera bring this up, they don't.

 

I thought this was interesting as a clear case of media manipulation, if anyone wanted to put it in an essay or whatnot.

[Calax]

Part of me thinks that this is true, but then I'm not exactly a fan of Israel.

 

I think that the media is responsible to take up things like this and publicize them rather than wrap them up for later use and go with a story about a woman's heartwarming reunion with her child that ran away three days ago, or who Lindsey Lohan is sleeping with. The media exists to inform, not to gossip. Unfortunately it seems to have fallen away from that.

[Walsingham]

As I say, it's not really supposed to be about the specifics of the situation. I'm not saying you can't believe it if you like. I'm just saying how interesting it is that a paper completely removes a vital caveat on the story. If I got told the same story and I agreed with it, even believed it, then found out I'd been effectively deliberately mislead I'd be furious.

[Aristes]

The people in the media might be good folks, but the media itself is a worthless pile of steaming excrement. By that I mean, it takes a lot of hard work and a variety of sources to have any chance of figuring out the truth.

 

Folks complain about Fox news, which boggles my mind. It's no better or worse than any of the other big players. They all exist for ratings, for which they sacrifice virtually every ounce of integrity they might once have had. Of course, news media throughout history have been pretty spotty and sometimes downright corrupt. *shrug*

 

...And in what way are you not a fan of Israel, bro? 'You want to see them driven into the sea' not a fan or 'think they engage in human rights violations?' As usual, this is an honest question in shorthand. No tricksies!

[Oner]

I once read an article about media demonizing video games by leaving out/changing little details of 'gamer kills family/friend/classmate' news. Like when a boy killed his brother, they "forgot" to mention that they were arguing about who should play the game first, so it was hardly the game's fault.

And I think it was a Need for Speed game.

Edited July 16, 2009 by Oner

[Humodour]

I'm pretty sick of Israel's holier than thou attitude.

 

If they continue to renege on peace deals with Palestine then America should condition continued aid to them on whether or not they sign the peace deals. Honestly they're acting like spoiled brats at the moment and playing right into the hands of the extremist morons in Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas.

[Walsingham]

I'm pretty sick of Israel's holier than thou attitude.

 

If they continue to renege on peace deals with Palestine then America should condition continued aid to them on whether or not they sign the peace deals. Honestly they're acting like spoiled brats at the moment and playing right into the hands of the extremist morons in Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas.

 

Tpoic is press behaviour, not Israel behaviour.

[Kelverin]

I avoid the news media at all costs, I prefer to believe in the general goodness of humanity and that we are worth a damn, reading/watching/listening to the media always seems to dilute my theory.

[Humodour]

I'm pretty sick of Israel's holier than thou attitude.

 

If they continue to renege on peace deals with Palestine then America should condition continued aid to them on whether or not they sign the peace deals. Honestly they're acting like spoiled brats at the moment and playing right into the hands of the extremist morons in Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas.

 

Tpoic is press behaviour, not Israel behaviour.

 

Well topic is boring. I don't have many gripes with the press here. Just the conspicuously populous and hype-based tabloids like the Daily Telegraph, really.

 

And anybody silly enough to read an article in only one news source and still take it as fact is a fool and deserves to cop it. There's a good reason I read papers from the left, right and centre.

 

I avoid the news media at all costs, I prefer to believe in the general goodness of humanity and that we are worth a damn, reading/watching/listening to the media always seems to dilute my theory.

 

This man is on to something good. I can't stay away from economic, financial and business news, though.

Edited July 16, 2009 by Krezack

[Calax]

Well Wals, to the Anonymous factor, it's quite true that we're supposed to expect them to vet their sources. But I do think that you're holding them to a tiny bit of a high standard. I mean, Deep Throat was anon and he blew the lid off the biggest scandal the country has ever seen, from your stand point it seems like Deep Throat shouldn't have been believed.

 

As to the Israel thing, I don't like them for the attitude that Kezrak mentioned, but also I don't like the fact that they've basically institutionalized racism. Also I think that if we were to drop our support of them they'd be MUCH less forceful in their foreign relations.

 

I donno, from what I've seen of their actions, they're never gonna "live and let live" with arabic countries, and their attitude towards Palestine feels like the attitude of a parent to it's stupid kid, patronizing it and then beating the crap out of it when it gets a little bit out of line or shows any signs of independence.

 

And the few Israli's I've seen on TV (never actually met one) have always come across as thinking that they're superior to anyone else and that they're the best humans have to offer.

[Junai]

Careful people, you don't want them Israeli art-students showing up on your doorstep. Better fund their trillion dollar nuke-program. I mean, California is bankrupt, but hey.. as long as you guys got pot, IOUs and Fox News you'll be fine.

 

J.

[Guest PoziomyPion]

Press media aren't that bad really, if you search well enough, you will find some reliable ones. I myself read one weekly magazine which collects articles from other magazines/newspapers from over a week and two political magazines which I know are reliable sources of information. I avoid internet in most cases, it's full of anonymous bull.

 

But when we come to TV news, now that's entertaining. Sometimes I don't know if I'm watching Lethal Weapon 5 or an information programme.

I mean nowadays they can't just say that Mumbai Hotel was raided by terrorists and there were civilian casualties.No, it has to have a dramatic or actiony music, special video/audio effects and some crying people for the intro. And then they repeat that for the whole week, cause that covers work for a couple of days.

[Humodour]

Careful people, you don't want them Israeli art-students showing up on your doorstep. Better fund their trillion dollar nuke-program. I mean, California is bankrupt, but hey.. as long as you guys got pot, IOUs and Fox News you'll be fine.

 

J.

 

Thanks for a woefully useless post devoid of any substance.

[Junai]

Careful people, you don't want them Israeli art-students showing up on your doorstep. Better fund their trillion dollar nuke-program. I mean, California is bankrupt, but hey.. as long as you guys got pot, IOUs and Fox News you'll be fine.

 

J.

 

Thanks for a woefully useless post devoid of any substance.

 

I keep it short and to the point.

 

 

 

 

J.

[Gorgon]

Breaking the silence has been repeatedly ridiculed by official Israel as being 'activists', but you have to ask yourself what soldiers who were actually in the Gaza action have to gain by making this stuff up. If this really happened it isn't the kind of thing you bring up at the debriefing without subjecting yourself to repercussions.

 

So, how exactly does the story get told without anonymity. If a new source forgets to mention where these allegations came from, I dunno, maybe the editor was drunk, we will never know.

 

 

Tpoic is press behaviour, not Israel behaviour.

This is about the organization called breaking the silence and how it gets reported, you can't separate the topic from its context, well you can, but what would be the point of offering the example at all then.

 

You might have picked something less charged if you didn't want the one overshadowing the other though.

Edited July 20, 2009 by Gorgon

[Gorgon]

+s

[Walsingham]

Breaking the silence has been repeatedly ridiculed by official Israel as being 'activists', but you have to ask yourself what soldiers who were actually in the Gaza action have to gain by making this stuff up. If this really happened it isn't the kind of thing you bring up at the debriefing without subjecting yourself to repercussions.

 

So, how exactly does the story get told without anonymity. If a new source forgets to mention where these allegations came from, I dunno, maybe the editor was drunk, we will never know.

 

 

Tpoic is press behaviour, not Israel behaviour.

This is about the organization called breaking the silence and how it gets reported, you can't separate the topic from its context, well you can, but what would be the point of offering the example at all then.

 

You might have picked something less charged if you didn't want the one overshadowing the other though.

 

 

I'm not saying it's devoid of context. If it were I wouldn't have linked the story. But I wanted the focus on the actions of the press.

 

Sources are commonly anonymous. But generally, one expects a source to be at least verified by other journalists. I don't know if these were, but supposing someone had allowed other people to meet these sources it would have been mentioned somewhere. Instead it seems to me as credible as an internet claim of 'some guy told me'.

[Junai]

I don't know if these were, but supposing someone had allowed other people to meet these sources it would have been mentioned somewhere. Instead it seems to me as credible as an internet claim of 'some guy told me'.

 

As long as a whistleblower isn't identified the news is false? I guess it all comes down to who you trust. It is of course prudent to be sceptical when it comes to small indy-news sites with blurry and smelly anti-systemical agendas, but it's worth reading them anyway. The truth is often found somewhere "in between". A good example of news-manipulation and scripting is the 9/11 tragedy, where BBC boldly proclaimed that TT building 7 had collapsed as well, while you can see it standing in the horizon behind the news-reporter. It didn't come down until a couple of hrs later. They blamed the confusion and chaos of the day. The reporter was clearly reading straight from a manuscript which had been handed out. You can see it in this 2 hr A&E for 9/11 Truth movement video if you like.

 

It's so easy to let the Man spoonfeed us..

 

 

J.

[Walsingham]

I don't wish to be rude, but I have very little time for any claim that supposes a conspiracy where incompetence is a viable option. Conspiracy in general is nonsense for the very simple reason that ALL human organised endeavour is generally a nonsense.

 

As I said originally, my instinct is that the reports are genuine. However, without any verification how can one take the reports seriously? It can be reported as news, if only as an illustration of the contentious nature of the issue. But my point is that reporting it without mentioning the issue of credibility is deliberately misleading.

 

I suppose one might construe hypocrisy in my two statements above. I am contradicting myself by assuming a conspiracy where incompetence is possible.

[Junai]

"I'm sorry, due to our incompetence, we reported that TT build. 7 collapsed at freefall speed w/o ever having been hit by an airplane, 2 hrs before it actually happened. Oh, and some boys with boxcutters did it. We're so sorry, it was our mistake. Oh, and the 200 eyewitnesses which have reported molten steel and Thermate residues running at Ground Zero weeks after 9/11 on hundreds of TV-channels are wrong, coz u see, the head of FEMA said there are no witnesses.. Noone's trying to hide anything, honestly, we're just so abysmally incompetent.. yeah, that's it..".

 

 

wotever...

 

 

J.

[Aristes]

Junai Junai Junai... Although I'm generally not rude, I don't mind it if the situation fits. Your argument, at least the bare bones of an implied argument that come out of your posts, is imbecilic. By that I don't mean that you are a fool. That really would be both rude and also against the forum policies. Instead, I say that, while your posts are worthless and add nothing to the conversation, you yourself might be absolutely brilliant. I've seen that in a lot of consipracy theorists. You know, crazy or stupid ideas rampaging around in the head of a really bright person.

 

As with all conspiracies, I say show me the money. That doesn't mean a tortured trail sprinkled with conjecture and supported by useless sources. That means that a jury of 12 would agree that the only reasonable judgement is that a conspiracy had occured. There are conspiracies. There are even conspiracies where clearly something has gone awry, but the exact nature of it cannot be proved. However, there is a vast gulf between the number of conspiracy theories and actual conspiracies.

[Walsingham]

I must agree with Aristes comment about juridical proof. I urge you to do the same. Because otherwise you may go about believing almost anything, and that is one certificate away from insanity.

[Junai]

I've just given you a link to the most thorough independent 911 investigation that's out there, and you haven't even bothered to click on the link before you debunk me. This is what is meant by media-manipulation. American children are so thoroughly brainwashed that they can't even see the truth when they're hit over the head with it.

 

You guys are just sad.. really really sad.

 

 

12 jury members?

 

723 architects and engineers have signed this petition, calling upon congress for a thorough investigation;

 

Please Take Notice That:

 

On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 - specifically the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7.

 

Sincerely,

 

The Undersigned

 

 

Is that good enough for you, kiddo? Or are you waiting for judge Judy to present it to you in a reality show?

 

J.

Edited July 21, 2009 by Junai

[Aristes]

Yep, that was the trial I was looking for, Junai. Good work man. You will single handedly bring down the government and replace it with something better. In fact, rule by petition would be great!

[Calax]

I don't wish to be rude, but I have very little time for any claim that supposes a conspiracy where incompetence is a viable option. Conspiracy in general is nonsense for the very simple reason that ALL human organised endeavour is generally a nonsense.

 

As I said originally, my instinct is that the reports are genuine. However, without any verification how can one take the reports seriously? It can be reported as news, if only as an illustration of the contentious nature of the issue. But my point is that reporting it without mentioning the issue of credibility is deliberately misleading.

 

I suppose one might construe hypocrisy in my two statements above. I am contradicting myself by assuming a conspiracy where incompetence is possible.

who's to say they didn't verify the sources? I mean we don't exactly see everything they told us.