Funny article, opinions please.

[Grumpy]

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/correspondent/3028585.stm

Hopefully the link works.

My questions:

1. Do you believe that article?
2. If no why? If yes why?
3. If you believe it is true, what is the implication?

Edit: typo

[--Pete]

Hi,

Well, first of all when giving a link, just copy the URL from your browser's address line. That makes life a bit easier for the rest of us since (a) each of us don't have to do the cutting and pasting, and (B) clicking on a link in a post from the LL opens the link in a new window.

So, here's the "easy" link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/corr...ent/3028585.stm

As to the article itself, I neither believe nor not believe it. The facts of the case are whatever they are. I do not put it beyond the press and the military to spin the story (or even make it up entirely) in their favor. I do not put it past some anti-American reporter to spin the story (or even make it up entirely) to make the USA and its military look bad.

Given contradictory evidence presented by organizations famous for their lying, I will simply reserve judgment until someone whom I feel I can trust investigates the matter and publishes something more useful than an outhouse necessity.

To answer the last question you posed: if it is true, then we discover to our shock and horror that the military and the press lie. Oh, wait. Some of us discovered that back in the '60s in a small vacation spot off the South China Sea.

--Pete

[Grumpy]

Thanks for the corrected link Pete.

If it is true, does it bother you that stories are presented this way?

Do you just expect it as part of the political game and not think much of it?

[--Pete]

Hi,

If it is true, does it bother you that stories are presented this way?

Do you mean am I irritated the the source of my information is often a lying (fill in favorite epithet)? Of course I am. But I got over the surprise and shock a long time ago.

Do you just expect it as part of the political game and not think much of it?

I think about it a lot. It colors every newspaper article I read, it makes me look for a slant in every news story I watch (a short list). But the saying "don't believe everything you read" was old when I was young. Nothing new here and nothing worth getting overly upset about.

Which is why a person who has some hope of being informed (as opposed to brainwashed) gets his info from as many sources as possible. And picks those sources for their mutual antipathy. Hearing the same story from each member of the same choir adds not a bit to its credibility.

Since this particular story has no real impact on me (i.e., it is more akin to gossip than to news) I couldn't care less which side is telling the bigger lies. So, I am not concerned about it and have, for the most part, ignored it. I am much more concerned as time goes on for the (lack) of post hoc justification of the war itself. And for the blissful ignorance of the American people who's attitude seems to be, "We won, so who gives a rat's ass if we should have ever fought in the first place." Now *that* bothers me. That the intelligence level in the worlds most powerful (economically and militarily) representative democracy is so low the average citizen's input on a Sunday picnic is flawed worries me. A bunch of children playing with matches on a powder keg, with the leaders being the most childish off all.

But that's another topic.

--Pete