"Bush campaign ads using team"

[Occhidiangela]

Do you not understand? Fox News is not the same sort of media organ as the BBC, nor PBS.

As for MoveOn's comparison of Fox to Pravda, if the shoe fits... 

As a matter of fact, the shoe does not fit. That Fox does not share a leftist bias does not make it state run, nor does its somewhat rightist slant yield any particular virtue. It is what it is, mainly infotainment. At present, it is a soap opera station, broadcasting the Scott Peterson drama.

*pukes*

Occhi

[eppie]

As a matter of fact, the shoe does not fit. That Fox does not share a leftist bias does not make it state run, nor does its somewhat rightist slant yield any particular virtue

But the whole question is here not if something is state run, but if it is run by people with certain interests.
How would a patriotic american have problems with FOX if it was state run?
The problem people have with FOX is that the owner might use his TV station to influence people in a not so fair way.
I give you an example you must have heard of. Prime minister Berlusconi of Italy owns more or less 80 % of the television stationsmore or less in Italy...these stations are not state run, they are Berlusconi run, that is the whole problem.
The same thing with Bush and most of his Iraq-decisions. When somebody makes decissions, because of which he has personal financial gains, even if he made this decissions not thinking about these gains, it is suspicious. But that is allready something people should realize before an election. "do we want a president who has (and family and friends of him) a huge amount of interset in oil and weapon business?" Ultra left, in the middle, or Bush? No we don't want somebody like that, because you never know if he makes decissions for his country or for himself.
So I'm not saying that Bush invaded Iraq for his personal gain, but the fact that the question may be asked makes him not suitable for the presidency. And you (not you Occhi at the moment, but you in general) are in the US, but what do you think people from other countries feel when they see somebody like that as head of the US? (who of us will he attack next? :( )
If John Kerry get's elected and he makes a new law which forces everybody to eat ketchup every day, it would also seem rather strange or not?.

To go back to what damage these TV stations can done, I want to get back to Italy again.

Berlusconi is even worse than Bush, he makes laws just to benefit himself. Laws that get him of the hook from all of his fraud-scandals, laws that give his football team huge tax advantages etc.
And you know why he can do this, because he owns most of the television stations. In Holland we here a lot more about berlusconi than the people in Italy do, just because they don't televise all his sick jokes and mistakes.
And of course people can watch one of the impartial stations, but as you always say yourself, stupidity is natural (or something like that). (and the serious networks don't have halfnaked women running around all the time :D ) The problem is that people like to make use of this stupidity of these people. A bigger problem even is that these same people are also allowed to vote. :blink:

Now this is of course a more or less natural thing that happens in modern market economies, but some laws dissalowing people with mixed interests to lead a country do not seem very wrong to me.

[kandrathe]

Would these independant "commercial" contestants have any media exposure without the promotion of moveon.org? I doubt it. Could it be that the "contestants" and the contest were a ruse to vent on Bush by proxy? Just as Kerry is able to distance himself from moveon.org, now moveon.org tries to shrug off the smear by distancing itself for its web content claiming "It wasn't us".

>wink< Uh, huh. Right. And, I've got this bridge over a river of BS I'd like to sell...

Sorry, but for me, every web site is soley responsible for their posted content whether that be Al Jazeera posting the beheadings of journalists, or SBVT.

[RogueMage]

every web site is soley responsible for their posted content

Agreed, and so did MoveOn. They took responsibility and promptly removed the offending videos from their web site. If this was just a case of agreeing on what's in poor taste, that would have been the end of the matter. As it happened, it was not MoveOn that promoted the videos with wider media exposure beyond the contest's web page, it was their opponents, attempting to use it to discredit and silence MoveOn's criticism. And that's what this is all about, isn't it? Silencing the opposition.

[RogueMage]

Fox News is not the same sort of media organ as the BBC, nor PBS.

Your comparison makes it obvious that state ownership of media is no longer an overriding factor in determining its content. PBS, for example, clearly does not parrot the US government's line as Pravda once did for the USSR. (I'll let the BBC defend itself. ;) )

What we see currently is that corporate control of major media outlets can get the job done by covert means. Where Fox strongly resembles Pravda is in its blatant promotion of Bush Administration political propaganda (aka "talking points") packaged as if it were news (i.e. portraying heresay as objective events).

[kandrathe]

If this was just a case of agreeing on what's in poor taste, that would have been the end of the matter. As it happened, it was not MoveOn that promoted the videos with wider media exposure beyond the contest's web page, it was their opponents, attempting to use it to discredit and silence MoveOn's criticism.

Reminiscent of the current SBVT issue. If the major media hadn't pumped it up, it would have been just another bad taste political meme popular with the afficiendado's of that particular political flavor. It still dodges the point. SBVT, moveon.org, and any number of other 527's should take responsibility for the content of their sites, before they publish. Maybe they could have reworded the contest. Totally outragreous poor taste Bush bashing ad's The "Oops, sorry, I accidently published an outrageous potential advertisment." doesn't wash in my opinion. It was either intentional or irresponsible, and both should be condemned with equal vigor. Another opinion.

And that's what this is all about, isn't it? Silencing the opposition.

No. It's about taking responsibility for your speech. With free speech comes the responsibility of standing behind and being judged by your words. 527's are a cheap way for the RNC or DNC to covertly fund a group that says the hateful, hurtful, and semi-slanderous. We have a multi-tiered BS deliver system here. First the candidate's campaigns, then the respective National political apparatus, then the PAC's, then 527's.

No, let's have free speech. But, let the people who fund it, produce it, and publish it be responsible for the content so that we can hold them accountable for it.

BTW, in my search for those links I discovered that moveon.org did not remove that content, they just made it harder to find. And then finally after Drudge kept digging it up off their site did they finally remove it. Do you work for moveon.org (George Soros) or are you just a career apologist for the left? I'm against propaganda generated from any extremists, whether they be George Soros or Karl Rove.

It’s incredibly ironic that George Soros is trying to create a more open society by using an unregulated, under-the-radar-screen, shadowy, soft-money group to do it. George Soros has purchased the Democratic Party. - Christine Iverson

[Sir_Die_alot]

So I'm not saying that Bush invaded Iraq for his personal gain, but the fact that the question may be asked makes him not suitable for the presidency.

If you like that one, there is more evidance that Kerry is a war criminal and not fit to serve in Abu-Gharib, let alone the presidancy of the United States. Don't you see what is going on here? This information you admit to be dubious, but you still base your opinion on it. You are personally demonstrating just how slime and misinformation campaigns turn willfully ignorant people into political tools. There is a famous term credited to Lenin for people who form opinions like this, it's rather insulting so I won't use it.

[Taem]

There’s so many threads in this thread that I'm not sure where to put this little tidbit so I'll just plop it down here.

Before I post, I would like to clarify that I'm genuinely curious as to 'what' Bush means by this statement and am not trying to make him "look bad"; he does the job well enough himself thank-you! Anyways, I'm curious as to what fellow Lurkers think about bushes statement regarding the war in Iraq:

The president, who was campaigning in West Virginia, called the war a "catastrophic success." He noted in a Time magazine interview in today's editions that he still would have gone into Iraq, but with different tactics, had he known "that an enemy that should have surrendered or been done in escaped and lived to fight another day."

The full article can be found here:
http://www.latimes.com/news/yahoo/la-na-pr...1,7352809.story

Is he claiming the war is successfully catastrophic, and his goal of chaos was fulfilled <sarcasm>? Is he saying there were terrible losses but the war was still a success? If the latter, then this seems to conflict with his other statements:

"I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create the conditions that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world," he told NBC.

The full article can be found here:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CVN...EMPLATE=DEFAULT

If you can't "win it", then how is it a success? Which makes me wonder, just what the hell is he trying to say? I will hold my more outlandish theories until I hear some of yours ;) .

[D-Dave]

Taking about global sentiment...

As I am a "foreign spectator" to this election, I have to say that both campaigns have very disturbing undertones.
They mainly focus on personal issues and some general statements instead of dealing with the actual agendas.

I mean the whole "I am so great I can do better" and "I am so great I only need more time to show it" theme is just ridiculous. Adding to this the gruesome rhetorics (which would outside of the US probably be best suitable for either left- or right-wing extremist partys) and the whole campaigning appears to be very shabby.

To me it appears that both candidates are more interested in power then in people, else there would have been at least one of them commenting on the situation on Florida's Voter Rolls or on the fate of former Military Member's like Sean Baker. Ah well, maybe the latter is only a 2nd class Veteran because he was harmed on home soil not on enemy terretory.

So all in all both partys seem to enjoy talking about Booze, Vietnam, Purple Hearts, Waffles, the National Guard and Botox more then realy telling the voters what they have in stock for the next 4 years...very reassuring.

Hm, now would I vote for the guy saying "God is on our side" or for the guy saying "I hope we are on Gods side"?
Damn, history told me that mixing politics with religion is a bad thing and that whenever politicians call upon God (by whatever name) us ordinary people are about to get seriously screwed.

Well, good night, good fight.
Dave

[LiquidDamage]

Where Fox strongly resembles Pravda is in its blatant promotion of Bush Administration political propaganda (aka "talking points") packaged as if it were news (i.e. portraying heresay as objective events).

Great video. I love Jon Stewart.

Pay no attention to the fact that CNN is featured more heavily issuing the same propaganda as well, along with MSNBC and ABC.

Seriously, I'm more angry at CNN than Fox, and so is Jon Stewart. It is so damn easy to tell where the slant is with Fox. With CNN... who knows?

That is why I think Jon is right when he says that "fair and balanced" isn't an really a statement about Fox News. It's a dig, because CNN isn't "fair and balanced" yet portrays itself as unbiased. We all know Fox is biased, and from which side.

EDIT: In case you don't want to read that whole link about Jon Stewart on CNN's "Reliable Sources", I'll post the important bit:

STEWART: You guys are confusing yourselves with real journalists.

KURTZ: Oh boy, you're loaded (UNINTELLIGIBLE) today.

STEWART: Instead of putting on shows like "CROSSFIRE" and "Gotcha" and "I'm Going To Kick Your Ass With Tucker Carlson" and "Let's Beat Up The Short Guy." That was just one that I...

KURTZ: I'm glad you're at least watching so much CNN, Jon.

STEWART: I am watching it constantly. It's driving me insane. Make the ticker stop. You're in the middle of a damn sniper story, and all of a sudden underneath it, you know, "Liza Minnelli's first VH1 show to air."

KURTZ: There's a new thing out called...

STEWART: What?

KURTZ: There's a new thing out called remote control. We'll have to get you one.

STEWART: But you're the news. That works for entertainment. People need you. Help us. Help us.

[kandrathe]

My take would be that they did not expect the Bathists to shed their uniforms and blend in to the population, only to emerge as an organized insurgency 30 days later. That seems to have been the Saddam tactic actually, distributing caches of weapons and materials to mount an attack once the invading infidels declared a victory. I also don't think they believed they would be in Baghdad so quickly, and that the organized resistance would have crumpled so easily. Once the organized Iraqi armies had disbanded, we were left with an overwhelming supply problem. Also, they had no clue that the Iraqi infrastructure was in such shambles. Saddam had bankrupt everything in order to maintain the status quo of his regal slendor. Once the infrastructure teams started getting in and exposing themselves, then the insurgency started going after the soft targets. Rather than take on the hard shell and the horns, they waited until the underbelly was exposed. I think the US was overly optimistic in believing the majority of administrative functions would just transfer over allegiance to the new bosses, when in fact every institution disappeared and had to be rebuilt from scratch. So, catastrophic in the sense that we planned on a best case scenario, and ended up with the worst case scenario.

"I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create the conditions that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world," Bush said on NBC.

As in, hoping the terrorists will one day decide to surrender and stop fighting. This is kind of like the war on drugs, or the war on poverty. It is realistic to expect that we can hold states accountable enough to not actively support or abet terrorists within their borders and to work in concert with other nations to prosecute and discourage terrorism. It is unrealistic to believe you can end extremism.

Kerry responded that the struggle was "absolutely" winnable and Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards said Bush's remark amounted to a concession of defeat in the war that terrorists launched in 2001. 

Ok, now who is being unrealistic and promising us the moon and stars.

[Assur]

Hi

All I can say as somebody who has done quite some studytime on counterinsurgency/low intensity warfare, the post-war policy/strategy in Iraq has been mishandled in such a way that sometimes I'm left wondering how people can be so incompetent. Bremer et al. aren't people who have been picked by random choice and all the different intelligence outfits of the US have a combined budget that tops the budgets of a lot of states! If Bush/Rumsfeld/Pentagon are now saying "Oops, that's not what we expected" they just show the dephts of their incompetence <_<

@D-Dave: Just posting as a political scientist from Germany; politicians never tell people what they are going to do in the next four years, they tell people what they hope will get them elected! I don't remember anything from the last election in Germany about Hartz IV ( not that I have any problems with it, smash the proles)

[kandrathe]

All I can say as somebody who has done quite some studytime on counterinsurgency/low intensity warfare, the post-war policy/strategy in Iraq has been mishandled in such a way that sometimes I'm left wondering how people can be so incompetent.

Part of the problem is that too many people put stock in rosey scenarios and theoretical possibilities, rather than take the advice of people who had their boots on the ground. It's easy for us to be arm chair generals complaining about the spilt milk. I suspect that a] the insurgency was underestimated b] the logistics of containing it were beyond their capabilities due to a] , and c] civilization crashed to zero there for about 3 months until Bremer was able to re-establish basic infrastructures making b] more difficult to implement and therefore delayed by many weeks. Like any war plan you predict the extremes and the likely scenario. I doubt this thing unfolded anything like their "likely scenario".

There was a time when Congress was clamoring for sending in more troops. The problem then was that what remained to be called in were combat soldiers, not the specialists needed in administration, military police, construction engineers, etc which were what was needed. So, more bodies without training in the needed skills would just result in a bigger logistics problem, and potentially more body bags being flown home. So yeah, there should have been better planning. But, like in 1994. We need to retool the post cold war military into a force that has an adequate combat force, but also can step in and rebuild a post war shattered country, keep order, and step out quickly. They might have been counting on the UN, NATO, or other nations to step forward and shoulder some of the burden.

[eppie]

If you like that one, there is more evidance that Kerry is a war criminal and not fit to serve in Abu-Gharib, let alone the presidancy of the United States. Don't you see what is going on here? This information you admit to be dubious, but you still base your opinion on it. You are personally demonstrating just how slime and misinformation campaigns turn willfully ignorant people into political tools. There is a famous term credited to Lenin for people who form opinions like this, it's rather insulting so I won't use it.

But you forget that I come from a country where there is real freedom like there should be. No freedom to own guns, but freedom to drink a beer when you are 17 years old for example. Another nice feature is that unlike other countries we have quite a good independent media. And the relative amount of propaganda is a lot lower. We also don't vote for somebody just becasue he is the president at the moment.

If we consider the attack on Iraq no lie of the media, that is enough for my opinions. In the US 52 % of the people still believe Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks. etc. I can go on but please don't accuse me of making my opinion up just like that. I'm sure that if the US had the same kind of media as in Holland, it would be a lot more a land of the free.
Anyway, why I'm always involved in these discussions. Like someone ce on this forum "the people get who they deserve", okay let's make a very bald statement and say the people of the deserve GWBush (sorry for the 50 % that voted for Gore) You would say, let them go, it is their own problem. But that is of course not true. If half of americans have their opinions based on FOX news, that hurts the rest of the world, and that's why I hope GWBush does not get another term.

[Occhidiangela]

Every news organ is run by Somebody. None are neutral, none are purely objective, none can completely divorce themselves from editorial slant. What is increasingly ditsurbing is that the ownership of "free world" news organs (ever hear of a liberal named Ted Turner? He created CNN and TNN. His influence.) are increasingly de emphasizing ethical, professional, journalism and increasingly becoming opinion factories.

CSPAN is one of the few channles that is semi free of that, as it tries to get at the process while it happens, but selection of "who is on" can subtly slant what is put out and whose opinion is heard.

Fox and its "fair and balanced" tag line (rather humorous, and it sure made Al Franken some money when they got all snooty about it!) is an advertising line, a self description, not a statement of fact made by neutral observers.

The New York Times has damaged its own credibility, which is a shame, since I held that paper in high regard for many years. Editorial slant and ownership influence are increasing, not decreasing, at the cost of the quality of professional journalism's once respected standards.

You still find good investigative reporters, such as Rober Kaplan, but they are becoming fewer and farther between. He's a print media guy.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

But you forget that I come from a country where there is real freedom like there should be. No freedom to own guns, but freedom to drink a beer when you are 17 years old for example. Another nice feature is that unlike other countries we have quite a good independent media. And the relative amount of propaganda is a lot lower. We also don't vote for somebody just becasue he is the president at the moment.

If I recall, you are from Germany. As to your last, you're kidding, right? Your tongue was in your cheek, right? Maybe you don't vote thuswiise, good for you niehter do I, but Helmut Kohl served as Chancellor for HOW LONG? Was it 17 years?

As to the right to bear arms, if you and your fellow citizens are willing to trust the cohesiveness of society and the general good nature of those fellow citizens, and the various immigrants who arrive as gastarbiter, to respect peaceable social norms, that is all to the good. Americans are by nature suspicious of government, since government of the people is made up of people, people like us . . . yeah, best keep a wary eye out. Not everyone buys into the same norms. Last I heard, such diversity was being lauded as good. It comes with a price.

In the US 52 % of the people still believe Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks

.

Curious as to where you found that alleged fact. It is known that Osama Bin Laden was behind the attack, it has not been shown that Bin Laden had any support from Saddam (it also has not been shown that he did not, but proving a negative is even harder than otherwise and beside the point) and it is known that Saddam supported terror orgainzations who induced young folks to perform as suicide bombers in Israel. He paid money to the families of some of those folks.

Now, is that sufficient "state sponsorship" of terror, by itself, to go after Saddam? Nope. If that were the case, we'd have been in Iran in about 1983, after the Beirut bombing, and would have done more than bomb Lybia in 1986. Not to mention after the Locherbie terror bombing . . .

But it contributed to the decision.

I am still not sure "why now" though I have offered opinions on that previously in this forum. I would advise you to consider that to some people, the combination of factors were a strong argument for getting him out off the world stage. Not strong enough for some, though, to include Putin, Schroeder, and Chirac, among others. Too bad a better case was not made.

The comments that Kandrathe and Assur make about poor preparation for the Phase IV, which has devolved in parts of Iraq into a counterinsurgency, suggest that some of the policy makers misunderstood just how big a power vacuum would be created when Saddam and his network were forcibly removed. All they had to do was look at Bosnia for A BLOODY CLUE!!!! *grinds teeth*

Over here, I refer to Operation Iraqi Freedom, Phase Four, as Phase "Forever." I hope my little jest is wrong.

Oh crap, we are STILL in Bosnia . . . crap crap crap.

Occhi

[eppie]

If I recall, you are from Germany. As to your last, you're kidding, right? Your tongue was in your cheek, right? Maybe you don't vote thuswiise, good for you niehter do I, but Helmut Kohl served as Chancellor for HOW LONG? Was it 17 years?

Holland, (or the Netherlands) thank you very much, that is about the same as calling an Irishman a Brit. ;)

QUOTE&nbsp;
In the US 52 % of the people still believe Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks
.

Curious as to where you found that alleged fact. It is known that Osama Bin Laden was behind the attack, it has not been shown that Bin Laden had any support from Saddam (it also has not been shown that he did not, but proving a negative is even harder than otherwise and beside the point) and it is known that Saddam supported terror orgainzations who induced young folks to perform as suicide bombers in Israel. He paid money to the families of some of those folks.

I heard it on the radio. By the way, I'm sure those 52 % don't include most lurkers, it was just to indicate the power of the media, and the fact that they will not always show you the facts. Come to think of it, I don't see a lot of difference with North Korea in this one. :D (I know how bad a person Kim is but at least he doesn't bother the world with. (yes the sarcastic undertone was meant).

The same will be the fact in Italy, and Spain. Time ago a research in Germany (a country where I'm not from :D ) showed, that 25 % of the germans thought Bush had soemthing to do with the 9/11 attacks. And that was pre Michael Moore's fahrenheit911. I don't share that opinion, but it shows that the image of the US is not that great, and that's a shame because it is not caused becasue of "americans" it is caused by one man. (who of course couldn't care less because he doesn't even speak german, let alone know where it is :D ) (that was a joke).

I don't blame Bush for the troubles that are now in Iraq, although it was not very smart of his advisors to expect that something else might have happened. But it is a way it always goes if you try to install a new government.

[Occhidiangela]

Checked your profile, nothing there. Then I guessed, and "whiffed."

Sorry about that. :(

"I think I'll pay some Dutchman to set fire to Lord Snowden."

There, I feel better now.

Occhi

PS: Just because you heard it on the radio, does not make it true.

Two words to support that statement.

Rush Limbaugh. <_<

[Sir_Die_alot]

But you forget that I come from a country where there is real freedom like there should be. No freedom to own guns, but freedom to drink a beer when you are 17 years old for example.

Oh I'm sorry you're right. You are completely objective and the Netherlands is obviously devoid of nationalistic propoganda. </sarcasm> That first sentance alone drips with the propoganda that no doubt inspired it. Just because someone disagrees with you on what "freedom" "should be" does not make them wrong and you right. The only true "free" countries in this world are horrible places because there is no enforced law.

Another nice feature is that unlike other countries we have quite a good independent media.

As Occhi said there is no independant media. Someone has to run it and just because that person is "independant" of the government does not mean they will (or even can) avoid slanting the news one way or the other. Indeed thanks to Fox, I've found I rather perfer a reporter that is up front about their personal political views so I can have a point of referance when they deliver a story. With CNN and their attempt at objectivity I'm left wondering "What did they not tell me this time?".

And the relative amount of propaganda is a lot lower.

Just because you agree with the propoganda does not make it something else. It's harder to see propoganda when it is something you agree with because you just accept it. The fact you see it at all tells me there is plenty.

I'm sure that if the US had the same kind of media as in Holland, it would be a lot more a land of the free.

Here you go again. No nationalistic pride there. You are a completely independant objective individual.

Holland is a geographicly small country, and for this reason you don't get a lot of different thinking people. I'm not saying you all think the same but the majority of people who live in an area tend to think similarly. You, your neighbor, and some guy 50 miles away most likely agree on most things politically and socially, but compair Holland and the US geographically. Stick the continental US on Europe and depending on how you swing the land mass we stretch well into Russa, central Africa, or even into northern Iran. Now granted due to the majority of the people in America having similar roots there is not that much divide. However you get an idea of how widly people's opinions, and therefore medias, can and do vary in America in ways that could not be mirriored in Holland.

[Thecla]

In the US 52 % of the people still believe Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks

Curious as to where you found that alleged fact.

Not exactly 52%, and the poll refers to Iraq and Al Qaeda rather than 9/11 specifically (if that is a distinction you care to make), but for example:

According to a Harris poll in late April [2004], a plurality of Americans, 49 percent to 36 percent, believe "clear evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda has been found."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Jun16.html

Or another one:

In this poll [June, 2004], 62 percent think Iraq provided direct support to al Qaeda, nearly what it was (68 percent) in January 2003, before the war. But just 23 percent say there's "solid evidence" of this support; 38 percent say instead that it's their suspicion only.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Polls/ir...ion_040621.html

p.s. Of course, it's possible that Dick Cheney happened to be included in the sample, thereby inflating the results.