It's everywhere. In the US Fox News is a good example, but bad hometown newspapers are common.
A recent example comes from Fox which recently reported on 741 Muslim-dominated “no-go zones” around France. An "expert" recently reported this on Fox:
In Britain, it's not just no go zones, there are actual cities like Birmingham that are totally Muslim where non-Muslims just simply don't go in. And parts of London, there are actually Muslim religious police that actually beat and actually wound seriously anyone who doesn't dress according to Muslim, religious Muslim attire. So there's a situation that Western Europe is not dealing with.
Bad reporting where you live? Share it.
And it's not just big stuff, particularly with small newspapers. The "news" can be quite trivial like this piece from a newspaper in Minnesota:
It didn't take long for Myron and Betty Ann Young to be reunited.
The couple died 48 hours apart last week. The couple spent their entire marriage in Mower County.
Thankfully I don't have Fox news which acording to what i have sussed out about it is something to be thankful for.
It did get things very wrong firstly on the second city of Birmingham. The city however does have a minority of indigenous English people and Muslims have a very large part of the population and majority of school children also non-indigenous and with language problems thrown in. The City education Dept was investigated by the national authorities due to some Islam dodgy stuff in some schools. London too is no longer traditional English either but the majority cover a wide range of incomers while the many traditional English people who can afford it had beat it off out the city. It is obvious that due to these actual practicalities, Fox either just "assumed" or misused things to suit themselves. It seems a rather odd lot the Fox crowd and not a very balanced scenario at all.
A recent example comes from Fox which recently reported on 741 Muslim-dominated “no-go zones” around France. An "expert" recently reported this on Fox:
Those turned out to be Senstive Urban Zones (http://sig.ville.gouv.fr/Atlas/ZUS/), which amount to being poor areas of town. It doesn't mean that it's areas given over to Sharia law and white people and police can't go there or other gibberish. You'll notice some of those zones are designated ZRU, which is a renewal zone (ie gentrification, new offices, etc.) That's pretty well the opposite of "no-go."
It doesn't mean that it's areas given over to Sharia law and white people and police can't go there or other gibberish. You'll notice some of those zones are designated ZRU, which is a renewal zone (ie gentrification, new offices, etc.) That's pretty well the opposite of "no-go."
You know that and I know that, but the Fox News speaking head didn't. Many of the news presenters aren't known for high intelligence but for other attributes. Give this a gander to see what I mean.
https://www.google.com/search?q=fox+news+women&client=opera&hs=Qm2&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=mfy_VOrFK4OkyQT4moCgBw&ved=0CCgQsAQ&biw=984&bih=533&dpr=3 (https://www.google.com/search?q=fox+news+women&client=opera&hs=Qm2&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=mfy_VOrFK4OkyQT4moCgBw&ved=0CCgQsAQ&biw=984&bih=533&dpr=3)
I'm sure you know that Paris is threatening to sue Fox "News" over its false claim. I'm not convinced it will really happen, but if it does it will about time somebody holds Fox accountable for its poor reporting and outright lies. There are those that will defend Fox by saying "Oh MSNBC and CNN are so accurate..." In fact, studies have repeatedly shown Fox to be the least accurate out the three major News networks by a large margin.
Naked news.
Nothing to hide.
http://www.xvideos.com/video2196975/naked_news_sports_20120430
I'm sure you know that Paris is threatening to sue Fox "News" over its false claim. I'm not convinced it will really happen, but if it does it will about time somebody holds Fox accountable for its poor reporting and outright lies. There are those that will defend Fox by saying "Oh MSNBC and CNN are so accurate..." In fact, studies have repeatedly shown Fox to be the least accurate out the three major News networks by a large margin.
Good luck with that. Fox is driven by ideology when politics is involved. And, no, I don't watch Fox news but know about their slant.
Naked news.
Nothing to hide.
http://www.xvideos.com/video2196975/naked_news_sports_20120430
:o Beats the hell out of Fox. :jester:
For a slightly more nuanced version the "No-Go Zones" flap (written by the scholar who coined the usage, Daniel Pipes…) read this (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/396918/question-no-go-zones-europe-daniel-pipes).
A taste:
In a 2006 weblog entry (http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2006/11/the-751-no-go-zones-of-france), I called Muslim enclaves in Europe no-go zones as a non-euphemistic equivalent for the French phrase Zones Urbaines Sensibles, or Sensitive Urban Zones. No-go zones subsequently became standard in English to describe Muslim-majority areas in West Europe.After spending time in the banlieues (suburbs) of Paris in January 2013, as well as in their counterparts in Antwerp, Athens, Berlin, Brussels, Copenhagen, the Hague, Malmö, and Stockholm, however, I had second thoughts. I found that those areas “are not full-fledged no-go zones” — meaning places where the government had lost control of territory. No warlords dominate; sharia is not the law of the land. I expressed regret back then for having used the term no-go zones.
So, what are these places? A unique and as yet unnamed mix.
The Paris mor is a good example of that daft hyped up French emotional stuff. I dare say there are dodgy places but it will not come to legal action which is such a silly thing.
Fox News is a business. As such, they give their customers what they want. For some pathological reason their customers want to hear sensationalist nonsense like this. Those "no-go" areas sound a bit like impoverished minority majority neighborhoods even in the US, even with the occasional eruptions of violence. Witness Fergusson. But Fox customers are often biased against France, still harboring a grudging about Operation Desert Storm and WANT to hear how the French government supposedly lost control of those neighborhoods.
Having said all that, of the news networks the data I found is that CNN is the most accurate and gets their facts correct around 66% of the time. That's still a failing grade. Apologies, I'm having difficulty locating the information again and dinner is about to burn :p
The Paris mor is a good example of that daft hyped up French emotional stuff. I dare say there are dodgy places but it will not come to legal action which is such a silly thing.
???
The Paris mor is a good example of that daft hyped up French emotional stuff. I dare say there are dodgy places but it will not come to legal action which is such a silly thing.
???
Howie-eze is a dialect only spoken by a handful of people in and around Glasgow. Nobody outside of their select group are able to decipher their peculiar brand of "English".
It's called Glasgowese.
Bad reporting where you live? Share it.
Report the bad reporting? :)
Bad reporting where you live? Share it.
Report the bad reporting? :)
But report it badly. ;)
Howie-eze is a dialect only spoken by a handful of people in and around Glasgow. Nobody outside of their select group are able to decipher their peculiar brand of "English".
They need to hurry up and invent the universal translator just for those folks.
A Scottish reporter was said to retort
after reporting so badly his report was reported
ye dinna wiggle awa wi yer fnooking cawoddle
I'll twaddle ya sporran -- so thah
And mjsmsprt40 a Yank mumbling about English coming from the country he does? There is even a book here (two now I think at least) giving a translation of the working class Glaswegian dialect. No high ground Chicago man from a country that mispronounces English language words to blow at someone else. Indeed wew have a great word to describe your stance -heidthebaw. :D
:jester:
It's actually two Scottish words and one that we all know.
Heid the baw
“Hoi – heid the baw! Cut that oot or yer claimed.”
Translation:
heid the baw: (head the ball) madman, pest, irritating person, idiot. (also: bawheid).
“Hey – you annoying bastard! Stop that immediately or you and I will definitely be fighting, and you will lose.” :jester:
I wouldn't put the blame solely on FOX
Debunking the Myth of Muslim-Only Zones in Major European Cities (http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2015-01-14/debunking-the-muslim-nogo-zone-myth)
The story didn't die there. Nigel Farage, head of Britain's anti-immigrant U.K. Independence Party, asserted on Jan. 13 that there were no-go zones "right across Europe. We have got no-go zones across most of the big French cities," he told Fox News. Another Fox commentator, Nolan Peterson, has been posting online reports this week saying that some 750 areas in France have been "marked as off-limits by French authorities, restricting access by police and other emergency services."
While the British were outraged, the French simply seem amused. Paris social-media wags have already posted a guide to "eating and drinking in the no-go zones," which happen to include some of the city's trendy gentrifying neighborhoods.
In fact, France does maintain a list of 750 "sensitive" neighborhoods. Far from being considered "off limits" to authorities, they've been designated as priority areas for urban renewal and other forms of state aid.
"That's pretty funny," says Hait Abbas, a non-practicing Muslim who runs a wine shop in a Paris neighborhood among those identified by Peterson as a no-go zone. Far from being Muslim-dominated, the neighborhood near the Gare du Nord train station bustles with Italian delis, African hair-braiding shops, and Chinese massage parlors. If it's governed by Islamic law, Abbas says, "I guess I better cut my hand off."
Where did the story of the no-go zones come from? Daniel Pipes, a U.S. historian and political commentator, says he believes he was the first person to refer to disadvantaged French neighborhoods as no-go zones. In a 2006 article, he said the existence of the zones suggested "that the French state no longer has full control over its territory."
I don't know France. I know in Sweden a usually serious newspaper last year decided to go full tabloid (http://www.svd.se/opinion/ledarsidan/55-no-go-zoner-i-sverige-minner-om-parallellsamhallen_4051399.svd) to get attention to a police report on 55 national troublespots that have problems with gangs or other organised crime and called them no go zones. It is a serious issue, but in the end not helped by the hyperbole. Most, but not all, of the trouble spots have a high number of immigrants or people with immigrant background. Most, but not all, of these immigrants have Muslim background. Almost all places have bad to abysmal architecture, but at least one is actually rather nice. At least some have a long history of trouble, from before there were any migration outside Northern Europe to speak of.
I have been to about a dozen of those trouble spots, though in most cases not for very long. None of them were scary, most of them were depressing, a couple very much so, and one was as mentioned quite nice. In a week I am moving close to two of them.
Incidentally, if you remember the Stockholm riots a couple years ago, the close vicinity is quite attractive (some of it definitely not), but we couldn't find something there we liked and could afford. I had hoped for the riot effect to push down prices, but the market is too pressed for that, (I thought Oslo was expensive, and its getting more so, but Stockholm may exceed that.)
I had hoped for the riot effect to push down prices, but the market is too pressed for that, (I thought Oslo was expensive, and its getting more so, but Stockholm may exceed that.)
What you need is some
bad reporting on the area you're interested in.
The locals are too canny. But maybe next time I move I could bribe some young hoodlum in the neighbourhood to set fire to a few cars, wait for the reports on the crime wave to set in, the prices to fall, and then buy. In that case it would be good reporting, wouldn't it?
Nigel Farage is not too far off. Paris is a definite no-go zone for Brits.
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN79k7x63Bg[/video]
Mr Bean is the alter ego of all the Saxons. What they aspire to be when grown up but don't have the courage to say...
I think he looks very much as Prince-Next-King(?)-Charles.
Irony, irony. Comment coming from the economicc mess of a country that chased out it's Monarch and shepherded in a century of nothing along with no freedom. .
And now for something (almost…) completely different! (Try to remember the title of the original post.)
Brian Williams, war hero? War whore?
If the latter, he'd not have made a living, except in his chosen profession. If the former, he'd be in line for a Democratic nomination…provided that we currently don't like "the enemy".
Would anyone talk about this sort of "bad reporting"? (Or are we only bashing ideological adversaries?)
There seems to have been lost a simple commitment to veracity…
I don't think it was my fault. Was it yours?
Yet one more kerfuffle. Of all the things that matter in the world, BW sucks hind tit. Slow day in the media.
:bye: Brian :bye:
That anchorman claimed that it was because a while ago that he got things mixed up?? Remember dear folks a certain woman called Hilary Clinton now wanting to be President of child land saying the same thing not long after being "shot at on the Balkans?? :D
That anchorman claimed that it was because a while ago that he got things mixed up?? Remember dear folks a certain woman called Hilary Clinton now wanting to be President of child land saying the same thing not long after being "shot at on the Balkans?? :D
Child land? What outrageous bullshit. If you have something to say, why not just say it?
=====================
Find a politician who never said something stupid and I'll show you a politician who never won.
There was an unnamed candidate who said that, "he never finished high school because he was kidnapped and kept in a closet in Mexico."
Another oops moment?
David CameronMr Cameron was defending the Coalition's health reforms when he rounded on Angela Eagle, a shadow Treasury minister. She had told him that he had got his facts wrong about Howard Stoate, a former Labour MP and GP who has backed the NHS plans.
Mr Cameron replied: "Calm down, dear, calm down. Calm down and listen to the doctor."
Yes and the world would like the USA to calm down and butt out of trying to run the planet. Thanks for your comment but it suitably misses the points. It is the sytem of the world's greatest country (!) that is the problem and the clever wil make an odd positive comment then pretend all is well. Clinton did lie!
Yes and the world would like the USA to calm down and butt out of trying to run the planet. Thanks for your comment but it suitably misses the points. It is the sytem of the world's greatest country (!) that is the problem and the clever wil make an odd positive comment then pretend all is well. Clinton did lie!
Utter nonsense. Nobody would like us out of the bad places we've been involved in, but "trying to run the planet" is simple hogwash. The greatest country nonsense is mouthed by a handful of media mouths and doesn't reflect the views of serious people. How do British see themselves? From The Telegraph...
"Why should we be proud to be British?
Because no country has made such a contribution to the happiness of mankind. The idea of constitutional liberty, of freedom under the law guaranteed by parliamentary representation, is a British invention. Sure, there were premonitions on both sides of the border, and in other places, from mediaeval times. But constitutional government as we understand it today was forged in the civil conflicts of the seventeenth century. Those conflicts cut laterally across the two nations: English Cavaliers made common cause with Scottish Royalists, English Puritans with Scottish Presbyterians. The latter alliance was, thank God, triumphant and, in due course, parliamentary supremacy was formally established by the near-simultaneous ratification in 1689 of (in Scotland) the Claim of Right and (in England) the Bill of Rights."
Forget the horrid excesses of British occupations around the globe.
Colonial exploitation was carried out through three distinct phases over time. The first phase of mercantilism, which took place between 1757 and 1813, was one of direct plunder in which surplus Indian revenues were used to buy Indian finished goods to be exported back to Britain (Modern India 2010). In the second phase, from 1813 to 1858, India was converted into a source of raw material and a market for British goods. The third and final phase from 1858 onwards, was one of finance imperialism in which British capital began to control Indian banks, foreign trading firms and managing agencies in India. This phased exploitation was carried out through a range of economic policies, primarily in the industrial and agricultural sectors of the colonial economy of India.
http://www.academia.edu/7268227/Impact_of_Colonialism_on_India (http://www.academia.edu/7268227/Impact_of_Colonialism_on_India)
Happily those days are over. And happily our bad habits are on the wane.
Although i do regard the sensible ex-colonists do however keep him to yourselves and for heavens sake get him to retire or go to Hollywood and make comedy films.
On this I couldn't agree more. His record in a tragic and meaningless war is not a positive.
That earlier stance of mine is not hogwash at all. Who has been most prominent in military games and political skulduggery all since WW2. And the guff it is just a group of miscreants well tell that to the republicans for example who are so damn gung-ho - well now the Democrats have caught up with that silver tongue Obama with more killings by flight than Bush. The place is run by two parties that have carved up the political system between them and they do a great job of keeping it that way. With the number of lobby fodder in DC running into tens of thousands the political world is even more corporate managed.
Many of those in cumfy and safe areas wil just go along with things and maybe the odd slight moanbut well know the political side is not only fraught but no longer serves the people just the monied. The country has regularily dis balanced any country that will not succumb to it's dodgy idea of "democracy" and you keep separate expect destablising and if that doesn't work and excuse to invade.
Another example of world control are the hundreds of bases all over the globe and the excuse being "security." What an insult to intelligence. They use the same excuse for (as I hav said) more secret organisations than Nazi Germany or the USSR. The leading one ignores what it doesn't like and ignored that constitution that is always waved about. Even the basic rights are often compromised and the ordinary can do little because of the sewing up by the 2 big parties. You would think it was a nation full of child minds in all those cases the militarisation of city police forces and the need for the world to be as America wants it. Heavens the way it is run internally they could do a lot more for their own people if they cut the number of "security agencies" and military games. In turn the 40 million poor could be helped as well as the sick who cannot afford care. But no the determination to rule the world IS a fact and so obvious that child mind does come to the front! :whistle:
Exclusive: Lost City Discovered in the Honduran Rain Forest (http://news-beta.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/150302-honduras-lost-city-monkey-god-maya-ancient-archaeology)
This is a reportage on Ciudad Blanca, a legendary Mesoamerican city that archaeologists have been looking for and claimed to have found many times. Now National Geographic says they found it again.
It goes under bad reporting because the article contains hardly any detail either about the legend or the findings of the particular expedition. In the area of nature/science reporting in general, I have found National Geographic to be the worst source.
Some more detail about mapping the site in Science Daily (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120606092719.htm). And even more on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Ciudad_Blanca).
Years ago I was interviewed by a newspaper on the much appreciate community voluntary work I was doing. However the reporter tried to do a neat job of making it more provoking and i took him to task and they did apologise.
The Daily Mirror which i wouldn't even use to wrap things in was so full of humbug a while back when the News of The World was guilty of misusing mobile phones of famous people, etc. Yet their own editor got sacked for publising false pictures of an "incident" with British soldiers! Now Piers Morgan has had a couple of programmes of his own on tv here in GB and the USA. A liar is now a personality?? However it gets worse as it has now been revealed that the Daily Mirror ran a massive spying and misuse of mobiles of people to rival the News of the World! (Murdoch shut the World down)
In the area of nature/science reporting in general, I have found National Geographic to be the worst source.
That's not surprising since it isn't a science journal but a popular magazine like Playboy.
The Daily Mirror which i wouldn't even use to wrap things in
In your view which newspaper is the best newspaper.
Such judgements reveal something about the reader. For example, there's a world of difference between
The Washington Times and the
The New York Times. I have a subscription to
The New York Times. Anybody here want to say what that tells you about me?
Always challenging to get a difficult question and even more so as I only buy a paper occasionally. Instead my supermarket restaurant has a rack of free newspapers for customers to take and read (well I am Scots). I never read the red tops as they get up my nose with a giant thing on the front page and inside look untidy and limited information. Over any period i will have read the Telegraph, Daily Express, Daily Mail (those two have Scots editions). Stopped reading the Glasgow Herald as the Sunday Herald came out for independence and have on odd occasion done the Guardian the (London) Times. That is a good publication. Did read the poor wee Morning star the mouth for the Communist party and only glanced at the new paper called national will supports independence. It started with 60,000 then went down to 36 and now slumped (hooray) to 20,000. May the movement continue.
I never read the Glasgow Evening Times out daily city paper because when the Glasgow Evening Citizen folded and no competition the Evening Times became a hoi-polloi nonsense but there again the same company that produces that nationalist 'National.'
We have a newspaper, the "Diário de Notícias" (can be translated as Daily News) that has more of 150 years of uninterrupted daily publication. From times to times they publish a couple "news" from the very same day but exactly one hundred years ago.
It results clear how reporting news has decayed both in style and content.
For a paper that's like no other in the UK.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/page3/ (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/page3/)
I never lower myself to the red top newspapers but i got a temporary shock as the girl in that main picture looked a bit like a girl I went out with many moons ago. Then realised even back then she would never have had herself in a paper like the Sun! :blush:
"Mr. President, when did you first learn that Hillary Clinton used an email system outside the U.S. Government for official business while she was secretary of state?" asked CBS's Bill Plante.
"The same time everybody else learned it, through news reports," Obama said.
(source (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-all-my-emails-are-available-and-archived/article/2561201))
For four years she was his Secretary of State, and he'd never sent nor received an email from her? :)
How did they communicate? Telegrams and smoke signals?
Somehow I think Sam Donaldson would have asked more questions…
"Mr. President, when did you first learn that Hillary Clinton used an email system outside the U.S. Government for official business while she was secretary of state?" asked CBS's Bill Plante.
"The same time everybody else learned it, through news reports," Obama said.
(source (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-all-my-emails-are-available-and-archived/article/2561201))
For four years she was his Secretary of State, and he'd never sent nor received an email from her? :)
How did they communicate? Telegrams and smoke signals?
Him big chief President. Him use electric blanket to make smoke signals.
What that latest message say, Iron Horse?
Message say "My blanket is on fire".
I can't confirm this, but perhaps the UK contingent on here can, but a Mancunian friend of mine has been complaining ad nauseum about Rupert Murdoch's Tory-leaning bent and bias in all of his UK newspapers leading up to the UK's GE yesterday (Granted, said Mancunian friend is a strong supporter of Labour, but I digress...).
For four years she was his Secretary of State, and he'd never sent nor received an email from her? :)
How did they communicate? Telegrams and smoke signals?
The Hillary email scandal! Shocking! It will cripple her!
More important...Who does her nails?
A very brief review of U.S. history after WWII.
==============================
1950-1953 Korean War
1961 Cuba
1961-1973 Vietnam War
1965 Dominican Republic
1982 Lebanon
1983 Grenada
1989 Panama
1991 Gulf War (Kuwait and Iraq)
1993 Somalia
1994 Haiti
1994-1995 Bosnia
1999 Kosovo
2001—2014 Afghanistan
2003—2010 Iraq War
2014–present
On August 8, 2014, the U.S. initiated military intervention against the Islamic State of Irag and the Levant (ISIL, ISIS, or Daesh) with airstrikes on key targets in Iraq.
=====================
Good reporting reveals something significant, though.
Bill Clinton has been paid $104.9 million for 542 speeches around the world between January 2001, when he left the White House, and January 2013, when Hillary stepped down as secretary of state, according to a Washington Post review of the family’s federal financial disclosures.
I don't envy my ex-colonial associates with the possibility of that woman being Head of State. She is trying to operate outside her usual style and bubble in that always having been sneaky and so full of herself now she is trying to be ordinary. I know you lot get conned easily but dear, oh dear a woman who has been a monumental liar? Just a pity you have such a tight political system otherwise the millions of the dejected and frustrated would have a better and more constructive choice.
And before I am asked to emigrate there, forget it.......!
And before I am asked to emigrate there, forget it.......!
So far as I can tell, nobody's asked. TT99, are you involved in this?
Well now jimbro your mind is now beginning to slip as in the Opera Forums I WAS. Dear, oh dear.
On a more general note I do feel sorry for you folk across the water having the Fox News Channel which is awful. Such would not happen here. As for the Presidential circus what a poor choice you will have in a rather limited idea of democracy.
On a more general note I do feel sorry for you folk across the water having the Fox News Channel which is awful.
There's nothing to be sorry about because there's a simple solution: Don't watch it! I never do. In fact, the best solution to finding the news is something like
The New York Times. I don't watch TV news because it has no depth. I used to watch the PBS NewsHour because it was different from the broadcast networks. For example it has a morning segment from
BBC News, but no longer.
The Internet trumps all because it provides so many alternatives. Want "unvarnished" news from Russia? Try...
http://rt.com (http://rt.com).
The UK?
http://www.bbc.com (http://www.bbc.com)
Australia?
http://www.news.com.au (http://www.news.com.au)
India?
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/international-home (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/international-home)
"My God," you're gullible, Jimbro… That list reeks of bias and consistent pleading! (But the Times of India is better than the others.)
[The quote-marks are meant to merely make you consider the expression an idiom with which you are familiar… :)]
[The quote-marks are meant to merely make you consider the expression an idiom with which you are familiar… :) ]
You're attempting an RjHowie expression, aren't you?
Gawd, I'm out of my depth! :)
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sherv.net%2Fcm%2Femoticons%2Fhand-gestures%2Fsos-hand-smiley-emoticon.gif&hash=4fa0365141e1d622f5f3e3dabbd39496" rel="cached" data-hash="4fa0365141e1d622f5f3e3dabbd39496" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/hand-gestures/sos-hand-smiley-emoticon.gif)
Different countries will have of course differing cultures, etc but I could not see something like Fox getting much anywhere here. Jimbro is right and a flick of a switch makes sense.
Yeah, Howie… Luckily, you have Sky News to fall back upon!
Paul Krugman taking us back memory lane, Errors and Lies (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/18/opinion/paul-krugman-errors-and-lies.html)
Surprise! It turns out that there’s something to be said for having the brother of a failed president make his own run for the White House. Thanks to Jeb Bush, we may finally have the frank discussion of the Iraq invasion we should have had a decade ago.
But many influential people — not just Mr. Bush — would prefer that we not have that discussion. There’s a palpable sense right now of the political and media elite trying to draw a line under the subject. Yes, the narrative goes, we now know that invading Iraq was a terrible mistake, and it’s about time that everyone admits it. Now let’s move on.
Well, let’s not — because that’s a false narrative, and everyone who was involved in the debate over the war knows that it’s false. The Iraq war wasn’t an innocent mistake, a venture undertaken on the basis of intelligence that turned out to be wrong. America invaded Iraq because the Bush administration wanted a war. The public justifications for the invasion were nothing but pretexts, and falsified pretexts at that. We were, in a fundamental sense, lied into war.
The fraudulence of the case for war was actually obvious even at the time: the ever-shifting arguments for an unchanging goal were a dead giveaway. So were the word games — the talk about W.M.D that conflated chemical weapons (which many people did think Saddam had) with nukes, the constant insinuations that Iraq was somehow behind 9/11.
And at this point we have plenty of evidence to confirm everything the war’s opponents were saying. We now know, for example, that on 9/11 itself — literally before the dust had settled — Donald Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense, was already plotting war against a regime that had nothing to do with the terrorist attack. “Judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] ...sweep it all up things related and not”; so read notes taken by Mr. Rumsfeld’s aide.
This was, in short, a war the White House wanted, and all of the supposed mistakes that, as Jeb puts it, “were made” by someone unnamed actually flowed from this underlying desire. Did the intelligence agencies wrongly conclude that Iraq had chemical weapons and a nuclear program? That’s because they were under intense pressure to justify the war. Did prewar assessments vastly understate the difficulty and cost of occupation? That’s because the war party didn’t want to hear anything that might raise doubts about the rush to invade. Indeed, the Army’s chief of staff was effectively fired for questioning claims that the occupation phase would be cheap and easy.
Why did they want a war? That’s a harder question to answer. Some of the warmongers believed that deploying shock and awe in Iraq would enhance American power and influence around the world. Some saw Iraq as a sort of pilot project, preparation for a series of regime changes. And it’s hard to avoid the suspicion that there was a strong element of wagging the dog, of using military triumph to strengthen the Republican brand at home.
Whatever the precise motives, the result was a very dark chapter in American history. Once again: We were lied into war.
Now, you can understand why many political and media figures would prefer not to talk about any of this. Some of them, I suppose, may have been duped: may have fallen for the obvious lies, which doesn’t say much about their judgment. More, I suspect, were complicit: they realized that the official case for war was a pretext, but had their own reasons for wanting a war, or, alternatively, allowed themselves to be intimidated into going along. For there was a definite climate of fear among politicians and pundits in 2002 and 2003, one in which criticizing the push for war looked very much like a career killer.
On top of these personal motives, our news media in general have a hard time coping with policy dishonesty. Reporters are reluctant to call politicians on their lies, even when these involve mundane issues like budget numbers, for fear of seeming partisan. In fact, the bigger the lie, the clearer it is that major political figures are engaged in outright fraud, the more hesitant the reporting. And it doesn’t get much bigger — indeed, more or less criminal — than lying America into war.
I have 3 British news channels and 2 foreign ones to fall back on but we haave nothing like that daft Fox like you have. However in a land of mas nut jobs to be expected.
On top of these personal motives, our news media in general have a hard time coping with policy dishonesty. Reporters are reluctant to call politicians on their lies, even when these involve mundane issues like budget numbers, for fear of seeming partisan. In fact, the bigger the lie, the clearer it is that major political figures are engaged in outright fraud, the more hesitant the reporting.
Old Krugman's into the 'shrooms again! :)
The Obama administration (and the Clinton administration before it…) give the lie to this: The Press only feel this way about Democrat regimes… Their side, you know!
Three government-controlled news channels, and -how many?- Russian? :) Aren't you lucky,
Howie!
If only you'd learned to read at an early age, much of your disquiet (and much your noise-some bombast) would have been moderated by -how to put it?-
knowledge? Never mind: You'd only be confused… :)
The Obama administration (and the Clinton administration before it…) give the lie to this: The Press only feel this way about Democrat regimes… Their side, you know!
Says the guy who regularly quotes Repub media outlets where media is liberally and sweepingly denounced (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?PHPSESSID=c016b64157433a84c515418ef1c7c1ca&topic=463.msg40035#msg40035). It was funny the first few times half a decade ago.
Apparently, "rationality" needs quotation marks for you: You'd not hold an opinion that goes against the grain… (Or is it just one that I hold? :) Probably not: You don't seem capable of understanding my positions, on anything…)
ersi, I quote and cite sources whose past performances and veracity have been proven to be justified and just. Would you prefer me to give dolts, prevaricators and villains equal time?
Why?
Is that the kind of world you're familiar with? :(
Apparently, "rationality" needs quotation marks for you: You'd not hold an opinion that goes against the grain… (Or is it just one that I hold? :) Probably not: You don't seem capable of understanding my positions, on anything…)
Your political position is easily understood: Anything anti-Dem is good for you. Feel free to prove me wrong with some quotes from your track record. Good luck!
ersi, I quote and cite sources whose past performances and veracity have been proven to be justified and just. Would you prefer me to give dolts, prevaricators and villains equal time?
Why?
Is that the kind of world you're familiar with? :(
At first if you could kindly explain how the past performance of your sources has been justified and their veracity proven. Thanks.
I have 3 British news channels and 2 foreign ones to fall back on but we haave nothing like that daft Fox like you have. However in a land of mas nut jobs to be expected.
I don't watch TV news because it's so shallow. Internet sources are much better because they offer an opportunity for depth.
The following numbers from 2014 say something important.
Why do you watch TV news?
Combined, Fox News, CNN and MSNBC averaged 1.8 million viewers total-day (down 5% from 2013) and 2.85 million in primetime (down 4%). Among adults 25-54, they were down 8% in total-day and 5% in primetime.
==========================
For great reporting on Russia, go to http://rt.com (http://rt.com). Altogether straightforward and unbiased. Mr. Putin regularly gets it on the chin!
==========================
This from
The Moscow Times.
Russian President Vladimir Putin only took up ice skating a few years ago, but that didn't stop the 62-year-old scoring a handful of goals in an all-star hockey match comprising of former hockey stars, businessmen and politicians over the weekend.
Putin scored eight goals at the gala hockey match in Sochi on Saturday — more than any other player — to lead his "Stars of the Night Hockey League (NHL)" team to an 18-6 victory over his opponents "The NHL Team."
The president was joined by a host of former Soviet and Russian stars including Alexander Yakushev, Sergei Makarov and Vyacheslav Fetisov. Billionaire businessmen Gennady Timchenko and brothers Arkady and Boris Rotenberg, close associates of the Russian president, also played in the match.
None of the professional players scored more. Absolutely amazing. Great reporting! Anybody remember
Mad Magazine?
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.dcentertainment.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimce%2F2014%2F03-MAR%2FMAD-Magazine-Putin-I-Want-Ukraine_5317628cdbc988.19882059.jpg&hash=6467ffbd4f676a112e9e698e4aed2599" rel="cached" data-hash="6467ffbd4f676a112e9e698e4aed2599" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://media.dcentertainment.com/sites/default/files/imce/2014/03-MAR/MAD-Magazine-Putin-I-Want-Ukraine_5317628cdbc988.19882059.jpg)
At first if you could kindly explain how […]
You could note — no, I guess
you couldn't. Oh, well. I certainly understand your concerned focus upon the Baltics and Eurasia. But I don't share it, despite Estonia being a NATO member… Likewise, you should understand my concerned focus upon the U.S., about which you know little…
At first if you could kindly explain how […]
You could note — no, I guess you couldn't. Oh, well. I certainly understand your concerned focus upon the Baltics and Eurasia. But I don't share it, despite Estonia being a NATO member… Likewise, you should understand my concerned focus upon the U.S., about which you know little…
I understand your focus better than you do - see my previous post. You missed yet another chance to actually respond to anything. My expectations were low enough, but you managed to drop them further. Good job.
Oh. You must mean your "Your political position is easily understood: Anything anti-Dem is good for you." You seem to be yet another one of those folk for whom there is only thesis, antithesis and (perhaps…) synthesis. That's very convenient, for academics — who just argue with each other.
(Who -in their right mind- would give such any say in society? :) I mean, besides Communists and Socialists and American Progressives -who used to call themselves Democrats? :) )
But, on the contrary, any Dem who comes close to agreeing with me on principle and makes an honest attempt to accommodate policy to such has my tacit support!
The idea, which you seem rather fond of… that I am but a party hack, is quite offensive. But what else have you to dispute with me about? :) No knowledge, certainly!
Do I tell you about Estonian politics? (I could spend a half-hour with Google… But then I'd only be doing what you do.) I understand U.S. politics -it's history and its perils- a little better than you do, ersi.
But you grew up with a one-party system; so, our experiences are quite different. How are you liking your new-found "freedom"?
If it's any consolation, Howie thinks Scotland has the best and most democratic (…that's the sine qua non, for him; for me -and likely for you?- liberty is, no?) system.
One must have a system, you know? :)
Oh. You must mean your "Your political position is easily understood: Anything anti-Dem is good for you." You seem to be yet another one of those folk for whom there is only thesis, antithesis and (perhaps…) synthesis. That's very convenient, for academics — who just argue with each other.
No, this is not all I recognise. What I clearly said was that this was all that you demonstrated to be having. Further, I said that if this is not all you have, feel free to prove otherwise.
But instead, you only strengthen my point. As was expected.
But, on the contrary, any Dem who comes close to agreeing with me on principle and makes an honest attempt to accommodate policy to such has my tacit support!
Any real-life Dems you supported lately, even if tacitly? And it's not too late to hastily make one up now.
But you grew up with a one-party system; so, our experiences are quite different. How are you liking your new-found "freedom"?
No, I didn't grow up with a one-party system. I grew up in the countryside, far removed from politics, and I have deliberately kept myself away from politics.
You think SU (how ominously similar to US this acronym is!) was a one-party system, but it went through a bunch of purges of "opposition" in its early decades, the political elite always had political "wings", and the people were always pretty rational and unfanatical about the regime. The only thing fanatical was the propaganda of the regime itself.
One must have a system, you know? :)
This is the only statement I agree with, but we would not have the same system. Until now, your system has been
Dem bad, Repub good. This is not even a system.
You think SU (how ominously similar to US this acronym is!) was a one-party system, but it went through a bunch of purges of "opposition" in its early decades, the political elite always had political "wings", and the people were always pretty rational and unfanatical about the regime. The only thing fanatical was the propaganda of the regime itself.
I'm sorry that
my country offered so little support…
So: How does that make me a "propagandist"…?
There have been members of the Democratic Party that I've supported; but if you're only looking for in-consistancy, you won't find it: You want me to say something like "I support my comrade, despite disagreeing with him!"
What most Democratic candidates profess is anathema… (There are exceptions.) Would you hnave me embrace evil -just a little bit- to show how "liberal" I am? :)
I'm glad your country has once again achieved independence. I wish you well. (Sorry, 'bout you're losing your government job. Also, sorry about your education leading you to think you deserved better than you can nowadays get…) Do something well!
your system has been Dem bad, Repub good. This is not even a system.
When you say things like this, I understand you: You're the
Howie of Estonia!
As Gump said: Stupid is as stupid does!
What are you doing for a living, nowadays?
There have been members of the Democratic Party that I've supported; but if you're only looking for in-consistancy, you won't find it: You want me to say something like "I support my comrade, despite disagreeing with him!"
I want you to (1) identify the consistent characteristic that is present in all your allegiances and (2) bring a concrete example. But what you are doing instead is this:
What most Democratic candidates profess is anathema… (There are exceptions.) Would you hnave me embrace evil -just a little bit- to show how "liberal" I am? :)
So there, Dems are evil (with some unidentified exceptions). Which is the point I have been making. I cannot really thank you for confirming my point, because it's beyond embarrassing.
I'm glad your country has once again achieved independence. I wish you well. (Sorry, 'bout you're losing your government job. Also, sorry about your education leading you to think you deserved better than you can nowadays get…) Do something well!
You must be terribly on booze to say things like this. This is no place to reveal overly personal info, but let's set a few details straight.
- I never held a government job (even though I may have carelessly labelled it as such at some point). I held a civil servant position which was not in the executive branch.
- I never lost that particular job. I made a career move over to the commercial sector and that's the job I lost as the global financial crisis hit - and I have said this much on several occasions.
- I am quite happy with my education as it is. Sometimes I regret for having failed to pursue a strictly academic career, but some of the teaching and research jobs I do come close enough, so in the end it's no biggie.
What are you doing for a living, nowadays?
I have nearly always had multiple parallel jobs, but the most persistent one has turned out to be media analysis. Media analysis could pay all my bills even without any other jobs, but I hesitated to take it up as my main job because the company was in visible trouble for years. Layoffs for whatever stated reason affect me the same way as they do any other salaried worker.
So, what am I doing for a living? Same as any other average joe - I collect my salaries.
So there, Dems are evil (with some unidentified exceptions). Which is the point I have been making.
ersi, there are Dems that I'm quite familiar with: Jerry Brown (governor of California), Diane Feinstein and Babs Boxer (California's U.S. senators); Harry Reid (Nevada U.S. senator, erstwhile majority leader); Barack Obama (former U.S. senator, currently U.S. president), Joe Biden (former U.S. senator, currently U.S. vice president). And let's not forget Nancy Pelosi (U.S. representative from Marin County, erstwhile speaker of the House).
Most of these characters are likely unknown to you. (Quite sensibly so!) But -to me- they are constant irritants. And they have (excepting Obama) been around for decades…doing what they do.
The tidbits that would show you their character are available from various news sources on-line. But are you really interested in American politics and domestic policy?
I suspect you just want to color
me a political simpleton… Your motive escapes me, but it's not a crime; so, I won't prosecute.
Media analysis? That's either public opinion polls or advertising, isn't it? :) Swaying people's opinions will always be lucrative!
Media analysis? That's either public opinion polls or advertising, isn't it? :)
No, it's working for CIA. They all are "media analysts". You pay for them you should know.
So, you're a Snowden/Assange conspiracy theory convert now? :) (Trust me: What little they get from me wouldn't cover tapping or taping a single phone call!) But perhaps you're right?
Well, ersi: Are you now or have you ever been in the employ of the CIA? :)
Well, ersi: Are you now or have you ever been in the employ of the CIA? :)
At best, media analysis rises to corporate PR advisory status. But usually it's just boring statistics on keywords in the press. Secret services may find some value in this with a bit extra effort. Many lazy spies simply report common newspaper material to their agencies anyway, nothing more.
So, you're a Snowden/Assange conspiracy theory convert now?
What's a Snowden/Assange conspiracy theory convert? One who believes they are secretly working for the CIA?
Many lazy spies simply report common newspaper material to their agencies anyway, nothing more.
Exactly, that's the kind of spies Americans hire, no wonder they make such idiotic decisions.
Now, who has the patience to explain to Americans the simple facts of life...
At best, media analysis rises to corporate PR advisory status. But usually it's just boring statistics on keywords in the press. Secret services may find some value in this with a bit extra effort. Many lazy spies simply report common newspaper material to their agencies anyway, nothing more.
I see
Belfrager only reads the words he'd use… More like a political operative than anything else, no? :)
Please tell him not to worry: We (probably) have no designs upon Portugal. (But the English do seem to visit an awful lot, don't they? ;) )
———————————————————————
Oh,
jax: Conspiracy theory is ever so much more varied!
Please tell him not to worry: We (probably) have no designs upon Portugal. (But the English do seem to visit an awful lot, don't they? ;) )
I regret to inform you Oakdale that, surprisingly and very mysteriously, American citizens represents already the third biggest contingent of tourists by nationality that visit us.
Course they are "un american" Americans since they even know where's the Country located, but even so this is not normal.
You would be surprised with the plans your governments have. Get a pair of those "they live" glasses. :)
Course they are "un american" Americans since they even know where's the Country located
Geography (and civics, and a host of others) had to be curtailed or scapped altogether — to make room for Current Events! :)
(I think it began when they brought televisions into the classrooms…)
Portugal is easy to find: If you're in Spain, start walking west… When you reach the Atlantic Ocean, you've passed through Portugal. :)
(In my neck of the woods -California's Central Valley- there are quite a few Portuguese families that have been here for many generations.)
Wow. Americans that know where a country actually is? They really are the exceptions and not the typical.
We know where Glasgow is — but it's not polite to say with any specificity…
Of course you will bodyswerve as it draws too much in comparisons with what is going on over the pond (just a wee reminder: a million annually losing homes, 40 million poor on stamps, lack of a wide political system, etc)
lack of a wide political system
Ouch! That one really hurts… :)
Does "wide" in your sense mean obese and anemic? (Reminds me of the description of a camel: A horse, designed by a committee.) And -I trust you're aware- that British and American polls show a remarkably similar level of "political ignorance"? (Even agreeing in relevant topics… Curious, no?)
But the topic is Bad Reporting… Since you still have government censorship, you aren't bothered by it! (Bad reporting, that is… The bad stuff is made quietly to go away in the Ministry of Truth! No need for critical reading.
Move along, citizen, nothing to see here… :) )
Of course, there's a certain level of civil disobedience in your nation, so some actual news gets published (or gets air-time, for those who won't or can't read … even on the Beeb!) Your nation has become the epitome of bureaucratic "efficiency," purpose forgot and priorities all too obvious.
But the page four, is it?, pics of boobs (the good kind!) sufficiently distract, no?
And beyond the attempt at what passes for humour is the blindness of your own corner. Journalists in the land of the free and home of the brave (snigger) are regularly spied on and intimidated by your so-called wonderful system. Just think how much all those spy agencies spend internally on controlling people led by that despicable CSA. It becomes all the more weak for you with all the high sounding keech about freedoms, rights and so on. Looking beyond your daftness you certainly help make your nation a laughing stock.
Journalists in the land of the free and home of the brave (snigger) are regularly spied on and intimidated by your so-called wonderful system.
What? :) They're not, in yours?
When fools laugh, they become the joke…to others.
Well explain dear Republican flunky why your country has more spy agencies than any other country in the world and outstandingly in the "free world."
We were slow to follow European examples! But -as you rightly note- we're doing a bang-up job of catching up! Our Homeland Security Office is almost Orwellian…
Is that glee I detect emanating from Glasgow…? :) Gee, your bile must be radioactive, RJ. My Glasgow Geiger Counter is doing a tattoo!
But have you never read anything that Northcote Parkinson wrote? (No, I don't think he's been on the telly…)
When fools laugh, they become the joke…to others.
That riposte didn't work out so well, did it? It might have done better without the "...to others". At least that would evoke something akin to a Harlequin Kid movie, with the master exhorting the novice "Become the joke! Be the joke!".
But have you never read anything that Northcote Parkinson wrote? (No, I don't think he's been on the telly…)
God forbid! The supercilious star shines brightly.
Rj, you've been Oakdaled.
Jimbro, is it your contention that egalitarianism be enforced — by a leveling of the players? :) It seems so…
But, then, what of your career? (It was teaching AP Lit, wasn't it?)
—————————————————————————
I of course let your use of supercilious go — I own an affection for words that sound alike. In this case I'd claim "super silliest" pretty close to a homophone… Do you want to play with the idea? :)
Play with yourself.
You really do fancy yourself Oakdale thinking a redneck Republican ex-colonist could make my bile boil. Try and answer why you have so many damn secret agencies costing so much and then take jimbro's advice.
Bad reporting is deliberate. A part of a bigger strategy.