This is not news. This is propaganda, pure and simple.-By Dave Lindorff

[kpete]

This War Report Has Been Approved by Your Government
Submitted by dlindorff on Tue, 2008-08-12 15:07.

By Dave Lindorff

We Americans got a graphic illustration of the demise of any independent American corporate news media these past few days as the coverage on TV and in print was saturated with reports about John Edwards’ infidelity and, equally important, Russia’s invasion of Georgia.
.......................

We watch and read voluminous reports on this relatively small Russian war against its neighbor and former domestic province (Georgia was one of the SSRs in the old USSR), and meanwhile there is almost nothing being reported about the continuing five-year-old war launched by Bush and Cheney against Iraq. And certainly, over the course of five years we have gotten no visual depiction of that war even approaching the scenes that were on display from the front in Georgia.

Apparently, in the view of our corporate news editors and managers, it is important for Americans to fully witness the bloody horrors of war when that war is being fought by Russia, but we are to be carefully protected from seeing such things when they are being perpetrated by our own centurions. We aren’t even allowed to see the grievous injuries and death being suffered by our own troops.

............................

This is not news. This is propaganda, pure and simple.


more at:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/35471

[sinkingfeeling]

1. I noticed this morning a picture on either CNN.com or MSNBC.com of a dead woman on the ground and

another sitting on a bench crying. I remember when the invasion of Iraq happened and USAToday showed some pictures of the dead and the LTTEs poured in, condemning them for showing 'death' on the front page. "Oh my, I don't want my children to see that!" But if it's some other country that's killing civilians, we get to see it?

[knixphan]

3. AGREED!

[Uncle Joe]

17. Sort of like women's breasts,

if they televise some African or South American women baring their breasts, it's ok because this is their culture so it's natural, but if Janet Jackson has a wardrobe malfunction and one of them is exposed for just a few seconds, all hell breaks loose.

The same holds true for war, if other nations fight war, there is much death with plenty of innocents suffering because this is natural but if the U.S. fights war, it must be sanitized and the only people that die are those that deserve it. Does anyone actually believe you could drop a 500-2000 pound bomb on your neighbor's house and it not affect yours?

I believe as on so many other critical issues the people are a head of the "leaders" on this. The "leaders" are afraid if the people see images of death and maiming because of our wars, we will question the motivation for that war, hold the perpetrators to account or loose stomach for war, particularly those wars fought under false pretenses.

The upshot is, if war were televised in it's barbaric purity, the "leaders" would be held to a much higher standard to wage war, requiring them to actually wage diplomacy instead while also hampering their ability to bully the rest of the world and this is the power the "leaders" fear losing the most, as war under false pretenses is usually done for the benefit of their corporate masters and their corporate masters want results for having bought the leaders in to office.

[RethugAssKicker]

2. Couldn't agree with you more.... The U.S. is full of SHIT !

pure propaganda and double standards...and the people eat it up
hook line and sinker !

[Swamp Rat]

4. k&r

[sui generis]

5. yep - and more than just propaganda

News loves Jerry Bruckheimer-like stories, and it would most certainly show our soldiers being blown to bits in loving slow motion and coming home in sandwich bags if it could.

What better subsitute for the laws imposed on them by our government than a free for all in some other country for gore, guts, glory and that je nest c'est quoi, ick factor, that is so important in counting "eyes".

Those of you who understand broadcast media marketing: eyes are "pairs of eyes viewing" which is a metric in predicting success of an advertising campaign or slot. The gorier and ickier and more urgent the news presentation, the more eyes. The more eyes, the more advertising dollars.

I am all for showing our troops being blown up in loving ultra-slow motion. It would definitely make for a shorter war, but the sad flip side here is that we somehow think non-Americans being blown up in slow motion and stuffed in sandwich bags aren't as big an emotional deal, due to the accidental fact of our American birth and therefore superiorness.

[Judi Lynn]

6. So glad someone said it already. It hit me like a tidal wave, too, as soon as the first images

started arriving: why the graphic material on this situation when images of the consequences of Iraq and Afghanistan have been completely suppressed?

[magellan]

7. If we had real coverage of our bloody escapades

...we wouldn't be so willing to go to war. That's why we aren't permitted to see what our troops do and suffer. It would show us that we're no different than any other country when it comes to death, mutilation and destruction. And the ptb can't have that. They must maintain the illusion that Americans are number 1.

[malaise]

8. Great post

It was even funnier hearing the Chimp saying that Russia spoiled the Olympics by attacking Georgia.
Afterall he gave the Georgians the OK to attack first.

The coverage is priceless - it exposes M$M and Bushco big time.

[Swede]

9. BBC and CBC covered it more extensively than American media.

This is Russia invading another country,so I think it's news.

[glitch]

14. Yes it is news, and the US invading Iraq and Afghanistan is news.

The hypocrisy is in the different coverage between the cases, and that difference highlights how it is also propaganda.

[stillcool]

10. Americans get all worked up..

over Russia, China, Venezuela, Cuba, anywhere but here. The self-righteous arrogance is breath-taking.

[SIMPLYB1980]

11. HYPOCRISY IT'S THE AMERICAN WAY.

[doublethink]

12. Yep. K&R,

Peace.

[Cleita]

13. The cure for this is to make our media tell the truth.

We need laws to make them honest and report the whole truth, but every time I suggest this the freedom banner waving "First Amendment rights" people come out. Why don't I have a First Amendment right to read or hear the truth and the facts? This one factor, the corporatizing of our fourth estate into propaganda units, has been at the root of all our problems. If CNN had been reporting the facts and truth about the Bush's during the first campaign in 2000 we never would have had Bush as President. Instead though we had a steady stream of Clinton's penis, Chandra Levy, Lacy Peterson et. al. and very little other important news that was going on that would turn our nation into something many of us don't even recognize as the USA and Americans we don't recognize as patriots.

[al bupp]

18. I don't think laws are the answer

Rather, just turn-off the TV. Ignore the bastards. Get your friends and relatives to ignore them as well. Propaganda only works if people pay attention.

My .02$

[Cleita]

19. Twenty years of lies that I can remember hasn't stopped this and I turned

the MSM off years ago. Unfortunately, no one else has. Look we have laws that protect our food, our housing, our lives. Why can't we have laws that protect our right to hear facts and truths from the people who are supposed to be delivering that?

[al bupp]

24. Because the laws would be...

difficult if not impossible to define, largely unenforcible, and likely to be used against us at some point in the future by the powers that yet will be. How do you determine what the "facts" of a matter are? More often than not reality has an annoying habit of presenting itself in a cloudy, indeterminate and uncertain fashion. I'm not saying we can never know the facts, just not often enough to write laws about how to present them.

I congratulate you for having turned-off the MSM noise machine, and if not enough other people have yet joined us, it simply means that we have to work harder to convince them to do so.

[Cleita]

25. You really don't get it.

It's about professional standards that all professions must meet, except this one. There are laws that can be invoked for all professions, except this one.

[al bupp]

26. Excuse me, ma'am

There are already a number of laws pertaining to the standards of journalism, including liable, slander and the inciting of riots, to name but a few. I happen to think these are sufficient. You seem to think that we can legislate the telling of "truth", whatever that is and however it is to be determined, and this strikes me as ridiculous proposition. Do you perhaps envision a Permanent Truth Commission which would rule on the veracity of a matter in question? Perhaps you would like to have it put to a vote?

The original post dealt w/ the disparity in the depictions of the wars in Iraq and Georgia. It made cogent points about how the images of the former have been scrupulously scrubbed of disturbing elements while in the latter those same sorts of depictions have been almost reveled in. I agree w/ it's thesis that this amounts to propaganda. However, I fail to see how we could legislate a resolution to problem. In the end it exists because of a complex set of circumstances about consolidation of media ownership, corporate judgments about where their profits lie and "standards" of conformity among journalists.

Not even in science fiction could you cannot pass a law telling media how to report on events, especially ones such as the conflict in the Caucasus, where what's transpired is neither straight-forward nor a matter of simple fact, but rather one of multiple perspectives, and competing interests jockeying for the ascendancy of their narratives. The best we can do is vote w/ our feet. Intelligent people such as yourself know better than to believe all they red in the paper and certainly all they see on the TV info-tainment.

[Cleita]

30. They have managed to do it in other countries like England. n/t

[al bupp]

32. I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to, ma'am

I know that libel laws are much stricter in England, so much so that a couple of anti-McDonalds activists, people I would expect progressives to support, who were protesting the facts that Mickey D's food causes serious health problems, gets it meat from questionable sources, among a number of other concerns, were tried for violating said libel laws by McDonalds and lost. This being the case, I'm not sure if these laws are serving the purposes you espouse.

[fascisthunter]

20. I'm With You There Cleita

there must be a way to hold the media accountable for lying.

[Cleita]

22. Every other profession has to be answerable to standards.

Why does this one get a pass? I mean lawyers, and doctors are subject to fines and even losing their right to practice if they don't keep to the set standards and laws of their profession. These so-called professionals aren't held to any. Why? I really don't think their First Amendment rights would be violated if they are held accountable to agreed upon standards and practices.

[fascisthunter]

23. First Amendment Doesn't Apply to the Media... it's Corporately Owned and Controlled

it's a bullshit argument used by many to thwart any discussion about holding the media accountable. If they want to be able to lie with no accountability, then give the people the means to challenge the right wing corporate lies.

Right now as things are concerning the corporate media, the First Amendment is dead. Until the media is free to all citizens so they can voice their opinions and political views, there will never be true Freedom of Speech in this country. I'm tired of the BS...

[seemslikeadream]

15. pure and simple

[mopinko]

16. sad to have to recommend this, but maybe

the truth is just so plain and graphic that some of the sheeple will wake up.

[fascisthunter]

21. Corporate Propaganda Sanctioned by Our Government

[TexasObserver]

27. Yes, our government says hide the video, and our MSM says "yes, boss."

Or is it the other way around?

Both are complicit, to the max.

[Supersedeas]

28. corporatistas, advertisers, marketeers, Neo-skanks use many avenues of diversion

Issues -- multimillion dollar news corporations have no time for the homework necessary to uncover issues. Covering-up and obfuscating the issues -- that's what the money is for.

[fasttense]

29. It's like the corporate media knows we want to hear about the Iraq war

so they give us the Russia/Georgia war instead. Just like when election fraud was committed by the republicans in 2004. Instead of reporting on the real news, they gave us the Ukraine election fraud instead. See the bush and dick have no problems with the propaganda machine reporting on other counties' frauds and wars, it's just American fraud and war they don't report.

Here give them the Ukraine election fraud instead of American republican election fraud. Give them the war in Georgia instead of the Iraq war. It will give them something to distract them, misdirect their anger and they wont know the difference anyway.

[Blue_Tires]

31. the Telecom Act of '96 was the beginning of the end