|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2005 4:34 am Post subject: |
 |
|
abbe...
I've never really understood how the line of logic:
"This innocent activities kill more lives than that activity: Why don't people care about that".
There is a difference between "Accidental deaths" and the act of "trying to kill someone". It has nothing to do with "Being used to car deaths"....no one is "used to" car deaths.
Cars are NOT meant to be tools of death...when someone dies in a car accident, it does not mesh with what we believe is to be expected with driving a car; therefore it's a shock.
In war, the point is to kill or be killed. If anything, the purpose of war ensures the fact that death is quite likely and should/can/may be expected
.
| Quote: |
| ...Where are the threads decrying those atrocities.Or ones for all those mothers, fathers, sons and daughters? |
Sorry there are no threads (sure there aren't any about bad korean drivers? people almost die on this forum on a weekly basis...maybe look a little more)
...but here are some organizations if you wish to contribute to stop the madness or unsafe traffic conditions for citizens of the USA:...madd, sadd....Safe America..... Parents Against Speeding...I Promise Program....Nationay Organization for Youth (NOYS).
| Quote: |
| I was watching Dateline one time and they were doing a report on auto fatalities. When averaged against the number of people in the US vs. the number of auto fatatalities, everytime you get into a car you take something like 128 days off your life expectancy. |
shocking stats on TV are used so often that, unless one maintains a firm grip on reality, one won't see how obviously askew and ridiculous their ideas are.
for example..the above "statt"
Let's assume people get into cars 4 times a day... that means, every day of normal driving, i am losing 512 days in my life (over one year)...meaning over the course of ONE WEEk, i'd lose 9.8yrs of my life. If this horrible trend would continue, it would be only 3 weeks before i was nothing more than a sperm and an egg.... Though perHAPs driving could become the new fountian of youth... :wink: :cry:
I DO understand that these stats are simply trying to make a point, but in my view, they are doing SUCH a rancid job at it that they are simply undermining any effect they could have.
shock stats are useless and ineffective
| Quote: |
| The percentage of dead and wounded soldiers is infintesimal compared with the troops on the ground. That can hardly be called a quagmire on the scale of Vietnam. |
(As has been stated several times) that is QUITE likely due to the amount of armour worn by soldiers in this war |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
AbbeFaria
Joined: 17 May 2005
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2005 6:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| khyber wrote: |
abbe...
I've never really understood how the line of logic:
"This innocent activities kill more lives than that activity: Why don't people care about that".
There is a difference between "Accidental deaths" and the act of "trying to kill someone". It has nothing to do with "Being used to car deaths"....no one is "used to" car deaths.
Cars are NOT meant to be tools of death...when someone dies in a car accident, it does not mesh with what we believe is to be expected with driving a car; therefore it's a shock.
In war, the point is to kill or be killed. If anything, the purpose of war ensures the fact that death is quite likely and should/can/may be expected
shocking stats on TV are used so often that, unless one maintains a firm grip on reality, one won't see how obviously askew and ridiculous their ideas are.
for example..the above "statt"
Let's assume people get into cars 4 times a day... that means, every day of normal driving, i am losing 512 days in my life (over one year)...meaning over the course of ONE WEEk, i'd lose 9.8yrs of my life. If this horrible trend would continue, it would be only 3 weeks before i was nothing more than a sperm and an egg.... Though perHAPs driving could become the new fountian of youth...  
I DO understand that these stats are simply trying to make a point, but in my view, they are doing SUCH a rancid job at it that they are simply undermining any effect they could have.
shock stats are useless and ineffective
| Quote: |
| The percentage of dead and wounded soldiers is infintesimal compared with the troops on the ground. That can hardly be called a quagmire on the scale of Vietnam. |
(As has been stated several times) that is QUITE likely due to the amount of armour worn by soldiers in this war |
Based on math, a soldier is a lot safer fighting a battle with terrorists than driving from his house on main street to pick up a gallon of milk and a bag of suger. I gave to numbers for car fatalities for two years. Both just a bit over 42,000. For the sake of the argument, lets just use an average number of 42,000 deaths a year. So, since 2000 there have been 210,000. Since 1990, 630,000 deaths. Since 1980 1,050,000. When you look at it like that, you should expect to be killed in a car reck. Everytime I get in a car I buckle up and I make sure I know where every car around me is. I check my blind spots religiously and every car that pulls out of a side-street is a potential car accident. I fully expect that some idiot will not be doing the same and it puts my life at risk. If you don't do the same, you're a fool. With those kinds of deaths, it's not paranoia, they really are after you.
How many soldiers died in Iraq? 2000+. How many in Vietnam. How many in WW2? I'll make it easier. Since the revolutionary war 1,267,046 soldiers have died. That's every conflict since the US was formed. About 49 years of fighting time. In just 25 short years of driving, we've almost got that number beat. In a couple of years, we'll have it surprassed.
That cars aren't supposed to kill people is irrelavent. They kill far more indescriminately then soldiers do. For people who care so much about the loss of life, you're surprisingly casual about those kinds of numbers. And those aren't stats, those are hard numbers. One killed here, one killed there, add up to 1,050,000. Dead is dead, no matter the how.
But I'll reiterate: You simply don't hear about the car deaths. The news agencies, who as seen in the above article I posted, and the OP's, can be surprisingly...lax about the truthes they report. And incredibly vicious in the lies the tell. And as the OP reported from the NY Times, things are a lot better than it's being reported. You may take all this as an endorsement of Bush, but it's far from it. It's an endorsement of truth. I'm against propaganda from either side. Do I think it's a jolly holiday with Mary in Iraq? Of course not. Do I think it's death on a stick? No.
No, why doesn't someone find a tally of how many innocent Iraqi's the terrorists have killed? I bet that's an astounding number. Some of the terrorists are actually Iraqi's, killing there own people. Many however, are from Syria, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc. etc. Where are the posts or news stories for those people to go home? What business do those countries, some of them openly hostile to democracy, have in Iraq, if not to bend it to their own will? If the terrorists, who are definately not fighting for the betterment of Iraq, were to go home, we would go home. But instead of people calling them terrorists, we have people calling them freedom fighters. When they blow up a food line or a employment line or a mosque or a school, who's freedom are they fighting for exactly? Or are they simply so enraged that people be allowed to vote that they just have to go out and kill something?
At this point in our development or evolution, what have you, war is part of life. The US certianly didn't invent it, we just spent crap loads of money getting good at it. While Iraq was a voluntary move, it was one that would have had to be made eventually. Instead of hearing stories of hope in Iraq, you hear stories of death. Not that there isn't death occuring, but ask yourselves why exactly don't you hear anything good out of Iraq when there is so much good going on? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
desultude
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Location: Dangling my toes in the Persian Gulf
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2005 3:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was reading an article in July's Harper's last night about the injured. Ronald F. Glaser's article. "A War of Disabilities" has some pretty alarming facts.
As of July, there were 12,500 injured G.I.s. Eight wounded for every death- double the rate for Korea, Vietnam or the Gulf War. There are twice the amputees of any other war. Nearly a quarter of the injured have traumatic head wounds. About 70% of these soldiers survived Improvised Explosive Devices, which left them with mangled limbs, eye injuries and brain damage. They have great flak jackets, but many come home without limbs.
The head injuries are caused when, in an IED explosion, your head is blenderized inside your helmet: "It's like a pan on your head, held on by shoestring webbing, when you take a hit, it rings your head like a bell". When the neurosurgeons perform routine craniotomies, they find dead brain matter. One surgeon said "We can save you. You might not be what you were".
To deal with this, The Department of Defense, with its 600 Billion annual budget, has just opened an amputee care center in Texas (of course) and is adding one to Walter Reed Hospital. But the soldiers only get care from the DOD until they are discharged. Then it is up to the Veterans Administration (with which I have close aquantanceship, often being my father's caretaker). The average wait for a VA decision on a claim is 165 days. An appeal takes an average of 3 years. In the last 10 years, 13,700 veterans have died while waiting on their appeals. To deal with all of the carnage from Afghanistan and Iraq, the V.A. budget has been increased 1/3 of 1%.
The author's conclusion:
"Ultimately, if the Bush Administration continues its refusal to accept the realities of this conflict, the most enduring image of the Iraq war will be the sight of legless and addled beggars on our street corners holding cardboard signs that read: IRAQ VET, HUNGRY AND HOMELESS. PLEASE HELP." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Butterfly
Joined: 02 Mar 2003
Location: Kuwait
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2005 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| desultude wrote: |
I was reading an article in July's Harper's last night about the injured. Ronald F. Glaser's article. "A War of Disabilities" has some pretty alarming facts.
As of July, there were 12,500 injured G.I.s. Eight wounded for every death- double the rate for Korea, Vietnam or the Gulf War. There are twice the amputees of any other war. Nearly a quarter of the injured have traumatic head wounds. About 70% of these soldiers survived Improvised Explosive Devices, which left them with mangled limbs, eye injuries and brain damage. They have great flak jackets, but many come home without limbs.
The head injuries are caused when, in an IED explosion, your head is blenderized inside your helmet: "It's like a pan on your head, held on by shoestring webbing, when you take a hit, it rings your head like a bell". When the neurosurgeons perform routine craniotomies, they find dead brain matter. One surgeon said "We can save you. You might not be what you were".
To deal with this, The Department of Defense, with its 600 Billion annual budget, has just opened an amputee care center in Texas (of course) and is adding one to Walter Reed Hospital. But the soldiers only get care from the DOD until they are discharged. Then it is up to the Veterans Administration (with which I have close aquantanceship, often being my father's caretaker). The average wait for a VA decision on a claim is 165 days. An appeal takes an average of 3 years. In the last 10 years, 13,700 veterans have died while waiting on their appeals. To deal with all of the carnage from Afghanistan and Iraq, the V.A. budget has been increased 1/3 of 1%.
The author's conclusion:
"Ultimately, if the Bush Administration continues its refusal to accept the realities of this conflict, the most enduring image of the Iraq war will be the sight of legless and addled beggars on our street corners holding cardboard signs that read: IRAQ VET, HUNGRY AND HOMELESS. PLEASE HELP." |
The BBC and CNN didn't tell us this either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hypnotist
Joined: 04 Dec 2004
Location: I wish I were a sock
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2005 9:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| desultude wrote: |
| the sight of legless and addled beggars on our street corners |
As an aside, I don't know if they're vets or not but this is one of the most distressing things about being in Seoul for me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 8:08 pm Post subject: Re: What the BBC/CNN Won't Tell You About Iraq |
|
|
| sundubuman wrote: |
| The growth of the independent media - a prerequisite of liberal democracy - is even more inspiring. Before 2003 there was not a single independent media outlet in Iraq. Today, Brookings reports, there are 44 commercial TV stations, 72 radio stations, and more than 100 newspapers. |
That's great!
NYTimes today:
| Quote: |
U.S. Is Said to Pay to Plant Articles in Iraq Papers
By JEFF GERTH and SCOTT SHANE
Published: December 1, 2005
WASHINGTON, Nov. 30 - Titled "The Sands Are Blowing Toward a Democratic Iraq," an article written this week for publication in the Iraqi press was scornful of outsiders' pessimism about the country's future.
"Western press and frequently those self-styled 'objective' observers of Iraq are often critics of how we, the people of Iraq, are proceeding down the path in determining what is best for our nation," the article began. Quoting the Prophet Muhammad, it pleaded for unity and nonviolence.
But far from being the heartfelt opinion of an Iraqi writer, as its language implied, the article was prepared by the United States military as part of a multimillion-dollar covert campaign to plant paid propaganda in the Iraqi news media and pay friendly Iraqi journalists monthly stipends, military contractors and officials said.
The article was one of several in a storyboard, the military's term for a list of articles, that was delivered Tuesday to the Lincoln Group, a Washington-based public relations firm paid by the Pentagon, documents from the Pentagon show. The contractor's job is to translate the articles into Arabic and submit them to Iraqi newspapers or advertising agencies without revealing the Pentagon's role. Documents show that the intended target of the article on a democratic Iraq was Azzaman, a leading independent newspaper, but it is not known whether it was published there or anywhere else.
Even as the State Department and the United States Agency for International Development pay contractors millions of dollars to help train journalists and promote a professional and independent Iraqi media, the Pentagon is paying millions more to the Lincoln Group for work that appears to violate fundamental principles of Western journalism.
In addition to paying newspapers to print government propaganda, Lincoln has paid about a dozen Iraqi journalists each several hundred dollars a month, a person who had been told of the transactions said. Those journalists were chosen because their past coverage had not been antagonistic to the United States, said the person, who is being granted anonymity because of fears for the safety of those involved. In addition, the military storyboards have in some cases copied verbatim text from copyrighted publications and passed it on to be printed in the Iraqi press without attribution, documents and interviews indicated.
In many cases, the material prepared by the military was given to advertising agencies for placement, and at least some of the material ran with an advertising label. But the American authorship and financing were not revealed.
Military spokesmen in Washington and Baghdad said Wednesday that they had no information on the contract. In an interview from Baghdad on Nov. 18, Lt. Col. Steven A. Boylan, a military spokesman, said the Pentagon's contract with the Lincoln Group was an attempt to "try to get stories out to publications that normally don't have access to those kind of stories." The military's top commanders, including Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, did not know about the Lincoln Group contract until Wednesday, when it was first described by The Los Angeles Times, said a senior military official who was not authorized to speak publicly.
Pentagon officials said General Pace and other top officials were disturbed by the reported details of the propaganda campaign and demanded explanations from senior officers in Iraq, the official said.
When asked about the article Wednesday night on the ABC News program "Nightline," General Pace said, "I would be concerned about anything that would be detrimental to the proper growth of democracy."
Others seemed to share the sentiment. "I think it's absolutely wrong for the government to do this," said Patrick Butler, vice president of the International Center for Journalists in Washington, which conducts ethics training for journalists from countries without a history of independent news media. "Ethically, it's indefensible."
Mr. Butler, who spoke from a conference in Wisconsin with Arab journalists, said the American government paid for many programs that taught foreign journalists not to accept payments from interested parties to write articles and not to print government propaganda disguised as news.
"You show the world you're not living by the principles you profess to believe in, and you lose all credibility," he said.
The Government Accountability Office found this year that the Bush administration had violated the law by producing pseudo news reports that were later used on American television stations with no indication that they had been prepared by the government. But no law prohibits the use of such covert propaganda abroad.
The Lincoln contract with the American-led coalition forces in Iraq has rankled some military and civilian officials and contractors. Some of them described the program to The New York Times in recent months and provided examples of the military's storyboards.
The Lincoln Group, whose principals include some businessmen and former military officials, was hired last year after military officials concluded that the United States was failing to win over Muslim public opinion. In Iraq, the effort is seen by some American military commanders as a crucial step toward defeating the Sunni-led insurgency.
Citing a "fundamental problem of credibility" and foreign opposition to American policies, a Pentagon advisory panel last year called for the government to reinvent and expand its information programs.
"Government alone cannot today communicate effectively and credibly," said the report by the task force on strategic communication of the Defense Science Board. The group recommended turning more often for help to the private sector, which it said had "a built-in agility, credibility and even deniability."
The Pentagon's first public relations contract with Lincoln was awarded in 2004 for about $5 million with the stated purpose of accurately informing the Iraqi people of American goals and gaining their support. But while meant to provide reliable information, the effort was also intended to use deceptive techniques, like payments to sympathetic "temporary spokespersons" who would not necessarily be identified as working for the coalition, according to a contract document and a military official.
In addition, the document called for the development of "alternate or diverting messages which divert media and public attention" to "deal instantly with the bad news of the day."
Laurie Adler, a spokeswoman for the Lincoln Group, said the terms of the contract did not permit her to discuss it and referred a reporter to the Pentagon. But others defended the practice.
"I'm not surprised this goes on," said Michael Rubin, who worked in Iraq for the Coalition Provisional Authority in 2003 and 2004. "Informational operations are a part of any military campaign," he added. "Especially in an atmosphere where terrorists and insurgents - replete with oil boom cash - do the same. We need an even playing field, but cannot fight with both hands tied behind our backs."
Two dozen recent storyboards prepared by the military for Lincoln and reviewed by The New York Times had a variety of good-news themes addressing the economy, security, the insurgency and Iraq's political future. Some were written to resemble news articles. Others took the form of opinion pieces or public service announcements.
One article about Iraq's oil industry opened with three paragraphs taken verbatim, and without attribution, from a recent report in Al Hayat, a London-based Arabic newspaper. But the military version took out a quotation from an oil ministry spokesman that was critical of American reconstruction efforts. It substituted a more positive message, also attributed to the spokesman, though not as a direct quotation.
The editor of Al Sabah, a major Iraqi newspaper that has been the target of many of the military's articles, said Wednesday in an interview that he had no idea that the American military was supplying such material and did not know if his newspaper had printed any of it, whether labeled as advertising or not.
The editor, Muhammad Abdul Jabbar, 57, said Al Sabah, which he said received financial support from the Iraqi government but was editorially independent, accepted advertisements from virtually any source if they were not inflammatory. He said any such material would be labeled as advertising but would not necessarily identify the sponsor. Sometimes, he said, the paper got the text from an advertising agency and did not know its origins.
Asked what he thought of the Pentagon program's effectiveness in influencing Iraqi public opinion, Mr. Jabbar said, "I would spend the money a better way."
The Lincoln Group, which was incorporated in 2004, has won another government information contract. Last June, the Special Operations Command in Tampa awarded Lincoln and two other companies a multimillion-dollar contract to support psychological operations. The planned products, contract documents show, include three- to five- minute news programs.
Asked whether the information and news products would identify the American sponsorship, a media relations officer with the special operations command replied, in an e-mail message last summer, that "the product may or may not carry 'made in the U.S.' signature" but they would be identified as American in origin, "if asked."
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 12:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
CNN's favourite slogan is "Be the first to know" ...  
What a joke. The way this one is shaping up anyone who relies entirely on CNN for it's "information" will be the LAST!!! Truth seems to be more like: " ... be the first to be programmed by what we decide you should know."
'Trophy' video exposes private security contractors shooting up Iraqi drivers
London Telegraph/Sean Rayment | November 27 2005
A "trophy" video appearing to show security guards in Baghdad randomly shooting Iraqi civilians has sparked two investigations after it was posted on the internet, the Sunday Telegraph can reveal.
The video has sparked concern that private security companies, which are not subject to any form of regulation either in Britain or in Iraq, could be responsible for the deaths of hundreds of innocent Iraqis.
The video, which first appeared on a website that has been linked unofficially to Aegis Defence Services, contained four separate clips, in which security guards open fire with automatic rifles at civilian cars. All of the shooting incidents apparently took place on "route Irish", a road that links the airport to Baghdad.
The road has acquired the dubious distinction of being the most dangerous in the world because of the number of suicide attacks and ambushes carried out by insurgents against coalition troops. In one four-month period earlier this year it was the scene of 150 attacks.
In one of the videoed attacks, a Mercedes is fired on at a distance of several hundred yards before it crashes in to a civilian taxi. In the last clip, a white civilian car is raked with machine gun fire as it approaches an unidentified security company vehicle. Bullets can be seen hitting the vehicle before it comes to a slow stop.
There are no clues as to the shooter but either a Scottish or Irish accent can be heard in at least one of the clips above Elvis Presley's Mystery Train, the music which accompanies the video.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2005/281105trophyvideo.htm
Last night a spokesman for defence firm Aegis Defence Services - set up in 2002 by Lt Col Tim Spicer, a former Scots Guards officer - confirmed that the company was carrying out an internal investigation to see if any of their employees were involved.
The Foreign Office has also confirmed that it is investigating the contents of the video in conjunction with Aegis, one of the biggest security companies operating in Iraq. The company was recently awarded a £220 million security contract in Iraq by the United States government. Aegis conducts a number of security duties and helped with the collection of ballot papers in the country's recent referendum
Lt Col Spicer, 53, rose to public prominence in 1998 when his private military company Sandlines International was accused of breaking United Nations sanctions by selling arms to Sierra Leone.
The video first appeared on the website www.aegisIraq.co.uk. The website states: "This site does not belong to Aegis Defence Ltd, it belongs to the men on the ground who are the heart and soul of the company." The clips have been removed.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/11/27/wirq27.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/11/27/ixworld.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hypnotist
Joined: 04 Dec 2004
Location: I wish I were a sock
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 12:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Please can I have access to your script that randomly changes font attributes?
Thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AbbeFaria
Joined: 17 May 2005
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 4:33 am Post subject: Re: What the BBC/CNN Won't Tell You About Iraq |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
| sundubuman wrote: |
| The growth of the independent media - a prerequisite of liberal democracy - is even more inspiring. Before 2003 there was not a single independent media outlet in Iraq. Today, Brookings reports, there are 44 commercial TV stations, 72 radio stations, and more than 100 newspapers. |
That's great!
NYTimes today:
| Quote: |
U.S. Is Said to Pay to Plant Articles in Iraq Papers
By JEFF GERTH and SCOTT SHANE
Published: December 1, 2005
WASHINGTON, Nov. 30 - Titled "The Sands Are Blowing Toward a Democratic Iraq," an article written this week for publication in the Iraqi press was scornful of outsiders' pessimism about the country's future.
"Western press and frequently those self-styled 'objective' observers ... |
|
The NY Times accusing anyone of bad journalism is the ultimate example of the pot calling the kettle black. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 4:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| U.S. Is Said to Pay to Plant Articles in Iraq Papers |
This can't be a very big surprise to anyone since the administration got caught doing the same thing with radio talk show hosts a couple of months ago. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 5:33 am Post subject: Re: What the BBC/CNN Won't Tell You About Iraq |
|
|
| AbbeFaria wrote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
| sundubuman wrote: |
| The growth of the independent media - a prerequisite of liberal democracy - is even more inspiring. Before 2003 there was not a single independent media outlet in Iraq. Today, Brookings reports, there are 44 commercial TV stations, 72 radio stations, and more than 100 newspapers. |
That's great!
NYTimes today:
| Quote: |
U.S. Is Said to Pay to Plant Articles in Iraq Papers
By JEFF GERTH and SCOTT SHANE
Published: December 1, 2005
WASHINGTON, Nov. 30 - Titled "The Sands Are Blowing Toward a Democratic Iraq," an article written this week for publication in the Iraqi press was scornful of outsiders' pessimism about the country's future.
"Western press and frequently those self-styled 'objective' observers ... |
|
The NY Times accusing anyone of bad journalism is the ultimate example of the pot calling the kettle black. |
Er...right, because journalism fraud by one employee who resigned immediately after cancels out the record 90 Pulitzers the newspaper has won.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
desultude
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Location: Dangling my toes in the Persian Gulf
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 2:12 pm Post subject: Re: What the BBC/CNN Won't Tell You About Iraq |
|
|
| AbbeFaria wrote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
| sundubuman wrote: |
| The growth of the independent media - a prerequisite of liberal democracy - is even more inspiring. Before 2003 there was not a single independent media outlet in Iraq. Today, Brookings reports, there are 44 commercial TV stations, 72 radio stations, and more than 100 newspapers. |
That's great!
NYTimes today:
| Quote: |
U.S. Is Said to Pay to Plant Articles in Iraq Papers
By JEFF GERTH and SCOTT SHANE
Published: December 1, 2005
WASHINGTON, Nov. 30 - Titled "The Sands Are Blowing Toward a Democratic Iraq," an article written this week for publication in the Iraqi press was scornful of outsiders' pessimism about the country's future.
"Western press and frequently those self-styled 'objective' observers ... |
|
The NY Times accusing anyone of bad journalism is the ultimate example of the pot calling the kettle black. |
I don't think you can find an example of the NYT being paid to plant articles. They have had their problems, ironically, Judith Miller, the administration's war supporter, er, reporter, being chief amonst them recently, but these have been failures of oversight and management, not of actually buying and spreading propaganda. There is a difference. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
