MEDIA AND CULTURE  
comments_imageCOMMENTS: 58

Why Can't the Corporate Media Just Tell the Truth About Iraq & Afghanistan?

One NY Times reporter finally 'fesses up that the invasion of Iraq wasn't presented truthfully by the big media outlets. It's still not too late to tell the truth.
November 4, 2009  |  
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Media and Culture headlines via email.

 
 
Advertisement
 

When it comes to the media and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – as in many things – John Lennon put it best: I’m sick and tired of hearing things/From uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocritics/All I want is the truth/Just gimme some truth.”

To my surprise, I finally got some truth about the war in Iraq from the New York Times this week.

Given the abysmal cheerleading that has largely marked mainstream media coverage of that misbegotten adventure since its inception – and the Paper of Record has certainly been no exception -- it was even more surprising that the truth came from Alissa J. Rubin, a leading member of what NBC News’ chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel recently dubbed “the Baghdad class of 2003.”

The occasion should be duly noted and even lauded.

Writing in this Sunday’s Week in Review section, Rubin began by noting, “I came to Iraq three days after Saddam Hussein fled Baghdad. It was April 12, 2003. At the time, Iraqis bristled when asked if they were Sunni, Shiite or Kurd. It made no difference, they said, they were brothers. And, in the heady aftermath of the war, for a short while it almost seemed true.”

It almost seemed true -- but it wasn’t quite, not really…

It almost seemed true -- but only to those seemingly true believers, who saw only what they wanted to see… Count among them, of course, George Bush, Dick Cheney and their many minions – but count also the Times, its editors and correspondents like Rubin, along with most of the rest of the mainstream media – those who should have known better and acted differently, but who instead quickly fell into line, gullibly accepting the government’s lies and parroting its compulsory, embedded phony patriotism, to their ever-lasting shame and America’s and Iraq’s ever-lasting sorrow and pain.

Now here’s some truth: “I should have been the canary in the coal mine,” Alissa Rubin wrote this week in the New York Times. “But like so many others around me, I did not want to believe what I saw.”

Now that the Baghdad class of 2003 has suddenly and alarmingly morphed into “the Kabul class of 2009” – yes, Rubin’s covering the new/old war in Afghanistan now – here’s hoping, as I put it in my last post, “We don’t get schooled again.”

Perhaps there is a scintilla of hope. After all, Rubin is finally at least asking the right questions: “What are the lessons of Iraq that I carry with me?” And she is warning us in advance this time, “For outsiders, there is a familiar struggle to see the place as it truly is, not as we might wish it would be.”

And what do we outsiders wish to believe in Iraq and Afghanistan? To Rubin, that much at least is clear:


submit to reddit
Filmmaker and journalist Rory O'Connor is the author of "Shock Jocks: Hate Speech and Talk Radio" (AlterNet Books, 2008). O'Connor also writes the Media Is A Plural blog.
Email
Print
Share
Post on reddit
Post on stumbleupon
Post on facebook
Post on digg
Post on twitter
Post on delicious
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest Media and Culture headlines via email
See more stories tagged with: iraq, afghanistan, war reporting
 

Comments are closed-

because it is about money
Posted by: Eat Politicians on Nov 4, 2009 12:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Welcome to the new USSR. We will collapse under the wait of our imperialistic excesses.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: because it is about money Posted by: Spiritgirl
» Exactly. It's a deck of lies. Posted by: james108
» Love of money is an illness Posted by: weathered

Comments are closed-

"truth" and "corporate media" dont belong in the same sentance...
Posted by: Annapurna1 on Nov 4, 2009 12:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
n/s...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

The NYtimes died on 9/11
Posted by: weathered on Nov 4, 2009 3:28 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
its spirit got crushed in its own rubble and any integrity it may have had went up in smoke.

Indict Miller and her arrogant, deceitful editors on civil/criminal charges of conspiracy to commit fraud, the 1st claimants are the families of those killed and injured in Iraq.

Indict Larry Silverstein for insurance fraud and murder at the WTC.

See MSM for exactly what it is an accomplice to the crimes - they drove the getaway car right into our living room.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The NYtimes died on 9/11 Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: The NYtimes died on 9/11 Posted by: kellysgarden
» Waterboard Silverstein Posted by: weathered
» RE: Waterboard Cheney Posted by: kellysgarden

Comments are closed-

Afghanistan`s Secret Weapon
Posted by: melpol on Nov 4, 2009 3:34 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Poppy crops have been milked for 5 years and turned into enough Heroin to supply the worlds addicts for a century. It sits in abandoned missile silos guarded by private armies, the rest is hidden in Afghanistan caves. The Heroin is owned by a man called Feelgood whose real name remains a secret.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Afghanistan`s Secret Weapon Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: HuffPo's Secret Weapon Posted by: Sister_Lauren

Comments are closed-

The media died during the 90's
Posted by: Perry Logan on Nov 4, 2009 3:50 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The U.S. corporate news died during the 90s, when the stupidest thing you could make up about the Clintons was sure to be headline news the next day.

Hating ACORN

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The media died during the 90's Posted by: Sister_Lauren

Comments are closed-

I didn't hear any truth about uranium
Posted by: Sister_Lauren on Nov 4, 2009 4:21 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With all that money spent on security, did papers actually lose, make, or break even on these wars? They talked us into them, I thought that was for money. Were security costs so high, they lost money?

People don't want to hear about conflict, that is where they are wrong. What people want to hear about is solutions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Did you read the same column, Mr. O'Connor?
Posted by: leafsong1 on Nov 4, 2009 4:57 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do you actually believe for a second that Rubin and gang were deceived by the push for war? Do you actually believe that Rubin has learned anything from Iraq beyond the essential value to her "journalism" career in parrotting government propaganda? Do you actually believe that she does not receive a paycheck from the CIA for her work at the Times? Rubin is simply trying to slavage some bullshit credibility so that she can be effective in selling the Afghan conflict now that Iraq is a done deal. I saw no truth at all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Disappointing
Posted by: rachieb on Nov 4, 2009 5:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Was expecting more from this article. I was in the good old US of A when the invasion of Iraq commenced. I can remember the fall of the statue of Sadam like it was yesterday - in the US it was reported that the statue was surrounded by happy Iraqis, the British news pointed out the "happy Iraqis" were other journalists recording the event. One news item was reported over and over again on one day "we found chemical weapons", only to be followed the next day with a "oops no we didn't" statement once every hour. How can you have any faith in your news? The whole "news" being reported was blatant airbrushed propaganda. No realities of the war were ever reported during those first weeks - no fatalities, no injuries nada.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

These words say it all
Posted by: Marlena on Nov 4, 2009 5:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
how fracking clueless are most US residents?? Do the really really think the US is a nation like this??
Americans wanted to believe that their version of democracy was just waiting to spring to life in Iraq — a peaceful multiethnic, multireligious society adhering to the rule of law
No wonder most of us are led around like sheep!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Newsflash...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Nov 4, 2009 5:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... the media doesn't tell the truth, or at least the whole truth about much of anything. Why? Because they are only there to present the world view that governemnt/corporate interests (because there really isn't an appreciable difference in most cases anymore) approve of, and that is NOT one that allows real truth or real perspective on issues to seep through very often.

For example... have you EVER heard much discussion in the media about the US's past activities in Iraq and Afghanistan and how they might effect how people of those nations feel about us today? Of course not!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Newsflash... Posted by: pawheel

Comments are closed-

A letter to Andrew Sullivan, 10/24/2006
Posted by: Sister_Lauren on Nov 4, 2009 5:45 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Your words:

Thanks. For my part (although I should go back and read my blog to make sure of this), I always believed that Iraq would be an enormously difficult endeavor, taking years of occupation and billions of dollars.

But looking back, I think I didn't fully realize the radical utopianism of some of the people I was backing. I also wrongly believed that the WMD threat was so real we had no choice; and I felt that the danger of radical Islam so profound that some space for democratic change in Iraq was essential to winning the long war.

Part of me still believes that. On this book tour, I don't have time right now to say more. But I hope to synthesize some of your points into a real piece soon that grapples with this deep question - and what it means for what we do now.

Hi Andrew,

I have not been a big reader of yours because I always felt my husband would tell me whatever you are saying but he is out of town right now so I checked you out, see what's up.

When I read the above I realized it was YOU I have been arguing with all this time! You swallowed their dirty story and my husband swallowed your analysis, totally! But he fights with me, your 'beliefs' were strongly defended in my domicile. You should really pride yourself for being so effective! I was almost thrown out of my home on more than one occasion over your 'facts" since Bush took office. (As a man, you are oh so much more believable then I ever could be, you are always held as a higher authority, a truly reliable source. I was judged horribly wrong for disagreeing.)

So, now that I have annoyed you, I am writing today to beg you a favor, I need to get a new 'fact' exposed. I know folks in New York City really don't care about California or federal pot laws and would like to see all us Hippies fall right into the sea, but could SOMEONE PLEASE NOTICE there is *theoretically* an election out here for the Senator.

Todd Chretien is running on the Green platform. I want his campaign to get SOME media attention, this is for the Senate.

My local paper doesn't know his name or "have staff" to cover his election. The LA Times told me he wasn't a story because he hasn't been on TV (wrong, O'Reily had him on 3X). This smells suddenly like a huge stinking cover-up to me, a rat to throw the election off to the war mongers. (Please have an open mind here, don't dismiss me. I was right when you were wrong before.)

A fixed shoe-in for the dirty drug warring Dainne is NOT a fair election! Please, don't let our yellow press get away with it.

Andrew, your blank check trust of the system has fairly fucked over my marriage, it is on the rocks. Could you please do me this one personal favor, to make amends? Please. Please check into the paticulars of the Feinstein wash up of the California senate race, OK? I would really appreciate it if our Green candidate got some kind of media break. Can you do that? Thank you.

I have been invited to join a rally on Halloween to present signatures to Nanci Pelosi. Do you know what I am doing for my people? I am Dancing my people, the Native American people, right out of the closet into a new age of religious freedom. I will be carrying my storm shield for the Rainbow Tribe, for our freedom. I have plenty ideas about world peace and "what we do now". I am a trained leader, with vision.

Please, please check into the senate race for me. Thank you.

Lauren

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Why won't the media report the truth?
Posted by: Comrade Rutherford on Nov 4, 2009 6:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because their Republican owners order them not to.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

So....
Posted by: popeurbanxxiii on Nov 4, 2009 6:31 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...the whore press is admitting that it's pimp beat them "just a little"?

You were used, abused, ridden hard, and put up wet.

Darlin', you should be as angry as a wet hen, but you are still making noises like "he does love me, really!" But I guess denial is all a part of keeping your job, so I do understand where you are coming from.

The good news is that "the Paper of Record" still does make a good liner for the birdcage.

Pax...
Pope Urban XXIII

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Herb Schiller said...
Posted by: mattwoolery on Nov 4, 2009 7:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A while back I had a great course in college on corporate media and it's role in the delivery of "news". Professor Herb Schiller told us a couple of decades ago that what we see on tv is not news. He said it is a giant pr campaign for the corporate collective. What you see on tv, he instructed, must always make you feel good about corporate success. And bad when the corporation suffers. "Do you really think the stories you saw on tv last night were THE most important events affecting the course of history?..." Most of us in that class thought hard about it. And we are still thinking today. Let's all think a little more. We are starting to see more truth spoken to power today on tv and elsewhere. But not enough for a thriving republic. An informed electorate is crucial for a successful republic. That's what Thomas Jefferson said, anyway. And we can't expect enough truth from an entity that has shown us recently and often that their primary interest is return to shareholders.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

darkmark
Posted by: darkmark on Nov 4, 2009 7:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
before the war began i decided to try the washington post and the nytimes. one morning i opened up the wapo website and there in big letters was something like "hurrah hurrah we're going to war, hurrah hurrah." like woe downer. i opened up the nytimes site and same thing. i felt ill. down in a deep pit, there in "there's a low below the low you know. you would be surprise how low you can go down," malvina reynolds. not a nice place to be. the united states of imperialism's control over all msm is complete. trust yourself before trusting msm.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: darkmark Posted by: Sister_Lauren

Comments are closed-

Why Can't the Corporate Media Just Tell the Truth About Iraq & Afghanistan?
Posted by: grn1 on Nov 4, 2009 8:33 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And admit to a genocide? Guilt is the liars bread and butter.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

WHY??
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Nov 4, 2009 9:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because it's not possible to wake up one day and switch from 9 years of lies to sudden truth. The awakening gives rise to many questions, such as: Why the hell did they lie to us for so long? It's less messy to continue lying. At least it's consistent. We are entitled to the truth the first time around not after so much damage has been done that the truth becomes had to believe. ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

So what, exactly, was she wrong about?
Posted by: oregoncharles on Nov 4, 2009 9:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article somehow skips over that part - or maybe Rubin did.

Seeing with rose-colored glasses, yes, I saw that, but it doesn't really say anything. How did Iraq get from insisting they all were "brothers" to killing each other en masse? What was the US role in that?

Too much is missing here. Granted, people won't read 7-page articles, but even one more page would have helped.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Oh, let's give poor Alissa the benefit of the doubt
Posted by: eddie torres on Nov 4, 2009 11:26 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How come everybody's pliling on poor Alissa? She's off to Paris and a fabulous new stint covering Pakistan and Afghanistan. From Paris!

Here's how it really played out:

Alissa Rubin, NYT: "Some very powerful and wealthy corporate Americans wanted to believe that their version of corporate democracy was just waiting to spring to life in Iraq..."

Fixed by Susan Chira, Alissa's NYT editor: "Americans wanted to believe that their version of democracy was just waiting to spring to life in Iraq..."

See? Alissa's a victim, just like us... In Paris!

Carry on.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

It was a sad day
Posted by: Gor on Nov 4, 2009 11:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Darkmark I am with you.

The memory of that day the war started is so vivid. I felt sad and defeated because I new that thousands of innocents would die for nothing. There was a lot of jingoism in the air. You could hardly find anybody who could say that it was a wrong idea. On that evening I went to a regular bar and everybody was upbeat and in support of the war. Except for an old men who ran a scrap iron business nearby. He gave me a very convincing argument why the war was a dumb idea. He did not need to convince since I already knew that the WMD was a lie. What surprised me was the fact that an American of his age would be so well informed as to hold such a view when everybody around me was busy cheering for the war. Many of those who turned against the war did so not because it was immoral but because it was taking too long to “win”

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Too much riding on the lies
Posted by: james108 on Nov 4, 2009 12:09 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with the people who know it's about the money.

The thing is, you have two parties with complete strangle holds on our country, and they are both vested in the neocon globalist whitewash. That's why Obama stood against Bush's impeachment. That's why Obama's using similar weapons of mass destruction rhetoric on Iran, hypocritically, while ignoring Iran's actual compliance with inspections and natural right to nuclear technology, and Israel's blatant refusal to comply with inspections of their weapons facilities. Iran has broken no international laws in regards to nuclear technology, and Israel ignores the laws on weapons, but we want something Iran has so there you go.

It's about excuse and simplistic, nationalist rhetoric that both parties, which happen to run things, rely on while they fight over which faction wins the pie. Current corporate news media with their monopolies are too reliant on the political monopoly they're in bed with the keep the strangle hold going. Heck, they even got the FCC & FTC to go after bloggers who make claims outside of their controlled "traditional media", while exempting big news corporations from the same disclosure rules.

The only way they can keep up this kind of charade if is democrats and republicans lie their butts off, covering for each other's big lies in retrospect, throwing around trivial stuff while a colluding media helps them distract by not mentioning certain realities. It would sound too dumb if they said it out loud... "The US allows Israel to rebuff requests for inspection, but threatens murderous sanctions or military action on Iran even though they allow inspections because they might possibly have the capability to produce a fraction of the weapons the US and Israel harbor". Sounds silly if you say it out loud.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Too much riding on the lies Posted by: Richardsievert

Comments are closed-

Think progress - I just cant seem to get through so I have to post it here. I wonder why.
Posted by: Sister_Lauren on Nov 4, 2009 1:04 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As The Media Obsesses Over New York Special Election, It Ignores Leftward Lurch In California Special Election

For some reason not only can I not comment on the site, but I also don't receive the email they theoretically send to me. Perhaps that is what the government does sometimes to keep us from communicating with each other. I doubt Congress would want it exposed that they do that to us.

Here is my note,

Special election, California 10

I wanted to let you know since I am being prevented from posting on your site somehow, that the media is most likely ignoring the Ca 10 race because of me.

But actually I think I am not being allowed to post here for a super good spy reason. What do you think it is?

Sister Lauren Unruh
THC Ministry

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Garamendi ahead big in East Bay - MSNBC sucks!
Posted by: Sister_Lauren on Nov 4, 2009 2:25 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pelosi tells him to fly to DC Wednesday to be sworn into office Thursday

I am looking forward to a guy who understands the insurance industry joining the think tank we call Congress.

The Repug trolls are out in full force against him. That must mean he is a good guy, they wouldn't attack him like that if they weren't afraid of him.

What is sad is how MSNBC is tossing their credibility right out the window on this vote. All day long yesterday and today, nothing but New York and New Jersey, New York and New Jersey. The MSNBC message to the west could not be more clear.

25 minutes into Chris Mathews' show and NO mention of the golden state. It is like we don't even f*cking exist.

I am deeply disappointed in this failure to cover 'politics'. I think we better consider it a failure of truth in advertising, in other words, fraud.

If they can't even mention California while opining about 'kids' who came out last time for Obama, they are just NOT "the place for politics."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Another win for liberal politics, New Era for U.S. Drug Policy?
Posted by: Sister_Lauren on Nov 4, 2009 7:27 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow, when stuffy old CBS News notices I guess we are really getting somewhere. This is a pretty decent and quite detailed story on the issue. I was impressed.

A New Era for U.S. Drug Policy?

This jumped out at me as the kind of thing to look our for,

Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, offered an amendment explicitly forbidding any recommendations that even discuss drug decriminalization or legalization.

Uh, isn't that an unconstitutional limitation of free speech? What is his reasoning? Or should I say unreasoning?

I really would like to know why he thinks it is so important that we are not to even be allowed to talk about it. I would really like to know.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alternet Comments:

Comments are closed-

because it is about money
Posted by: Eat Politicians on Nov 4, 2009 12:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Welcome to the new USSR. We will collapse under the wait of our imperialistic excesses.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: because it is about money Posted by: Spiritgirl
» Exactly. It's a deck of lies. Posted by: james108
» Love of money is an illness Posted by: weathered

Comments are closed-

"truth" and "corporate media" dont belong in the same sentance...
Posted by: Annapurna1 on Nov 4, 2009 12:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
n/s...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

The NYtimes died on 9/11
Posted by: weathered on Nov 4, 2009 3:28 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
its spirit got crushed in its own rubble and any integrity it may have had went up in smoke.

Indict Miller and her arrogant, deceitful editors on civil/criminal charges of conspiracy to commit fraud, the 1st claimants are the families of those killed and injured in Iraq.

Indict Larry Silverstein for insurance fraud and murder at the WTC.

See MSM for exactly what it is an accomplice to the crimes - they drove the getaway car right into our living room.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The NYtimes died on 9/11 Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: The NYtimes died on 9/11 Posted by: kellysgarden
» Waterboard Silverstein Posted by: weathered
» RE: Waterboard Cheney Posted by: kellysgarden

Comments are closed-

Afghanistan`s Secret Weapon
Posted by: melpol on Nov 4, 2009 3:34 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Poppy crops have been milked for 5 years and turned into enough Heroin to supply the worlds addicts for a century. It sits in abandoned missile silos guarded by private armies, the rest is hidden in Afghanistan caves. The Heroin is owned by a man called Feelgood whose real name remains a secret.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Afghanistan`s Secret Weapon Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: HuffPo's Secret Weapon Posted by: Sister_Lauren

Comments are closed-

The media died during the 90's
Posted by: Perry Logan on Nov 4, 2009 3:50 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The U.S. corporate news died during the 90s, when the stupidest thing you could make up about the Clintons was sure to be headline news the next day.

Hating ACORN

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The media died during the 90's Posted by: Sister_Lauren

Comments are closed-

I didn't hear any truth about uranium
Posted by: Sister_Lauren on Nov 4, 2009 4:21 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With all that money spent on security, did papers actually lose, make, or break even on these wars? They talked us into them, I thought that was for money. Were security costs so high, they lost money?

People don't want to hear about conflict, that is where they are wrong. What people want to hear about is solutions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Did you read the same column, Mr. O'Connor?
Posted by: leafsong1 on Nov 4, 2009 4:57 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do you actually believe for a second that Rubin and gang were deceived by the push for war? Do you actually believe that Rubin has learned anything from Iraq beyond the essential value to her "journalism" career in parrotting government propaganda? Do you actually believe that she does not receive a paycheck from the CIA for her work at the Times? Rubin is simply trying to slavage some bullshit credibility so that she can be effective in selling the Afghan conflict now that Iraq is a done deal. I saw no truth at all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Disappointing
Posted by: rachieb on Nov 4, 2009 5:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Was expecting more from this article. I was in the good old US of A when the invasion of Iraq commenced. I can remember the fall of the statue of Sadam like it was yesterday - in the US it was reported that the statue was surrounded by happy Iraqis, the British news pointed out the "happy Iraqis" were other journalists recording the event. One news item was reported over and over again on one day "we found chemical weapons", only to be followed the next day with a "oops no we didn't" statement once every hour. How can you have any faith in your news? The whole "news" being reported was blatant airbrushed propaganda. No realities of the war were ever reported during those first weeks - no fatalities, no injuries nada.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

These words say it all
Posted by: Marlena on Nov 4, 2009 5:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
how fracking clueless are most US residents?? Do the really really think the US is a nation like this??
Americans wanted to believe that their version of democracy was just waiting to spring to life in Iraq — a peaceful multiethnic, multireligious society adhering to the rule of law
No wonder most of us are led around like sheep!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Newsflash...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Nov 4, 2009 5:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... the media doesn't tell the truth, or at least the whole truth about much of anything. Why? Because they are only there to present the world view that governemnt/corporate interests (because there really isn't an appreciable difference in most cases anymore) approve of, and that is NOT one that allows real truth or real perspective on issues to seep through very often.

For example... have you EVER heard much discussion in the media about the US's past activities in Iraq and Afghanistan and how they might effect how people of those nations feel about us today? Of course not!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Newsflash... Posted by: pawheel

Comments are closed-

A letter to Andrew Sullivan, 10/24/2006
Posted by: Sister_Lauren on Nov 4, 2009 5:45 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Your words:

Thanks. For my part (although I should go back and read my blog to make sure of this), I always believed that Iraq would be an enormously difficult endeavor, taking years of occupation and billions of dollars.

But looking back, I think I didn't fully realize the radical utopianism of some of the people I was backing. I also wrongly believed that the WMD threat was so real we had no choice; and I felt that the danger of radical Islam so profound that some space for democratic change in Iraq was essential to winning the long war.

Part of me still believes that. On this book tour, I don't have time right now to say more. But I hope to synthesize some of your points into a real piece soon that grapples with this deep question - and what it means for what we do now.

Hi Andrew,

I have not been a big reader of yours because I always felt my husband would tell me whatever you are saying but he is out of town right now so I checked you out, see what's up.

When I read the above I realized it was YOU I have been arguing with all this time! You swallowed their dirty story and my husband swallowed your analysis, totally! But he fights with me, your 'beliefs' were strongly defended in my domicile. You should really pride yourself for being so effective! I was almost thrown out of my home on more than one occasion over your 'facts" since Bush took office. (As a man, you are oh so much more believable then I ever could be, you are always held as a higher authority, a truly reliable source. I was judged horribly wrong for disagreeing.)

So, now that I have annoyed you, I am writing today to beg you a favor, I need to get a new 'fact' exposed. I know folks in New York City really don't care about California or federal pot laws and would like to see all us Hippies fall right into the sea, but could SOMEONE PLEASE NOTICE there is *theoretically* an election out here for the Senator.

Todd Chretien is running on the Green platform. I want his campaign to get SOME media attention, this is for the Senate.

My local paper doesn't know his name or "have staff" to cover his election. The LA Times told me he wasn't a story because he hasn't been on TV (wrong, O'Reily had him on 3X). This smells suddenly like a huge stinking cover-up to me, a rat to throw the election off to the war mongers. (Please have an open mind here, don't dismiss me. I was right when you were wrong before.)

A fixed shoe-in for the dirty drug warring Dainne is NOT a fair election! Please, don't let our yellow press get away with it.

Andrew, your blank check trust of the system has fairly fucked over my marriage, it is on the rocks. Could you please do me this one personal favor, to make amends? Please. Please check into the paticulars of the Feinstein wash up of the California senate race, OK? I would really appreciate it if our Green candidate got some kind of media break. Can you do that? Thank you.

I have been invited to join a rally on Halloween to present signatures to Nanci Pelosi. Do you know what I am doing for my people? I am Dancing my people, the Native American people, right out of the closet into a new age of religious freedom. I will be carrying my storm shield for the Rainbow Tribe, for our freedom. I have plenty ideas about world peace and "what we do now". I am a trained leader, with vision.

Please, please check into the senate race for me. Thank you.

Lauren

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Why won't the media report the truth?
Posted by: Comrade Rutherford on Nov 4, 2009 6:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because their Republican owners order them not to.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

So....
Posted by: popeurbanxxiii on Nov 4, 2009 6:31 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...the whore press is admitting that it's pimp beat them "just a little"?

You were used, abused, ridden hard, and put up wet.

Darlin', you should be as angry as a wet hen, but you are still making noises like "he does love me, really!" But I guess denial is all a part of keeping your job, so I do understand where you are coming from.

The good news is that "the Paper of Record" still does make a good liner for the birdcage.

Pax...
Pope Urban XXIII

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Herb Schiller said...
Posted by: mattwoolery on Nov 4, 2009 7:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A while back I had a great course in college on corporate media and it's role in the delivery of "news". Professor Herb Schiller told us a couple of decades ago that what we see on tv is not news. He said it is a giant pr campaign for the corporate collective. What you see on tv, he instructed, must always make you feel good about corporate success. And bad when the corporation suffers. "Do you really think the stories you saw on tv last night were THE most important events affecting the course of history?..." Most of us in that class thought hard about it. And we are still thinking today. Let's all think a little more. We are starting to see more truth spoken to power today on tv and elsewhere. But not enough for a thriving republic. An informed electorate is crucial for a successful republic. That's what Thomas Jefferson said, anyway. And we can't expect enough truth from an entity that has shown us recently and often that their primary interest is return to shareholders.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

darkmark
Posted by: darkmark on Nov 4, 2009 7:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
before the war began i decided to try the washington post and the nytimes. one morning i opened up the wapo website and there in big letters was something like "hurrah hurrah we're going to war, hurrah hurrah." like woe downer. i opened up the nytimes site and same thing. i felt ill. down in a deep pit, there in "there's a low below the low you know. you would be surprise how low you can go down," malvina reynolds. not a nice place to be. the united states of imperialism's control over all msm is complete. trust yourself before trusting msm.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: darkmark Posted by: Sister_Lauren

Comments are closed-

Why Can't the Corporate Media Just Tell the Truth About Iraq & Afghanistan?
Posted by: grn1 on Nov 4, 2009 8:33 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And admit to a genocide? Guilt is the liars bread and butter.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

WHY??
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Nov 4, 2009 9:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because it's not possible to wake up one day and switch from 9 years of lies to sudden truth. The awakening gives rise to many questions, such as: Why the hell did they lie to us for so long? It's less messy to continue lying. At least it's consistent. We are entitled to the truth the first time around not after so much damage has been done that the truth becomes had to believe. ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

So what, exactly, was she wrong about?
Posted by: oregoncharles on Nov 4, 2009 9:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article somehow skips over that part - or maybe Rubin did.

Seeing with rose-colored glasses, yes, I saw that, but it doesn't really say anything. How did Iraq get from insisting they all were "brothers" to killing each other en masse? What was the US role in that?

Too much is missing here. Granted, people won't read 7-page articles, but even one more page would have helped.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Oh, let's give poor Alissa the benefit of the doubt
Posted by: eddie torres on Nov 4, 2009 11:26 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How come everybody's pliling on poor Alissa? She's off to Paris and a fabulous new stint covering Pakistan and Afghanistan. From Paris!

Here's how it really played out:

Alissa Rubin, NYT: "Some very powerful and wealthy corporate Americans wanted to believe that their version of corporate democracy was just waiting to spring to life in Iraq..."

Fixed by Susan Chira, Alissa's NYT editor: "Americans wanted to believe that their version of democracy was just waiting to spring to life in Iraq..."

See? Alissa's a victim, just like us... In Paris!

Carry on.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

It was a sad day
Posted by: Gor on Nov 4, 2009 11:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Darkmark I am with you.

The memory of that day the war started is so vivid. I felt sad and defeated because I new that thousands of innocents would die for nothing. There was a lot of jingoism in the air. You could hardly find anybody who could say that it was a wrong idea. On that evening I went to a regular bar and everybody was upbeat and in support of the war. Except for an old men who ran a scrap iron business nearby. He gave me a very convincing argument why the war was a dumb idea. He did not need to convince since I already knew that the WMD was a lie. What surprised me was the fact that an American of his age would be so well informed as to hold such a view when everybody around me was busy cheering for the war. Many of those who turned against the war did so not because it was immoral but because it was taking too long to “win”

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Too much riding on the lies
Posted by: james108 on Nov 4, 2009 12:09 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with the people who know it's about the money.

The thing is, you have two parties with complete strangle holds on our country, and they are both vested in the neocon globalist whitewash. That's why Obama stood against Bush's impeachment. That's why Obama's using similar weapons of mass destruction rhetoric on Iran, hypocritically, while ignoring Iran's actual compliance with inspections and natural right to nuclear technology, and Israel's blatant refusal to comply with inspections of their weapons facilities. Iran has broken no international laws in regards to nuclear technology, and Israel ignores the laws on weapons, but we want something Iran has so there you go.

It's about excuse and simplistic, nationalist rhetoric that both parties, which happen to run things, rely on while they fight over which faction wins the pie. Current corporate news media with their monopolies are too reliant on the political monopoly they're in bed with the keep the strangle hold going. Heck, they even got the FCC & FTC to go after bloggers who make claims outside of their controlled "traditional media", while exempting big news corporations from the same disclosure rules.

The only way they can keep up this kind of charade if is democrats and republicans lie their butts off, covering for each other's big lies in retrospect, throwing around trivial stuff while a colluding media helps them distract by not mentioning certain realities. It would sound too dumb if they said it out loud... "The US allows Israel to rebuff requests for inspection, but threatens murderous sanctions or military action on Iran even though they allow inspections because they might possibly have the capability to produce a fraction of the weapons the US and Israel harbor". Sounds silly if you say it out loud.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Too much riding on the lies Posted by: Richardsievert

Comments are closed-

Think progress - I just cant seem to get through so I have to post it here. I wonder why.
Posted by: Sister_Lauren on Nov 4, 2009 1:04 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As The Media Obsesses Over New York Special Election, It Ignores Leftward Lurch In California Special Election

For some reason not only can I not comment on the site, but I also don't receive the email they theoretically send to me. Perhaps that is what the government does sometimes to keep us from communicating with each other. I doubt Congress would want it exposed that they do that to us.

Here is my note,

Special election, California 10

I wanted to let you know since I am being prevented from posting on your site somehow, that the media is most likely ignoring the Ca 10 race because of me.

But actually I think I am not being allowed to post here for a super good spy reason. What do you think it is?

Sister Lauren Unruh
THC Ministry

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Garamendi ahead big in East Bay - MSNBC sucks!
Posted by: Sister_Lauren on Nov 4, 2009 2:25 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pelosi tells him to fly to DC Wednesday to be sworn into office Thursday

I am looking forward to a guy who understands the insurance industry joining the think tank we call Congress.

The Repug trolls are out in full force against him. That must mean he is a good guy, they wouldn't attack him like that if they weren't afraid of him.

What is sad is how MSNBC is tossing their credibility right out the window on this vote. All day long yesterday and today, nothing but New York and New Jersey, New York and New Jersey. The MSNBC message to the west could not be more clear.

25 minutes into Chris Mathews' show and NO mention of the golden state. It is like we don't even f*cking exist.

I am deeply disappointed in this failure to cover 'politics'. I think we better consider it a failure of truth in advertising, in other words, fraud.

If they can't even mention California while opining about 'kids' who came out last time for Obama, they are just NOT "the place for politics."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Another win for liberal politics, New Era for U.S. Drug Policy?
Posted by: Sister_Lauren on Nov 4, 2009 7:27 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow, when stuffy old CBS News notices I guess we are really getting somewhere. This is a pretty decent and quite detailed story on the issue. I was impressed.

A New Era for U.S. Drug Policy?

This jumped out at me as the kind of thing to look our for,

Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, offered an amendment explicitly forbidding any recommendations that even discuss drug decriminalization or legalization.

Uh, isn't that an unconstitutional limitation of free speech? What is his reasoning? Or should I say unreasoning?

I really would like to know why he thinks it is so important that we are not to even be allowed to talk about it. I would really like to know.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

 
 
 
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS