From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Mon May 12 2003 - 09:47:50 MDT
Dehede011@aol.com wrote,
> I think what you wrote clearly was disappointed that the media
> allegedly (by you) was totally under the thumb of the Army and had not
> reported the war honestly. To conclude that you were not on the
> side of the American Army was not unreasonable.
Firstly, you are twisting the conversation around. I was trying to disprove
your statement that the media was totally out of control and anti-army all
the time. I was giving counter examples where the media was in control of
the army and pro-army. I am trying to disprove your point rather than argue
my own position.
Secondly, I think that this is an example of extreme black-and-white
thinking. I do think that the army controlled the embedded reporters more
than they could before they were embedded. I.E., the embedding gave the
army more control not less. Why this should be interpreted as being "for"
the reporters and "against" the army is beyond me. It was merely an
observation of the control factor. It has no relationship to picking sides.
To assume that my statements were anti-army, of even worse, that they
indicated my desire for harm to befall our troops, is way over the top
compared to what I actually said. I said the embedded media was under the
control of the army. This is not an anti-American statement of hate, an
endorsement of Saddam, or a traitorous attack wishing disaster for our
military forces.
I am increasingly disturbed by this trend within the Extropians and in
various transhumanist movements. The "politically correct" attitude is to
support the cause so much that any negative statement instantly brands
someone as "the enemy". If someone questions any motive by the government,
they are a traitor. If someone questions whether embedded reporters were
controlled by the military, they are hoping Americans die. If someone
questions whether nanoparticles might be dangerous to breath in, they are an
anti-technology Luddite. These responses are extreme and classify someone
to the most extreme point on all positions relating to a subject. These
responses have nothing to do with the specific statements being made. This
seems to be a design flaw in human nature and the way we communicate.
> However you have said since that you
> were not disappointed that the Army did not suffer some tragedy.
> Your word is good enough.
Thank you for this. But I am still in "shock and awe" that you would brand
me as an enemy sympathizer for merely suggested that embedded reporters were
controlled by the army more than non-embedded ones. This seems obvious and
simple to me, and not anti-American hate as you immediately branded it.
Worse, you implied that I had an entire history of such anti-American
statements and that my position was well-known. This is a major
misrepresentation of me, for reasons I cannot fathom.
> However, how you can conclude that the Army as an organization
> dominated the media is beyond me.
First of all, nobody controls all the media. The truth is that there are
right-wing and left-wing companies controlling the media. Everything is not
a black-and-white issue as you seem to always see it. I am trying to
disprove your statement that the anti-army liberals control all media. This
does not mean I am trying to prove that pro-army conservatives control all
media. I don't know why so many people jump to extremes in every
conversation and seem unable to grasp any middle-ground positions of any
kind.
We know that the military has been controlling the media more and more with
every war. The embedded reporters were totally controlled by the military.
They could not report anything without it being censored and approved by the
military. There were many examples of reports from the embedded media not
matching other reporters, even within the same network. CNN often had
embedded reporters give stories about the U.S. military taking over a town
and having celebrations in the street, while their unembedded reporter in
the same country reports live that there is no sign of the military and the
streets are quiet. This is not an anti-army position. The army clearly
used the embedded reporters for propaganda and for spinning the story in
support of the war as a military tool. This is simply factual history and
what I would expect from the army. Bush even has announced that we have
greatly increased our disinformation arm, and has stated that these will use
the media and even file false reports with our allies to help our causes.
Just because I recognize these facts or that I am more wary of the
government and military after they have announced their intent to start a
disinformation campaign does not imply that I am anti-American. I own my
own company and am rich enough to move wherever I want. I choose to stay
and work in America, which is more than President Cheney's Haliburton or
Enron chose to do.
> testimony of the
> direct media involved that some of them were shilling for Sadaam.
I think you are reading too much into CNN's admission. They said that their
sources within Iraq reported such specific details that they could not be
reported for fear that Saddam would kill these people and their families.
I.E., the details were so specific that just the story itself would indicate
who leaked the story. This is no different than the government intelligence
refusing to reveal sources that would get their agents killed. Withholding
information to save the lives of people being held hostage in Iraq, and to
keep that channel of information open for future use, is a standard military
tactic. I don't mind it being used by the reporters, especially if it saved
lives. Maybe such activities indirectly helped Saddam, but the intent was
to save their sources lives, not to help Saddam. They didn't want to see
pro-American contacts in Iraq killed, which is a far different motive than
wanting to support Saddam.
> watched the nightly news casts we know the media repeatedly
> forecast doom and
> gloom. We also know that the forecasts didn't even come close to
> reality.
This is just the nature of trying to predict the future. Even the President
warned that the fighting would take much longer than it really did. Just
because people don't predict the future of the war accurately does not mean
that they were rooting for the enemy. Does the failure of the WMD
prediction mean that conservatives secretly wish that Saddam had WMD? Of
course not. A failed prediction is not the same as personal desire.
And since when is predicting failure the sign of a traitor? Why can't
people honestly dispute their government's motives and methods without being
branded the enemy? There really are good reasons to doubt whether there are
WMD, or whether this invasion was planned before 9/11, etc. There are not
traitorous statements, or litmus tests for patriotism. Any requirement that
people believe the official line without question is repugnant to freedom
itself.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, IAM, GSEC, IBMCP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 12 2003 - 10:06:56 MDT