Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by KGB_resident, Nov 1, 2006.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
You can't polish a turd. Next question.
You are not right. Ban freedom of speech and the Pentagon would no doubt win propaganda war.
What makes you think that?
Prohibition has never solved anything - especially in America
Very unlikely, in the US, UK and most of Europe you couldnât ban Freedom of speech these days without enforcing it with en masse corporal punishment there would be to much of a backlash.
And if they are going to go down that route they are already a Dictatorship and donât really give a crap about what their populace thinks/wants in any case.
I don't propose a solution. I pointed out that the only effective measure is an unthinkable one.
Btw, there is no 100% freedom of speech anywhere. For example, can you watch al-Jazeera in USA?
I don't see why not. It's on the Internet/Satellite.
The Pentagon could try telling the truth. It seemed to work for the BBC in the last big one.
Yep, they're losing the 'informational' war because they're losing the war full freakin' stop. A war that they started. Dumbazzes.
The Military in IRQ has the same problem the Septics had in 'Nam, and UNPROFOR had in Bosnia.
That is, that the information they are presenting (which in all fairness they have probably chosen to believe) does not closely resemble the picture being painted in the public domain (whether or not that picture is accurate or 'truthful' is irrelevant).
What is really interesting is the YouTube/ARRSE phenomenon - these kind of channels mean that even the media have lost the advantage of being able to reach a mass audience more quickly than anybody else.
Anyone with a laptop and interweb access can be 'out there' in no time flat.
How the f*ck d'you 'win' that battle?
I'd say the only way to look good is to be more honest: the bigger the mismatch between the "correct" version of events, and the version people assemble from popular, 'independent' sources - the bigger the problem for the military.
...within a conception of freedom of speech of course.
Asking about Al-Jazeera in USA I meant that unlike CNN it hasn't an ability to develop own cable network. Again probably within a conception of freedom of speech.
Sergey, Sergey, Sergey, that article is 5 years old! There was a perception at the time that al-Jazeera was a propaganda tool for anti-American forces and that closing it down would help them win the propaganda war. I heard of any other threats recently.
Why would al-Jazeera set up a cable network in the US? Given the likely take-up in that market, they would never make money. That's an economic decision, rather than censorship. I don't believe that Pravda has a very wide circulation in the US either, it doesn't mean that it's been banned.
Maybe anything has been changed?
Highly esteemed mr.Bush said (quite recently)
What in fact learned mr.Bush has said? He copmlained about 'wrongly used' freedom of speech. He liked Al-Jazeera (TV funded by US-friendly government) to terrorists. It is nothing but threat.
Do you meen that Al-Jazeera itself doesn't wish to establish own cable network in USA? If yes then you are not right.
Al-Jazeera International, an English-language sister network to the Arabic Al-Jazeera has hired well-known media figures such as David Frost and Dave Marash.
Michael Yon has some interesting insights:
American generals are right: the most effective measure is a censorship. Because in most cases any information is unprofitable for the Coalition.
Separate names with a comma.