Serving the Quantitative Finance Community

 
User avatar
WaaghBakri
Topic Author
Posts: 1
Joined: March 21st, 2002, 4:07 am

Pathetic Press

March 28th, 2003, 4:12 am

During the Gulf War, the Pentagon established new ground rules for the media, such as granting access only to a small group of reporters and screening dispatches to prevent the release of classified information. Major news companies participated in negotiating these rules and accepted them without protest. But some renegades still think that was wrong. "I don't think it's our job at all to have meetings with them," Hersh said, referring to the ongoing dialogue between the press and the Pentagon. "We should be insisting on complete access. . . . But we don't even begin to insist on that. We're so beaten down. We're so cowardly in our profession." "The Washington press corps is complicit," Simon added ruefully. "The game that's played in Washington—and it's always been played this way—is the trade-off of access for patronage. If you agree to sing their song, you'll be invited for an audience. This is happening to somebody at CBS I can think of, somebody at NBC, somebody at The Washington Post. They go easy on the president and his people, and they keep on getting invited back and getting more access." spin masquerading as information-------------------------------In the late 1960s and early 1970s, a simmering American skepticism about the motives and morality of our leaders boiled over. Several long-term trends coalesced into a climate of suspicion -- and at times paranoia -- that moved rapidly from the left and right margins of society into the mainstream. The 1960s brought a rebellion against authority. .............................................And then the mood of active distrust began to subside. It was as if Americans, having faced the darkest elements of their system, couldn't bear to see any more. The post-Vietnam years witnessed a backlash against what was seen as an excess of self-criticism. Old-fashioned values of family, patriotism, hierarchy and duty regained cachet.Journalists value a good scoop, regardless of whose ox is gored--------------------------------"The Beeb is a mandatory government-run service staffed with the usual people who go into government-run media, i.e. left-wing hacks," British expatriate Andrew Sullivan writes on his Web site. "The BBC is increasingly perceived, even by sympathetic parties, as the voice in part of the anti-war forces. . . . How the Beeb ceased to become an objective news source and became a broadcast version of the Nation is one of the great tragedies of modern journalism."..."If we were simply to take the justification for the war, we would have lost half our audience," he says (BBC News Director Richard Sambrook). "There's a strong body of opinion in Europe that the grounds for this war haven't been proven and aren't clear. Our coverage has to reflect that."We're pleasing no one...---------------------------------FAIR examined the 393 on-camera sources who appeared in nightly news stories about Iraq on ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News and PBS's NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. The study began one week before and ended one week after Secretary of State Colin Powell's February 5 presentation at the U.N., a time that saw particularly intense debate about the idea of a war against Iraq on the national and international level. More than two-thirds (267 out of 393) of the guests featured were from the United States. Of the U.S. guests, a striking 75 percent (199) were either current or former government or military officials. Only one of the official U.S. sources-- Sen. Edward Kennedy (D.-Mass.)-- expressed skepticism or opposition to the war. Even this was couched in vague terms: "Once we get in there how are we going to get out, what’s the loss for American troops are going to be, how long we're going to be stationed there, what’s the cost is going to be," said Kennedy on NBC Nightly News (2/5/03).Networks Are Megaphones for Official Views ----------------------------------Picked off browsing around, jumping from one link to another ....... All I can say is that it's a scary trend .......
 
User avatar
Mukuzani
Posts: 3
Joined: March 12th, 2002, 3:59 am

Pathetic Press

March 28th, 2003, 6:28 am

Nothing new about free US media. An unpleasant surprise is BBC. They were good in coverage of war against Yugoslavia
 
User avatar
DominicConnor
Posts: 41
Joined: July 14th, 2002, 3:00 am

Pathetic Press

March 28th, 2003, 4:22 pm

I think the key word here is "free". "Free" things tend to be worth what you pay.They lament the lack of news and apparent deception by the authorities. Well, it seems to me that if George Bush was having sexual relations with Saddams wife, the media would be all over this. They would actually go and investigate things, rather than wait and be told.
 
User avatar
WaaghBakri
Topic Author
Posts: 1
Joined: March 21st, 2002, 4:07 am

Pathetic Press

April 1st, 2003, 4:30 am

Well, it seems to me that if George Bush was having sexual relations with Saddams wife, the media would be all over this. They would actually go and investigate things, rather than wait and be told.Yes, I suppose there is no glory in accurate battlefield reporting. Very likely one gets a bullet in the head for nothing. One would like to believe that soon the public will tire of shock, sensational or tabloid journalism, but the signs are that media head honcho's are saying that "you worldly minority don't count, "news" is what couch-potato Joe wants. Sorry. Besides what more could we want? We can sway the votes too. We kill two birds with one stone, get our $$'s through the masses and bend minds too. Sorry you don't count!!" Ask Rupert Murdock....
 
User avatar
WaaghBakri
Topic Author
Posts: 1
Joined: March 21st, 2002, 4:07 am

Pathetic Press

April 1st, 2003, 4:35 am

U.S.-based journalists are generally quick to caution readers, when describing an allegation made by Iraq, that the information "could not be independently confirmed." The fact is that information provided by any government should be treated with skepticism; reporters might try extending their critical approach to the U.S. military's statements.Lack of Skepticism Leads to Poor Reporting on Iraq Weapons Claims
 
User avatar
Omar
Posts: 1
Joined: August 27th, 2001, 12:17 pm

Pathetic Press

April 1st, 2003, 5:11 am

[]
Last edited by Omar on March 31st, 2003, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
DominicConnor
Posts: 41
Joined: July 14th, 2002, 3:00 am

Pathetic Press

April 1st, 2003, 9:55 am

From what I understand, the problem is made worse by the embedding of journalists in military units. They naturally see thnigs from the viewpoint of the soldiers, and not the people being shot at. Also, if one looks at any military campaign, even the famous German Blitzgrieg of France, forces move very slowly and spend only a small % of their time actually doing anything. Thus the comments about being "bogged down". The closest parallel to this war that I can think of is the endgame of the first Napeonic war. Wellington was one of the first commanders ever to really work on "hearts and minds". Traditionally armies raped and stole their way across country, feeding themselves by stripping civillians of food. Wellington made himself really unpopular with his troops by forcibly reducing this practice and hanging a fair number of his troops for what we would now call war crimes.Thus the Spanish who very long standing enemies of England, joined forces and drove the French out of Spain, and once France was invaded the natives were not very hostile at all. The Fact was that the losing French armies had not been very nice to locals, stealing food where the British bought it. Indeed on many occasions the British actually paid rent to people who provided acommodation.Napoleon was not such a brutal dictator as Saddam, but the revolutionary regime he took over was pretty nasty, and his wars killed a lot of Frenchmen.However, there were never scenes of French joy in the streets at their "liberation". But there was little in the way of partisan or guerilla warfare, which made life a lot easier.Like the US/UK in Iraq cities were avoided where possible, even though many generals on both sides seemed to actually want a "battle to end all battles" around Paris.The optimistic note here is that once the allies had a foothold in Frence, the regime collapsed even though it still had many soldiers, and nearly all its territory, having lost only a couple of midrange cities.A big difference was that Napoleon was treated with courtesy and given a nice retirment home. There was no talk of trials for his senior generals, and the end of the war came as a relief to most Frenchmen. It follows that I am not convinced that the optimum solution to Iraq is to hunt down bad people, and be unkind to them after the war.This has created a huge number of "dead enders". They have nothing to lose, so they fight. In one sense this is good, because it alows us to kill them, however at cost to our own lives and in theory there are innocent Iraqis who will also die.
 
User avatar
reza
Posts: 6
Joined: August 30th, 2001, 3:40 pm

Pathetic Press

April 1st, 2003, 11:25 am

what's that, Omar?
 
User avatar
Marsden
Posts: 789
Joined: August 20th, 2001, 5:42 pm
Location: Maryland

Pathetic Press

April 1st, 2003, 2:20 pm

Embeddedness indicator: Reports from Different News Agencies on the Same IncidentFox"News": Scud armed with chemical or biological weapon, and with innocent civilians strapped to itABC, CBS, NBC: Scud missile, possibly armed with chemical or biological weaponNYTimes. WashPost: Scud missileCNN: Silkworm missileAl-Jazeera: Homemade missile launched by Iraqi resistenceIraq State Television: Coalition missile launched against mutinying American and British soldiers, possibly with innocent civilians strapped to itWith regard to Dominic's comments on "Hearts and Minds," I think the coalition is missing an important opportunity to make their lives easier. A lot of the real, grassroots resistence (and yes, there is real, greassroots resistence, although the Bush Administration is still too caught up in its pre-invasion fairy tales to admit and respond to it, prefering to insist that fear of Saddam's brutality is forcing unwilling Iraqis to resist the coalition, whom they really love and want to have babies with) is fueled by Arab Nationalism: even if they lose this war -- as even they know they certainly will -- a lot of Arabs want to be respected for their bravery and tenacity in the fight, which is something that Arabs have not gotten in any of their past wars with the West, other than the 1973 War, Israel's Lebanon fiasco, and various episodes of the first Intifada. This is something that some Arabs are probably willing to give up their lives for. It would behoove the coalition to show respect and admiration for the resistence of the Iraqis at every possible opportunity. It is pretty stupid exclusively to bitch and moan about the unconventional and criminal tactics of the resistence, as we are now doing. An Iraqi people that we don't respect will fight like mad; an Iraqi people that we do respect will probably invite us in for tea.
 
User avatar
WaaghBakri
Topic Author
Posts: 1
Joined: March 21st, 2002, 4:07 am

Pathetic Press

April 5th, 2003, 11:40 pm

And now ....... Net CensorshipThe Controversial Website ......... YellowTimes.org
 
User avatar
newton
Posts: 0
Joined: November 23rd, 2002, 5:46 pm

Pathetic Press

April 6th, 2003, 7:39 pm

DCFC,The optimistic note here is that once the allies had a foothold in Frence, the regime collapsed even though it still had many soldiers, and nearly all its territory, having lost only a couple of midrange cities.A big difference was that Napoleon was treated with courtesy and given a nice retirment home. There was no talk of trials for his senior generals, and the end of the war came as a relief to most Frenchmen. But, do you think a small palace for retirement will be OK with Saddam and his cuz, Chemical Ali ???
 
User avatar
DominicConnor
Posts: 41
Joined: July 14th, 2002, 3:00 am

Pathetic Press

April 7th, 2003, 7:58 am

But, do you think a small palace for retirement will be OK with Saddam and his cuz, Chemical Ali ??? There is no obvious balance to be found here.On one side, we want to deter people from acting like Arab leaders, so locking them up or hanging them looks good.On the other hand this makes them fight to the death, which of course is thousands of other people's death.
 
User avatar
zerdna
Posts: 1
Joined: July 14th, 2002, 3:00 am

Pathetic Press

April 7th, 2003, 4:27 pm

i guess there is some truth to what Marsden said in terms of the need to show respect to Iraqi struggle against the coalition. Question is how to do it, Iraqis don't watch CNN. I think paradoxically Iraqis will respect Americans for resolutely invading them and being fair if they could keep it this way. Strangely, most people respect someone who beats them up when its done without cruelty. I saw it frequently in Russian psyche. Russians oscillate between strong hate and strong affection to the US, and in both cases it is a sign that US matters. Europe is different, it is rarely mentioned in Russia with any strong feeling. It's a place for sightseeing, used to be visited in a tank, now it's OK for a respectable Russian to drive a smaller vehicle there. While US is something to compete with, imitate, love and hate, Europe is something nice and soothing, like an old relative who everyone forgets to call, very much in line with Rumsfeld comment. I could see something like that shaping up in Iraqi psyche. Also US could do a lot of good by just redistributing enormous oil wealth to feed and educate people there better. I personally think there is a chance that if Americans just stick to it, they could make Iraqis to value relationship with US more than with anyone else.
 
User avatar
Chukchi
Posts: 0
Joined: December 15th, 2001, 3:43 am

Pathetic Press

April 7th, 2003, 7:03 pm

Last edited by Chukchi on April 10th, 2003, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
quantie
Posts: 20
Joined: October 18th, 2001, 8:47 am

Pathetic Press

April 8th, 2003, 2:26 pm

Interesting piece by James MooreExcerpt QuoteHow does the second superpower take action? Not from the top, but from the bottom. That is, it is the strength of the US government that it can centrally collect taxes, and then spend, for example, $1.2 billion on 1,200 cruise missiles in the first day of the war against Iraq. By contrast, it is the strength of the second superpower that it could mobilize hundreds of small groups of activists to shut down city centers across the United States on that same first day of the war. And that millions of citizens worldwide would take to their streets to rally. The symbol of the first superpower is the eagle—an awesome predator that rules from the skies, preying on mice and small animals. Perhaps the best symbol for the second superpower would be a community of ants. Ants rule from below. And while I may be awed seeing eagles in flight, when ants invade my kitchen they command my attention.