ABC confirms blowback

[Bradley in DC]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200505/s1364588.htm

Last Update: Tuesday, May 10, 2005. 10:27pm (AEST)
Iraqi police vent anger at US after car bombings

Iraqi police hurled insults at US soldiers after two suicide car bomb blasts in Baghdad killed at least seven people and left 19 wounded, including policemen.

"It's all because you're here," a policeman shouted in Arabic at a group of US soldiers after the latest in a bloody wave of attacks that have rocked Baghdad this month.

"Get out of our country and there will be no more explosions," he told the uncomprehending Americans staring at the smouldering wreck of a car bomb.
[snip]

 

[thePhilosopher]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200505/s1364588.htm

Last Update: Tuesday, May 10, 2005. 10:27pm (AEST)
Iraqi police vent anger at US after car bombings

Iraqi police hurled insults at US soldiers after two suicide car bomb blasts in Baghdad killed at least seven people and left 19 wounded, including policemen.

"It's all because you're here," a policeman shouted in Arabic at a group of US soldiers after the latest in a bloody wave of attacks that have rocked Baghdad this month.

"Get out of our country and there will be no more explosions," he told the uncomprehending Americans staring at the smouldering wreck of a car bomb.
[snip]

It seems like the RP base HAAAAAAAAAAAATES the MSM unless it confirms something that is beneficial to Paul's message. So which one is it, anti-Paul media conspiracy or trustworthy? I don't think this proves much of anything, and if ONE bombing in Iraq would occur after our troops leave Iraq, it would prove this to be moot.

 

[Mort]

Where are accusations of an anti-Paul media conspiracy? We're just trying to get his name out there.

 

[thePhilosopher]

Where are accusations of an anti-Paul media conspiracy? We're just trying to get his name out there.

It just seems that if anyone here mentions Paul in the MSM, it is always that people "attack" or "bash" him. That is a fine assertion, and I agree with that assertion. But what about in instances where the MSM suit Paul's purposes? Are we supposed to trust or rely on the MSM, considering how unfair they are to Paul? It just seems like the RP base are fine with using the MSM when it suits their needs, and act as if they are the biggest problem in the country when it doesn't.

 

[Bryan]

Defining a "base" is a bit subjective but I certainly don't hate the MSM, I just hate spin, lies and omissions, is doesn't matter who is reporting them. As Dr. Paul said in the first debate, some media is friendlier than others, trying to paint the whole of the MSM for all times with one brush doesn't seem to be a good way to consider things. CNN just had a piece very favorable to Dr. Paul so a complete anti-Paul slant doesn't hold much water: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/18/martin/index.html

So it seems the responsible thing is to take every report on a case by case basis, but obviously some news outlets can show certain trends.

As for this case here, ABC is reporting one Iraqi police officers perspective that does seem to correlate to what Dr. Paul said in the second debate regarding blowback. Good fine Bradley in DC.

 

[Teflon Master]

It just seems that if anyone here mentions Paul in the MSM, it is always that people "attack" or "bash" him. That is a fine assertion, and I agree with that assertion. But what about in instances where the MSM suit Paul's purposes? Are we supposed to trust or rely on the MSM, considering how unfair they are to Paul? It just seems like the RP base are fine with using the MSM when it suits their needs, and act as if they are the biggest problem in the country when it doesn't.

That article was written over 2 years ago.

 

[cujothekitten]

It seems like the RP base HAAAAAAAAAAAATES the MSM unless it confirms something that is beneficial to Paul's message. So which one is it, anti-Paul media conspiracy or trustworthy? I don't think this proves much of anything, and if ONE bombing in Iraq would occur after our troops leave Iraq, it would prove this to be moot.

There's a difference between editorials and news. I dislike pundits spouting off blatant lies about any candidate but I enjoy news.

 

[thePhilosopher]

Defining a "base" is a bit subjective but I certainly don't hate the MSM, I just hate spin, lies and omissions, is doesn't matter who is reporting them. As Dr. Paul said in the first debate, some media is friendlier than others, trying to paint the whole of the MSM for all times with one brush doesn't seem to be a good way to consider things. CNN just had a piece very favorable to Dr. Paul so a complete anti-Paul slant doesn't hold much water: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/18/martin/index.html

So it seems the responsible thing is to take every report on a case by case basis, but obviously some news outlets can show certain trends.

As for this case here, ABC is reporting one Iraqi police officers perspective that does seem to correlate to what Dr. Paul said in the second debate regarding blowback. Good fine Bradley in DC.

For purposes of clarity, I define base as generally anyone on this forum. I am just tired of some of the belly-aching on this forum about the MSM. I understand your points and approach stories with criteria, but I was just trying to make a broader point that some (not all) on here tend to bemoan everything in the MSM that doesn't work in favor of Paul, and they seem to be more vocal. But when a story like this exists, everyone appreciates it.

 

[thePhilosopher]

That article was written over 2 years ago.

Not sure what that has to do with anything, but ok.

 

[mdh]

It just seems that if anyone here mentions Paul in the MSM, it is always that people "attack" or "bash" him. That is a fine assertion, and I agree with that assertion. But what about in instances where the MSM suit Paul's purposes? Are we supposed to trust or rely on the MSM, considering how unfair they are to Paul? It just seems like the RP base are fine with using the MSM when it suits their needs, and act as if they are the biggest problem in the country when it doesn't.

Reporters are individual human beings. Media outlets are individual corporate entities. And lastly, each article we come across is an individual piece in a much larger whole. To make sweeping claims regarding the whole does far more harm than good. To address each individual piece, person, and media outlet allows us to deal with things as they are seen by average people. We can rebut individual falsehoods in a generally upbeat article, or debunk a BS smear-piece on their own merits. There is no more broad way to deal with it than that, that maintains any amount of effectiveness in the field.

 

[tnvoter]

It just seems that if anyone here mentions Paul in the MSM, it is always that people "attack" or "bash" him. That is a fine assertion, and I agree with that assertion. But what about in instances where the MSM suit Paul's purposes? Are we supposed to trust or rely on the MSM, considering how unfair they are to Paul? It just seems like the RP base are fine with using the MSM when it suits their needs, and act as if they are the biggest problem in the country when it doesn't.

so you're an advocate of the mass media? wow no need to argue who's the intelligent one in this. good game, cya later. lol

 

[Exponent]

so you're an advocate of the mass media? wow no need to argue who's the intelligent one in this. good game, cya later. lol

He's an advocate of carefully guarding against being a hypocrite, and using arguments only when they support you, not when they refute you. Being consistent is very important. Just look at Ron Paul's voting record for a great example.

However, I do agree with mdh. No one should complain about the MSM as a group. Each article and each journalist needs to be dealt with and judged on an individual basis. Some of them are indeed rational, using good arguments. Some of them are pathetic and/or devious. Blanket statements in general are bad, and usually do more to discredit a person's intelligence than the opposite.

 

[Brandybuck]

"It's all because you're here," a policeman shouted in Arabic at a group of US soldiers after the latest in a bloody wave of attacks that have rocked Baghdad this month.

Meanwhile, back in New York City, former mayor and professional dominatrix Rudy Giuliani was indignant. "I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim that. Those bloody waves of attacks in Baghdad are because they hate us, they hate us for our freedom, they hate us for the purity of our precious bodily fluids. It has nothing to do with us being 'over there'. If they don't following the talking points, there's going to be a lot more 'over there' going on!"

 

[xcalybur]

When it comes down to it, I want to see the MSM give a fair shake to all candidates and not bias them either way. Don't be like Fox News and cut them off and talk over the person like they do to anyone who doesn't believe what they believe. Also, having a MSM similar to Bill Maher where he is gushing over Ron Paul isn't necessarily what we need either. Often, this turns off voters that don't know who the candidate is. I don't want it either way. The MSM can ask the tough questions if you need to, but make sure they are fact based and allow the candidate to respond. You will see quickly that all cadidates except Ron Paul sound exacly alike. They sound like they are pandering to the lowest common denominator. However, when Ron Paul is given time to speak, he sounds like he is being honest and not conforming to some political answer to the masses. So, give them the time and let them speak. The public will make their decision then.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Hancock1776]

I think the answer is both.

At the top, obviously, the community of wealthy and powerful comprehend what Paul means to their status quo.

Rank-and-file reporters and writers aren't exactly under close scrutiny by conspiratorial masters. Ron Paul makes sense and they recognize that.

I think people overestimate the power of any supposed "New World Order" conspiracy. Such organizations or acts of evil -- take for example the Nazi regime -- require darkness in order even to survive. They may have the appearance of power, but all that amounts to is fancy hats, big chairs and expensive clothes. The moment light touches them, they vaporize like vampires.

It would not surprise me at all to see any MSM "conspiracy" or partisan establishment collapse utterly in front of a vast grass-roots movement for liberty.