Who's brainwashin' who? or is that whom?

[cortex]

You need to conrol yur emotions a bit better.
Words are for wording.
actions are for acting
it is in the realm of action that these issues will be resolved
You havent been listening

I have given you all the answer to peace on earth.

it is this

Arm every single developing country with nuclear weapons so that they cannot be raped by the US-UK-fill i the blank- axis

Disarm the US - the UK and any other rogue state that happens to support them at the time

it is only by doing this than we can enforce international law on these depraved governments--ie the axis defined above

As a canadian I fully endorse any initiative that the Canadian governmant would have with respect to suppling nuclear technology for above purposes.

IS this too hard for you to follow

The ONLY problem in the world is a LACK of balance of power

make a balance--then and only then will there be peace--each state held in check by the threat of mutual destruction being forced to cooperate

stop pretending that its about anything else

unless of course the existing nuclear powers move towards getting rid of their weapons

fat chance of that happening

lets invoke that english poet shall we..

"Steeped in blood so far tis easy to go on than to go back"

If you dont have the guts to accept this solution you belong in a fictional world

The world called Canadian content

cheers!

 

[CDNBear]

You need to conrol yur emotions a bit better.
Words are for wording.
actions are for acting
it is in the realm of action that these issues will be resolved
You havent been listening

I have given you all the answer to peace on earth.

it is this

Arm every single developing country with nuclear weapons so that they cannot be raped by the US-UK-fill i the blank- axis

Disarm the US - the UK and any other rogue state that happens to support them at the time

it is only by doing this than we can enforce international law on these depraved governments--ie the axix defined above

as a canadian i fully endorse any initiative that the canadian governmant would have with respect to suppling nuclear technology for above purpose.

IS this too hard for you to follow

The ONLY probelm in the worls is a LACK of balance of power

make a balance--then and only then will there be peace--each state held in check by the threat of mutual destruction forcsed to cooperate

stop prending that its about anything else

unless of course the existing nuclear powers move towards getting rid of their weopons

fat chance of that happening

lets invoke that english poet shall we..

"Steeped in blood so far tis easy to go on than to go back"

If you dont have the guts to accept this solution you belong in a fictional world

Ummm, I can not get into that fictional world, you and your kind have it all filled up, the "No Vacancy" sign is flashing in techno-colour.

I do believe you have missed the point, but that is to be expected of you. I have noticed that you contribute very little in the way of meaningful, intelectual or coherent dialogue.

I do understand your assertion to the imperialist movements of the Uk and the US. I have stated so many times.

But this thread was not intended to be an anti imperialist, nuclear dissarmament, or us vs. them thread. My intentions were to expose media manipulation of the truth. Both left and right media has bent the truth to their platform in the hopes of driving up ratings, whitewashed stories in the hopes that they will not offend the Saddam;s of the world so they will not endanger their exclusive interviews, allowing themselves to be hood winked and coralled and then used by groups as weapons, wittingly or otherwise.

Fine, I lean right, so what, you lean left. Does that mean that you and I are not allowed to question the media, or we should put up with or expect anything but the truth?

 

[cortex]

Ummm, I can not get into that fictional world, you and your kind have it all filled up, the "No Vacancy" sign is flashing in techno-colour.

I do believe you have missed the point, but that is to be expected of you. I have noticed that you contribute very little in the way of meaningful, intelectual or coherent dialogue.

I do understand your assertion to the imperialist movements of the Uk and the US. I have stated so many times.

But this thread was not intended to be an anti imperialist, nuclear dissarmament, or us vs. them thread. My intentions were to expose media manipulation of the truth. Both left and right media has bent the truth to their platform in the hopes of driving up ratings, whitewashed stories in the hopes that they will not offend the Saddam;s of the world so they will not endanger their exclusive interviews, allowing themselves to be hood winked and coralled and then used by groups as weapons, wittingly or otherwise.

Fine, I lean right, so what, you lean left. Does that mean that you and I are not allowed to question the media, or we should put up with or expect anything but the truth?

THE MEDIA IS WHAT IS PREVENTING YOU FROM SEEING THE SOLUTION TO MANKIND'S PROBLEM BY CONSTANTLY DEFINING NUCLEAR BOMBS AS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION WHEN THEY ARE REALLY WEOPONS OF MASS LIBERATION.

 

[BitWhys]

There was a time when journalism was defined by its bias and readers were expected to sort the sources out for themselves. The only thing that's changed is the acceptance of the pretension that things have changed. Unbiased journalism is not only a myth, but impossible, especially in this day and age where big-time advertisers have a direct influence on content.

 

[Curiosity]

CDNBear - taking on the gang are ye? Good luck to you.

Your concern with the media involvement in today's society - nothing has more impact upon me than visiting home and listening/watching the CBC in action pushing its influence on the nation.

I cannot believe so many people get such a finite line of information and never question it for fact.

Then unsettling as it is - the Canadian nation is exposed to all of the U.S. news in its various formats and it must seem to them they are being taunted by a nation seeking to destroy Canada (according to what the CBC has taught them).

You have no idea how grateful I am the internet has sprung up - and is especially prolific in Canadian forums which allows Canadians the opportunity to speak their thoughts, view others', fight with other ideologies and at last begin to sort things out on a personal basis instead of being told what to think.

We actually have very little of what we extoll as "free speech of a free nation" - when we are merely replicating what we are fed daily.

If we value our freedoms - we need to experiment in thought rather than demean others for their different thoughts, and apply them tentatively to how we can better our own futures by personal responsibility and decision-making rather than being led to the voting booth.

I place a dare to some - to spend at least one internet visit at CanCon to reading what others write, and rather than knee-jerk into a response which you would normally post - spend some time trying to agree and appreciate the other side. It is exhausting, but it can offer you a true picture of what you believe and what you feel is not good for your nation and you personally. Surprisingly there are some things both sides are raging on about - yet we are seeking solutions in oppositional modalities.

Perhaps if we tried working together we might find some answers... at least the elder group.

 

[CDNBear]

THE MEDIA IS WHAT IS PREVENTING YOU FROM SEEING THE SOLUTION TO MANKIND'S PROBLEM BY CONSTANTLY DEFINING NUCLEAR BOMBS AS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION WHEN THEY ARE REALLY WEOPONS OF MASS LIBERATION.

What is with your new flavour of the day, nuclear proliferation?

And really, your statement is absurd. The media has not made me think of nuclear weapons as just that. The large explosions in Japan, did that. But I will concede that you may have a point about liberation, but I would rather you start a thread on it, and I'll debate you there.

 

[CDNBear]

There was a time when journalism was defined by its bias and readers were expected to sort the sources out for themselves. The only thing that's changed is the acceptance of the pretension that things have changed. Unbiased journalism is not only a myth, but impossible, especially in this day and age where big-time advertisers have a direct influence on content.

Thanx Bit, very well put. So what would be the best course of action?
I have done some research, found the facts, tried to spread them, and been chastised for my effort. I realise that I lean right, but does that negate the truth when I type it?

CDNBear - taking on the gang are ye? Good luck to you.

Your concern with the media involvement in today's society - nothing has more impact upon me than visiting home and listening/watching the CBC in action pushing its influence on the nation.

I cannot believe so many people get such a finite line of information and never question it for fact.

Then unsettling as it is - the Canadian nation is exposed to all of the U.S. news in its various formats and it must seem to them they are being taunted by a nation seeking to destroy Canada (according to what the CBC has taught them).

You have no idea how grateful I am the internet has sprung up - and is especially prolific in Canadian forums which allows Canadians the opportunity to speak their thoughts, view others', fight with other ideologies and at last begin to sort things out on a personal basis instead of being told what to think.

We actually have very little of what we extoll as "free speech of a free nation" - when we are merely replicating what we are fed daily.

If we value our freedoms - we need to experiment in thought rather than demean others for their different thoughts, and apply them tentatively to how we can better our own futures by personal responsibility and decision-making rather than being led to the voting booth.

It's an up hill battle WC, but I've got broad shoulders, a strong back, a desire to find and convey the truth and years of "bellicose" training and experience on my side.

So how can we change what is spewed by the distortion mills, known as media outlets?

 

[Curiosity]

We've tried a few things here in California

If there is an outlet for rebuttal (commentary on views etc. or letters to the editor/publisher/author)....

Attack/abstinence on sponsors of programming (this won't work with the CBC either)...but other news outlets and press.

Complete separation of the governmental operation of any medium. I know I know - they broadcast to areas which cannot be served by commercial enterprise! Is this true? People have been following that line for years. The stranglehold in the U.K. for broadcasting was broken by pirate off shore explorers in the media - and you have an excellent example. Why do people feel it is ok for the CBC to be the only voice
reaching the people in the less populated areas of the country?

The internet has opened up a whole new world..... we should be finding ways to take avantage of it rather than infighting among ourselves. If families cannot afford a personal in home computer, establish computer cafes (through advertising) in rural areas which can become a club atmosphere instead of the local watering holes. China's participation started that way - they have blazed trails beyond belief.

 

[BitWhys]

CDNBear: An improved basic education would be a factor, particularly in the (dare I say it) liberal arts. Encouraging reading something besides bulk paperback. There's more to understanding how the world works than job training and entertainment.

Curiosity: The day I see other outlets with enough nerve to take on the issues the CBC does, whatever the bias, is the day I start to reconsider its worth. There are topics that can't even be raised in the corporate media and the CBC still uses its freedom to bring them to our attention. IMO that alone is worth the price. A lot of time the CBC gets accused of being "leftist" not because of the content but the topic itself.

 

[CDNBear]

CDNBear: An improved basic education would be a factor, particularly in the (dare I say it) liberal arts. Encouraging reading something besides bulk paperback. There's more to understanding how the world works than job training and entertainment.

Curiosity: The day I see other outlets with enough nerve to take on the issues the CBC does, whatever the bias, is the day I start to reconsider its worth. There are topics that can't even be raised in the corporate media and the CBC still uses its freedom to bring them to our attention. IMO that alone is worth the price. A lot of time the CBC gets accused of being "leftist" not because of the content but the topic itself.

I dissagree Bit. as much as i grew up listening to CBC radio, in an area where there was no TV. I still found my own way out of the direction it leads its listeners.

It's not just the context of their programming, but the repeted and oft one sided interviews or editing there of, that leads some to believe that the CBC has an agenda.

 

[BitWhys]

I dissagree Bit. as much as i grew up listening to CBC radio, in an area where there was no TV. I still found my own way out of the direction it leads its listeners.

It's not just the context of their programming, but the repeted and oft one sided interviews or editing there of, that leads some to believe that the CBC has an agenda.

oh!

the radio!

I don't listen to CBC radio. It basically sucks.

I was talking about their news services.

 

[CDNBear]

oh!

the radio!

I don't listen to CBC radio. It basically sucks.

I was talking about their news services.

LOL< no kidding. I will however thank them and be ever so eternally grateful to them for introducing me to Sid Vicious and the Sex Pistols. When he died in 78, they did a program that for the most part was trying to put down the whole punk movement, but they made the mistake of playing parts of some of their songs. That was it, I was hooked. Sid's in my heart, PUNK ROCK FOREVER! Friggin' in the Riggin', luv it.

But back to reality, what say you about my assertion that the CBC does tend to beat a subject to death and does manipulate a topic via editing and who they choose to interview?

 

[Curiosity]

LOL you two!!!

Growing up with the CBC is part of every child's introduction to the media....and for entertainment programming - it is a much safer outlet than many I have been exposed to as an adult!

My dad while removed from his huge farming land in Alberta never once failed in all my memories to
tuck into the Farm Reports on a daily basis....

There is much to love about the CBC- I am only addressing their direct involvement with the direction of the nation - the government - the bias they are feeing the people when a good medium would offer people both sides of the issues and allow them to grow into their choices.

 

[CDNBear]

OH you gotta love CNN

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/CNNs_Iraqi_Cover-Up.asp

 

[Curiosity]

LOL Bear

They are all pretty much biased - every once in a while they report something of worth but the three alphabets are godawful.....then CNN and FOX are rabid right/left..... CSPAN broadcasts government insessions and hearings and
news but inbetween they run biased commentary with very little on the right hand side....and much on
the left hand side. Public Radio/Television are strictly left. Private Ratio are primarily right.....

And the beat goes on. I guess the only way to cultivate followers is to put on a parade and hope they
will join in....because you say what they want to hear.

The internet doesn't - or if it does you have choices of discussion, argument or moving along.

 

[CDNBear]

LOL Bear

They are all pretty much biased - every once in a while they report something of worth but the three alphabets are godawful.....then CNN and FOX are rabid right/left..... CSPAN broadcasts government insessions and hearings and
news but inbetween they run biased commentary with very little on the right hand side....and much on
the left hand side. Public Radio/Television are strictly left. Private Ratio are primarily right.....

And the beat goes on. I guess the only way to cultivate followers is to put on a parade and hope they
will join in....because you say what they want to hear.

The internet doesn't - or if it does you have choices of discussion, argument or moving along.

You see, here is the messege. Marketing. It's all about their share of the market. If they can not get an audience, they can not sell time.

Instead of being unbiased. They will pick one demographic and focus the lense on them. If they were truely objective, they would lose market share. Everytime a story would lean left, the right would change channels, everytime a story leaned to the right, the left would. So, they stick to one format, shock and aww. Get them in with the glitter and bang, then hold them with story lines that feed their position, not their minds.

 

[earth_as_one]

Think back to March 2003.

If you ever thought the Americans had proof Iraq was hiding WMDs, you were brainwashed. If you ever thought Iraq was behind the events of 9/11, you were brainwashed. At no time did the American government ever prove these things. But the American government did make statements which misled most of the public into believing these things were true and the news failed to challenged the misleading statements.

Consider this:

The Verdict is In: TV News is Bad for Your Brain
[SIZE=+3]A[/SIZE] study has revealed that people who rely on television to get their news are more likely to be misinformed on the facts about Iraq, WMD's and Iraq's ties to 9/11 than those who get their news from other sources or even who don't follow the news at all.
The study polled over 3,000 people on their perceptions about international support for the Iraq War, ties of Saddam Hussein to the events of 9/11, and the Discovery of WMD's in Iraq. What they found, incredibly, though not surprising, was that the more people got their news from TV, the higher the frequency of their misperceptions.
Out of all the news networks, of course, Fox News ranked highest among misinformed viewers. The lowest was PBS.
Bush's support tied to misperceptions

Another angle of the poll was to group by Bush supporters or Democratic candidate supporters. Naturally, the vast majority of the misinformed were Bush supporters. This included Democrats that supported Bush.
From the Program on International Policy press release:​

A new study based on a series of seven nationwide polls conducted from January through September of this year reveals that before and after the Iraq war, a majority of Americans have had significant misperceptions and these are highly related to support for the war with Iraq.​

The polling, conducted by the Program on International Policy (PIPA) at the University of Maryland and Knowledge Networks, also reveals that the frequency of these misperceptions varies significantly according to individuals’ primary source of news.​

Those who primarily watch Fox News are significantly more likely to have misperceptions, while those who primarily listen to NPR or watch PBS are significantly less likely. ​

So what does this mean?
The ramifications of this study are far reaching. For one, it confirms the long held suspicion that corporate controlled television networks are not only failing to provide necessary information to viewers, but are in fact providing false information.
It also confirms that, at least among the news networks, liberal bias is a complete fabrication which, because of this report, is easier to believe since a significant percentage of viewers believe liberal media bias exist because they heard it on TV news.

But a larger issue exist here. The report shows a clear link between misinformation and support for Bush's war. Here's where the Orwellian factor comes in. Not only did Bush & co. mislead the public into war, but they had ready accomplices in the network news organizations.
This forces serious questions about the motives of those who hold the sacred trust of the public airwaves. It also demonstrates how powerful TV news is at affecting public perceptions and consequently, public policy.​

Read the report [PDF]
Visit the website www.pipa.org​

http://www.americanassembler.com/issues/media/index.html

 

[CDNBear]

Think back to March 2003.

If you ever thought the Americans had proof Iraq was hiding WMDs, you were brainwashed. If you ever thought Iraq was behind the events of 9/11, you were brainwashed. At no time did the American government ever prove these things. But the American government did make statements which misled most of the public into believing these things were true and the news failed to challenged the misleading statements.

Consider this:

So at the on set of the US's propoganda blitz on the WMD in Iraq, you had incontrafutable evidence that Iraq didn't?

Or is it more like you didn't beleive the US because of a preconcieved bias?

Perhaps it is us that take all information in, then analys it as the proof come to light, to formulate a thought based on evidence, not conjecture and cynasism.

 

[ottawabill]

Think back to March 2003.

If you ever thought the Americans had proof Iraq was hiding WMDs, you were brainwashed. If you ever thought Iraq was behind the events of 9/11, you were brainwashed. At no time did the American government ever prove these things. But the American government did make statements which misled most of the public into believing these things were true and the news failed to challenged the misleading statements.

Consider this:

To be honest I never did believe that....I alway felt...as I also did in the 1st gulf conflict that we need the oil thaey are screwing with our supply ..period!! why did they need to give all this stupid round a bout way of dealing with it....

On the other note...it's funny that the left of centre continually uses the same expressions and quotes
"backs of the workers" "time and time again" "Studies show" etc etc....seems like on mouthpiece to me!!