Winetalk.com
04-06-2003, 09:17 PM
sent to me by my daughter:
Here are two articles reprinted from our school newspaper. The first is partly a distillation from a New York Times article and several internet sources.
"MEDIA FEED LIES TO AMERICANS"
by Shanker Raman
In a world where we have free access to thousands of different news sources at our fingertips, it would seem reasonable to think that we are getting the whole story. This assertation, however, is far from reality. Unfortunately, as information technology has reached new heights, information has reached new lows. We tune in to ABC, MSNBC, CNN, or CBS in order to learn about world events. But what diversity of information do we receive? The sad truth: none. All major news outlets in the United States receive news from the same sources and the American public has no way of knowing what is true. Influenced by corporate ownership and government propaganda, major news outlets consistently feed false, fraudulent and biased information to the American masses.
Corporate ties influence the news. MSNBC is losing millions of dollars by covering the war in Iraw, yet little of its coverage has expressed anti-war views. Why? General Electric, of of the network's parent companies, is one of the U.S. government's largest suppliers of aircraft and aircraft accessories and is set to make billions of dollars in profit off of the government's increased demand for such products during and after the war in Iraq. In addition, GE controls other news outlets such as Newsweek and the Washington Post. CNN, ABC, and Time Magazine are controlled by AOL-Time Warner. CBS is owned by Viacom, which controls at least two other major news sources. Parent companies control the funding for news organizations and thus have much of a say in what may be reported based on business interests and political ties. The diversity of news from major networks, therefore, is almost nonexistent. Rather, it is only the voice of two or three corporate giants with extensive political ties.
All news concerning any governmental activity is received from the same major sources. All information concerning military activities including civilian, opposition and coalition deaths, attacks on specific sites, details about specific targets and resources lost is controlled by the Pentagon. Any other details are provided by the White House press secretary. With a government in which all three branches are controlled by diehard conservatives, one can hardly hope to get a balanced view of our military excapades.
To illustrate this point, one may look at our government's history of lying to the press. On October 10, 1990 at the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, a 15 year-old Kuwaiti girl, "Nayirah," rendered emotional testimony that she had seen invading Iraqi troops rip 15 babies from their incubators at Al-Adan Hospital in Kuwait City and leave them to die. The presiding congressmen, Tom Lantos and John Edward Porter, refused to divulge the girl's identity, claiming that it would endanger her family in Kuwait. The story became an anthem for the Gulf War: giving a speech to troops in Kuwait, then President George H. Bush made references to "babies pulled from their incubators and scattered like firewood across the floor." Who was Nayirah? No one in the press bothered to ask until over two years later when an article appeared in the New York Times on that most vital page, A17, which divulged Nayirah's true identity. She was the daughter of Kuwait's ambassador to the United States, Saud Nasir al-Sabah, and though Nayirah was her real name, she was in Washington D.C. at the time and had not been outside of the United States during Iraq's occupation of Kuwait. Also, prior to the Gulf War, the government used, as justification for invading Iraq, satellite photos of 250,000 troops and 1,500 tanks massing near the Saudi Arabian border. The actual satellite photos obtained some time after Desert Storm showed empty sand. The photos had been forged. Our government has lied to achieve such political ends as replacing a secular democracy in Iran with the infamous Shah in order to avoid nationalization of Iran's oil fields. With all major media sources hanging on secretary Rumsfeld's every word, one can hardly expect much of a true story.
Three major corporations control nearly all of mainstream American media. Corporate ties and dependence upon a few sources prevent journalists from reporting honestly. In an age where our media have the world at their fintertips, they are bringing us a shockingly narrow scope of opinions. In a country with 290 million different views, we are shown only two opposing arguments. Newsweek ran a very startling cover a few months ago, depicting the epic struggle between two rival forces about the war in Iraq, Secretary Rumsfeld versus Secretary Powell. If this is what we are to be shown, then we must use our own resources so that we, the American people, will no longer walk around blind.
And now the other... Yay for tax dollars!
"OUR TAX MONEY AT WORK"
by Andrew Williamson
It is the quickest task that Congress has accomplished in its recent history. With an upwards of 200,000 troops in Iraq, the usually lackadaiscial Congress appears to have expedited its pace in order to make immediate assessments about the war. Of course, the decision of the legislative branch to expunge the word "French" from the Congressional dining menu was not what most citizens would call a constructive use of time. In the days before March 11th, two Republicans from the House of Representatives urged their colleagues to support a change in their dining menu that would illustrate America's frustration, as these Congressmen saw it, with France's objection to the war in Iraq. Aside from the fact that Congress wasted valuable time on making this change, this act is unfortunately indicative of the immaturity of the public servants representing this country.
After France's apparent attempt to flex its political muscle by threatening to veto America's resolutions in the U.N. Security Council, our nation has engaged itself in a struggle for power reminiscent of those tirades of name calling that occurred in our third grade classrooms. Beginning with Donald Rumsfeld's unflattering comments about "old Europe" and peaking with Congress' most recent actions, we have undoubtedly proved that we are willing to resort to grammar school tactics of verbal abuse in order to gain recognition and distinguish America as a predominant nation. These childish displays of dissatisfaction with France deserve no more acknowledgement than that which our laughter gives to a comedy, and we, as citizens of this nation, should not tolerate such immature behavior from those purportedly voicing our opinions.
Furthermore, Congress has spent American dollars on renaming the food in its cafeteria, not to mention wasting time that should be spent discussing the war in Iraq. Our nation is confronted with a formidable challege in the war being fought. Congress should be focusing solely on the well-being of the troops in Iraq, and the domestic issues that are directly affected by the war in Iraq, such as the economy and homeland security. Instead it has spent time on trivial matters such as the name of the food being eaten for lunch. This lack of reliability raises serious questions about the integrity of those members of Congress choosing to devote time and energy to this issue.
France has remained one of America's most trusted and intimate allies for many decades; their dissentation and threat of veto on the topic of Iraq, while hindering America's progress in the Security Council, should be interpreted as a prime example of the system of checks and balances created in part by the United States during the U.N.'s inception after World War II. As our Constitution represents one of the most functional systems of checks and balances ever created, we should look upon France's exercising of its right as an indication of the strength of international government rather than as a direct attack on American foreign policy.
God help us if those creting poison the minds of the "new generation"
Here are two articles reprinted from our school newspaper. The first is partly a distillation from a New York Times article and several internet sources.
"MEDIA FEED LIES TO AMERICANS"
by Shanker Raman
In a world where we have free access to thousands of different news sources at our fingertips, it would seem reasonable to think that we are getting the whole story. This assertation, however, is far from reality. Unfortunately, as information technology has reached new heights, information has reached new lows. We tune in to ABC, MSNBC, CNN, or CBS in order to learn about world events. But what diversity of information do we receive? The sad truth: none. All major news outlets in the United States receive news from the same sources and the American public has no way of knowing what is true. Influenced by corporate ownership and government propaganda, major news outlets consistently feed false, fraudulent and biased information to the American masses.
Corporate ties influence the news. MSNBC is losing millions of dollars by covering the war in Iraw, yet little of its coverage has expressed anti-war views. Why? General Electric, of of the network's parent companies, is one of the U.S. government's largest suppliers of aircraft and aircraft accessories and is set to make billions of dollars in profit off of the government's increased demand for such products during and after the war in Iraq. In addition, GE controls other news outlets such as Newsweek and the Washington Post. CNN, ABC, and Time Magazine are controlled by AOL-Time Warner. CBS is owned by Viacom, which controls at least two other major news sources. Parent companies control the funding for news organizations and thus have much of a say in what may be reported based on business interests and political ties. The diversity of news from major networks, therefore, is almost nonexistent. Rather, it is only the voice of two or three corporate giants with extensive political ties.
All news concerning any governmental activity is received from the same major sources. All information concerning military activities including civilian, opposition and coalition deaths, attacks on specific sites, details about specific targets and resources lost is controlled by the Pentagon. Any other details are provided by the White House press secretary. With a government in which all three branches are controlled by diehard conservatives, one can hardly hope to get a balanced view of our military excapades.
To illustrate this point, one may look at our government's history of lying to the press. On October 10, 1990 at the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, a 15 year-old Kuwaiti girl, "Nayirah," rendered emotional testimony that she had seen invading Iraqi troops rip 15 babies from their incubators at Al-Adan Hospital in Kuwait City and leave them to die. The presiding congressmen, Tom Lantos and John Edward Porter, refused to divulge the girl's identity, claiming that it would endanger her family in Kuwait. The story became an anthem for the Gulf War: giving a speech to troops in Kuwait, then President George H. Bush made references to "babies pulled from their incubators and scattered like firewood across the floor." Who was Nayirah? No one in the press bothered to ask until over two years later when an article appeared in the New York Times on that most vital page, A17, which divulged Nayirah's true identity. She was the daughter of Kuwait's ambassador to the United States, Saud Nasir al-Sabah, and though Nayirah was her real name, she was in Washington D.C. at the time and had not been outside of the United States during Iraq's occupation of Kuwait. Also, prior to the Gulf War, the government used, as justification for invading Iraq, satellite photos of 250,000 troops and 1,500 tanks massing near the Saudi Arabian border. The actual satellite photos obtained some time after Desert Storm showed empty sand. The photos had been forged. Our government has lied to achieve such political ends as replacing a secular democracy in Iran with the infamous Shah in order to avoid nationalization of Iran's oil fields. With all major media sources hanging on secretary Rumsfeld's every word, one can hardly expect much of a true story.
Three major corporations control nearly all of mainstream American media. Corporate ties and dependence upon a few sources prevent journalists from reporting honestly. In an age where our media have the world at their fintertips, they are bringing us a shockingly narrow scope of opinions. In a country with 290 million different views, we are shown only two opposing arguments. Newsweek ran a very startling cover a few months ago, depicting the epic struggle between two rival forces about the war in Iraq, Secretary Rumsfeld versus Secretary Powell. If this is what we are to be shown, then we must use our own resources so that we, the American people, will no longer walk around blind.
And now the other... Yay for tax dollars!
"OUR TAX MONEY AT WORK"
by Andrew Williamson
It is the quickest task that Congress has accomplished in its recent history. With an upwards of 200,000 troops in Iraq, the usually lackadaiscial Congress appears to have expedited its pace in order to make immediate assessments about the war. Of course, the decision of the legislative branch to expunge the word "French" from the Congressional dining menu was not what most citizens would call a constructive use of time. In the days before March 11th, two Republicans from the House of Representatives urged their colleagues to support a change in their dining menu that would illustrate America's frustration, as these Congressmen saw it, with France's objection to the war in Iraq. Aside from the fact that Congress wasted valuable time on making this change, this act is unfortunately indicative of the immaturity of the public servants representing this country.
After France's apparent attempt to flex its political muscle by threatening to veto America's resolutions in the U.N. Security Council, our nation has engaged itself in a struggle for power reminiscent of those tirades of name calling that occurred in our third grade classrooms. Beginning with Donald Rumsfeld's unflattering comments about "old Europe" and peaking with Congress' most recent actions, we have undoubtedly proved that we are willing to resort to grammar school tactics of verbal abuse in order to gain recognition and distinguish America as a predominant nation. These childish displays of dissatisfaction with France deserve no more acknowledgement than that which our laughter gives to a comedy, and we, as citizens of this nation, should not tolerate such immature behavior from those purportedly voicing our opinions.
Furthermore, Congress has spent American dollars on renaming the food in its cafeteria, not to mention wasting time that should be spent discussing the war in Iraq. Our nation is confronted with a formidable challege in the war being fought. Congress should be focusing solely on the well-being of the troops in Iraq, and the domestic issues that are directly affected by the war in Iraq, such as the economy and homeland security. Instead it has spent time on trivial matters such as the name of the food being eaten for lunch. This lack of reliability raises serious questions about the integrity of those members of Congress choosing to devote time and energy to this issue.
France has remained one of America's most trusted and intimate allies for many decades; their dissentation and threat of veto on the topic of Iraq, while hindering America's progress in the Security Council, should be interpreted as a prime example of the system of checks and balances created in part by the United States during the U.N.'s inception after World War II. As our Constitution represents one of the most functional systems of checks and balances ever created, we should look upon France's exercising of its right as an indication of the strength of international government rather than as a direct attack on American foreign policy.
God help us if those creting poison the minds of the "new generation"