Those who view the US government as the modern incarnation of the Illuminati.
Hell, if Chumpsky just tossed in the word “Jew” every once in a while, his posts would be near-perfect parrots of literature about the Zionist Occupation Government.
Sua
Well now at least I know what ZOG stands for.
Still waiting for a reply. Guess I’ll be hitting the page down key on his posts & his threads from now on. No use wasting time on someone who acts like a spoiled brat when things don’t go his way.
An unbiased news source is a logical impossibility. Any news source that claims to be unbiased is lying. Just the nature of news reporting necessitates a bias, if only because you must choose, out of a virtual infinity of facts, which facts to present. So, just the very act of choosing which facts are important is a biased act.
There is an example used by Howard Zinn to illustrate bias in history, that also applies to news reporting. He notes that in the past most historians talked a lot about Columbus’ great skill as a navigator, his heroism, and his will. These were all true, but they only told a part of the story. The part of the story they left out were the murders and oppression of the native population, his almost insane greed, and his preternatural cruelty. So, by choosing to present those facts that were complimentary to Columbus, a historian shows his or her bias.
The same is true in any portayal of history, or in any news source. Just the selection of facts exhibits a bias. The best you can do is to be honest about your biases so that the reader knows where you are coming from. Zinn, for example, makes it quite clear where his biases are.
Now, this is all independent of credibility. Credibility is in the reporting of facts which match reality. One can be credible and biased. There is still the matter of selection of facts, but if the facts match reality, then it is at least true–even though biased.
Which sources are credible? Not many. The major news sources in the U.S. are totally unreliable. CNN, ABC, CBS, Fox–these are all well-known spreaders of lies, distortions and half-truths. Even the BBC seems to be going downhill these days. Here are some good resources for info on the U.S. and U.K. media, respectively:
So, which sources are credible? By far the most reliable sources of information are in the business press. The Wall Street Journal, for example, or the Financial Times, can generally be relied on to report the actual facts. Of course, these papers are extremely biased in their selection of facts, and the editorial pages are a joke, but the news reporting is excellent. The reason for this is that the people who read these papers rely on them to make decisions regarding their money, so it is essential that they have an accurate picture of the world. It is generally only the business class who reads these, so they can be relatively honest. They serve a different function from the more overtly propagandistic mainstream media.
Chumpsky, So what about http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm ?
Fair, honest, objective, truthful, unbiased, credible?
Oh, man that site is a hoot. Check out this breathless reporting:
Aww, isn’t that nice. They had to dig back in the vault to find something nice to say about the guy, and they have to go back four years to report him saying, “Nice Room”?
Nice to see everyone getting back on track after a little bout of ad hominem attacks.
Anyhoo, getting back to the media lying, which I believe the point of this thread, how about the use of language in reporting on Isreal/Palestine issues?
What about the complete lack of the use of the word ‘colony’ or ‘colonizers’ in reference to the “settlements” (neighbourhoods?!?!) / “settlers”?
What about the use of the word ‘terrorist(s)’ / ‘terrorism’ to reflect only Arabs and the actions of a few of same? Why was the murderer of Rabin referred to in western media as ‘deranged fundementalist’ but not terrorist?
Why is Rumsfeld not called on his characterization of the occupied territories as “so-called”?
I believe the point of this thread, as stated in the thread title and OP, is presumed media lying about whether or not North Korea has a nuclear weapons program.
OK, what about it?
OK, what about it?
In a quick Google search, I was unable to find any use of the term ‘deranged fundamentalist’ in press accounts of the Rabin shooting. The term used most often to describe the assailant was ‘assassin’, sometimes associated with some variation of the phrase ‘right-wing extremist’.
It’s unclear to me why you would classify the assassination of Rabin, by an Israeli who apparently acted alone and who specifically targeted the head of state rather than random members of the public, as a terrorist act rather than a political assassination.
BTW, what were the ad hominem attacks that upset you, and to whom were they directed?
And I believe the original title of this thread was “Lies” one example of which was DPRKs supposed nuclear weapons.
Another lie.
Another lie.
It wasn’t? An assassiniation of a political leader, in a crowded public area, endangering same, motivated by extreme political differences, is not a terrorist act? It seems to be when committed by those of a certain origin.
The indirect slurs flung towards the starter of this thread, to begin with. But hey, its not like I’m all bent outta shape or what. You know, shit happens right? I just meant to get back on topic instead of straying too far off. Sorry I brought it up.
Henry B: Thanks for the support! I was hoping to get your opinion about the state of the ex-Soviet republics since capitalist restoration in this thread. I have thrown out a few opinions which may be totally off-base, just gleaned from a few things I have read, and from talking with a few people who emigrated from Russia before the break-up of the USSR. I notice that your location is still Russia, so I would love to get your opinion.
Chumsky I will.
I did not know, or in reality I did, that I supported You.
I support everyone that does not only read the news of today.
As they give it to us, as to a dog.
Wuff, wuff.
Anyhow, because the concentration of all thoughts, Brian, the widom of Canada, says we should make a trip together…
Well, I am here and if You ever come near Russia, You have here a sofa to lay Your head on.
For weeks if You like. I like Your writings, even if I do not always agree. but so what? If someone would agree with me, well I would phone for an ambulance.
So this is the place where You can forget all Your worries.
P.S. Someone said that I have 36 hours to explain, after that I get banned. If so, E-mail Your E-mail address. OK?
Because I give a fuck if I get banned, I am 52 years old (if I remember right) and I go and Rock & Roll with my daughter from my 4th marrige.
Yes, we have R&R here, if papa Henry puts the Janis Joplin CD on.
But, YESSSS! I’ll write about USSR/Russia afterwards.
Henry
a Finn that takes everything back we lost in last war, log by log, with the help of Russian ex-cons (whom I make to directors later).
Chumpsky once again proves he doesn’t know or understand history. Columbus wasn’t the purest soull, but believe me, this world has enough villians without trying to create them.
Columbus had very ambivelant attitude toward the natives. Certainly, at first, he liked them, and spoke glowingly of them. Later on, he had problems. His rowdy, hard-boiled sailor crew sparked several “incidents” (i.e., there was a small war of sorts).
Left this out: Columbus simply didn’t understand the natives. Their actions must have seemed schizophrenic to the westerners (and vice versa, I’m sure). Yes, he was looking for wealth. That was the whole poit of the expidition. And the seemingly incomprehensible actions both sides were undertaking led to violent clash. In the end, the Indians were enslaved. Columbas himself, I think, never stayed long enough to take any great gain out of it.
I would like to know from Chumpsky how he knows that CNN, the Wall Street Journal, etc., are unreliable.
Regards,
Shodan
Psst, Space Cadet, according to Merriam-Webster, “settle” and “colonize” are synonyms. Hence, calling the settlers “settlers” is not a “lie.” 'Cause, you see, a lie is something that’s not true.
Sua
I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for a reasoned response, Shodan.
Chumpsky, for one thing, appears to have little understanding of the meanings of “bias”, “objectivity” and “fairness” as they apply to news reporting. There is no such thing as total objectivity, but that does not mean that news media cannot and do not in many stories exhibit fairness, i.e. accurately presenting opposing viewpoints and facts that counter the perspective of the reporter. Chumpsky’s simple assertion that major U.S. media are spreaders of lies is another example of his tunnel vision. What he really means is that they do not mirror the Daily Worker, which he finds upsetting.
An opportunity for an appropriate sig presents itself.
Sorry everyone, but this is too serious to let pass.
The original title of this thread was Lies.
To say that this title was ironic is an understatement.
1 - Brutus posted a link to a North Korean website which directly contradicted Chumpsky. In his post, Brutus includes the following quote:
"“DPRK ambassador in Beijing calls the renewed nuclear program an act of self-defence against US aggression…”
No response from Chumpsky.
2 - Finally, a poster named Mojo politely asks if Brutus’ link, which looks as unassailable as a link gets, addresses his concerns, and asks if there’s some source he considers reliable.
The response:
Chumpsky says that the site says that NK “will be resuming their nuclear program if the U.S. does not abide by its treaty obligations or sign a non-aggression pact.”
The italicized portion is a flat out lie, as it directly contradicts the grammatical tense of the portion quoted by Brutus, thereby changing the meaning to fit Chumpsky’s thesis. That portion was italicized by Chumpsky, not I.
3 - Yours truly, reading through the thread, comes upon these two posts, and goes out to the link to read it himself. I post the following:
No response from Chumpsky. This was posted four minutes after his lie (12:38am GMT to 12:42am GMT). Check the times yourself, it’s all there.
4 - I remake my request the next night. No response.
5 - On the following night, I give up on him and, admittedly, call him a “spoiled brat”.
6 - The following day, he deigns to make a post in his own thread, the first since my post, which was, to emphasize the point, 4 minutes after his. He ignores the NK piece, of course.
So he lies in his own thread. The fact that he lies is affirmed by his silence.
I post this for those few who may be tempted to take Chumpsky seriously.