Overhead on the 6oclock news on TV, here in Montreal (from what I remember and roughly translated - I was in a restaurant and couldn’t see the TV set);
WTH?? Did I hear it right? Did anyone get this? I must have misunderstood? I’m just as pissed as most Canadians at the foreign US policy but this just seemed… impossible.
I think George Bush, with has foreign policy has pretty much managed to alienate every country in the world!!!
Sooooo, you want us to evaluate something you might have misheard?
Okay, I’ll get right on it.
I think Harold Pinter has it right:
No, I wanted to verify first what was behind the story and then perhaps discuss it because it is so surprising. My mother was also there and heard it so I’m pretty sure that was what was said. I’m pretty sure of what I heard, I just want to know why it was said (the context?)??
I’m investigating to find some more exact quotes but I thought perhaps someone here (obviously not you!) had heard it also or knew from where it could have come from.
Did any US senator say remotely something like that or are the reporters so pissed off that they put words in their mouths? If so, what does that say about the general level of frustration at US foreign policy outside of the US? And if this is what is being said by reporters in a neighboring country and traditional ally, what the hell are other countries medias saying??
Sure, maybe this isn’t the best forum to post it in (GQ instead perhaps?) but I knew it would turn to a GD as soon as it would have been confirmed (or perhaps put in a more appropriate context).
For what it’s worth, even if you heard the statement correctly, it represents someone’s opinion and not the policy of the Canadian government.
Yes Bryan, obviously not an official policy… But this was part of a news report such as “blablabla Bush says report of Iraq unacceptable blablabla war in Iraq probable blabla morally and economically decadent empire” WTF?? We were completly flaggerblasted. Utterly shocked.
I’m looking at TVQ, TQS and RC web sites to see if I can get my hand on a news transcript with the word “empire” in it. (Argh, I’m really sorry I didn’t verify which channel it was on…!).
But just as a temporary substitute, I did find an unrelated report that was saying (translated) “obviously, the work of the UN inspectors won’t change anything to the will of the Americans [to go to war]”… http://207.61.241.85/static/videos/gj-19dec-2.mov (this from a news report, not an editorial…)
Ah HA! Got it!! I knew I wasn’t crazy…
http://www2.canoe.com/infos/lemonde/archives/2002/12/20021220-195847.html
I knew it was what I was looking for as soon as I clicked on the video… Please note that the (french) transcript is incomplete.
This is what is said at the end;
Not exactly has I reported it, but there is a definite jab from the reporter there in what is supposed to be an objective news report…
So is it the use of “empire” that you are questioning – or them sentiment that America shows signs of moral and economic decadence? I seriously doubt that any U.S. Senator would express those sentiments in those words.
Hmmm…Democrats are more likely to say that there is economic decadence, and the Republicans would complain that there is moral decadence.
I doubt the integrity of the newscaster if that is what she or he said.
Not necessarily. Decadence has more than the definition we might think of at first, i.e. “characterized by or appealing to self-indulgence”. Another definition is “marked by decay or decline.” (Both taken from www.merriamwebster.com .) “Moral” also could mean not what you assume; it could be “conformed to accepted rules of right; acting in conformity with such rules” which www.dictionary.com cites from Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary.
Taken together, the reporter is merely saying that the U.S. doesn’t have the unity of view about the world and how it should behave in it that it once did, and it is in a recession. Both those statements are unambiguously true. (Well, I haven’t checked the figures on the recession part, but what the hell?) That’s not the stretch is seems to be. Afterall, the primary definition of vulgar is common.
Chumpsky,
Hey we all get it now. You believe that everything that America has done is a blood thirsty ploy by Evil CEOs to Keep The People Down while every other country in the world are just the repressed people who Americans screwed over. We get your point, though it is really ignorant.
At the same time it would be nice if you actually argued something instead of linking to a (questionable) source. Citing a source that has the same bias that you have isn’t a good idea. It just doesn’t carry any weight. Using the most un-biased sources is the best thing you can do.
As far as the OP goes I doubt that any US Senator would call the US economy ‘Decadent’. Unless there is a credible cite I believe that this was, at best, a miss quote. There are some people that think a possible war with Iraq is wrong but I really doubt that any elected offical would call the US ‘Decadent’. If they did they would lose in the next election.
Slee
That quote from the news report sounds like the reporter is taking quite a bit of liberty with things he’s heard/read/gossiped about and turning it into a blanket statement.
You know… Senator A is concerned about going to war with Iraq. Senator A once also said he finds parts of American society worryingly decadent. therefore, Senator A is concerned about the war because American society is worryingly decadent.
I agree with Zoe - I doubt a US senator would say that as well
Ok, just to specify something; after hearing the news report again, I don’t think he actually is talking about something a senator directly said, it is just something he is adding… His own personal “touch” to the report! And that is what is really surprising.
What I find very interesting, and worthy of discussion, is that I just realized that the french media (and perhaps anglophone media too?) in Canada of all places is taking an active role against US foreign policy in a very specific way.
Most stuff I read is on the Web and from American media. Usually it is either mostly a very clear “rah-rah-rah for war” or rarely a feeble opposition to war… This way is a very subtle criticism of the US foreign policy. I think it also reflects the general grumbling in the people around me about how heavy handed the American government is. Very interesting also that you can’t actually read about it in the transcript itself; only french viewers will hear it.
BTW, I’m not saying there is a conspiracy in the US medias - they are only reporting what people want to hear and that might be the problem.
It will be useful to see what Japanese think of all this when I’m in Tokyo next month… I’m pretty sure that althought Japan will provide yens when told by the US (guilt over WWII and all that), they do not agree with how it is going. Did you know that there was some Japanese protesters in Baghdad against the war??? Couldn’t find anything on news.google.com but it was also reported in another news report by Normand Rheaume…
I don’t have a TV at home… Do they show stuff related to the consequences of war on CNN? Such as an AC130 (divx, 35 megs, 9mn) blowing up people or the 2 miles of dead in the last Gulf War (notice how there is not that many military vehicules in the pictures)?
(Still making up my opinion, but right now I wouldn’t be against taking out Saddam Hussein BUT only Saddam Hussein. Just send some elite commandos or AUV in there and kill HIM. It feels like the US government takes us for dumbasses when saying requiring inspections and a report and when it happens, then just ignore it and go to war anyway. Stop telling us its related to the “war on terror” or WMD in any way, shape or form because really, it isn’t. It is about a guy that should have been taken prisoner or killed after the US had already sacrificed a few thousands Iraqis the last time)
I think the opposite is the case. The U.S. mass media is highly concentrated and centralized. It exists to serve those who own and control it. What you get out of the mainstream mass media is a point of view that is consistent with the very narrow ruling class.
And lots of lies.
Well, actually, it exists to profit those those who own and control it and if more profits can be gained by reporting what people want to hear, so be it.
True, but misleading. It is manifestly NOT true that the media report what “people want to hear.”
The media sell a product, namely audiences, to large corporations. They are tied deeply to the interests of the state and the corporate elite.
Ask yourself, for example, why there wasn’t a front page story in the New York Times on Sep. 17 headlined:
BUSH LIES TO AMERICAN PEOPLE ABOUT IRAQ
or, on Oct. 11:
BUSH CONTINUES TO LIE TO AMERICAN PEOPLE ABOUT IRAQ
Such headlineS would be true, and would doubtlessly sell a lot of papers. Why do you never see headlines like that?
Nah! I’m forming an idea right now that attacking Afghanistan, Irak and any of those “evil” countries is actually what most Americans REALLY want. An eye for an eye and all that after being traumatized by Sept. 11; “Blow the goddamn raghead head off and turn their countries to glass” basically (althought they will say something more civilized in public obviously). Perfectly understandable but not really productive.
So, what you have is a mob that wants to lynch everyone. A government is supposed to be just like a sheriff; a force to temperate and act intelligently to solve the very real problems, often taking decisions unpopular with the mob such as stopping lynching.
The problem is, the current government is acting like your average Joe or Jane American; “Let’s Roll”, “Kick Ass”, “Eliminate Evil”. They are running the government by polls and poorly justifying their bullying of other nations by a “Think of the Terrorists” (global equivalent of the “Think of the Kids”). Why do you think Bush as such an high approval rate? Obviously, the US is not composed of a majority of people informed on the subject of foreign policy and the consequences of war…
So you have to have a way to put a meme in the general population consciousness that points to “foreign policy is not as easy as 1-2-3-BOMBS AWAY”.
Take the stupid Cuban embargo; has that worked? No. Why does it continue? Because a significant amount of the citizens want (cuban expatriates in Florida and people that were scared shitless during the cuban missile crisis) to punish Castro. The obvious solution would be to sell them and promote to them socialized capitalism… Same thing with NK, China, Iran. Work with them, show them how nice it is to live in a free country and you’ll have them on your side in a win-win situation. They are all countries that are and will come around in time. But piss them off, and they’ll piss on you. Inter-countries relationships 101.
But noooo, Joe/Jane would prefer to call them EVIL (if you are evil, you can never be good, right?) and give them the finger because it feels better in the short term. Argh.
So sure, kill Hussein… But you better not kill too many Joe/Jane Iraqi and be ready to invest in building a true democracy in Iraq because you sure as hell not getting away from the role of virtual world government. AND It will just make better sense in the long term for them and for you…
Either that, or I predict a New Improved Cold War with an high probability of nuclear showers.
[Previous opinion subject to change at any time. Offer valid for a limited time only.]
Because if people saw blatantly biased headlines like this on the New York Times every day, they’d start to hold it in the same rolled-eye contempt that many people on this board have for, well, you, actually.
Now, the Washington Post did break Watergate, so it’s silly to claim that newspapers are in some kind of conspiracy to prop up the Republican Party, or the “ruling elite”.
Actually, I should have phrased that better. “BUSH LIES TO AMERICAN PEOPLE ABOUT IRAQ” isn’t really a blatantly biased headline as it is a duh, he’s a politician, we know he tells lies headline.
In any event, the New York Times could run headlines like this for two or three days, tops, before its credibility started to evaporate, along with its profits.
>> Ok, just to specify something; after hearing the news report again, I don’t think he actually is talking about something a senator directly said, it is just something he is adding… His own personal “touch” to the report! And that is what is really surprising.
His own personal “touch”? To me it’s manipulating the news. A reporter is supposed to report. I will add my own personal “touch” thankyouverymuch. That was not information, it was opinion. What senator said that? What exactly did he say? Where? When? What were the surrounding circumstances? That is what a reporter is supposed to report. Not his view of things. The reporter should be fired PDQ.