CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Chud: WAY ahead of the curve?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Chud: WAY ahead of the curve?

post #1 of 21
4/24/03 at 1:52am
Thread Starter 
You know, it's funny. My opinion on the war hasn't changed, because IN THIS VERY FORUM we were discussing all kinds of outcomes and getting ourselves prepared for them.

What amazes me is how stunned everyone else seems to be at the immediate results. And they're acting like NOBODY saw this coming. "Hey, the Iraqis are free now! And it turns out they didn't like Saddam! Didn't see that coming, did ya, ya Ivy League Intellectual Liberal Faggots? You were rooting for a horrible dictator, blah blah blah."

Well, no, I wasn't, as most people here at Chud seems to understand, whichever side they're on. And yet I'm astonished to see JOURNALISTS on both sides who seem to have been surprised by all this. I read a newspaper editorial last week that made the argument above--that all the Stupid Faggy Stupid Liberals Against the War were against Iraqi freedom, and they loved Saddam, they wanted to marry him, etc. etc. etc. I'm exaggerating only slightly.

Now I'm not going to screech and bitch about this, because again, everyone here seems to understand it just fine. But seriously, are we the only ones in the frigging country who understand that no one is against the Iraqi liberation? I mean, this shit is being pulled in places that should be havens for balanced, or at least halfway civilized, argument. But the right-wingers are accusing the peace protesters and liberals of being Saddam-loving Nazis, and the left-wingers are, astonishingly enough, LETTING THEM. Everyone acts like they've been taken by surprise.

Seriously, why hasn't there been any vocal person coming forward to point out the problems with how we GOT to this wonderful era of peace, and what's going to happen in the future? Why is everyone letting the media paint this as an example of the naysayers being completely wrong?!? And why has the discussion on Chud been so much more involved than anywhere else?
Reply
post #2 of 21
4/24/03 at 2:00am
Seems to me we're getting the "Down with Saddam" chants shoved in our faces while the "Death to America" chants are getting barely any mention. There seems to be precious little acknowledgement of the Iraqi attitude of "Thanks, now get the hell out like you said you would." And the longer we have a presence there, the worse it's going to get -- violence will break out, which will be used to justify our staying there longer, which will beget more violence, which will, well, you get the idea.

And the thing is, a lot of the naysayers were saying that this is exactly what would happen and that this is why they were against the war -- not the war itself, but the lack of a clear understanding of the consequences of it and a clear plan for the aftermath. Meanwhile, the short-sighted are pointing to the relatively quick and easy victory as proof they were right all along.
Reply
post #3 of 21
4/24/03 at 2:31am
Thread Starter 
Exactly, but what I want to know is, why were we here at Chud talking about this WEEKS ago, whereas you rarely read about this kind of stuff in the papers even now?
Reply
post #4 of 21
4/24/03 at 3:18am
If you can express your opinion cogently and are open to different ways of thinking, or can at least understand different ways of thinking, then you're way ahead of the bell curve.

Most people here can do that with some very notable exceptions.

Chud has a pretty good mix of viewpoints which makes for some well thought out discussions... on occasion.
Reply
post #5 of 21
4/24/03 at 3:57am
Quote:
The Prankster:
Exactly, but what I want to know is, why were we here at Chud talking about this WEEKS ago, whereas you rarely read about this kind of stuff in the papers even now?
Because, sadly, newspapers are no longer about merely reporting the news. They're about reinforcing the already-in-place beliefs of their readers and pushing the political opinions of their publishers (take a bow, Mr Murdoch).

It's rare to find a newspaper that will cover any story without slanting it to their own agenda, left or right. The War in Iraq just heightens this problem, by being a pressing and emotive issue that everybody has an opinion on. When war breaks out, it's boomtime for newspapers.

They're not interested in covering the war in an honest and even-handed way. They're interested in covering the war in a way that reassures their readers that they're right. Thus the left wing papers crowed about every setback the allies suffered so that their readers could tut and say "told you so". The right wing papers show a few smiling Iraqis so their readers can tut and say "see, they like us".

Newspapers should really be renamed opinionpapers, because that's all they are. The only thing I find them useful for these days is taking the political pulse of the country.
Reply
post #6 of 21
4/24/03 at 3:57am
Thread Starter 
I just seem to be reading a lot of shrill articles and so on insisting that "Michael Moore must be backpedalling like crazy now!" "Professor Chomsky will find no one is listening to him now!" Etc. Which makes it like, no matter what they say now, it's going to seem like they're contradicting themselves. "Well, I never said I supported Saddam..." "Liar!!!!" "It's not that I didn't want to see Iraq liberated..." "Changing your tune now, eh?"

The really ironic thing being, NOBODY seemed to care about the welfare of the Iraqi people BEFORE the war started...yet now we're told Bush and co. had no thought in mind but the poor suffering Iraqis. And clearly those who oppose them are heartless bastards who enjoy torturing Iraqis for fun.
Reply
post #7 of 21
4/24/03 at 4:21am
Quote:
The Prankster:
I just seem to be reading a lot of shrill articles and so on insisting that "Michael Moore must be backpedalling like crazy now!" "Professor Chomsky will find no one is listening to him now!" Etc. Which makes it like, no matter what they say now, it's going to seem like they're contradicting themselves. "Well, I never said I supported Saddam..." "Liar!!!!" "It's not that I didn't want to see Iraq liberated..." "Changing your tune now, eh?".
Because that's what their readers want to see. It's not news, it's reassurance. That's all newspapers are these days - daily group therapy for your political beliefs. They tell you what to be outraged about, and what to cheer for. People pick the paper that best reinforces their own worldview. And it's been this way ever since some editor realised he sold more copies by not being balanced than by trying to look at all sides of the story.

Quote:
The Prankster:
The really ironic thing being, NOBODY seemed to care about the welfare of the Iraqi people BEFORE the war started...yet now we're told Bush and co. had no thought in mind but the poor suffering Iraqis. And clearly those who oppose them are heartless bastards who enjoy torturing Iraqis for fun.
Had we found a warehouse full of WMD, then the war would have been about that. If we'd found the Lake Terroristitakawa Summer Camp, it would have been about that. We went into this war with a handful of reasons, none of which were completely convincing in advance, so the "liberation of the Iraqi people" was the ace-up-the-sleeve in case we couldn't justify any of the others. After all, nobody can argue against that one without looking like a heartless monster.

We won't know for years, maybe even decades, whether or not we've helped the Iraqi people or just paved the way for something worse.
Reply
post #8 of 21
4/24/03 at 11:11am
I don't know how it is in the UK, but from what I've seen most papers at least try to be objective on their main pages - the Op-Ed is where their real positions come out. Of course, a powerful Opinion Editor (with help from the publisher) can influence the rest of the paper, like in the NYT with that whole Masters issue a while back.
Reply
post #9 of 21
4/24/03 at 12:35pm
Quote:
sorro reloaded:
I don't know how it is in the UK, but from what I've seen most papers at least try to be objective on their main pages - the Op-Ed is where their real positions come out. Of course, a powerful Opinion Editor (with help from the publisher) can influence the rest of the paper, like in the NYT with that whole Masters issue a while back.
Apart from the Op-Eds, the way newspapers (and other media outlets) can betray their bias is in the reports they choose they choose to run, and those they ignore.
Reply
post #10 of 21
4/24/03 at 1:07pm
The UK press is a disgrace. I don't even buy a paper regularly any more, because the bias shown from all sides is sickening. If you want to believe the sky is green, buy this paper. If you want to believe it's purple, buy this one. No objectivity whatsoever. Like I said, it's all about telling the readers what they want to hear.
Reply
post #11 of 21
4/24/03 at 1:26pm
I find it increasingly hard to find any new source as of late that shows no sign of bias. It's incredibly disheartening to watch the world of journalism go to shit.
Reply
post #12 of 21
4/24/03 at 1:27pm
I don't think media bias all falls along neatly defined "left/right" lines though, with the obvious exceptions of blatantly partisan venues, such as the entire Murdoch/News Ltd stable and "news" division.

Most media outlets are mainly concerned with covering their own asses, and the asses of their ownership, before serving their questionable political principles.
Reply
post #13 of 21
4/24/03 at 2:21pm
It's not like this is anything new. Back in the day it was fairly obvious which rags supported which position and fairness towards other feelings wasn't an issue. It's only been fairly recently where the idea of objective journalism was put out there as "what the media should strive for." Of course, objective journalism is the biggest load of crap the media has ever fed us. I'm sure Dan Rather would never structure his "news" broadcast to fit in with the personal beleifs he spelled out at a certain party's fundraiser.

The funny thing is I feel like I can tell if someone is a straight shooter even though they will naturally have a certain set of biases, as we all do. Am I wrong to trust Jim Lehrer, Brit Hume, and Ted Koppel... thinking that they are more objective than most? (Newspapers are a different story. I know I can't trust any of them)
Reply
post #14 of 21
4/24/03 at 2:25pm
I have no real problem with bias as long as that bias does not get in the way of reporting the truth and as long as that boas is STATED - unlike Fox News who should be shut down by the FCC for their Fair and Balanced bullshit.
Reply
post #15 of 21
4/24/03 at 2:43pm
There are no unbiased news sources(well maybe Christian Science Monitor).
Reply
post #16 of 21
4/24/03 at 3:31pm
Quote:
Burke is Down in the Zero:
If you can express your opinion cogently and are open to different ways of thinking, or can at least understand different ways of thinking, then you're way ahead of the bell curve.
Typical conservative, can't go 4 posts without citing the bell-curve. Rascist!
Reply
post #17 of 21
4/24/03 at 3:43pm
Thread Starter 
Yeah, I'm aware that everyone has a bias, and I don't really mind as long as it's out in the open.

My current hangup is more the way that everyone--left or right--is focusing on what's going on RIGHT NOW, whereas we here at Chud have already cast a lot of thought towards the future. I mean, I haven't heard a single reasonable op-ed piece outlining what's going to happen next, beyond a very vague and insistent "It's all going to be OK now!"

This is also the only place I've heard anyone bring up what's going on in Afghanistan right now, obviously a crucial issue, yet one no one is mentioning.
Reply
post #18 of 21
4/24/03 at 3:59pm
Quote:
Adam Warren:
Quote:
Burke is Down in the Zero:
If you can express your opinion cogently and are open to different ways of thinking, or can at least understand different ways of thinking, then you're way ahead of the bell curve.
Typical conservative, can't go 4 posts without citing the bell-curve. Rascist!
<a href="http://cmdrtaco.net/rants/potato.shtml" target="_blank">Rascist? I think you mean the spud-curve.</a>
Reply
post #19 of 21
4/24/03 at 7:17pm
Quote:
The Prankster:
This is also the only place I've heard anyone bring up what's going on in Afghanistan right now, obviously a crucial issue, yet one no one is mentioning.
We won. Afghanistan is now a wonderful Taliban-free utopia. What else is there to know?
Reply
post #20 of 21
4/26/03 at 12:44pm
Heh - my attitude towards the war is that there was never any doubt the US would win and the Iraqis would be happy to lose Hussein.

But to make an analogy, when someone steers his car with his feet, it's a bad idea regardless of whether or not he crashes, know what I'm sayin'?

Quote:
Republicans are the people who say government doesn't work, and then they get elected and prove it."
--P. J. O'Rourke
PJ O'Rourke is a fucking GENIUS.
Reply
post #21 of 21
4/29/03 at 1:19pm
Quote:
This is also the only place I've heard anyone bring up what's going on in Afghanistan right now, obviously a crucial issue, yet one no one is mentioning.
Last week (maybe 2weeks ago) on Talk of the Nation the Afghan Finace Minister was on and this led to some discussion. Although I have been disappointed lately with NPR I find them to be typically well-balanced.

I will note that as a recovering Broadcasting Major the 1st law, the very first thing we were taught, was that at least all televised news programs are entertainment programs and should be viewed as such. I don't know about print journalism but I would imagine it's similiar.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Chud: WAY ahead of the curve?