Illusion and reality: the fog of war

[REDWAVE]

This is something different from my usual threads, so relax. Some exchanges I've had with various Litsters, especially one just now with Emerald eyed, have caused me to ponder about the old theme of illusion and reality. With practically everyone, the media included, having some kind of viewpoint on the war, and thus some kind of axe to grind, how can you trust ANY source of information, even supposedly reputable ones, to tell you the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? How do we really know what is illusion and what is reality?

The more rabid right-wingers will tell you the Guardian and the New York Times are worthless, baised pieces of crap, and then turn around and tell you the Fox News Channel provides totally objective, neutral "fair and balanced" coverage! Personally, I think they're wack, but then they think I'm whacked, too. Myself, I don't trust anything I see on TV news unless it's confirmed by a source I consider objective.

But that's really not the point here. The point is we all have only a partial, imperfect grasp upon reality to begin with. There is much we can't perceive, and there is much which is not as it appears to be. This becomes true all the more so during wartime. It is often said that truth is the first casaulty of war. Even military men speak of the "fog of war." You never know exactly what is going on, and both sides are trying to confuse, mislead, and psych out the other.

Any thoughts on the subject, preferably non-flaming?

 

[Guest]

 

[HeavyStick]

Propaganda.


(No sense in ranting about it.)


prop·a·gan·da [pròppə gándə]
n
1. publicity to promote something: information or publicity put out by an organization or government to spread and promote a policy, idea, doctrine, or cause
2. misleading publicity: deceptive or distorted information that is systematically spread


Early 18th century. From modern Latin Propaganda Fide , literally “propagating the faith”




edited to add... Someone Quote me... red usually has me on ignore.

 

[Guest]

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

It's why i read the news from both sides of the spectrum and from allied nations and non allied nations, {thankful to babelfish translation} and sighs that are in other languages and countiries, and then pool all the information on a particular topic {war, peace, protestesting, etc} from the whole spectrum and try to make balanced view on it all but i also like to talk about things by posting from my particualr view to get other peoples views to glean even more observation.

As much as I may quote boortz {which is good for kneew jerk reactionism}, alex jones {which is good for conspircial}, Jack Van Impe {which is good for bible prophecy, or the likes of Kent Hovind {which is good for creationism news} I try not to delude my personal growth to one side or one source, as to not risk getting jaded.

 

[Linedrive]

They've never been to the Moon and the world is flat...wake up Redwave.

 

[REDWAVE]

E e

I didn't say all media sources, just TV news.

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

Propaganda.


(No sense in ranting about it.)


prop·a·gan·da [pròppə gándə]
n
1. publicity to promote something: information or publicity put out by an organization or government to spread and promote a policy, idea, doctrine, or cause
2. misleading publicity: deceptive or distorted information that is systematically spread


Early 18th century. From modern Latin Propaganda Fide , literally “propagating the faith”




edited to add... Someone Quote me... red usually has me on ignore.

consider yourself quoted, but could someone quote me as heavystick usually has me on ignore

 

[HeavyStick]

consider yourself quoted, but could someone quote me as heavystick usually has me on ignore

I got you covered.

 

[Bobmi357]

For once I happen to agree with Redwave. And quite frankly that scares me more than a raving islamic waving an AK47 under my nose.

The media are in my opinion too tightly controlled by the coalition forces. If you look, I posted concerning about this already.

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=160099

I will not say that going to abudabi tv is showing fair and unbiased reporting either. Quite frankly there are two wars going on here, one on the ground and another over the airwaves.

 

[REDWAVE]

Al Jazeera

I wish we could get Al Jazeera (in English translation, of course) here in the States.

 

[]ooooo(chained)]

I told you many, many moons ago to tone down your act...

I think you missed your turn at the Peace Pipe with one of your latest offerings.

You're not even invited to crowfest '03!

 

[]ooooo(chained)]

Re: Al Jazeera

I wish we could get Al Jazeera (in English translation, of course) here in the States.

You can stupid. Go to their new English Language site...

If the hack attack is over.

 

[HeavyStick]

Re: Re: Al Jazeera

You can stupid. Go to their new English Language site...

If the hack attack is over.

Have you got the dead link?

 

[RosevilleCAguy]

This is something different from my usual threads, so relax. Some exchanges I've had with various Litsters, especially one just now with Emerald eyed, have caused me to ponder about the old theme of illusion and reality. With practically everyone, the media included, having some kind of viewpoint on the war, and thus some kind of axe to grind, how can you trust ANY source of information, even supposedly reputable ones, to tell you the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? How do we really know what is illusion and what is reality?

The more rabid right-wingers will tell you the Guardian and the New York Times are worthless, baised pieces of crap, and then turn around and tell you the Fox News Channel provides totally objective, neutral "fair and balanced" coverage! Personally, I think they're wack, but then they think I'm whacked, too. Myself, I don't trust anything I see on TV news unless it's confirmed by a source I consider objective.

But that's really not the point here. The point is we all have only a partial, imperfect grasp upon reality to begin with. There is much we can't perceive, and there is much which is not as it appears to be. This becomes true all the more so during wartime. It is often said that truth is the first casaulty of war. Even military men speak of the "fog of war." You never know exactly what is going on, and both sides are trying to confuse, mislead, and psych out the other.

Any thoughts on the subject, preferably non-flaming?

Good post.

I agree with you on the TV news, and even the print media for that matter. The problem is that you can usually only guess at the bias based upon prior experience with the media.

When something occurs that I have some interest in, I usually go to as much source material as possible. Original sources are the best, but even those have limitations in that most observers lack a "big picture" perspective. Even then you have to be cautious when forming opinions based on source information because sometimes errors occur.

Bottom line is the only fact I know for sure is "I think, therefore I am."

Everything else is a belief.

 

[Guest]

I'm really sorry I haven't been around much lately, and I don't have time to comment on this as much as I would like. I really tired right now, so I hope I'm coherent.

We as the public do not see all that is reality, and a lot of the publicity is illusion, unfortunately. Some of it is to 'protect' us as a public from mass hysteria, and part is what the 'powers that be' feels will not allow the 'enemy' to know any of our inside 'secrets' therefore protecting our boys of war. Some of it is propaganda to 'psyche out' our enemies, and some of it is just plain lies to protect 'the powers that be' from bullshit they pull that they shouldn't be doing.

Though we never know the ultimate 'truth' and many times the media concentrates on what will 'sell' rather than what is truely news, there is an advantage of living in a society where the media does have as much 'freedom' it does. I say that loosely, cause I'm sure there are stories of 'truth' that get killed before we the public are allowed to see it, in the name of 'national security' or 'that story won't sell, or a number of other 'reasons' that come from higher than the writer.

That advantage is, the 'government' doesn't have total control over what we the public learns. I lived in Germany for a year, and the only source of information I had was through the US government, both on TV and the newspaper. When we came back to the states, I couldn't believe how much of what was happening in the world I didn't know about. That gave me an idea of what could happen when the government has the ability to exercise total control over what people have access too.

The media isn't worthless. It isn't as good as I would like, but I glad we have what we do.

-Moon

 

[miles]

This is something different from my usual threads, so relax. Some exchanges I've had with various Litsters, especially one just now with Emerald eyed,
?

Please point me in the direction of this alleged exchange. All I've ever seen you do is start a thread and run.

 

[70/30]

I view The New Republic as centrist, but biting, commentary. Easy for me to trust.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=iraq&s=easterbrook032503.1

"Does this mean American commentators must take a hard view of American losses? Within reason, yes. Does this mean American commentators must take a hard view of Iraqi civilian losses? No. Morals are morals; we must not kill civilians. We would surely aid our cause by bombing the Al Rasheed Hotel, where Iraqi communications gear is hidden, but it can't be done without killing civilians. We must accept the added burden that morality imposes."

This stuff is soberly insane: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/428zpnxb.asp

"America ought to do what's needed to win wars. If our cause is right, the liberated civilians will be with us in the end.

Of course not even the Nazis surrendered dead and captured prisoners to the newsreel photographers. Consider what such an act (and the way many Iraqis seemed to love it) says about Iraqi character. Consider that Hitler had many admirers in Germany--not only among the power elite, and even after he had lost the war. Surely Saddam has many admirers in Iraq today. Other Germans were so terrified of the Nazis, it took much time and evidence before they were convinced that they were safe consorting with Hitler's enemies. And surely many Iraqis remain Saddam admirers for one reason or other today.

Will there be cheering throngs to greet American liberators on Baghdad's streets? Maybe. But history has plenty to tell us in cases like this. In itself, dropping bombs on a city is not a surefire way to win its heart. (This rule holds even for precision bombs.) (Not recommended for recalcitrant girlfriends either.) Less obvious, more important: In a case like Saddam's Iraq, many hate him unambiguously, some are too scared to hate him at all, some hate him unless he is winning, others are still making up their minds and always will be. In Germany itself, Hitler still has his admirers--probably a lot more than any official survey will ever reveal."

 

[Problem Child]

The truth is that you are a vile, disgusting, worthless human being who wishes his countrymen death in their struggle to free an oppressed people. Nothing makes your tiny cock harder than to read about Americans dying.

Why should anyone give you the respect that goes with a serious response?

In short, fuck off.

 

[REDWAVE]

PC

It's obvious who the vile, disgusting, worthless thing (you're not even worthy to be called a human being) here is.

 

[Problem Child]

Re: PC

It's obvious who the vile, disgusting, worthless thing (you're not even worthy to be called a human being) here is.

Sure.

I'm not the one who wrote poem extolling the coolness of 3000 people getting crushed and burned to death in the world trade center.

 

[teddybear4play]

Re: PC

It's obvious who the vile, disgusting, worthless thing (you're not even worthy to be called a human being) here is.

For once in your life, you're right.

TB4p

 

[Sandia]

I consider the cable networks the worst. Print media - newspapers - are much better. Magazines - New Yorker, Atlantic, Harper's - are the best, though they carry mostly commentary, rather than news. I've really come to appreciate the internet more since the war, for example, I was able to see the Al Jazeera pictures for myself. I learned the initial Fox report about the chemical plant was false through the internet was well. I also found the Shalaam Pax blog online. I listen to a lot of NPR. I even bought an extra radio specifically for that.

Very often outlets with an ax to grind will more or less tell you that themselves. Fox has "fair and balanced" on its masthead, but their whole point is to provide a conservative perspective to the news. You can also look at their track record, and look at the quality of what they do. I tend to trust journalists who examine complexities in the news, and distrust sources who stick to simplistic sloganeering.