(04-17-2024, 09:16 AM)FlyersFan Wrote: I dunno. 

Seems Fox's opinion piece was pretty spot on.  Iran was humiliated.  They threw a crapload of munitions against Israel and they didn't hit anything except a 10 year old girl who got seriously hurt.  Even Muslim Jordan was out shooting down Iranian rockets.  And to make matters worse for Iran, they faked film footage of fires and people getting uptight and claimed it was all Israel, but that was debunked in hours.

CNNs opinion piece is obviously propaganda.  They claimed Irans attack seemed planned to minimize casualties, but the exact opposite is true.  You don't launch hundreds of rockets at civilians and then say it was 'planned to minimize casualties'.  It's just ridiculous.  

When you look at the headlines of the big three ... FOX, CNN, and MSDNC ... they are often in conflict over the same event.  It depends on what they want you to think.   But in the case of the ones you gave as examples ... The FOX opinion piece wasn't propaganda whereas the CNN one obviously was.

I hope that stayed within the bounds of what you called for for discussion.  I think so.

(04-17-2024, 12:24 PM)Raptured Wrote: Without having been there, on the front-lines, I don't believe anything that's reported. 

Every outlet is controlled.   Every piece is programming.   Every event is orchestrated

(04-17-2024, 01:05 PM)Maxmars Wrote: Well, you are approaching an understanding of those who wish to not just to carry out their objectives (whatever they may be.)   For many, it's not just about their objectives... but how the larger world "perceives" what they do.  To that end, they will focus on "appearances" rather than the simple truth.

Yes, every outlet they can control, will be as controlled as they can manage.  Yes, everything we see is not just a production, but "programming."  It's not about what happened, but how they frame what happened and what reactions they offer up as acceptable or 'normal.'

I hesitate to agree with every even being "orchestrated."  They aren't that 'all-knowing' or 'all-powerful,' they just aren't that smart... that is also part of "appearances."  Which is not to say it couldn't be or hasn't been.  Only that anything that increases such an image won't be countered.  There is little more useful than having the world believe you are so deft and skilled that no one can reach you.  It's a convenient standing... like being free to speak of your notional opponents and having everyone 'automatically' believe you... and having you opponents "appear" powerless to stop you.

You are correct in that lacking first-hand exposure should make you hesitant make proclamations about any event.  But everyone is entitled to their own judgement and will do as their nature compels them. 

My point here was to offer a contrast and fuel to the pursuit of the evidence we are exposed to about world affairs and "who says what" about them.  The idea that "such and such" makes some statement about something DOES NOT indicate anything about that event other than what "that person" thinks.  It is not - in and of itself - news "about" the event any more than what YOU think is "news" about the event.

People have granted a lot of "power" to the press... because we collectively are to believe that the press is some kind of objective source.  That is only the ideal... and far from true, especially nowadays when unspoken "advocacy/activist journalism" is considered 'acceptable.'  Add to this the direct and purposeful insertion of 'press-release' journalism from the government or mega industrial entities... and well, here we are.