4 ms·

What's your view on the Washington Post writing how Iraq has weapons of mass destruction? Legitimate opinion piece or fraudulent/faked proaganda?

dredmorbius 9y ago
That message was lead by the Bush-Cheny administration. Multiple press orgaisations repeated that message, it's true, and practices could have been better. But it can be very difficult to arrive at the truth when you are being very deliberately and relentlessly lied to. Which gets us back to the issue of Russian propaganda through social networks. Washpo admit they got it wrong, at least. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/12/13/the-pre-war-intelligence-on-iraq-wrong-or-hyped-by-the-bush-white-house/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/12/...
- RasputinsBro 9y ago
  So the US administration said a lie which was convenient for them, and the media repeated it. The Russian administration said a lie which was convenient for them, and the media repeated it. What's the difference exactly? Is the difference that the Russian gov has more influence in Russian media than the US gov has in US media? Why is it that you treat one case as "look at their evil propaganda" and the other as "oh gee practices could be better"? Let me be honest with you. I'm European so I shouldn't really have a stake here. But I look at the world and what I see is that US media is infinitely more influential in Europe than Russian media. Infinitely more influential in Europe than even European media, and that concerns me. So your "oh gee practices could be better but we're the good guys trust me" doesn't fly with me.
  - dredmorbius 9y ago
    Again: The US media have admitted the error and have engaged in considerable soul searching. Can you say the same for RT and Sputnik?
    - RasputinsBro 9y ago
      The "American media" did no such thing. One specific outlet made a correction about one specific story. What about Fox News? Did they apologize? > have engaged in considerable soul searching. It is my opinion that absolutely nothing changed. It's still the same people with the same interests. Thanks for the link, I'll read it.
      - nl 9y ago
        One specific outlet made a correction about one specific story. What do you mean? Both the NYTimes and the Washington Post published major editorials saying how they got it wrong. I'm sure other papers followed as well, but they were some of the more notable. And it was hardly one story - it was a whole narrative about how they trusted that the White House was giving them information in good faith, and how they should have paid more attention to signs that faith was misplaced. And yes - that faith was misplaced, and yes they should have paid more attention. It is my opinion that absolutely nothing changed Well, both papers became much more doubtful about any claims from the Bush administration after that. And you may have noticed they were pretty harsh on Obama's claims of how easy health care would be. They also seem to be asking questions about some of the Trump administrations claims - or at least he seems to think they are being very unfair to him.
      - dredmorbius 9y ago
        Multiple outlets. WashPo and NYTimes are the major national papers. PBS News Hour has multiple investigations of coverage. As do policy, media, and general-press magazines. Your representations (in this thread and elsewhere) simply fail to accurately reflect the facts.
nl 9y ago
I think the WP's analysis of that was pretty good: "The paper was not front-paging stuff," said Pentagon correspondent Thomas Ricks. "Administration assertions were on the front page. Things that challenged the administration were on A18 on Sunday or A24 on Monday. There was an attitude among editors: Look, we're going to war, why do we even worry about all this contrary stuff?" In retrospect, said Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr., "we were so focused on trying to figure out what the administration was doing that we were not giving the same play to people who said it wouldn't be a good idea to go to war and were questioning the administration's rationale. Not enough of those stories were put on the front page. That was a mistake on my part." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58127-2004Aug11.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58127-2004Aug...

dredmorbius 9y ago

That message was lead by the Bush-Cheny administration. Multiple press orgaisations repeated that message, it's true, and practices could have been better. But it can be very difficult to arrive at the truth when you are being very deliberately and relentlessly lied to. Which gets us back to the issue of Russian propaganda through social networks. Washpo admit they got it wrong, at least. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/12/13/the-pre-war-intelligence-on-iraq-wrong-or-hyped-by-the-bush-white-house/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/12/...

RasputinsBro 9y ago
So the US administration said a lie which was convenient for them, and the media repeated it. The Russian administration said a lie which was convenient for them, and the media repeated it. What's the difference exactly? Is the difference that the Russian gov has more influence in Russian media than the US gov has in US media? Why is it that you treat one case as "look at their evil propaganda" and the other as "oh gee practices could be better"? Let me be honest with you. I'm European so I shouldn't really have a stake here. But I look at the world and what I see is that US media is infinitely more influential in Europe than Russian media. Infinitely more influential in Europe than even European media, and that concerns me. So your "oh gee practices could be better but we're the good guys trust me" doesn't fly with me.
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  Again: The US media have admitted the error and have engaged in considerable soul searching. Can you say the same for RT and Sputnik?
  - RasputinsBro 9y ago
    The "American media" did no such thing. One specific outlet made a correction about one specific story. What about Fox News? Did they apologize? > have engaged in considerable soul searching. It is my opinion that absolutely nothing changed. It's still the same people with the same interests. Thanks for the link, I'll read it.
    - nl 9y ago
      One specific outlet made a correction about one specific story. What do you mean? Both the NYTimes and the Washington Post published major editorials saying how they got it wrong. I'm sure other papers followed as well, but they were some of the more notable. And it was hardly one story - it was a whole narrative about how they trusted that the White House was giving them information in good faith, and how they should have paid more attention to signs that faith was misplaced. And yes - that faith was misplaced, and yes they should have paid more attention. It is my opinion that absolutely nothing changed Well, both papers became much more doubtful about any claims from the Bush administration after that. And you may have noticed they were pretty harsh on Obama's claims of how easy health care would be. They also seem to be asking questions about some of the Trump administrations claims - or at least he seems to think they are being very unfair to him.
    - dredmorbius 9y ago
      Multiple outlets. WashPo and NYTimes are the major national papers. PBS News Hour has multiple investigations of coverage. As do policy, media, and general-press magazines. Your representations (in this thread and elsewhere) simply fail to accurately reflect the facts.

nl 9y ago

I think the WP's analysis of that was pretty good: "The paper was not front-paging stuff," said Pentagon correspondent Thomas Ricks. "Administration assertions were on the front page. Things that challenged the administration were on A18 on Sunday or A24 on Monday. There was an attitude among editors: Look, we're going to war, why do we even worry about all this contrary stuff?" In retrospect, said Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr., "we were so focused on trying to figure out what the administration was doing that we were not giving the same play to people who said it wouldn't be a good idea to go to war and were questioning the administration's rationale. Not enough of those stories were put on the front page. That was a mistake on my part." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58127-2004Aug11.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58127-2004Aug...