4 ms·

"If we jump back two decades ago the American people were lead to believe that weapons of mass destruction were present in Afghanistan and Iraq and it was the c

"If we jump back two decades ago the American people were lead to believe that weapons of mass destruction were present in Afghanistan and Iraq and it was the cornerstone of the war initiative there." Nope, most news outlets were very critical about the iraqi WMD story with some notable exceptions like the aforementioned NYT and there never was one with afghanistan. Just because there are no/few positive stories about russia does not necessarily mean that the media is biased.

vagrantJin 6y ago
You may or may not realize how truly frightening that is. A military in a democratic, sovereign nation should have oversight from civilian authority. If people knew that their sons and daughters were effectively raiding another country as a belligerent force - why did they not stop it. The fear comes not in that they didn't, but that they couldn't Human nature should be feared, especially when you have a loose cannon firing at will, and only grateful that the barrel is facing away from you. If it were to turn towards you, how do would you stop it? We never truly learn from history as much as we think we do.
- alextheparrot 6y ago
  > A military in a democratic, sovereign nation should have oversight from civilian authority Would it not be fair to say that in a representative government those elected representatives are the civilian authority? The US Congress approved using military force in Iraq, by quite large majorities in both bodies. That is not to say the war was good or the reasons true, just that the second paragraph of your critique seems unfounded as there was oversight by the republic’s civilian authority.
  - vagrantJin 6y ago
    > Would it not be fair to say that in a representative government those elected representatives are the civilian authority? Absolutely. But those office bearers have constituencies I presume? If office bearer xan make their own decisions regardless of what the people who put them in power say - we would be stretching the idea of a democratic republic to the extreme, don't you think? The taxpayers should have the ability to veto decisions if in large enough numbers.
boomboomsubban 6y ago
>Nope, most news outlets were very critical about the iraqi WMD story This isn't really accurate. Most news outlets repeatedly published the government's agenda without much critical examination of what they meant. This study on the issue details events well. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268330903_Media_Coverage_of_Weapons_of_Mass_Destruction https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268330903_Media_Cov...
- Paradigma11 6y ago
  The study mostly shows that the media let the administration frame how the situation was reported. "This study supports four major findings about the media’s coverage of WMD during the three periods: 1. Most media outlets represented WMD as a monolithic menace, failing to adequately distinguish between weapons programs and actual weapons or to address the real differences among chemi-cal, biological, nuclear, and radiological weapons. 2. Most journalists accepted the Bush administration’s formulation of the “War on Terror” as a campaign against WMD, in contrast to coverage during the Clinton era, when many journalists made careful distinctions between acts of terrorism and the acquisition and use of WMD. 3. Many stories stenographically reported the incumbent administration’s perspective on WMD, giving too little critical examination of the way officials framed the events, issues, threats, and policy options. 4. Too few stories proffered alternative perspectives to official line, a problem exacerbated by the journalistic prioritizing of breaking-news stories and the “inverted pyramid” style of storytelling. " Which is fair, I guess. But still, most news outlets internationally were doubtful that Iraq had WMDs and were vindicated after the war.

vagrantJin 6y ago

You may or may not realize how truly frightening that is. A military in a democratic, sovereign nation should have oversight from civilian authority. If people knew that their sons and daughters were effectively raiding another country as a belligerent force - why did they not stop it. The fear comes not in that they didn't, but that they couldn't Human nature should be feared, especially when you have a loose cannon firing at will, and only grateful that the barrel is facing away from you. If it were to turn towards you, how do would you stop it? We never truly learn from history as much as we think we do.

alextheparrot 6y ago
> A military in a democratic, sovereign nation should have oversight from civilian authority Would it not be fair to say that in a representative government those elected representatives are the civilian authority? The US Congress approved using military force in Iraq, by quite large majorities in both bodies. That is not to say the war was good or the reasons true, just that the second paragraph of your critique seems unfounded as there was oversight by the republic’s civilian authority.
- vagrantJin 6y ago
  > Would it not be fair to say that in a representative government those elected representatives are the civilian authority? Absolutely. But those office bearers have constituencies I presume? If office bearer xan make their own decisions regardless of what the people who put them in power say - we would be stretching the idea of a democratic republic to the extreme, don't you think? The taxpayers should have the ability to veto decisions if in large enough numbers.

boomboomsubban 6y ago

>Nope, most news outlets were very critical about the iraqi WMD story This isn't really accurate. Most news outlets repeatedly published the government's agenda without much critical examination of what they meant. This study on the issue details events well. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268330903_Media_Coverage_of_Weapons_of_Mass_Destruction https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268330903_Media_Cov...

Paradigma11 6y ago
The study mostly shows that the media let the administration frame how the situation was reported. "This study supports four major findings about the media’s coverage of WMD during the three periods: 1. Most media outlets represented WMD as a monolithic menace, failing to adequately distinguish between weapons programs and actual weapons or to address the real differences among chemi-cal, biological, nuclear, and radiological weapons. 2. Most journalists accepted the Bush administration’s formulation of the “War on Terror” as a campaign against WMD, in contrast to coverage during the Clinton era, when many journalists made careful distinctions between acts of terrorism and the acquisition and use of WMD. 3. Many stories stenographically reported the incumbent administration’s perspective on WMD, giving too little critical examination of the way officials framed the events, issues, threats, and policy options. 4. Too few stories proffered alternative perspectives to official line, a problem exacerbated by the journalistic prioritizing of breaking-news stories and the “inverted pyramid” style of storytelling. " Which is fair, I guess. But still, most news outlets internationally were doubtful that Iraq had WMDs and were vindicated after the war.