Comments on What If Today's Media Had Covered World War II???

Go to If I get smart with you....how will you know? - Add a comment - Go to What If Today's Media Had Covered World War II???

And Xeno.......

hits one totally out of the Topic ballpark......

Uh, thanks for stopping by........

posted by Corbin_Dallas on May 17, 2006 at 7:17 AM | link to this | reply

OH!!! THE INVASION OF IRAN WAS A WRONG THING?????

How come our government supported Saddam during that war?
See -- an evil dictator is an evil dictator
except when our government decides that he is ok because he servesour purpose.
how come he was ok for thirty years and then suddenly he wasn't?
had he changed overnight?
but that's another question

the gospel of John does say that darkness cannot comprehend thelight
they who think they are walkingin light . .. .
those who label themselves as conveyors of light

posted by Xeno-x on May 17, 2006 at 6:53 AM | link to this | reply

Now you're making a reasonable point....

I wonder when someone was going to bring it up.......it was a different time and yes the news media at that time actually operated on the opposite end of the reporting spectrum....political philosophy had nothing to do with it.......as the decades have passed the reporting pendulum has swung in the opposite direction.. The the point of being literally " reverse" propaganda..........this trend really revved up during the Vietnam era.

posted by Corbin_Dallas on May 17, 2006 at 3:30 AM | link to this | reply

Corbin Dallas...

...there is another way to look at this.

Much of the 'news' during WWII was propaganda - that's a well-known fact nowadays. Perhaps it's just that we've evolved a bit - y'know, moved on - and we're more able to spot the spin now, and less willing to swallow it whole.

I think it's also true that the propaganda shield in those days meant that politicians commanded a fair bit of respect. They may have deserved it, or they may have been just as big a charlatans as the crew we're currently saddled with. Either way, propaganda doesn't work as cleanly and as universally today as it once did.

Though there are clearly exceptions to that right here!

D

posted by DamonLeigh on May 17, 2006 at 1:30 AM | link to this | reply

WriterofLight...

...well, given that catalogue of chaos, perhaps you'd like to explain America's massive support for saddam over the years, especially in terms of arms and cash? Or was he less eveil then?

D

posted by DamonLeigh on May 17, 2006 at 1:26 AM | link to this | reply

Writer.....

I appreciate your stopping by.........there's just some people that just refuse to get the point.....intentionally or otherwise.....

posted by Corbin_Dallas on May 16, 2006 at 9:04 PM | link to this | reply

Nailing it right back to Damon

Iraq was harmless only in Farcenheit 911. Consider the invasion of Iran, the invasion of Kuwait, years of sponsoring terroris and bankrolling Palestinian suicide bombers, threats to assassinate a sitting American president, attacks on American military forces, giving shelter to Abu Abbas and other terrorists (especially after Abbas was responsible for murdering Americans in cold blood), threats to attack Israel, etc., etc. Nazi Germany was harmless the same way.

posted by WriterofLight on May 16, 2006 at 8:01 PM | link to this | reply

Corbin, we need to do something for Xenox's health . . .

Seems he has an allergic reaction to truth and common sense.

posted by WriterofLight on May 16, 2006 at 7:58 PM | link to this | reply

What ever you want to think......

It certainly doesn't concern me.....There's plently of rational people who know what the article is about.......

Watch out for those flying monkeys......

posted by Corbin_Dallas on May 16, 2006 at 3:55 PM | link to this | reply

and here it was i thought it was Bush

that was tring to slant the war

i notice it's not exactly peaches and cream over there

odd that the media still doesn't report all the adverse news about the war -- takes a few pepole outside the mainstream to do that.

caught you though -- you are comparing wars.

posted by Xeno-x on May 16, 2006 at 3:42 PM | link to this | reply

That the......

"Drive-By" media in this country and a lesser degree in Europe ( their media means so little) have purposely slanted the coverage of the war....had they been around during the 40's, we may have been forced to sue for peace and eating a lot more sauerkraut.

The author, through the use of a satirical piece of fiction, demonstrates how the reporting is twisted, selected, diced and sliced to present anti-war, defeatist views of things........

posted by Corbin_Dallas on May 16, 2006 at 3:32 PM | link to this | reply

the point you were trying to make

what was it?

posted by Xeno-x on May 16, 2006 at 3:18 PM | link to this | reply

Passion....I don't believe they do.....

it spoils the evening TV lineup.......thanks for stopping by!

posted by Corbin_Dallas on May 16, 2006 at 3:16 PM | link to this | reply

Well, we had the scarecrow....

stop by earlier....now we hear from the tin man...........read into it what you will.

I know what my purpose was and the point I am trying to make........you get no point for deflections here......thanks for the click though..........

posted by Corbin_Dallas on May 16, 2006 at 3:14 PM | link to this | reply

This is the problem with the American Media.

Over the years, they've come to the conclusion that Americans, for the most part, don't want to know the truth. They just want a little snippet here and there that reassures them that all is well in the world and no one's going hungry and no injustice is being done.

A recent example: I wrote a blog about the millions of animals who drowned in the Katrina disaster and how that, though a few were clever enough to survive, most were never reunited with their owners. All of them reverted back to their feral state because of the trauma of losing their homes and families.

Maggie replied that she had seen a Special on TV showing the humane society going into the devastated areas and rescuing the pets and returning them to their owners.

My answer to her: This wasn't the norm. It was the exception. Very few victims ever saw their pets again unless they took them with them when they evacuated.

The world is an ugly place where justice is rarely done and the good guy almost never comes out on top. Not many people want to hear that!

posted by Passionflower on May 16, 2006 at 3:14 PM | link to this | reply

Sorry, Corbin...

...but Sassy and Xeno have got you nailed here, me old son!

You can't reproduce and article reporting on WWII in allegedly Iraq-war style and then turn around and say you're not comparing wars, but just the way wars are reported. Eh?

Truth is, the Bush-supporters and war-mongers in America and in the administration know, deep down, that a 'pre-emptive strike' on what proved to be a harmless enemy (no WMD, no resistance, except what America has brilliantly created since) and on a sovereign state, in direct contradiction to international law (as now stated by an increasing number of lawyers, law professors, judges and councils around the world) was a dirty, scummy act completely unbefitting of a so-called super power. And, to try to dispell the deep sense of unease that this causes, there's a desperate need to somehow hook Iraq up to WWII, and say that both wars were about Freedom, Liberty, Democracy, Fighting Tyrants and all that stuff.

Well, in WWII my country went to war to protect parts of Europe the Germans were (illegally) invading, and your country came in (eventually) in self decfence after Pearl harbour. All of which contrasts sharply with the current shambles that was originally called O.I.L. (Operation Iraqi Liberation) and now could be renamed I.I.G.H.W.A.C.A.F.F. (Illegal Invasion Goes Horribly Wrong And Costs a Fucking Fortune).

Interesting, as someone else mentioned, that there's rarely any comparisons with Vietnam, although more parallels exist there. For example, America dropped thousands of tons of ordinance on Laos and Cambodia - without even having the decency to declare war on them!!

I guess Vietnam doesn't give you that warm, cuddly feeling of Doing the right thing that WWII gives you (way back from a 60-year perspective, and with the added advantage that the victors write the history books).

Well, you keep bringing up WWII and Hitler and so on, but don't try to say that you're not!! You're fooling no one, Corbin.

D

posted by DamonLeigh on May 16, 2006 at 3:10 PM | link to this | reply

Corbin Dallas

One of the best posts I've read for a long time!

What the hell's happening to us all? We've become nations of squeamish, thumb sucking babies, too scared to stand up for and fight for anything.

You might care to read my recent post about the year 1941. No, I'm not soliciting clicks. I don't need 'em

posted by ariel70 on May 16, 2006 at 2:16 PM | link to this | reply

you still make me sick

posted by Xeno-x on May 16, 2006 at 2:11 PM | link to this | reply

so why bring this up?

I'll tel lyou why

you ARE comparing the two wars -- the media's coverage -- that is , you are saying that if the media covered WWII like it covers Iraq, then . . .

but I really doubt that the media today would.

again

because the two wars are entirely different.

the media would be supportive of our efforts to wage WWII, because of the reasons elucidated below.

they are right in being critical of Bush's war -- for the reasons elucidated below.

posted by Xeno-x on May 16, 2006 at 2:11 PM | link to this | reply

hmmm

so what has your blog then to do with the price of cucumbers in poughkeepsie?

posted by Xeno-x on May 16, 2006 at 2:06 PM | link to this | reply

Corbin that was a stroke of brilliance. Yes it was so far above his head

it won't land for another ten years or so, not ever there. It is really strange when you see such as that comparison stuff. The wheat and the chaff are being separated right now, it is evidenced all over the place. We are walking in countdown right now!

posted by Justi on May 16, 2006 at 1:19 PM | link to this | reply

If something is going to go over someone head.......

I can always count on Xeno.......

This has nothing to do with comparing the two wars.....it has to do with showing how the older war would be covered by today's media......you cannot possibly be that dense.

Or this is just a typical "straw dog" to provide a distraction from the original point......

posted by Corbin_Dallas on May 16, 2006 at 10:47 AM | link to this | reply

I agree with Xeno on this one

I find no comparison between the two wars. The only war that comes close to this one is Vietnam. That war and this one are two wars that we decided to make our business, and many people have died because of it.

posted by Sherri_G on May 16, 2006 at 8:24 AM | link to this | reply

WWII

was a necessary war against an obvoius evil.
we either won or lost that war

Iraq is a concocted war with no basis for our invasion of a sovereign country that posed hardly any threat.

comparing Saddam ot Hitler is like comparing a honey bee to a cobra.

it was demonstrated in the invasion that Saddam could pose no threat at all to the U.S. or any surrounding country.

of course our government loves to create friends and then decide that they become overnight, enemies.

the other thing

WWII brought us out od the Great Depression

the Iraq war is helping to suck this country inexorably into the greatest depression we have ever experienced.

you guys make me sick.

posted by Xeno-x on May 16, 2006 at 7:45 AM | link to this | reply

Hollywood - then and now

Clark Cable was in a terrible state of depression and grief when his wife Carol Lombard was killed in a plane crash while returning from a war bond rally. He joined the Air Corps, went to the war, and said that he did not care whether or not he came back.To him, life was empty without Carol Lombard.
Gable was no saint, but at least he was capable of loving something and someone besides himself. That is a lot more than you can say about the majority of todays "Hollywood Idols".