Let me organize what you just said. You trust your media even though they're pro war, while mistrust the French because they're anti war? Are you for real? Look, get this through your noggin: don't trust either! By themselves anyway. Wait until everyone is saying the same thing before trusting anything.
It’s choosing between two distinctly opposite points of view. The Anglo-American position is one of optimism while the French deliver only thinly veiled criticism.
I’m not going to live in paranoia, fearful that every news outlet out there is lying to me. I take things with a grain of salt, but I’m not going to sit down and watch the French bash my country and suggest that executed prisoners-of-war got some of their own medicine, no.
And who said I didn’t wait for repeat-news before fully accepting a given scenario? You might try that, too. You’d realize that by comparison with all other networks, Russia’s offer the least-verifiable news.
Russia would have had their propaganda machine in overdrive seeing as it did involve them, don't you think? Are you honest enough to extend that a little to this war?
Kosovo: proof of "too much garbage"? What is "too much garbage"? The numerous NATO fuckups/crimes in Serbia covered up, was that an ok level of garbage?
Russia’s propaganda machine is
constantly in overdrive. Some of the reports coming out of the Russian media – purportedly courtesy of Russian military “specialists” are absolutely unverifiable. I’ve not seen them repeated by any other news outlets in the United States, Australia, and Great Britain. Not even the French network was prepared to cover any of the stories some of the IraqWar.ru posts detailed.
The Kosovo situation was too clouded to follow Russian sources. The same is true of Chechnya. These might be excusable, but they leave a bad taste. Their sensationalized reports on Iraq are quite similar.
Adding emotional langauge to a report doesn't invalidate the information contained.
It certainly does when that information is similar to or even worse than that in Western media.
The French were running constant stories on Gulf War illness just before the war when certain Western sources – ie, my local newspaper – had covered them in detail – with relevant interviews – months earlier. And with less accusatory language. Their treatment of the current situation with American prisoners-of-war was abominable. You’re telling me that I’m somehow a corrupted fool if I don’t sit here and watch 10% news and 90% posturing? They offer less than half the news of CNN or BBC anyway.
Wait. It's ok to lie about key facts like capturing a city, but not ok to give an opinion on POWs?
All these networks “lie.” It’s not necessarily intentional. Somebody makes a mistake. And if you think I’m blind to that, it’s a grave mistake. I follow three networks here at home as well as up to three foreign news sources – BBC, Sydney Morning Herald, Guardian – for most of my information.
But at least these networks later acknowledge their mistakes. Russia’s made some, too. They’ve continued making them for two days – ie, the fuel tanker claim.
No you don't. You see only that which fits between the stripes of your national flag.
I can’t change your opinion of me. Why enter into debate if you’ve already made up your mind?
