Censorship on the internet

[PoliCon]

Who IS that guy...girl...?? :eek:

THAT my friend is RUUUUU-BBBBBBBEEEEE RHOD! Quiver ladies, quiver.

[Cosmored]

Do you people think there is any censorship in the US? Do you think Americans get good information?

What do you all think of this article?

http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/official_culture.htm
(excerpt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The subject of the extremely narrow point of view of most Americans as opposed to the majority of other peoples in the world came up in a conversation the other day. The people having the conversation were, as it happens, mostly American. One of them commented that Americans had been "programmed" to their point of view by mass media propaganda for a very long time and that it was simply a very normal part of American life and basically, always had been. She concluded, "Whoever denies it is either ignorant or has an agenda."

That may be so. It may be true that the "pied pipers" of denial have an agenda. But what, then, does one say or do about the ignorance of the vast majority of Americans? Why and how is it that the trap of Fascism is closing on them before their very eyes and no matter how many voices - the number is increasing every day - are raised to point out this danger, they simply do not seem to get it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[djones520]

Do you people think there is any censorship in the US? Do you think Americans get good information?

What do you all think of this article?

http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/official_culture.htm
(excerpt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The subject of the extremely narrow point of view of most Americans as opposed to the majority of other peoples in the world came up in a conversation the other day. The people having the conversation were, as it happens, mostly American. One of them commented that Americans had been "programmed" to their point of view by mass media propaganda for a very long time and that it was simply a very normal part of American life and basically, always had been. She concluded, "Whoever denies it is either ignorant or has an agenda."

That may be so. It may be true that the "pied pipers" of denial have an agenda. But what, then, does one say or do about the ignorance of the vast majority of Americans? Why and how is it that the trap of Fascism is closing on them before their very eyes and no matter how many voices - the number is increasing every day - are raised to point out this danger, they simply do not seem to get it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Check out Executive Order 8985. It was enacted by the very same President that was just voted the best President of the 20th Century.

[asdf2231]

Do you people think there is any censorship in the US? Do you think Americans get good information?

What do you all think of this article?

[Cosmored]

Check out Executive Order 8985. It was enacted by the very same President that was just voted the best President of the 20th Century.

Any country would censor in this situation--the good guys, or the bad guys.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=16068

I'm referring to the kind of censorship that keeps Americans in the dark so they don't understand the real reasons for their government's interventions in other countries.

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle12798.htm
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was during this time that I made a series of documentaries about Cambodia. The first, in 1979, Year Zero: The Silent Death of Cambodia, described the American bombing that had provided a catalyst for the rise of Pol Pot, and showed the shocking human effects of the embargo. Year Zero was broadcast in some 60 countries, but never in the United States. When I flew to Washington and offered it to the national public broadcaster, PBS, I received a curious reaction. PBS executives were shocked by the film, and spoke admiringly of it, even as they collectively shook their heads. One of them said: "John, we are disturbed that your film says the United States played such a destructive role, so we have decided to call in a journalistic adjudicator."

The term "journalistic adjudicator" was out of Orwell. PBS appointed one Richard Dudman, a reporter on the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and one of the few Westerners to have been invited by Pol Pot to visit Cambodia. His dispatches reflected none of the savagery then enveloping that country; he even praised his hosts. Not surprisingly, he gave my film the thumbs-down. One of the PBS executives confided to me: "These are difficult days under Ronald Reagan. Your film would have given us problems."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the people have upside-down information, they can't make informed decisions.

Also, tell me what you think of this article and the above article.
http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/official_culture.htm

[Sonnabend]

I'm referring to the kind of censorship that keeps Americans in the dark so they don't understand the real reasons for their government's interventions in other countries.

[djones520]

Any country would censor in this situation--the good guys, or the bad guys.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=16068

I'm referring to the kind of censorship that keeps Americans in the dark so they don't understand the real reasons for their government's interventions in other countries.

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle12798.htm
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was during this time that I made a series of documentaries about Cambodia. The first, in 1979, Year Zero: The Silent Death of Cambodia, described the American bombing that had provided a catalyst for the rise of Pol Pot, and showed the shocking human effects of the embargo. Year Zero was broadcast in some 60 countries, but never in the United States. When I flew to Washington and offered it to the national public broadcaster, PBS, I received a curious reaction. PBS executives were shocked by the film, and spoke admiringly of it, even as they collectively shook their heads. One of them said: "John, we are disturbed that your film says the United States played such a destructive role, so we have decided to call in a journalistic adjudicator."

The term "journalistic adjudicator" was out of Orwell. PBS appointed one Richard Dudman, a reporter on the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and one of the few Westerners to have been invited by Pol Pot to visit Cambodia. His dispatches reflected none of the savagery then enveloping that country; he even praised his hosts. Not surprisingly, he gave my film the thumbs-down. One of the PBS executives confided to me: "These are difficult days under Ronald Reagan. Your film would have given us problems."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the people have upside-down information, they can't make informed decisions.

Also, tell me what you think of this article and the above article.
http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/official_culture.htm

So what would you say if President Bush had enacted censorship orders for the current wars? Lord knows the media has done everything it can to help us lose them.

[Cosmored]

Lord knows the media has done everything it can to help us lose them.

There is debate in the American media but it's kept within narrow limits. This is really pretty basic; you should read some analyses of the American media in the alternative press.

http://www.chowk.com/articles/5239
(except)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If dictators were smarter, they would adopt the systems of indoctrination that are employed, often quite consciously, in more democratic societies: let debate rage, but within limits set by fixed presuppositions, which express the basic interests of power. For example, during the US wars in Indochina, the media and journals of opinion were happy to sponsor debates between “hawks,” who argued that the US should resort to greater violence and destruction, and “doves,” who argued that our effort to defend the Vietnamese from terror and foreign attack was becoming too costly, and that we should seek other means to attain our noble objectives. The more that debate rages, the less likely people are to ask the obvious questions: for example, are we defending Vietnam by attacking it?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.youtube.com//watch?v=bbnxsPgcsH0
http://es.youtube.com/results?search...rch_type=&aq=f
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Me...dia_watch.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Pr...anda_page.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Me...a_Control.html

There's been debate and disagreement with the govenment over the war in Iraq in the American media but it's all orquestrated to mislead people. Forget about the American media and read the alternative press if you want to make informed decisions.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...000history.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...itishindex.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/irqindx.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...niesiniraq.htm
http://www.war-times.org/pdf/Oil%20leaflet.pdf
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/i...protection.htm

[djones520]

There is debate in the American media but it's kept within narrow limits. This is really pretty basic; you should read some analyses of the American media in the alternative press.

http://www.chowk.com/articles/5239
(except)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If dictators were smarter, they would adopt the systems of indoctrination that are employed, often quite consciously, in more democratic societies: let debate rage, but within limits set by fixed presuppositions, which express the basic interests of power. For example, during the US wars in Indochina, the media and journals of opinion were happy to sponsor debates between “hawks,” who argued that the US should resort to greater violence and destruction, and “doves,” who argued that our effort to defend the Vietnamese from terror and foreign attack was becoming too costly, and that we should seek other means to attain our noble objectives. The more that debate rages, the less likely people are to ask the obvious questions: for example, are we defending Vietnam by attacking it?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.youtube.com//watch?v=bbnxsPgcsH0
http://es.youtube.com/results?search...rch_type=&aq=f
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Me...dia_watch.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Pr...anda_page.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Me...a_Control.html

There's been debate and disagreement with the govenment over the war in Iraq in the American media but it's all orquestrated to mislead people. Forget about the American media and read the alternative press if you want to make informed decisions.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...000history.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...itishindex.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/irqindx.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...niesiniraq.htm
http://www.war-times.org/pdf/Oil%20leaflet.pdf
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/i...protection.htm

I have access to more information about whats going on in Iraq then you ever will.

And that is why I say that the media did everything possible to make it look like we were losing the war.

[Cosmored]

I have access to more information about whats going on in Iraq then you ever will.

Show us an expample of it and we can talk about whether it's credible or not.