"Radio Free America"

[nnuut]

Interesting read, it seems that history keeps on repeating its self, you just have to know how it relates!
THIS GUY DOES!:cool:

‘Radio Free America’

on October 21, 2009 4:13:05 | 220 times read

‘Radio Free America’
By Cal Thomas
Tribune Media Services

During the Cold War, the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe were among the broadcast entities that effectively penetrated the Iron Curtain to deliver truth to the “captive nations” that were being fed a steady dose of propaganda by their communist rulers. Those dictators did everything they could to “jam” the signals so that their people would only hear what their unelected overseers wanted them to hear. Contemporary versions of jamming and other forms of censorship occur today in Venezuela, Cuba and many other places where dictators believe public ignorance is essential to their unchallenged rule.
While the Obama administration is the product of an election, its approach to Fox News Channel, conservative talk radio and possibly the Internet appears similar to dictators who desire control over the flow of information in order to enhance their power.
The administration’s primary beef appears to be that Fox is doing the job (http://www.calthomas.com/index.php?news=2740#) the broadcast networks and big newspapers should be doing were they not still deeply in the tank for this president and his policies.
Like those Cold War truth-tellers, Fox is simply delivering information to a rapidly growing audience [more]
http://www.calthomas.com/index.php?news=2740

[grandma]

NNuut !
Thank you for this information! I love sending documented links like this to my Obama-favoring relative !!! This particular one has never replied to any of them, tho - probably scared to since I am his ELDER ! !!:rolleyes:

[phil]

How about "shaping the message and blatant propaganda"? This is exactly what the former administration was doing. Radio Free America had to survive some enormous pressures during the 90's. Radio Free America? I wish it existed.

An April 2006 memo lists instructions to Pentagon staff including:
"Keep elevating the threat"... "Talk about Somalia (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/Somalia), the Philippines (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/The_Philippines) etc. Make the American people realise they are surrounded in the world by violent extremists."
As Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld was deliberate in crafting the public message from the Department of Defense. People will "rally" to the word "sacrifice," Rumsfeld noted after a meeting. "They are looking for leadership. Sacrifice = Victory." In May 2004, Rumsfeld considered whether to redefine the war on terrorism as a fight against "worldwide insurgency." He advised aides "to test what the results could be" if the war on terrorism were renamed. Rumsfeld also ordered specific public Pentagon attacks on and responses to US newspaper columns that reported the negative aspects of the war, which he often personally reviewed before they were sent.
In October 2003, Rumsfeld personally approved a secret Pentagon "roadmap" on public relations, calling for "boundaries" between information operations abroad and the news media at home, but providing for no such limits. The Roadmap advances a policy according to which as long as the US government does not intentionally target the American public, it does not matter that psychological operations (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/Psychological_operations), reach the American public. The Roadmap acknowledges that "information intended for foreign audiences, including public diplomacy and PSYOP, increasingly is consumed by our domestic audience" -- but argues that "the distinction between foreign and domestic audiences becomes more a question of USG [U.S. government] intent rather than information dissemination practices."



Interesting read, it seems that history keeps on repeating its self, you just have to know how it relates!
THIS GUY DOES!:cool:

‘Radio Free America’

on October 21, 2009 4:13:05 | 220 times read

‘Radio Free America’
By Cal Thomas
Tribune Media Services

During the Cold War, the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe were among the broadcast entities that effectively penetrated the Iron Curtain to deliver truth to the “captive nations” that were being fed a steady dose of propaganda by their communist rulers. Those dictators did everything they could to “jam” the signals so that their people would only hear what their unelected overseers wanted them to hear. Contemporary versions of jamming and other forms of censorship occur today in Venezuela, Cuba and many other places where dictators believe public ignorance is essential to their unchallenged rule.
While the Obama administration is the product of an election, its approach to Fox News Channel, conservative talk radio and possibly the Internet appears similar to dictators who desire control over the flow of information in order to enhance their power.
The administration’s primary beef appears to be that Fox is doing the job (http://www.calthomas.com/index.php?news=2740#) the broadcast networks and big newspapers should be doing were they not still deeply in the tank for this president and his policies.
Like those Cold War truth-tellers, Fox is simply delivering information to a rapidly growing audience [more]
http://www.calthomas.com/index.php?news=2740

[nnuut]

"shaping the message and blatant propaganda"?
Thanks Phil, I didn't think I was that smart.:o

[phil]

Propaganda is propaganda. All that I've really seen is right wing propaganda.

[Show-me]

Propaganda is propaganda. All that I've really seen is right wing propaganda.

Well, if you believe in the propaganda on the left. Why would you not think it is the truth? :notrust:

[phil]

I quote facts and figures. See the previous posting concerning the Pentagon's war on terror.

Well, if you believe in the propaganda on the left. Why would you not think it is the truth? :notrust:

[burrocrat]

it's the propoganda you don't see that will get you.

[phil]

But it's the propaganda that I do see that is most disturbing, particularly when it's government supported propaganda.

[nnuut]

Glad you're posting on the Board, we need some competition and you are just the one to do it justice. I do wish you would do just a little more research to justify your opinions though, there is a clarity, transparency in your every word reveals that you are against any ideas that don't agree with your Progressive beliefs. I try to read your posts and digest them as well as I can, but always seem to be way short of agreement with your ideas, in general, but I'm still giving it a try, even though. I do not believe half of what the politicians say regardless of their political affiliation, but question, read between the lines, pay attention to what is said and especially what is not said while searching for their real motives, there's always a hidden agenda, I can spot one in a minute.:D Just more Propaganda!

[phil]

That doesn't bother me. I have a toleration for both dissent and ambiguity.

I think I've researched everything that I've posted. The question remains as to posting what is fact vs. what is opinion. In the Pentagon's case, they posted facts that were merely opinions, similar to the run up to the attack on Iraq. Facts were coming out that were unverified. Should you try to verify them, you were attacked.

These are facts. These are facts that have cost lives and an enormous amount of money.

[WorkFE]

These are facts. These are facts that have cost lives and an enormous amount of money.

By ridding the world of an unstable dictator and his military machine. I don't remember people complaining during the first Gulf War. And those same people stood up and said we should have finished the job. Well Sir. Mission complete.
Unfortunetly our Military is inadequate at Nation rebuilding, especially when you're under the watchful eye of neighbors who have their own agenda.
History will judge our actions. Not you, me or most people alive today.

[nnuut]

What bothers me is there are still people that have no idea why we attacked Good Old Saddam Hussein. IN MY OPINION!!!!! Saddam was our BOY, we put him into power then he misbehaved, became a brutal dictator, way to powerful, was causing Big Trouble in the region and if left unattended might effect our Oil supply. After demonstrating that he was more than an adolescent dictator he attacked Kuwait, that was the straw that broke the camel's back. All of the rest was just part of the show. Then we took him out!! Should we have done it, HELL yes!!:cool:
Saddam Hussein
(1937-2006) President and prime minister of Iraq.
"Saddam Hussein's greatest fault as a leader was his aggressiveness towards some of Iraq's neighbours. The war against Iran had dramatic effects on Iraq's economy and on the development of the country, while the war against Kuwait gave him the symbolic status of "bad boy" of the world. This was true even though the background of the war was complex and the conduct of the occupation forces was mild compared to a number of far more brutal wars around the world at the same time."

http://i-cias.com/e.o/sad_huss.htm

[phil]

Mission accomplished, eh?

Yes. I agree. History will judge our actions.
I wasn't complaining at the time. It was the right answer. It's still the right answer. Just read Cheney's commentary when he was SecDef.
In an assessment that differs sharply with his view today, Dick Cheney more than a decade ago defended the decision to leave Saddam Hussein in power after the first Gulf War, telling a Seattle audience that capturing Saddam wouldn't be worth additional U.S. casualties or the risk of getting "bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."
Cheney, who was secretary of defense at the time, made the observations answering audience questions after a speech to the Discovery Institute in August 1992, nearly 18 months after U.S. forces routed the Iraqi army and liberated Kuwait.

Nothing had changed.


By ridding the world of an unstable dictator and his military machine. I don't remember people complaining during the first Gulf War. And those same people stood up and said we should have finished the job. Well Sir. Mission complete.
Unfortunetly our Military is inadequate at Nation rebuilding, especially when you're under the watchful eye of neighbors who have their own agenda.
History will judge our actions. Not you, me or most people alive today.

[phil]

We didn't seem to have a problem when he was using poison gas on Iranians.


What bothers me is there are still people that have no idea why we attacked Good Old Saddam Hussein. IN MY OPINION!!!!! Saddam was our BOY, we put him into power then he misbehaved, became a brutal dictator, way to powerful, was causing Big Trouble in the region and if left unattended might effect our Oil supply. After demonstrating that he was more than an adolescent dictator he attacked Kuwait, that was the straw that broke the camel's back. All of the rest was just part of the show. Then we took him out!! Should we have done it, HELL yes!!:cool:
Saddam Hussein
(1937-2006) President and prime minister of Iraq.
"Saddam Hussein's greatest fault as a leader was his aggressiveness towards some of Iraq's neighbours. The war against Iran had dramatic effects on Iraq's economy and on the development of the country, while the war against Kuwait gave him the symbolic status of "bad boy" of the world. This was true even though the background of the war was complex and the conduct of the occupation forces was mild compared to a number of far more brutal wars around the world at the same time."

http://i-cias.com/e.o/sad_huss.htm

[Show-me]

We didn't seem to have a problem when he was using poison gas on Iranians.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend comes to mind.;)

[nnuut]

We didn't seem to have a problem when he was using poison gas on Iranians.
Yes like I said"Saddam was a BAD BOY":
He also gassed his own people, the Kurds. Very embarrassing for you know who!:mad:
July 02, 2004

Did Saddam Gas the Kurds? Or was it Reagan?

http://marc.perkel.com/images/rummy-saddam.jpgIt was the 1980s. Saddam was America's puppet in Iraq fighting the Iranians who has just turned into an Islamic state after America's puppet - The Shaw of Iran - died of cancer. Osama bin Laden was our buddy in Afganastan and the Teliban was know as the MujaHadine Freedom Fighters. Reagan was trading arms for hostages to fund an illegal war against the Sandinista-controlled government of Nicaragua. And now Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield was makking oil deal with Saddam Hussein. (pictured here)
We now accuse Saddam of gassing his own people and we want to put him on trial for it. And - if he did it - he deserves to die for it. But America gave Saddam the poison gas that he used to hill the Kurd - gas that he was supposed to use to kill Iranians.[more]
http://marc.perkel.com/archives/000295.html

[phil]

Not necessarily. Sometimes we actually do the right thing. Not doing the right thing is how the Taliban and Sadam Hussein came into existence. On the other hand, we've generally been friendly to most of the countries around the world, and tried to do what's right within reason. Afghanistan wasn't one of them. We really abandoned the region after the end of the cold war. People were pulling out left and right at the time. Programs were shutting down because of the end of the conflict in the region. Very, very shortsighted.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend comes to mind.;)

[Show-me]

They did not have anything that anyone wanted except for the Taliban.

[WorkFE]

Dick Cheney

I believe in the MAJORITY rule. Not what comes out of a politicians mouth Rep. or Dem.
We've abandon the majority rule. Stomp on the many to make a few happy.
Any way if Afganistan was stable right now, the number of elected officials running around taking credit would be astonishing.

[phil]

If Afghanistan were stable right now......and if wishes were fishes we'd all cast nets.


I believe in the MAJORITY rule. Not what comes out of a politicians mouth Rep. or Dem.
We've abandon the majority rule. Stomp on the many to make a few happy.
Any way if Afganistan was stable right now, the number of elected officials running around taking credit would be astonishing.

[WorkFE]

You missed the point.
The number of officials who have gone into media hiding concerning Iraq is incredible. Why, because they are not sure what is going to happen and they want to reserve the right to say I told you so.

"wishes were fishes" :laugh::laugh::laugh: Your so funny

[burrocrat]

phil,

i respect your right to your opinion although i don't often enjoy the way you express it. despite how we each interpret the 'facts', i don't wish to argue with you, actually i do, but i am proud of the restraint i've shown (i'm a legend in my own mind... errr.. time).

no facts here, so dispense with the ad hominem rebuttal, just my opinion.

All that I've really seen is right wing propaganda

then your opinion is dangerously one sided.

But it's the propaganda that I do see that is most disturbing, particularly when it's government supported propaganda.

i think by definition propoganda is government supported, otherwise it's called marketing, or pimping.

[burrocrat]

no matter how you see it, i think we are missing the forest for the trees.

whether you prefer blue or red, it's like two serfs fighting over who gets the fork or the spoon, only to find they both already had a knife conveniently stuck in their back. either way you only get table scraps, and done. this has been going on a long time and there is something else afoot here.

i don't know anybody that is happy with the way things are going, but we waste our time arguing. simple misdirection.

tighten up cuz, before you get tightened up. let's pull together.

[phil]

In what way? In which direction?

[burrocrat]

In what way? In which direction?

the only way to pull, with all you got, forward.

[The HalfBreed]

Propaganda is propaganda. All that I've really seen is right wing propaganda.

:D:D:D

[The HalfBreed]

Well, if you believe in the propaganda on the left. Why would you not think it is the truth? :notrust:

Propaganda is only believing ONE side of the story.
Intelligent people look at the WHOLE, instead of what's closest to them and THEIR beliefs, regardless of opinion.
To form ones own opinion is truly the mark of good decision making skills.

[nnuut]

I think I can say with a reasonable assurance of being correct that both sides of the disagreement on Health Care Reform have used generious helpings of PROPROGANDA!! :cool: Who said that, I said that!!:suspicious:

Propaganda

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6b/Guerre_14-18-Humour-L%27ingordo%2C_trop_dur-1915.JPG/180px-Guerre_14-18-Humour-L%27ingordo%2C_trop_dur-1915.JPG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Guerre_14-18-Humour-L%27ingordo,_trop_dur-1915.JPG) http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Guerre_14-18-Humour-L%27ingordo,_trop_dur-1915.JPG)
French (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France) Propaganda Postcard from World War I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I) era showing a caricature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caricature) of Kaiser Wilhelm II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_II,_German_Emperor) biting the world

Propaganda is a form of communication aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position. As opposed to impartially (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(journalism)) providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie#Lying_by_omission)) to encourage a particular synthesis, or uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the attitude toward the subject in the target audience to further a political (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics) agenda.
Propaganda is neutrally defined as a systematic form of purposeful persuasion that attempts to influence the emotions, attitudes, opinions, and actions of specified target audiences for ideological, political or commercial purposes through the controlled transmission of one-sided messages (which may or may not be factual) via mass and direct media channels."
—Richard Alan Nelson, A Chronology and Glossary of Propaganda in the United States, 1996
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propoganda

[Buster]

I'd like to simplify..

Propaganda = BullSh!t:cool:

[nnuut]

I'd like to simplify..

Propaganda = BullSh!t:cool:
I KNOW, I KNOW!!:cool:

[SkyPilot]

A message communicated as truth to influence the masses to support a particular political agenda. In other words, politics; liberal, conservative or otherwise.

If you do not beleive that YOUR party, movement or assocation is engaged in propagands, then you probably have just adopted their message as "truth".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

[nnuut]

A message communicated as truth to influence the masses to support a particular political agenda. In other words, politics; liberal, conservative or otherwise.

If you do not beleive that YOUR party, movement or assocation is engaged in propagands, then you probably have just adopted their message as "truth".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
Is that the truth, do you have references? Oh, SP, that's right you have to tell the truth, what a burden! No PROPAGANDA here folks!!:D

[SkyPilot]

A message communicated as truth to influence the masses to support a particular political agenda. In other words, politics; liberal, conservative or otherwise.

If you do not beleive that YOUR party, movement or assocation is engaged in propagands, then you probably have just adopted their message as "truth".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

:) :) :)