![](http://scd.mm-c1.yimg.com/image/1171951933"/img)
If you would like on or off the Louisiana Ping list please FReepmail me and your name will be added or taken off of the list.
Posted on 11/19/2005 2:46:24 AM PST by rdmartinjd
There was a positng here some time ago about how the troops feel about embedded reorters. "Despised and distrusted"
Is it any wonder? Yet the drumbeat goes on leading on to disaster in the middle east. But the media doesnt care, because their self hatred of America rages unabated.
18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy making positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
Good analysis. Nice to see you, Rod. :)
Why do we continue to rubber stamp the alphabet networks broadcast licenses in the face of their blatant, overzealous, and extremely partisan misinformation campaigns?
If corporate stations like CBS can convince the FCC that their level of public trust meets their broadcast license agreements, then the FCC is a completely failed agency.
If you want to make people angry, lie to them.
If you want to make them absolutely livid, then tell 'em the truth.
I have a pez dispenser filled with prozac. Truth me! :-)
Iraq Invasion Will Trigger 'Human Catastrophe,' Report Warns
by Larry Johnson
Toronto Star
November 12, 2002
WASHINGTON -- A report to be released today predicts that an invasion of Iraq could lead to a "human catastrophe" with
casualties as high as 250,000 within the first three months.
"Collateral Damage: The Health and Environmental Costs of War on Iraq" was prepared largely by Medact, the British affiliate of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. The U.S. affiliate, Physicians for Social Responsibility, also was involved. Most of the estimated casualties would be Iraqi civilians caught in the bombing, said Bob Schaeffer, a spokesman in Massachusetts for the International Physicians organization. It was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985 for what the committee called its "considerable service to mankind by spreading authoritative information and by creating an awareness of the catastrophic consequences of atomic warfare.''
The study also looks at the impact of an invasion on the public health system and necessities such as agriculture, water and energy, he said.
"We're saying that there'll be a very large short-term impact and an even more profound longer-term impact," Schaeffer said. "The report uses the word `human catastrophe' even if it does not escalate to the level of poison gas, civil war or nuclear weapons.''
The estimates of casualties, he said, range from a low of 50,000 up to 250,000.
James Snyder, spokesman in Washington for Physicians for Social Responsibility, said the report utilizes information
about likely Iraq invasion scenarios as well as knowledge gleaned from study of the 1991 Persian Gulf War and U.S. actions in Somalia and Panama.
Schaeffer said physicians associated with the international organization also had made some inspection tours, and their
findings were factored in.
"The estimates and ranges are based on sound science and previous experience," Snyder said.
There has not been much public data on the extent of possible casualties from an invasion of Iraq.
A number of experts at the Pentagon and elsewhere have discussed the possibility of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein using human
shields and placing military targets within civilian sites, such as hospitals and schools.
Ibrahim Al-Marashi, an analyst at the Monterey Institute of International Studies in California who favors an invasion, said such estimates are extremely difficult because there are so many variables about how a war might unfold.
"The way Saddam would respond is such a wild card in this," he added.
LOL
Iraq Invasion Will Trigger 'Human Catastrophe,' Report Warns
by Larry Johnson
Toronto Star
November 12, 2002
WASHINGTON -- A report to be released today predicts that an invasion of Iraq could lead to a "human catastrophe" with
casualties as high as 250,000 within the first three months.
"Collateral Damage: The Health and Environmental Costs of War on Iraq" was prepared largely by Medact, the British affiliate of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. The U.S. affiliate, Physicians for Social Responsibility, also was involved. Most of the estimated casualties would be Iraqi civilians caught in the bombing, said Bob Schaeffer, a spokesman in Massachusetts for the International Physicians organization. It was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985 for what the committee called its "considerable service to mankind by spreading authoritative information and by creating an awareness of the catastrophic consequences of atomic warfare.''
The study also looks at the impact of an invasion on the public health system and necessities such as agriculture, water and energy, he said.
"We're saying that there'll be a very large short-term impact and an even more profound longer-term impact," Schaeffer said. "The report uses the word `human catastrophe' even if it does not escalate to the level of poison gas, civil war or nuclear weapons.''
The estimates of casualties, he said, range from a low of 50,000 up to 250,000.
James Snyder, spokesman in Washington for Physicians for Social Responsibility, said the report utilizes information
about likely Iraq invasion scenarios as well as knowledge gleaned from study of the 1991 Persian Gulf War and U.S. actions in Somalia and Panama.
Schaeffer said physicians associated with the international organization also had made some inspection tours, and their
findings were factored in.
"The estimates and ranges are based on sound science and previous experience," Snyder said.
There has not been much public data on the extent of possible casualties from an invasion of Iraq.
A number of experts at the Pentagon and elsewhere have discussed the possibility of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein using human
shields and placing military targets within civilian sites, such as hospitals and schools.
Ibrahim Al-Marashi, an analyst at the Monterey Institute of International Studies in California who favors an invasion, said such estimates are extremely difficult because there are so many variables about how a war might unfold.
"The way Saddam would respond is such a wild card in this," he added.
It seems in that scenario the Toronto Star is reporting on a 'projected' report. Which is how I see it as it's supposed to be. They aren't claiming it has already happened.
The big problem is fictional events are being reported as historical truth. Which IOW is flat out lieing to the public for a 'whatever' reason.
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus (False in one thing, false in everything) -- Maxim of the law.
Thank you so much for posting this. Louisiana has enough honest to goodness problems to keep the media happy. If they would have simply reported the facts and dug up the corruption in the Louisiana Democratic party they could have been part of the overall clean up of the state. That of course does not meet their agenda though.
The out and out lies and distortions have made the recovery much harder because of the hype. The one's most hurt are the hard working folks who now have to justify getting some help in their time of need.
If you would like on or off the Louisiana Ping list please FReepmail me and your name will be added or taken off of the list.
Sounds good to me! I stayed in Metairie (a part of Greater New Orleans) during the Hurricane. What little TV we were able to see I heard all the lyes as well. I was really afraid - not of Katrina but what was supposedly happening afterwards. My son put a shotgun for me inside my door and told me to shoot whatever comes through. At night we were waiting for gangs to bust down the doors. Of course, none of that happened, but it put further stress on an otherwise VERY stressful situation. for the most part the MEDIA sucks! There was looting though, and we saw that ourselves.
But, but, the media's not liberal. They're corporate shills, bought and paid for by Bushco. I know that because DU tells me that every day. /crazed, conspiratorial leftist mode
The diagnosis is obvious but, with respect, the treatment is badly off-target. The First Amendment is not susceptible of improvement; what we must have is actual adherence to it. Which, at this point, would be a radical departure from current practice.It is not true that we have a right to the truth. If you and I each have the First Amendment right to speak our own mind, and if you don't agree with me, one of us is wrong - and, by the "objective journalism" theory, that one should be censored. But who decides which one of us is wrong? The government?
The First Amendment forbids the government to assume that role. What sense would it make to assign to we-the-people the role of electing our government, while allowing the government to define the truth which we must not contradict? No, the First Amendment is right, and it is actions of the federal government which subvert the First Amendment which are wrong.
How does the government subvert the First Amendment? The most famous instance is "Campaign Finance Reform" - censorship of criticism of incumbents right before an election, when it might do some good. But the 800-pound gorilla in the living room is government-licensed broadcast journalism.
The FCC plans to switch the broadcast bands from analog to digital, which will be more efficient but will make all non-digital receivers obsolete. And that some has politicians proposing to give digital converters to poor people who can't afford them. But my point is that the issue raises the question as to whether the government has any obligation to people who bought analog receivers. And that is a troubling First Amendment issue. Does the purchase of a receiver give you the right to know something? What? Do the broadcasters have the right to not be objective? Who defines objectivity? Is anyone objective enough to decide whether others are objective?
To me, on that issue the First Amendment is clear - and clearly violated by the FCC. We don't have the right to the truth, we only have the right to our own opinion - and the right to speak or otherwise transmit our opinions to interested fellow citizens without government intervention. That means that if you have a right to print, I have a right to print - on my own dime. I don't get government subsidies for printing, and neither do you.
But government censorship of you and me, in the form of prosecution of all who broadcast without an FCC license, turns the First Amendment on its head. The only "justification" put forward for this censorship is the "necessity" for broadcasting of factual information. If you restrict that to the traffic and weather reports, that would be unobjectionable and actually realistic.
But of course the real problem is the broadcasting of putatively "objective news" which is politically tendentious. The answer to that should be simple: sue the socks off the FCC and its licensees for claiming to be objective while provably being tendentious in particular cases. The cases I would choose would be the calling of Florida while the polls were still open in 2000, and the fraudulent TANG memo broadcast during the 2004 campaign. Those torts should be brought in civil court, and the FCC should end up on a watch list alongside of white men who have to avoid the appearance of racial discrimination.
It is not necessary to knock Rush Limbaugh off the air; the thing to knock off the air is the putatively objective CBS News.
Why Broadcast Journalism is Unnecessary and Illegitimate
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.