Wag The Dog Anyone?

[cyprushil]

I feel I should own up to something here, I ripped this whole post from and a forum run and written in by EX Pat Americans.

I just wanted to see the reaction it got, The following was all written by Ex Pat Americans.


" Wag the Dog Anyone? "

"Incredible. The warmongers are shameless. Maybe the worst part is that they seem assured they can lie and never be accountable, that the majority of the US public will never know about the truth. Which suggests an incredible control of the major media there (and an incredible gullibility of the average American?)

"Wonder if anyone will ever be challenged on their bald face lies, General Brooks for instance."



"The Empires new clothes anyone? "


Apologies, but it was something I had to do for myself.



Edit - Including the link to the BBC Website.

[OlderThanDirt]

I've been thinking about this Jessica Lynch thing. A co-worker chided me at work a couple of days ago, saying her rescue had been "dramatized." My reply was along these lines -- "Oh, that's just terrible. I mean, really ... how could anybody get away with dramatizing an otherwise everyday/ordinary event ... such as being behind enemy lines and under risk of death. What kind of DRAMA is there in THAT situation?"

Of course I was being a bit cheeky with her, hehe. But I think there is one possibility no one has thought of. There are two things about the Jessica Lynch scenario that we all KNOW to be factual:

(1) NBC will be releasing a TV-movie based on "her story."
(2) NBC (and their advertisers) wants the widest possible audience for the movie.

Is it the government wagging the dog ... or might it be the film studio trying to hype up the story -- to make certain it's on everybody's lips and everybody's mind to guarantee a "captive" audience for the film? And wouldn't blaming this "dramatizing" on the government be a surefire tool to keep the topic on everyone's front burner of discussion?

[clocker]

OTD,
We now have a "Conspiracy Theories" thread for silliness like that. As you know every other thread here is rigorously rooted in FACT.

[OlderThanDirt]

clocker wrote:

OTD,
We now have a "Conspiracy Theories" thread for silliness like that. As you know every other thread here is rigorously rooted in FACT.

Sorry for being off-topic. I realize that the idea of a film company hyping its own product is preposterous , but, I just couldn't help myself in posting the thought.

[clocker]

No, the concept is very believable.

It's just that if Hollywood had been behind this farce they wouldn't have left as many loose ends.

[OlderThanDirt]

clocker wrote:

It's just that if Hollywood had been behind this farce they wouldn't have left as many loose ends.

On the contrary, "loose ends" are the spice of life ... and talk ... and hype. How much of this "proof" of government dramatization was based on (ahem) "an unnamed source on condition of anonimity?"

[clocker]

I saw interviews with doctors and nurses who were on site.
They didn't seem to be anonymous.

[myfiles3000]

Originally posted by OlderThanDirt@4 June 2003 - 01:06
I've been thinking about this Jessica Lynch thing. A co-worker chided me at work a couple of days ago, saying her rescue had been "dramatized." My reply was along these lines -- "Oh, that's just terrible. I mean, really ... how could anybody get away with dramatizing an otherwise everyday/ordinary event ... such as being behind enemy lines and under risk of death. What kind of DRAMA is there in THAT situation?"

Of course I was being a bit cheeky with her, hehe. But I think there is one possibility no one has thought of. There are two things about the Jessica Lynch scenario that we all KNOW to be factual:

(1) NBC will be releasing a TV-movie based on "her story."
(2) NBC (and their advertisers) wants the widest possible audience for the movie.

Is it the government wagging the dog ... or might it be the film studio trying to hype up the story -- to make certain it's on everybody's lips and everybody's mind to guarantee a "captive" audience for the film? And wouldn't blaming this "dramatizing" on the government be a surefire tool to keep the topic on everyone's front burner of discussion?

okay, thats just plain dumb. The controversy is not about the networks behaviour, an entirely separate issue, but whether or not the government deliberately misled the world regarding the circumstances of lynch's 'rescue.' and there is overwhelming evidence that they did. anyway, i'll lower myself to this level of analysis long enough to point out that the US government and military would not sit back and be made to look like fools just so some network can hype a made for tv movie. jesus.

[OlderThanDirt]

clocker wrote:

I saw interviews with doctors and nurses who were on site.  They didn't seem to be anonymous.

Pardon me for asking but did you see these interviews on "NBC" News? Or was this based on interviews performed by a BBC journalist (who has since been discredited)?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/05/19/...kampener.lynch/

[myfiles3000]

Originally posted by OlderThanDirt@4 June 2003 - 02:00
How much of this "proof" of government dramatization was based on (ahem) "an unnamed source on condition of anonimity?"

otd, now i'm pissed. why not do a little research before you bother to get our attention?! do you an article you'd like to cite? or are you just speculating? i for one do not want to read random, easily-verifiable speculations anymore than i want to know about your bowel movements. so please keep both phenomena to yourself.