I'm not saying anything. I'm just stepping back and taking a skeptical view of things and not accepting everything that's spoon-fed to the public at face value.
I'm sorry to see you think I should.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Law and order returns to Baghdad...
- Thread starter pseudobrit
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm not saying anything. I'm just stepping back and taking a skeptical view of things and not accepting everything that's spoon-fed to the public at face value.
I'm sorry to see you think I should.
caveman_uk:
toontra:
pseudobrit:
Consistientcy is nice, perhaps, but ability to change opinions is better.
toontra:
Quite flexable. I've wavered a fair amount about the war being right or wrong. I've been clued to news pages, I've read about and understood the casuaty figures.
pseudobrit:
I have yet to read you post anything that doesn't attack the goverment's position on the war, on protest control, and now on the aftermath of the war. You'll probably be posting complaints as a new government is set up in Iraq. I seriously doubt that you are ever going to say anything positive about it at all, no matter what. You are coming accross as an inverted version of "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all".
You've surpased sceptisism long ago. Now it seems you only exist to find faults.
You try to hide behind "thinking for yourself" when all you do is post a zoomed out picture and post your thought-deprived "low turnout implies noone cares" comment. Think for yourself about reasons why people might not be out. They may fear looters, they may fear the Americains, they may fear being killed by loyalists, and they may not have even known it was happening, not to mention that even getting around in a city that size has got to be difficult and dangerous. It is probably the case that a smallish chunk of Iraqi civilians liked Saddam, a largish chunk probably hated him but doesn't trust the USofA either. In my view, a turnout of a only few hundred is far from a sign that Iraqis would rather have Saddam.
Skepticism IS finding faults, that's the bloody definition of the goddamned word!
Sheesh!
___
Well, as I see things right now, the world is going to s__. So, yeah, I might fail to see the finer points of life.
It's like going to the car wash right before you drive into a semi -- at least it looked clean and was vacuumed out before it hit. I'm sorry if I don't care about how good the wax job is.
pseudobrit:
zimv20:
I did envision a larger volume of people from reading, however.
Interestingly, dictionary.com seems to think it is "A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind". I would place your state of mind in the "negative, agressive, hostile" area.
zimv20:
Well, I don't watch TV so I don't know how they made it look there.
I did envision a larger volume of people from reading, however.Originally posted by ddtlm
Well, I don't watch TV so I don't know how they made it look there.
i try not to watch much TV either, but i did see several news outlets broadcast the event.
all the crowd frames were pretty close up. the shot of the statue as it was falling was shot from ground level and the camera was tilted up (it was a big statue), so there was no crowd shown there.
the shots of it hitting the ground (and almost killing some people) were pretty close. there was a marine in the immediate foreground holding someone back, then a close up of several people hitting the statue once it was on the ground (camera tilted down).
one fairly close shot had its frame full of people; that's the one that made me think there were thousands of people there.
zimv20:
Yeah, that sounds like what the media would do. Action, people, excitement. The media would avoid showing the true size of the croud to save people from having to ask questions like "why so few?" even if it could be explained away. Another reason not to watch TV news.
Yeah, that sounds like what the media would do. Action, people, excitement. The media would avoid showing the true size of the croud to save people from having to ask questions like "why so few?" even if it could be explained away. Another reason not to watch TV news.
How about what the Times of India has to say about Bagdad (or as I like to call it "B-diddy"). Slightly different point of view than what you'll hear from the U.S. government.
peterjhill:
What I'd like to see is a media outlet that mixed in stories like that with storied about people that didn't get their families messed up, mixed in with stories about people that are happy. I want a big picture. With 5 million or so people in the city, that story may very well be one in one thousand.
What I'd like to see is a media outlet that mixed in stories like that with storied about people that didn't get their families messed up, mixed in with stories about people that are happy. I want a big picture. With 5 million or so people in the city, that story may very well be one in one thousand.
Or maybe that story doesn't exist, or isn't relevant.
"and in other news, nothing happened to samir today. Samir? tell us how your day went..."
Unfortunately, in our media, we're aren't seeing the stories of people's lives messed up at all because they're too busy having an orgasm on-air over the statue falling. That's which way the slant's headed.
So in other words, what you'd "like to see" is actually being portrayed. You got your wish.
Not sure how I was being confrontational.
When I'm being nasty, I usually know...
I'm just being glib.
pseudobrit:
Well, some parts of communication are always imprecise. Analog.
Back to your previous post then, I think that there would definately be value in just strolling around the city and asking lots of random people what they think. Get dozens of accounts, wrap it up in an hour-long special. I'd love it, but who knows if enough other people would.
Well, some parts of communication are always imprecise. Analog.
Back to your previous post then, I think that there would definately be value in just strolling around the city and asking lots of random people what they think. Get dozens of accounts, wrap it up in an hour-long special. I'd love it, but who knows if enough other people would.
So it appears that the event was reported in a way favorable to US interests. It's not a good idea to do otherwise.