March 25th, 2003
|jimbojones||12:19 pm - It's not enough that we propagandize our OWN citizens...|
The U.S. ambassador to Canada let fly at the Canadian government Tuesday, complaining about its lack of support for the Iraq war and its failure to discipline Liberals who criticize the U.S. ... he said Ottawa "could do a better job" at controlling Liberals, like Natural Resources Minister Herb Dhaliwal, who said last week that U.S. President George Bush lacks statesmanlike qualities.http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/03/25/cellucci030325
So forget our OWN free speech for a moment, even our NEIGHBORING ALLIES aren't allowed to speak their own political opinion inside their own borders? They're supposed to "control their liberals" so as to make sure that they don't voice any possible question of our policies?
Incidentally, there's also a very good piece on CBC concerning the political opinion of US invasion in Iraq from Iraq's neighboring countries here. I'd sure as hell feel a lot better if that kind of information was being delivered by our OWN media - I'm glad that I have the internet so that I CAN find things like that when I need to from other countries' media, but it disturbs the hell out of me that our own mainstream media machine is so biased and politically controlled that it won't run similar pieces itself.
Current Mood: cynical
Current Music: A Tribe Called Quest - Midnight Marauder's Tour Guide
| ||From: daleth|
Date: March 25th, 2003 - 11:24 am
Oh yes, definitely big anti-war movements...But according to the polls
I've seen, there seem to be more people in favor of the war than against it (and this is supported by the people I've talked to at the bar, who mostly sit there watching the news going "bomb the bastards!"). Of course, polls are rather unreliable things, with varying results depending on where they're taken and who's taking the poll, and sitting in a bar isn't exactly active research on opinions.
But I've seen some of the media here giving attention to the political conditions, although it's generally the smaller papers and such, and their columns tend to be more opinion-based than fact-based, but you're right that the major media is doing just this side of nothing to show interest in the anti-war side of the news, except for covering anti-war rallies. I still stand by my opinion that it's because they don't think it'd sell...After all, the primary motivation for running any company is profit, and media companies aren't excluded from this.
If you want a good example of patriotism selling, then take a look at the 9/11 incident. No media source I know of noted that 5,000 lives wasn't actually an extremely large amount, compared to the amount of people that starve to death every day. They also didn't worry about a lot of other results of the incident, and mostly just promoted patriotism...This could be a result of government control, but I think it's more likely a result of the fact that any paper overly criticising our reaction to the whole thing would have quickly been labelled as anti-american and sales would have dropped sharply.