The media did indeed mislead the public by becoming a part of what they were reporting. The embedding of reporters in Iraq was not only a foolish thing to do, it was wrong.
The Journalists started to become attatched to the troops they were with, and they became "sympathetic towards the cause." This was a conflict of interest. There is no way that the reporter could stay objective in those types of situations. The media seems to have started their own war. They have fought to cover the war in Iraq, and they have become part of the institution.
The higher end people in the journalism field even made deals with the military to create "pools" for other militarily unwanted information to be put. This isn't completely the fault of the Journalists. There was a point in the video where a journalist is challenging a military information guy. He did this so much that he was told to "shut the fuck up." How can we expect the journalists to do a good job covering those types of situations is they aren't allowed to have the whole truth. I really liked the quote "The truth is the first casualty of war."
I can't exactly agree with how the journalists covered operation Iraqi Freedom. First of all, it's not my thing. I wouldn't be over there. Secondly, If I was over there, I would have been covering something other than the soldiers. Possibly the affect of our soldiers being there on the people of Iraq. I find it VERY interesting how Operation Iraqi Freedom was supposed to be Operation Iraqi Liberation...O.I.L.
It's been said that "if voting could really change things, it would be ilegal."
When I looked at this, I realized that not only is it funny, but it is also true. The Presidential election has become something that has become a rat race. Everyone emphasizes on the word CHANGE, but they are only trying to get you to vote for them. They ALL want CHANGE. It also seems as though almost all of the candidates want to change the same things. So...what are we voting for?
This is a very interesting independent film. I know that the source is youtube.com, but there are no credits, so I don't know who made it. First of all there are several types of people in the video. There seems to be every type of person there is. I believe that the film maker meant it to be that way. There are men, women, children, old people, Black people, White people, and Latino people.
The plot of the video is that there is this guy with a set of turntables that can change the outcome of a situation. The man sees an accident, so he takes out his turntables, and turns them backwards. Time begins to reverse, and the man changes the outcome of the accident. This causes a chain reaction where several people get into accidents, or fights.
The Latino people looked as if they were in a gang related incident. There is even a shot of a gun tucked under one of their belts. Later in the film, they are about to get into a confrontation when they see a little girl walk through them. They stop, and look at the little girl. The camera angle shows them from straight ahead, so you can see the size difference between the girl and the men.
There is a Black man in a business suit. He is talking on his cell phone. One of the outcomes is the accident where an old man falls while pushing his wife in a wheel chair (like all old people need a wheel char, not to mention that the MAN is pushing the WOMAN). The woman turns around and sees the black man holding her husband. She proceeds to spray him with pepper spray.
There is a white man who is a drug dealer. He is scruffy looking with a beard. He sees this man dancing for money because he's a student, and he has a sign that says "philosophy major: anything helps." He takes all of his drug money, and puts it in the students tip jar
The turntable man is making this happen. He uses the turn tables to change the lives of people around him. Each action has a re-action. It seemed that everything he did caused another reaction. When he got it just right, everyone seemed to be enticed by a beat that was playing in the music. This caused everyone to see everything differently. This whole video is based off of the music, so could there be a hidden message in there? Does music have the ability to change lives, and "turn back time" in a sense?
1) This message was created by the New York Post
2) I would have to say that the most creative thing that Andy Soltis does to attract my attention is mention that the meat that I could be eating could be from a clone...and I would never know it. I saw the word CLONED, and I had to see what it was. I believe that the headline is quite clever too.
3) I'm pretty sure that this article couldn't be understood any differently. The headline says "Feds haven't got a beef with cloned meat," followed by "clone meat is as safe as any other." This obviously means that the government doesn't frown upon the distribution and digestion of cloned meat products.
4)The values that were not exactly omitted, but not focused on are the views of the people who are against the distribution of cloned meat. There are just two little paragraphs at the end, and I might add that the point that was made in the end is a very valid point.
5)This message is being sent to inform the public about cloned meat. the idea that labs don't have to label cloned meat doesn't seem all that fair in my book. I'm not sure if I want to eat something that was CREATED in a lab. At first this seems a bit unsettling, but it could mean an end to a food crisis. I believe that that is why this message was created. To inform.
FEDS HAVEN'T GOT A BEEF WITH CLONED MEAT
By ANDY SOLTIS
January 16, 2008 -- Cloned meat is as safe as any other.
That's what the federal government said yesterday in removing the last major hurdle that barred genetically duplicated cows, pigs, and other livestock from reaching US markets.
"Meat and milk from cattle, swine and goat clones are as safe as food we eat every day," said Dr. Stephen Sundloff, the Food and Drug Administration's food-safety chief.
The FDA won't require food makers to label if their products came from cloned animals.
But the government has asked animal-cloning companies to continue a voluntary moratorium on sales for a little longer.
The controversy over whether duplicated prized animals could provide safe, top quality food has been raging since 1997 when the Scottish researchers produced the first cloned animal, Dolly, a sheep.
There are now more than 500 cloned animals in the United States, but the livestock industry has so far followed a voluntary ban.
Ironically, yesterday's ruling said more information was needed about cloned sheep like Dolly, but nothing bad had been found in cattle, pigs and goats.
Nevertheless, the Agriculture Department asked the still-tiny cloning industry to extend the voluntary ban during the "transition" period.
Undersecretary Bruce Knight said the voluntary ban was needed for "allowing the marketplace to adjust." He wouldn't say how long the moratorium should continue.
"This is about market acceptance," Knight added.
Several firms, including dairy giant Dean Foods and Hormel Foods, have said that because of consumer anxiety, they have no plans to sell milk or meat from cloned animals.
"The FDA has acted recklessly," said Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.). "Just because something was created in a lab doesn't mean we should have to eat it.
"If we discover a problem with cloned food after it is in our food supply and it's not labeled, the FDA won't be able to recall it like they did Vioxx - the food will already be tainted."
In the previous posts, You can see that the different types of media are discussing a situation in which the United States is trying to convince Iran to halt it's nuclear weapons operations. The Video is an "Inside Story" from Youtube.com. The Article is from the New York Times.
The article is an unbiased piece of journalism. It talks about how the government is coming up with a way to confront Iran about the nuclear capabilities, and in the video, President Bush has already spoken to the United Arabic Emerance, warning them that they needed to stop Iran "before it is too late."
The Biggest difference between the two pieces of media is that one is a news article, and one is a video. I Believe that the video would be the most appealing thing. The video actually shows you some clips from Iran. It also shows a clip from Bush's speech.
The Article was a two pages from nypost.com. I had a really hard time to read all of it while staying interested in the subject. It contained almost all of the same information, but the video had more than one voice. There were four people talking about the same topic. It was a lot easier/efficient to watch the video. I also believe that the video was a lot more informational than the article.
Ultimately, I would say that I prefer the video.
On Iran, Bush Faces Haunting Echoes of Iraq
Article Tools Sponsored By
By DAVID E. SANGER
Published: January 28, 2007
WASHINGTON, Jan. 27 — As President Bush and his aides calibrate how directly to confront Iran, they are discovering that both their words and their strategy are haunted by the echoes of four years ago — when their warnings of terrorist activity and nuclear ambitions were clearly a prelude to war.
This time, they insist, it is different.
“We’re not looking for a fight with Iran,” R. Nicholas Burns, the under secretary of state for policy and the chief negotiator on Iranian issues, said in an interview on Friday evening, just a few hours after Mr. Bush had repeated his warnings to Iran to halt “killing our soldiers” and to stop its drive for nuclear fuel.
Mr. Burns, citing the president’s words, insisted that Washington was committed to “a diplomatic path” — even as it executed a far more aggressive strategy, seizing Iranians in Iraq and attempting to starve Iran of the money it needs to revitalize a precious asset, its oil industry.
Mr. Burns argues that those are defensive steps that are not intended to provoke Iran, though there has been a vigorous behind-the-scenes debate in the administration over whether the more aggressive policy could provoke Iran to strike back. The State Department has tended to counsel caution, while some more hawkish aides in the Pentagon and the White House say the increase in American forces in Iraq could be neutered unless the American military forcefully pushes back against the Iranian aid to the militias.
To many in Washington, especially Mr. Bush’s Democratic critics, the new approach to Iran has all the hallmarks of an administration once again spoiling for a fight.
Some see an attempt to create a diversion, focusing the country’s attention away from a war gone bad in Iraq, and toward a country that has exploited America’s troubles to expand its influence. Others suspect an effort to shift the blame for the spiraling chaos in Iraq, as a steady flow of officials, from the C.I.A. director to the new secretary of defense, cite intelligence that Iranians are smuggling into Iraq sophisticated explosive devices and detailed plans to wipe out Sunni neighborhoods. So far, they have disclosed no evidence. Next week, American military officials are expected to make their most comprehensive case — based on materials seized in recent raids — that Iran’s elite Quds force is behind many of the most lethal attacks.
But as they present their evidence, some Bush administration officials concede they are confronting the bitter legacy of their prewar distortions of the intelligence in Iraq. When speaking under the condition of anonymity, they say the administration’s credibility has been deeply damaged, which would cast doubt on any attempt by Mr. Bush, for example, to back up his claim that Iran’s uranium enrichment program is intended for bomb production.
“It’s never stated explicitly, but clearly we can’t make the case about Iran’s intentions,” said a senior strategist for the Bush administration who joined it long after evidence surfaced that Iraq had none of the illicit weapons that the administration cited as a reason to go to war.
It has not helped that even as the administration is making its case against Iran, the perjury trial of I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, was opening just a few blocks away.
The early testimony in that trial has laid bare again how Mr. Cheney, among others, carefully selected intelligence for use in a political campaign to make the case against Iraq. Now, several years later, the administration is paying the price in dealing with a country whose ability to project power and to build a sophisticated nuclear program is far greater than Saddam Hussein’s was in 2003.
The administration does not have definitive evidence that Iran is moving toward producing a nuclear bomb, but next week it will unveil what officials say is evidence of Iran’s meddling in Iraq.
In interviews over the past several weeks, officials from the Pentagon to the State Department to the White House insist that Mr. Bush’s goal in Iran is not to depose a government, Iraq-style, but rather to throw a series of brushback pitches.
Officials familiar with the intelligence prepared for Mr. Bush say American assessments conclude that Iran sees itself at the head of an alliance to drive the United States out of Iraq, and ultimately out of the Middle East. Other briefings have included assessments that Russia and China will never join meaningful economic sanctions against a country that they do business with, so if Mr. Bush wants to apply military and economic pressure, he must do so outside the United Nations.
One result was a strategy that Mr. Bush approved in the fall to push back on all fronts and to force Iran to recalculate what administration officials call its cost-benefit analysis for challenging the United States. The effort to stop European and Japanese banks from lending money to Iran’s oil sector is part of the equation. So is pushing down the price of oil, though administration officials grow silent when asked whether Mr. Cheney or others have discussed with Saudi Arabia the benefits of pumping enough oil to push the price down and deprive Iran of revenues.
But it is the military component of the strategy that carries the biggest risks. Two aircraft carriers and their accompanying battle groups were sent into the Persian Gulf, a senior military official said, “to remind the Iranians that we can focus on them, too.” American military forces in Iraq were authorized to move against Iranian operatives, though it is unclear what kind of evidence is needed, if any, that they are conspiring against American forces before military action is authorized. American officials describe those measures as purely defensive. “We are definitely looking to protect our interests in the gulf, in Iraq itself, and to protect the lives of our soldiers,” said Mr. Burns, who insisted that there was no effort to stop Iran from ordinary exchanges with Iraq.
Yet administration officials clearly worry that the Iranians may not back down, and that a confrontation could build up — especially if a midlevel American commander or a member of Iran’s military or paramilitary forces in Iraq miscalculated. Both Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates have warned against that risk, officials say.
Administration officials say that while all of Mr. Bush’s advisers have signed on to the strategy of more forceful confrontation with Tehran, there is considerable debate about how far to push it. Some Iran experts at the State Department have warned that encounters between Americans and Iranians inside Iraq could strengthen the hand of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by allowing him to change the subject from his failure to produce jobs and the rising cost of nuclear defiance.
Over the longer run, there is a continuing debate about whether military action may some day be necessary to set back Iran’s nuclear activities. For now American officials say they do not believe they have a good set of targets or the ability to contain Iran’s reaction. “It’s not a question of ideology,” one senior military official said, refusing to talk on the record about military planning. “We simply don’t have the forces to deal with the reaction. They’re busy.”
At the Pentagon, military officials say there are still arguments over the rules for confronting Iranian operatives. Are they legitimate targets simply because they are identified as part of Iran’s military? Or do American forces need evidence that they are importing weapons or sowing chaos? Publicly, officials say the answers to those questions are classified. Privately, a senior official said, “It’s all still a matter of debate.”
In coming weeks, administration officials say, more escalation is likely. The Iranians have told the International Atomic Energy Agency that they will announce in February that they are beginning industrial-scale efforts to produce uranium. It will probably be years before they can produce enough fuel for a bomb.
But the debate over whether the United States should stick to diplomacy or take more forceful action is bound to begin right away, and will sound familiar. Democrats, even while accusing the administration of failing to engage with Iran, are positioning themselves to sound tough.
“To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep all options on the table,” former Senator John Edwards recently told an Israeli security conference. “Let me reiterate — all options.”
For Mr. Bush, this is not only about options but about legacy. Already bloodied in Iraq, he will come under increasing pressure to show that he has not left the United States weakened in the Middle East. He does not want to be remembered for leaving Iran more powerful than he found it when he came to office.
