Compare and debunk (Round Two)
Published October 25, 2004
Information is everywhere and if you want it, you can get it — on any subject. The internet is an amazing tool for research but at the same time it can provide a lot of bogus information and propaganda. This election season there is so much information out there (true and false) that it really does make it hard to make a truly informed decision on the candidates. One minute you're getting information from what is considered to be a reliable source and then the next minute Tom Brokaw is telling you the opposite. Mass media has become incredibly partisan over the last few years and that only adds to the fog of mis-information.
So where do you collect reliable information? How do you know that it's the truth and not just blowhard opinion? The bottom line is that if you truly care about the issues you will do everything in your power to determine what is the truth and what is propaganda. I know that's easier said than done and I know that the media does not make it easy for you at all.
So how do you determine truth from bogus fiction? You have to do a lot of research and base your final decision on facts. That's right folks, the cold hard facts.
Let me clarify one thing too, the information that comes out of the White House is not fact. The information that spews from most of the news networks is not fact. Most of the time the networks are just parroting what comes out of the White House or offering what we call opinion and THAT is not fact. Some would say that is exactly what I provide here but I am hopefully going to challenge that right now.
There is also one more issue that you need to be aware of if you are part of the unenlightened. If you get information from Hanity, Al Frankin, Savage, Rush, O'Reilly, or even your local talk radio you are only getting half the story. The story very well may be true, and the pundits are damn convincing if it's not. But the fact remains that you are only getting half the story.
Let me give you an example. I recently heard some stats on the stories that Bill O'Reilly and Fox News has covered. Over a period of time O'Reilly covered the Abu Gharib prision scandal something like 2-3 times but covered the Lacy Peterson story some 20 times on his show when the scandal first broke. So, why is that you wonder? It's because O'Reilly is a right leaning pundit and he supports the president. He will do what he can to try to downplay the administrations faults. Some might say the entire network follows this model but that's for another rant and another day. Rush Limbaugh is the same way. He plays up the positive and spins the negative into your brain until you are brainwashed.
- Compare and debunk (Round Two)
- Published: October 25, 2004
- Type:
- Section: Politics
- Writer: Christopher Auman
- Christopher Auman's BC Writer page
- Christopher Auman's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
If you want to watch the documentary STOLEN HONOR: Wounds that Never Heal, which was supposed to run on the Sinclair stations, but was abandoned after the Kerry campaign's threats of lawsuits and boycotts:
CLICK HERE
Yo, Telly, you are depriving those people of $5 per view. Many insurers will not cover longterm psychiatric help. The Swift Vets need all the psychiatric help they can get. So, I encourage people to pay the viewing charge. Perhaps some of the money will go to that worthy cause.
I did some checking. Apparently, people refused to pay $5 to see "Stolen Honor." (Could that be a message to the Swift Vets?) So, they've given up on selling it and are offering it for free. Telly's promo is misleading. It is a viewing, not a download. And, the viewer is the atrocious Windows Media Player. Tiny, tiny window. I suspect that peer-to-peer networks have the video, too. It is probably wiser to download it from them. You can watch it at your leisure in a better viewer, such as Quicktime.
Vensid, I had meant to congratulate you on an fine post. Sorry I got distracted.
Kerry is the primary witness to his own
heroism. He has shaky corroboration from
a very few shipmates and Rasmussen. The
swift boat veterans number in the dozens
and his fellow commanders of the period
overwhelmingly condemn him. The swift
boat veterans (except those on his boat)
unanimously dispute Kerry's account of
the Bronze medal action. One exception,
the commander who was knocked out by the
mine exploding under his boat.
These are honorable men that you are calling liars and nutcases.
Your ostensible reason is that you trust
the guy who wrote the action reports
that cast himself as the hero.
I am inclined to believe the men who went
on with their lives the last 30 years
over the Undertaker who wrapped himself
in the flag and tried to parlay a likely
fictional account of his own heroism 30+
years ago into the presidency.
A pox on you.
Roscoe.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/21386)
Excellent research.
Bush supporters are going to continue to "believe" that Kerry switched positions.The problem is that propaganda wins over truth, every time. Simply repeat a lie and it becomes the accepted truth. I've often said that this administration has the best communications machine I have ever seen (and I've been in advertising and marketing for decades).
So even though, for instance, Kerry very specifically said:
Lies work, as this administration proves again and again every day.
If only I could grant his supporters the skills of critical thinking and reason ...
Keep it up.