Has our 'free' press become military cheerleaders?
After looking at the coverage of ISIS shift from neutral/positive to overly critical after they started to conflict with U.S. hegemony in Iraq. This critical coverage was than used to allow airstrikes in the country that appeared to be synced up to the intended actions of the government. If the press kept their neutral positions or provided positive coverage about their role in the country, than the military would not be able to airstrike. There would be a conflict that could forestall this action and create political ramifications.
Here is an example of one of many press outlets that switch from neutral to overly critical and mentioned women being killed and babies tortured to death.
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/FGBKXoSowbQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
This may be due to threats of violence such as the Michael Hastings, Gary Webb, or Michael Rupert mysterious deaths. There could be financial incentives to the parent company with the ability to obtain or maintain lucrative government contracts. Many of the advertisers have government contracts and can influence the 'free' press in that manner. All of these factors can literally force the media to become state owned with little dissenting opinions from the official narrative.
If the press comes into a conflict to film only the atrocities that a few bad soldiers commit due to the absence of laws and this is the only coverage that is provided here. They should be treated as an enemy combatant. They provided neutral or no coverage of these atrocities when they fought against the Syrian regime to the American people. Now they are selling the fact that this group is pure evil and they deserve to die in an airstrike when 300 billion barrels of oil is on the line. It is clear, they are military cheerleaders and their press badges provide them no protections and they should bring weapons since they are no different than a soldier.
I don't know too much about Foley press coverage that he provided. Was he neutral or ignored the atrocities of this group, than became over-critical when they entered Iraq, in defiance of U.S. hegemony? They were freedom fighters and now they are a repressive force. Or was he objective and presented both positive and negative aspects of a group or event in Syria and Iraq? In this case, being critical in both situation suggests he was not an enemy combatant, killing him made no sense. - he did not flip flop to appease our military dictatorship. He was not fulfilling the role of a military propagandist.
We need objective coverage of a situation to assess whether the government actions were proper and correct before they kill on our behalf. When the fourth estate fails to do its job, we are unable to hold our leadership accountable for their actions.
After looking at the coverage of ISIS shift from neutral/positive to overly critical after they started to conflict with U.S. hegemony in Iraq. This critical coverage was than used to allow airstrikes in the country that appeared to be synced up to the intended actions of the government. If the press kept their neutral positions or provided positive coverage about their role in the country, than the military would not be able to airstrike. There would be a conflict that could forestall this action and create political ramifications.
Here is an example of one of many press outlets that switch from neutral to overly critical and mentioned women being killed and babies tortured to death.
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/FGBKXoSowbQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
This may be due to threats of violence such as the Michael Hastings, Gary Webb, or Michael Rupert mysterious deaths. There could be financial incentives to the parent company with the ability to obtain or maintain lucrative government contracts. Many of the advertisers have government contracts and can influence the 'free' press in that manner. All of these factors can literally force the media to become state owned with little dissenting opinions from the official narrative.
If the press comes into a conflict to film only the atrocities that a few bad soldiers commit due to the absence of laws and this is the only coverage that is provided here. They should be treated as an enemy combatant. They provided neutral or no coverage of these atrocities when they fought against the Syrian regime to the American people. Now they are selling the fact that this group is pure evil and they deserve to die in an airstrike when 300 billion barrels of oil is on the line. It is clear, they are military cheerleaders and their press badges provide them no protections and they should bring weapons since they are no different than a soldier.
I don't know too much about Foley press coverage that he provided. Was he neutral or ignored the atrocities of this group, than became over-critical when they entered Iraq, in defiance of U.S. hegemony? They were freedom fighters and now they are a repressive force. Or was he objective and presented both positive and negative aspects of a group or event in Syria and Iraq? In this case, being critical in both situation suggests he was not an enemy combatant, killing him made no sense. - he did not flip flop to appease our military dictatorship. He was not fulfilling the role of a military propagandist.
We need objective coverage of a situation to assess whether the government actions were proper and correct before they kill on our behalf. When the fourth estate fails to do its job, we are unable to hold our leadership accountable for their actions.
Last edited:
