View Single Post
Old 06-25-2006
tecpaocelotl's Avatar
tecpaocelotl tecpaocelotl is offline
The one and only
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cali
Posts: 27,690
Send a message via AIM to tecpaocelotl Send a message via MSN to tecpaocelotl Send a message via Yahoo to tecpaocelotl Send a message via Skype™ to tecpaocelotl

Found an interesting article:
Media coverage of WMD

In 2004 the Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM) released a report ([19]) examining the media’s coverage of WMD issues during three separate periods: India’s nuclear weapons tests in May 1998; the US announcement of evidence of a North Korean nuclear weapons program in October 2002; and revelations about Iran's nuclear program in May 2003. The CISSM report notes that poor coverage resulted less from political bias among the media than from tired journalistic conventions. The report’s major findings were that:
  1. Most media outlets represented WMD as a monolithic menace, failing to adequately distinguish between weapons programs and actual weapons or to address the real differences among chemical, biological, nuclear, and radiological weapons.
  2. Most journalists accepted the Bush administration’s formulation of the “War on Terror” as a campaign against WMD, in contrast to coverage during the Clinton era, when many journalists made careful distinctions between acts of terrorism and the acquisition and use of WMD.
  3. Many stories stenographically reported the incumbent administration’s perspective on WMD, giving too little critical examination of the way officials framed the events, issues, threats, and policy options.
  4. Too few stories proffered alternative perspectives to official line, a problem exacerbated by the journalistic prioritizing of breaking-news stories and the “inverted pyramid” style of storytelling.
Retired military weapons, munitions, and training expert, SFC Red Thomas, attributes poor public understanding of weapons of mass destruction to the media and entertainment:
"Forget everything you've ever seen on TV, in the movies, or read in a novel about this stuff, it was all a lie." ([20]) Thomas explains the differences between different types of weapons considered to be WMD because of perceived ignorance among the media.
In a separate study published in 2005 ([21]), a group of researchers assessed the effects reports and retractions in the media had on people’s memory regarding the search for WMD in Iraq during the 2003 Iraq War. The study focused on populations in two coalition countries (Australia and USA) and one opposed to the war (Germany). Results showed that US citizens generally did not correct initial misconceptions regarding WMD, even following disconfirmation; Australian and German citizens were more responsive to retractions. Dependence on the initial source of information led to a substantial minority of Americans exhibiting false memory that WMD were indeed discovered, while they were not. This led to three conclusions:
  1. The repetition of tentative news stories, even if they are subsequently disconfirmed, can assist in the creation of false memories in a substantial proportion of people.
  2. Once information is published, its subsequent correction does not alter people's beliefs unless they are suspicious about the motives underlying the events the news stories are about.
  3. When people ignore corrections, they do so irrespective of how certain they are that the corrections occurred.
Even though WMD were found in Iraq at least one time (disclosed to the public June 21, 2006) in which more than 300 enriched forms of Mustard and Sarin gas were discovered to be in the hands of Saddam Hussein, a poll conducted between June and September of 2003 asked whether they thought WMD had been discovered in Iraq since the war ended. They were also asked which media sources they relied upon. Those who incorrectly believed WMD had been discovered were three times more likely to obtain their news primarily from Fox News than from PBS and NPR, and ten percent more likely to have obtained their news primarily from Fox News than CBS, Fox's runner-up.
Media source Respondents believing WMD had been found in Iraq since the war ended Fox 33% CBS 23% NBC 20% CNN 20% ABC 19% Print media 17% PBS-NPR 11% Based on a series of polls taken from June-September 2003. Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War, PIPA, October 2, 2003.
Some people believe that Iraq moved their WMDs to neighbouring countries, notably Syria, before the war began. There are multiple reasons for suspicion, but no evidence of Iraq doing this.
However, recent State Department documents declassified in 2006 cite hundreds of weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq, but according to the Defense Department these were unusable, degraded, pre-1991 weapons. [2]

Originally Posted by Ceyaotl
You contradict yourself by stating we don't need flags then refer to the American and Mexican flag, which I have both in my bar area of the house. Also just because border security sucks that doesn't make you a nomad. The fact that Raza comes here all the time to work does not make them nomads either. If they had a choice believe me they would stay put in Mexico with their families. Not trying to be any way but you are making your reallity what you want it to be. That is your thing and that is cool i guess.
People having two flags to try to define themselves so no, I'm not counterdicting myself.

Going from one side to another does not make me a nomad. Moving from one place to another without somewhere to call home makes me a nomad.
"Don't Demonstrate, Infiltrate! From within you can help those without." -Jorge Le Rand

"Tehan tohtocazqueh to tamatcayotl can cachi chicahuac." - David Vazquez
Reply With Quote