Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

The Media Has Failed Us too Many times

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Media Has Failed Us too Many times

    If we rely on the media to tell us the truth, then it has failed us too many times. When I say "us," I'm talking about people in general and not from a political (Republican vs. Democrat) perspective.

    To me, it is about telling the truth, unfortunately there are limitations in truth-telling since the media as a whole is a group of businesses.

    I believe there was a significant amount of voter fraud in the elections. Such a thing has most likely has existed since the beginning, but no one seems to cover it with due diligence. Therefore, the media has failed again.

    Of course the Left will agree with what I say more than the Right, but just consider that I am about telling the truth and just being morally responsible. There is no money-making capitalist motive behind me spending my precious time posting here.

    I'll start off in favor with the Right with the Dan Rather incedent. Dan Rather made a report against Bush quoting forged documents. Of course this is unacceptable. It was corrected. It was debunked. Rather apologized.

    Now on to events that I consider even more important:

    Just as the Dan Rather incedent shows that you can't always believe what the media says, also important-- maybe more important-- is that you can't rely on the media simply to cover the most important issues or events, nor uncover the truth behind certain events.

    Some of the biggest issues that the "mainstream media" has not covered include:

    1. The Bush admin is an extreme right wing group of neo-cons who are driven by the ideology outlined in the Plan For the New American Century.

    2. The main reason, if not the sole true reason, that we are in Iraq is because of our interest in OIL.

    3. The fall of Baghdad where the statue fell was a staged event, just as much as Bush's carrier landing and "Mission Accomplished" message was.

    No one has the balls to uncover propoganda and deception at it's finest. I don't care that I'm an American; when something is wrong, I say it's wrong. I don't care if we, the Germans, French, or British are behind it. When it's wrong, it's wrong.

    These are glaring examples of why the media has let us down. The most important way they let us down is that after 9/11, they took a soft "we must stand united" approach and fully supported Bush in his call to war. Now look where we are. They were never hard enough on Bush once it was understood that there were no WMDs. They time and time again allowed him to avoid answering questions. They allow Bush to not admit any mistakes when they and a lot of people know that he has made very big mistakes in his decision making.

    Now look where we are today. The Bush administration says it has a "mandate" to do whatever it wants. I don't know about you but that's a bit scary sounding. And so the fighting in Iraq escalates and Bush intends to ban gay marriage across America.

    What can I conclude? We can no longer rely on the news to tell us the truth? Our liberties are slowly but surely being taken away? What new provisions will be in an updated Patriot Act? Will they begin to regulate the internet?

    It is said that the "mainstream media" is skewed to the left and is "Liberal." I say that that's a bunch of Conservative B.S. Not true when the media is beholden to the almighty dollar.
    \"Bush\'s army of barmy bigots is the worst thing that\'s happened to the US in some years...\"
    Michael Moorcock - 3am Magazine Interview

  • #2
    See this do you think they'll follow through? British celebs said the same thing when Labour got elected in 97 but they copped out. Still the article sems to suggest that some are serious about moving to Canada, Ireland or the UK.
    Arioch, aid me! Blood and souls for Arioch!


    • #3
      A good question to ask is "How much damage can Bush do in four more years?"

      If another neo-con gets elected in 2008, I say: "Run for your lives!!"

      \"Bush\'s army of barmy bigots is the worst thing that\'s happened to the US in some years...\"
      Michael Moorcock - 3am Magazine Interview


      • #4
        Check this out if you like. I don't know how good it is, but maybe you'll find it interesting one way or another.
        You can't spell "politically correct" without "correct".


        • #5
          What compelled me to write the opening blog of this thread wasn't Bush being re-elected. My doubts of the media were solidified from watching the opinions of famous pundit, Chris Matthews.

          Chris Matthews. Hit show, Hardball on MSNBC. Regularly satirized on Saturday Night Live. Thought of as someone who asks the hard questions. Interviewed Donald Rumsfeld and asked him if he personally advised Bush in his decision to invade Iraq. Interviewed Zell Miller at the Republican National Convention and was virtually challenged to a duel.

          I used to like Matthews; I used to enjoy his show, but there was one incedent that changed my mind, showing me that he is just a peon in a corporate machine.

          After the second debate, the one following the Vice Presidential debate, his position was that that George Bush won the debate. I watched the debate in its entirity. My reaction to Matthews conclusion was: "What the fuck?" What debate was he watching? I was convinced that Matthews, a pundit who leans to the left, was told by his superiors in advance to take the position that he took.

          I watched all of the debates. Bush lost all of them. How could he win? His opponent is a good debater possessing high intellect and is very articulate. We all know about Bush. He's a poor speaker who doesn't like press conferences because he knows he's a bad speaker. A man ridiculed on a regular basis because of his butchering of the English language; riduculed for the fumbling of his intended messages on a regular basis. The man who was obviously uncomfortable in the first debate, sneering, hunched over, shuffling his feet.

          Most importantly, the second debate was focused on foreign policy, wherein lies the greatest mistakes of Bush. Ironically, Bush claimed that foreign policy is one of his greatest strengths. He's a "War President" who is "decisive." You "know what he means," and he "stays the course." Through Bush's (Rove's) strategy of propoganda (deceit and duplicity), anything that Bush touches turns to gold. And when the message comes out of his mouth, it sounds just like that-- a good bullshit story.

          When I saw Chris Matthews say that Bush won the second debate, I shook my head. I knew that he was nothing but a peon and a cog in the Political Bullshit Machine.
          \"Bush\'s army of barmy bigots is the worst thing that\'s happened to the US in some years...\"
          Michael Moorcock - 3am Magazine Interview


          • #6
            A few observations that I think are germaine to this thread...

            The supposedly liberal media turned it's head to too much in the past three years. It seems that 9/11 prompted them to suspend their real investigative obligations. Analysis increasingly consists of two pundits shouting at each other, instead of someone actually finding out what is happening in the world. Shame on them. More importantly, they let press secretaries determine the news agenda, rather than setting it themselves. Silence from the White House about an issue usually meant silence about it from media outlets. It took three days for the White House to actually talk about the cache of explosive that went missing in Iraq, which was discovered right before the elections. Sadly, the media waited for the White House to address the issue the first two days. They didn't pressure the administration for two days--two days!-- when it became clear that they weren't going to get a statement. I thought the press was supposed to repond to events, not allow others to shape the event first.

            What really interests me is that conservative critics of the media treat the mainstream media as if they are the protectors of the liberal elite. I certainly agree that the media has, at least by default, protected the elite, but not the liberal elite. Most media outlets are owned by corporations. Last I checked, the liberal elite aren't represented in their boardrooms.

            Perhaps the most damning evidence of the media shirking their responsibilities lies in misconceptions about what is rapidly becoming the definitive event of the last four years and, perhaps, our future. Two years after 9/11, 70% of the American population felt that Saddam and Iraq were directly involved with the attacks. One pre-election poll found that over half of the voting public still thought that way. When we don't get enough information (or the right information) to understand such a definitive event, I wonder what else we may be missing, even when we seek the information ourselves.

            Oops. I've rambled and ranted. :)


            • #7
              The MediaLens site might interest folks:
              Keep up that ramblin' and rantin'! :D
              \" ape reft of his tail, and grown rusty at climbing, who yet feels himself to be a symbol and the frail representative of Omnipotence in a place that is not home.\" James Branch Cabell


              • #8
                Thanks for that Mikey
                stat: He US dollar has fallen 30% since Bush has been in office.
                Euro = $1.30

                Total Insecurity: The Myth of American Omnipotence

                by Carol Brightman


                "This National Book Critics Circle Award winner exposes the hidden war over Iraq, shows why it spells doom for American economic power and reflects on the revival of dissent.

                Now that we know the public was duped by an administration looking for politically saleable motives for a “pre-emptive� invasion of Iraq, the question is: Why did the US invade? Carol Brightman takes us through the various stages of the war, documenting the unexpected defeat of the “coalition� at the hands of the Iraqi resistance and pondering the significance of this loss for America's vaunted military supremacy. She then returns to confront the unanswered question with another. Why, in spite of both military and political defeats, does the US want permanent bases in Iraq?"
                \"Bush\'s army of barmy bigots is the worst thing that\'s happened to the US in some years...\"
                Michael Moorcock - 3am Magazine Interview


                • #9
                  As an aside to the first part of Jericho's post I thought this might be relevant,00.html Let's hope he's wrong. Will Hutton not Jericho that is.
                  Arioch, aid me! Blood and souls for Arioch!


                  • #10
                    Time will tell!
                    Bush has only 4 years to do as much damage as he can. Will that be enough time to wreak catastrophe?

                    He has done plenty of damage already and more and more people are jumping ship.

                    Colin Powell's out.
                    \"Bush\'s army of barmy bigots is the worst thing that\'s happened to the US in some years...\"
                    Michael Moorcock - 3am Magazine Interview


                    • #11
                      What Big Government does 4 U ??

                      Mo' FURL

                      It really is a good source of useful information.

                      This time I found something sure to get someone's dander up.


                      This one is not just for all you TV watchers, but for anyone who thinks big government is a bad idea, especially when it acts on behalf of fringe groups.

                      It's about what a blogger found out after filing a Freedom of Information Act request for all of the 159 complaints the FCC cited in fining Fox Televison $1.2 million for broadcasting indecent material.

                      That's about one complaint for every million people, meaning that it was not a majority of citizens in the first instance, nor indicative of what counts as 'indecency'. With those kind of numbers, it looks like the FCC is charging about $7000 for each complaint.

                      But those numbers are pretty loose. All of the numbers are loose. Including the number of complaints. That's what makes the story important.
                      \"Bush\'s army of barmy bigots is the worst thing that\'s happened to the US in some years...\"
                      Michael Moorcock - 3am Magazine Interview


                      • #12
                        Something I found which might be of interest...


                        February 1982. Despite objections from Congress, President Reagan removes Iraq from its list of known terrorist countries. (1)

                        December 1982. Hughes Aircraft ships 60 Defender helicopters to Iraq. (9)

                        1982-1988. Defense Intelligence Agency provides detailed information for Iraq on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for air strikes and bomb damage assessments. (4)

                        November 1983. A National Security Directive states that the U.S would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing its war with Iran. (1) (15)

                        November 1983. Banca Nazionale del Lavoro of Italy and its Branch in Atlanta begin to funnel $5 billion in unreported loans to Iraq. Iraq, with the blessing and official approval of the U.S. government, purchased computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other
                        industrial goods for Iraq's missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. (14)

                        October 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act. (16)

                        November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians. (1)

                        December 20 1983. Donald Rumsfeld, then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support. (1) (15)

                        July 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. (19)

                        January 14 1984. State Department memo acknowledges United States shipment of "dual-use" export hardware and technology. Dual use items are civilian items such as heavy trucks, armored ambulances and communications gear as well as industrial technology that can have a military application. (2)

                        March 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the U.S. becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons. (10)

                        May 1986. The U.S. Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. (3)

                        May 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. (7)

                        March 1987. President Reagan bows to the findings of the Tower Commission admitting the sale of arms to Iran in exchange for hostages. Oliver North uses the profits from the sale to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua. (17)

                        Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq. (1)

                        February 1988. Saddam Hussein begins the "Anfal" campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq. The Iraq regime used chemical weapons against the Kurds killing over 100,000 civilians and destroying over 1,200 Kurdish villages. (8 )

                        April 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas. (7)

                        August 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. By this time the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925. (6) (13)

                        August 1988. Iraq and Iran declare a cease fire. (8 )

                        August 1988. Five days after the cease fire Saddam Hussein sends his planes and helicopters to northern Iraq to begin massive chemical attacks against the Kurds. (8 )

                        September 1988. U.S. Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq. (7)

                        September 1988. Richard Murphy, Assistant Secretary of State: "The US-Iraqi relationship is... important to our long-term political and economic objectives." (15)

                        December 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons. (1)

                        July 25, 1990. U.S. Ambassador to Baghdad meets with Hussein to assure him that President Bush "wanted better and deeper relations." Many believe this visit was a trap set for Hussein. A month later Hussein invaded Kuwait thinking the U.S. would not respond. (12)

                        August 1990. Iraq invades Kuwait. The precursor to the Gulf War. (8 )

                        July 1991. The Financial Times of London reveals that a Florida chemical company had produced and shipped cyanide to Iraq during the 80's using a special CIA courier. Cyanide was used extensively against the Iranians. (11)

                        August 1991. Christopher Droguol of Atlanta's branch of Banca Nazionale del Lavoro is arrested for his role in supplying loans to Iraq for the purchase of military supplies. He is charged with 347 counts of felony. Droguol is found guilty, but U.S. officials plead innocent of any knowledge of his crime. (14)

                        June 1992. Ted Koppel of ABC Nightline reports: "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush, Sr., operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into [an aggressive power]." (5)

                        July 1992. "The Bush administration deliberately, not inadvertently, helped to arm Iraq by allowing U.S. technology to be shipped to Iraqi military and to Iraqi defense factories... Throughout the course of the Bush administration, U.S. and foreign firms were granted export licenses to ship U.S. technology directly to Iraqi weapons facilities despite ample evidence showing that these factories were producing weapons." Representative Henry Gonzalez, Texas, testimony before the House. (18 )

                        February 1994. Senator Riegle from Michigan, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, testifies before the senate revealing large U.S. shipments of dual-use biological and chemical agents to Iraq that may have been used against U.S. troops in the Gulf War and probably was the cause of the illness known as Gulf War Syndrome. (7)

                        August 2002. "The use of gas [during the Iran-Iraq war] on the battle field by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern... We were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose." Colonel Walter Lang, former senior U.S. Defense Intelligence officer tells the New York Times. (4)

                        1. December 30, 2002
                        2. Jonathan Broder. Nuclear times, Winter 1990-91
                        3. Kurt Nimno. AlterNet. September 23, 2002
                        4. August 29, 2002
                        5. ABC Nightline. June 9, 1992
                        6. Counter Punch, October 10, 2002
                        7. Riegle Report: Dual Use Exports. Senate Committee on Banking. May 25, 1994
                        8. Timeline: A walk Through Iraq's History. U.S. Department of State
                        9. Doing Business: The Arming of Iraq. Daniel Robichear
                        10. Glen Rangwala. Labor Left Briefing, 16 September, 2002
                        11. Financial Times of London. July 3, 1991
                        12. Elson E. Boles. Counter Punch. October 10, 2002
                        13. Iran-Iraq War, 1980-1988.
                        14. Columbia Journalism Review. March/April 1993. Iraqgate
                        15. Times Online. December 31, 2002. How U.S. Helped Iraq Build Deadly Arsenal
                        16. Bush's Secret Mission. The New Yorker Magazine. November 2, 1992
                        17. Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia: Iran-Contra Affair
                        18. Congressional Record. July 27, 1992. Representative Henry B. Gonzalez
                        19. Bob Woodward. CIA Aiding Iraq in Gulf War. Washington Post.
                        15 December, 1986
                        Yuki says, "Krimson used to be known as Kommando, but he rarely uses that name anymore. Sometimes he appears as Krimson Gray as well. Do not be confused, he still loves cats and bagels."


                        • #13
                          Ah, the details!

                          Now there's something to be patriotic about! :o
                          \"Bush\'s army of barmy bigots is the worst thing that\'s happened to the US in some years...\"
                          Michael Moorcock - 3am Magazine Interview


                          • #14
                            Well it takes planning to seize the world's second largest oil feilds. And without those transfer payments, how would Halliburton may the bills?

                            Even though most of the 911 attacker(9-1-1 is a mantra these days) are Saudi, there is a major factor as to why there has been no action taken as yet. The US can produce much of what it needs to power the country, but it still relies on imports for 13% (give or take) of its oil needs. If the US were able to start tapping the oil reserves in Northern Alaska (where some pesky wildlife is in the way), it is conceivable that the US wouldn't need to be nice to the middle east anymore. They could then extend their fight against terrorism into the heart of oil land, and then divide the spoils amonst the corporations that are backing them. It could take 50 years or so, but conceivably the US based corporations could be in control of most of the world's energy supplies.
                            Yuki says, "Krimson used to be known as Kommando, but he rarely uses that name anymore. Sometimes he appears as Krimson Gray as well. Do not be confused, he still loves cats and bagels."


                            • #15
                              Funny how the majority of US citizens don't "buy into" this information. It makes sense to me. It's mostly because of ignorance.
                              It's easy for conservatives to label it "conspiracy theory."

                              I ask simple questions like: Do people really go out of their way to fight for the freedom of people in other countries? If so, why aren't we starting at home? Why is it ok for us to have homeless people without health care here at home?

                              The answer is because the government is more concerned about other things. Yes the politicians care about America-- especially an America that ensures that they have a fat and heavy wallet. It's not because they want to help citizens of other countries, nor helping their own citizens by adequately providing for their basic needs. They could be honest and just say they believe in survival of the fittest. "Yes. There are sick homeless people. Oh well."

                              Isn't it interesting how patriotism fuels the grand deception?

                              Americans love their country. The leaders would never do anything that is described above, right?

                              Money gets in the way of better ideas. There are reasons that we don't have bullet trains in the USA. There are reasons that alcohol is the only legal recreation drug. There are reasons that people tend to buy big gas guzzling cars instead of more fuel efficient environmentally friendly cars and why the streets aren't filled with electric or hydrogen fueled cars.

                              Most Americans probably never think of this stuff.

                              Perhaps I'll ask for a lobotomy someday...
                              \"Bush\'s army of barmy bigots is the worst thing that\'s happened to the US in some years...\"
                              Michael Moorcock - 3am Magazine Interview