TheAnvil 0 #1 June 4, 2004 This is too good. If D-Day Had Been Reported On Today by William A. Mayer Tragic French Offensive Stalled on Beaches (Normandy, France - June 6, 1944) - Pandemonium, shock and sheer terror predominate today's events in Europe. In an as yet unfolding apparent fiasco, Supreme Allied Commander, Gen. Dwight David Eisenhower's troops got a rude awakening this morning at Omaha Beach here in Normandy. Due to insufficient planning and lack of a workable entrance strategy, soldiers of the 1st and 29th Infantry as well as Army Rangers are now bogged down and sustaining heavy casualties inflicted on them by dug-in insurgent positions located 170 feet above them on cliffs overlooking the beaches which now resemble blood soaked killing fields at the time of this mid-morning filing. Bodies, parts of bodies, and blood are the order of the day here, the screams of the dying and the stillness of the dead mingle in testament to this terrible event. Morale can only be described as extremely poor--in some companies all the officers have been either killed or incapacitated, leaving only poorly trained privates to fend for themselves. Things appear to be going so poorly that Lt. General Omar Bradley has been rumored to be considering breaking off the attack entirely. As we go to press embattled U.S. president Franklin Delano Roosevelt's spokesman has not made himself available for comment at all, fueling fires that something has gone disastrously awry. The government at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is in a distinct lock-down mode and the Vice President's location is presently and officially undisclosed. Whether the second in command should have gone into hiding during such a crisis will have to be answered at some future time, but many agree it does not send a good signal. Miles behind the beaches and adding to the chaos, U.S. Naval gunships have inflicted many friendly fire casualties, as huge high explosive projectiles rain death and destruction on unsuspecting Allied positions. The lack of training of Naval gunners has been called into question numerous times before and today's demonstration seems to underlie those concerns. At Utah Beach the situation is also grim, elements of the 82nd and 101st Airborne seemed to be in disarray as they missed their primary drop zones behind the area believed to comprise the militant's front lines. Errant paratroopers have been hung up in trees, breaking arms and legs, rendering themselves easy targets for those defending this territory. On the beach front itself the landing area was missed, catapulting U.S. forces nearly 2,000 yards South of the intended coordinates, thus placing them that much farther away from the German insurgents and unable to direct covering fire or materially add to the operation. Casualties at day's end are nothing short of horrific; at least 8,000 and possibly as many as 9,000 were wounded in the haphazardly coordinated attack, which seems to have no unifying purpose or intent. Of this number at least 3,000 have been estimated as having been killed, making June 6th by far, the worst single day of the war which has dragged on now--with no exit strategy in sight--as the American economy still struggles to recover from Herbert Hoover's depression and its 25% unemployment. Military spending has skyrocketed the national debt into uncharted regions, lending another cause for concern. When and if the current hostilities finally end it may take generations for the huge debt to be repaid. On the planning end of things, experts wonder privately if enough troops were committed to the initial offensive and whether at least another 100,000 troops should have been added to the force structure before such an audacious undertaking. Communication problems also have made their presence felt making that an area for further investigation by the appropriate governmental committees. On the home front, questions and concern have been voiced. A telephone poll has shown dwindling support for the wheel-chair bound Commander In Chief, which might indicate a further erosion of support for his now three year-old global war. Of course, the President's precarious health has always been a question. He has just recently recovered from pneumonia and speculation persists whether or not he has sufficient stamina to properly sustain the war effort. This remains a topic of furious discussion among those questioning his competency. Today's costly and chaotic landing compounds the President's already large credibility problem. More darkly, this phase of the war, commencing less than six months before the next general election, gives some the impression that Roosevelt may be using this offensive simply as a means to secure re-election in the fall. Underlining the less than effective Allied attack, German casualties--most of them innocent and hapless conscripts--seem not to be as severe as would be imagined. A German minister who requested anonymity stated categorically that "the aggressors were being driven back into the sea amidst heavy casualties, the German people seek no wider war." "The news couldn't be better," Adolph Hitler said when he was first informed of the D-Day assault earlier this afternoon. "As long as they were in Britain we couldn't get at them. Now we have them where we can destroy them." German minister Goebbels had been told of the Allied airborne landings at 0400 hours. "Thank God, at last," he said. "This is the final round." Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerry81 10 #2 June 4, 2004 (chuckle)Yes, the media has certainly evolved in the last sixty years, huh? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #3 June 4, 2004 No doubt this is a fairly accurate critique on modern reporting teqniques, but it's not terribly accurate historically. I note there's no reference to the 3 British beaches, all of which went pretty much to plan. If I'd written the article I'd also have slagged off American refusal to accept British help in the form of "Hobart's Funnies" and paltry use of British DD-tanks (major causes of the dificulties at Omaha). I think the quote: "At Utah Beach the situation is also grim" is possably one of the most innacurate statements I've ever read, although I do not know if that is part and parcel of the critique of todays reporters or a problem with Mr. Mayer's history books. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #4 June 4, 2004 In a notable parallel to today's troubles, Hitler's woes were largely compounded by false intelligence reports, in that instance, from a spy codenamed Garbo. Garbo, AKA Spaniard Juan Pujol convinced the third Reich that the main thrust of the invasion would land at Pas de Calais, this would be accompanied by an invasion of Norway. Pujol was so convincing in his dodgy dossier submissions to his Nazi paymasters, that they awarded him the Iron Cross. It could have been worse, they might nearly have made him prime minister of Iraq...... Its not the last time false intel was used to manipulate massive military strength.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #5 June 4, 2004 QuoteI note there's no reference to the 3 British beaches, all of which went pretty much to plan. It would've been buried 20 pages "The British were also involved in separate areas and sustained losses." -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #6 June 4, 2004 QuoteNo doubt this is a fairly accurate critique on modern reporting teqniques, but it's not terribly accurate historically. I note there's no reference to the 3 British beaches, all of which went pretty much to plan. If I'd written the article I'd also have slagged off American refusal to accept British help in the form of "Hobart's Funnies" and paltry use of British DD-tanks (major causes of the dificulties at Omaha). Quote That's because Americans don't admit that the Canadians, British, Russians, Australians etc. played any part in the victory.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #7 June 4, 2004 QuoteThat's because Americans don't admit that the Canadians, British, Russians, Australians etc. played any part in the victory. They'd all be speaking German now if it weren't for us!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Remster 30 #8 June 4, 2004 QuoteQuoteThat's because Americans don't admit that the Canadians, British, Russians, Australians etc. played any part in the victory. They'd all be speaking German now if it weren't for us!!!!! Yeah, instead, we're speaking englishRemster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,150 #9 June 4, 2004 QuoteQuoteThat's because Americans don't admit that the Canadians, British, Russians, Australians etc. played any part in the victory. They'd all be speaking German now if it weren't for us!!!!! Yes, US schools are particularly poor at teaching foreign languages and the US model has (unfortunately) been exported all over the world. But what does that have to do with D-day?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nacmacfeegle 0 #10 June 4, 2004 "They'd all be speaking German now if it weren't for us!!!!! " Or Russian......... -------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mr2mk1g 10 #11 June 4, 2004 One thing that really angered me about today’s media was their response to Saving Private Ryan. I remember reports which came out after the film saying “It’s refreshing to see a film that portrays D-Day the big screw up that it really was”, claiming that the wool had been pulled over our eyes about some fictitious travesty of justice that got our boys killed 60 years ago. I was thinking WTF? – no it wasn’t a screw up!! It went exceptionally well! Overall casualties were well below expected and objectives were either achieved or ground was taken well within operational predictions. Other than the para operations who’s widely spread DZ’s were in them selves a double-edged sword, there was only one area of D-Day that didn’t go as well as had been hoped and that was Omaha beach. The mauling of US troops at this beach in its self was widely predicted before the assault and it was well known that Omaha would be one of the most difficult landing areas – it being essentially against heavily entrenched positions along the brow of a cliff. The fact that mechanised help was refused can be simply attributed to General Bradley’s own pride and cost hundreds if not thousands of lives. That in my opinion is one of the few criticisms I can level at the operation and falls in the lap of one man alone. My earlier comment about Utah beach was because this was secured at the loss of less than 200 men… over 2500 were lost at Omaha. Overall D-Day was a spectacular success and it saddened me to see it portrayed as otherwise by our modern press just so they could get a “scoop”. I think the hacks dishonoured the memory of all the brave men who gave their lives for that success and they should have been held to account for such a travesty. How’s that for a commentary on our damned reporters? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mardigrasbob 0 #12 June 4, 2004 Wow! I can't wait for the medias' depiction of how the imperialist American pigs mistreated the Axis POWs, or how General Patton beats his own troops. Oh, I almost forgot, What do the Nazis have to do with December 7th. Were there Japanese in Berlin? Remember the Empire of Japan was forced to attack America. The economic embargo and oil barons were starving the poor nation. What about that Marshall Plan; sounds like nation building. And don't forget the war crimes, firebombing of urban areas, use of WMDs twice, and the forced ethnic cleansing of the U.S. west coast. Every time I get in my BMW, turn on my Sony DVD, and watch my bootleg copy of Michael Moore's new movie; I am so ashamed! -Bob_ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #13 June 4, 2004 I wonder if they would report that only the Canadian troops reached their stated objective for that day? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #14 June 4, 2004 QuoteI wonder if they would report that only the Canadian troops reached their stated objective for that day? Of course he did. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites chuckbrown 0 #15 June 4, 2004 QuoteI wonder if they would report that only the Canadian troops reached their stated objective for that day? Well since their objective was not to surrender immediately, I guess so. Just kiddin'. The UK/Canadian/ANZAC armies were all extremely competent and sophisticated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #16 June 4, 2004 Pure BS.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jib 0 #17 June 4, 2004 Care to elaborate? -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnMitchell 16 #18 June 4, 2004 Oh, but it is accurate to tday's journalism. Any good news is left out, as it does not fit the picture the reporter and editor want to paint. Good point on the tanks. Most of our Shermans sank in the sea when their crappy little canvas float skirts didn't work. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #19 June 4, 2004 Yeah....the news is always much better when it's government released official dispatches. QuoteThe buildup to D-Day had been secretive and effective. As Allied troops rehearsed in Britain, Allied journalists made their own preparations for The Second Front, to take pressure off. Allied leaders treated the media almost as another branch of the military by June 1944, so completely had media owners and staff cooperated in defeating the Nazis. http://www.britishheritage.com/bhonews.htm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #20 June 4, 2004 Quote Care to elaborate? Ok, it's a hypothetical piece of crap that takes a cheap shot toward an entire industry. For some writer to write about how writers only write about the negative by writing only about the negative . . . well . . . that writer can't see the bull shit irony of his own work. It's kind of like Limbaugh when he goes on about how stupid the media is . . . when he's part of the media.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Trent 0 #21 June 4, 2004 You're right. It would have been better if, as is practice today, to have allied reporters lining the beaches of Normandy and inland dropzones before the invasion so that they could get the "real nitty gritty" on the situation. I bet the Germans would have just overlooked that as a sign of invasion. And, you know... you may not like that the news was allied command official releases... but we did win that war.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #22 June 4, 2004 "We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications, whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries." David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991. "There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar weekly salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities, and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes." John Swinton, the former Chief of Staff for the New York Times, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bch7773 0 #23 June 4, 2004 hahaha. probably true. but then all the canadians and british who landed without much incident would have been yelling how german-biased the newspapers were. MB 3528, RB 1182 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #24 June 4, 2004 QuoteAnd, you know... you may not like that the news was allied command official releases... but we did win that war. That's true. Probably the same justification used when it was decided to leak the info about Joseph Wilson's wife being a CIA agent. After all he was discrediting the fake news stories released by the administration. QuoteUSAF Colonel (Ret.) Sam Gardiner. "Truth from These Podia: Summary of a Study of Strategic Influence, Perception Management, Strategic Information Warfare and Strategic Psychological Operations in Gulf II" identifies more than 50 stories about the Iraq war that were faked by government propaganda artists in a covert campaign to "market" the military invasion of Iraq. Gardiner has credentials. He has taught at the National War College, the Air War College and the Naval Warfare College and was a visiting scholar at the Swedish Defense College. According to Gardiner, "It was not bad intelligence" that lead to the quagmire in Iraq, "It was an orchestrated effort [that] began before the war" that was designed to mislead the public and the world. Gardiner's research lead him to conclude that the US and Britain had conspired at the highest levels to plant "stories of strategic influence" that were known to be false. QuoteDefense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced plans to create an Office of Strategic Influence early in 2002. At the same time British Prime Minister Tony Blair's Strategy Director Alastair Campbell was setting up an identical operation in London. White House critics were quick to recognize that "strategic influence" was a euphemism for disinformation. Rumsfeld had proposed establishing the country's first Ministry of Propaganda. The criticism was so severe that the White House backed away from the plan. But on November 18, several months after the furor had died down, Rumsfeld arrogantly announced that he had not been deterred. "If you want to savage this thing, fine: I'll give you the corpse. There's the name. You can have the name, but I'm gonna keep doing every single thing that needs to be done -- and I have." Time and again, US reporters accepted the CIC news leaks without question. Among the many examples that Gardiner documented was the use of the "anthrax scare" to promote the administration's pre-existing plan to attack Iraq. In both the US and the UK, "intelligence sources" provided a steady diet of unsourced allegations to the media to suggest that Iraq and Al Qaeda terrorists were behind the deadly mailing of anthrax-laden letters. It wasn't until December 18, that the White House confessed that it was "increasingly looking like" the anthrax came from a US military installation. The news was released as a White House "paper" instead of as a more prominent White House "announcement." As a result, the idea that Iraq or Al Qaeda were behind the anthrax plot continued to persist. Gardiner believes this was an intentional part of the propaganda campaign. "If a story supports policy, even if incorrect, let it stay around." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Trent 0 #25 June 4, 2004 Yes, perhaps it was an unrelated coincidence that media cooperated and we won the war. Or maybe the contribution was negligible. But you never know. In any case: ***You're right. It would have been better if, as is practice today, to have allied reporters lining the beaches of Normandy and inland dropzones before the invasion so that they could get the "real nitty gritty" on the situation. I bet the Germans would have just overlooked that as a sign of invasion.***Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
PhillyKev 0 #7 June 4, 2004 QuoteThat's because Americans don't admit that the Canadians, British, Russians, Australians etc. played any part in the victory. They'd all be speaking German now if it weren't for us!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #8 June 4, 2004 QuoteQuoteThat's because Americans don't admit that the Canadians, British, Russians, Australians etc. played any part in the victory. They'd all be speaking German now if it weren't for us!!!!! Yeah, instead, we're speaking englishRemster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #9 June 4, 2004 QuoteQuoteThat's because Americans don't admit that the Canadians, British, Russians, Australians etc. played any part in the victory. They'd all be speaking German now if it weren't for us!!!!! Yes, US schools are particularly poor at teaching foreign languages and the US model has (unfortunately) been exported all over the world. But what does that have to do with D-day?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #10 June 4, 2004 "They'd all be speaking German now if it weren't for us!!!!! " Or Russian......... -------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #11 June 4, 2004 One thing that really angered me about today’s media was their response to Saving Private Ryan. I remember reports which came out after the film saying “It’s refreshing to see a film that portrays D-Day the big screw up that it really was”, claiming that the wool had been pulled over our eyes about some fictitious travesty of justice that got our boys killed 60 years ago. I was thinking WTF? – no it wasn’t a screw up!! It went exceptionally well! Overall casualties were well below expected and objectives were either achieved or ground was taken well within operational predictions. Other than the para operations who’s widely spread DZ’s were in them selves a double-edged sword, there was only one area of D-Day that didn’t go as well as had been hoped and that was Omaha beach. The mauling of US troops at this beach in its self was widely predicted before the assault and it was well known that Omaha would be one of the most difficult landing areas – it being essentially against heavily entrenched positions along the brow of a cliff. The fact that mechanised help was refused can be simply attributed to General Bradley’s own pride and cost hundreds if not thousands of lives. That in my opinion is one of the few criticisms I can level at the operation and falls in the lap of one man alone. My earlier comment about Utah beach was because this was secured at the loss of less than 200 men… over 2500 were lost at Omaha. Overall D-Day was a spectacular success and it saddened me to see it portrayed as otherwise by our modern press just so they could get a “scoop”. I think the hacks dishonoured the memory of all the brave men who gave their lives for that success and they should have been held to account for such a travesty. How’s that for a commentary on our damned reporters? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mardigrasbob 0 #12 June 4, 2004 Wow! I can't wait for the medias' depiction of how the imperialist American pigs mistreated the Axis POWs, or how General Patton beats his own troops. Oh, I almost forgot, What do the Nazis have to do with December 7th. Were there Japanese in Berlin? Remember the Empire of Japan was forced to attack America. The economic embargo and oil barons were starving the poor nation. What about that Marshall Plan; sounds like nation building. And don't forget the war crimes, firebombing of urban areas, use of WMDs twice, and the forced ethnic cleansing of the U.S. west coast. Every time I get in my BMW, turn on my Sony DVD, and watch my bootleg copy of Michael Moore's new movie; I am so ashamed! -Bob_ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #13 June 4, 2004 I wonder if they would report that only the Canadian troops reached their stated objective for that day? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #14 June 4, 2004 QuoteI wonder if they would report that only the Canadian troops reached their stated objective for that day? Of course he did. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckbrown 0 #15 June 4, 2004 QuoteI wonder if they would report that only the Canadian troops reached their stated objective for that day? Well since their objective was not to surrender immediately, I guess so. Just kiddin'. The UK/Canadian/ANZAC armies were all extremely competent and sophisticated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #16 June 4, 2004 Pure BS.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #17 June 4, 2004 Care to elaborate? -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnMitchell 16 #18 June 4, 2004 Oh, but it is accurate to tday's journalism. Any good news is left out, as it does not fit the picture the reporter and editor want to paint. Good point on the tanks. Most of our Shermans sank in the sea when their crappy little canvas float skirts didn't work. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #19 June 4, 2004 Yeah....the news is always much better when it's government released official dispatches. QuoteThe buildup to D-Day had been secretive and effective. As Allied troops rehearsed in Britain, Allied journalists made their own preparations for The Second Front, to take pressure off. Allied leaders treated the media almost as another branch of the military by June 1944, so completely had media owners and staff cooperated in defeating the Nazis. http://www.britishheritage.com/bhonews.htm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #20 June 4, 2004 Quote Care to elaborate? Ok, it's a hypothetical piece of crap that takes a cheap shot toward an entire industry. For some writer to write about how writers only write about the negative by writing only about the negative . . . well . . . that writer can't see the bull shit irony of his own work. It's kind of like Limbaugh when he goes on about how stupid the media is . . . when he's part of the media.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #21 June 4, 2004 You're right. It would have been better if, as is practice today, to have allied reporters lining the beaches of Normandy and inland dropzones before the invasion so that they could get the "real nitty gritty" on the situation. I bet the Germans would have just overlooked that as a sign of invasion. And, you know... you may not like that the news was allied command official releases... but we did win that war.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #22 June 4, 2004 "We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications, whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries." David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991. "There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar weekly salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities, and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes." John Swinton, the former Chief of Staff for the New York Times, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bch7773 0 #23 June 4, 2004 hahaha. probably true. but then all the canadians and british who landed without much incident would have been yelling how german-biased the newspapers were. MB 3528, RB 1182 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #24 June 4, 2004 QuoteAnd, you know... you may not like that the news was allied command official releases... but we did win that war. That's true. Probably the same justification used when it was decided to leak the info about Joseph Wilson's wife being a CIA agent. After all he was discrediting the fake news stories released by the administration. QuoteUSAF Colonel (Ret.) Sam Gardiner. "Truth from These Podia: Summary of a Study of Strategic Influence, Perception Management, Strategic Information Warfare and Strategic Psychological Operations in Gulf II" identifies more than 50 stories about the Iraq war that were faked by government propaganda artists in a covert campaign to "market" the military invasion of Iraq. Gardiner has credentials. He has taught at the National War College, the Air War College and the Naval Warfare College and was a visiting scholar at the Swedish Defense College. According to Gardiner, "It was not bad intelligence" that lead to the quagmire in Iraq, "It was an orchestrated effort [that] began before the war" that was designed to mislead the public and the world. Gardiner's research lead him to conclude that the US and Britain had conspired at the highest levels to plant "stories of strategic influence" that were known to be false. QuoteDefense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced plans to create an Office of Strategic Influence early in 2002. At the same time British Prime Minister Tony Blair's Strategy Director Alastair Campbell was setting up an identical operation in London. White House critics were quick to recognize that "strategic influence" was a euphemism for disinformation. Rumsfeld had proposed establishing the country's first Ministry of Propaganda. The criticism was so severe that the White House backed away from the plan. But on November 18, several months after the furor had died down, Rumsfeld arrogantly announced that he had not been deterred. "If you want to savage this thing, fine: I'll give you the corpse. There's the name. You can have the name, but I'm gonna keep doing every single thing that needs to be done -- and I have." Time and again, US reporters accepted the CIC news leaks without question. Among the many examples that Gardiner documented was the use of the "anthrax scare" to promote the administration's pre-existing plan to attack Iraq. In both the US and the UK, "intelligence sources" provided a steady diet of unsourced allegations to the media to suggest that Iraq and Al Qaeda terrorists were behind the deadly mailing of anthrax-laden letters. It wasn't until December 18, that the White House confessed that it was "increasingly looking like" the anthrax came from a US military installation. The news was released as a White House "paper" instead of as a more prominent White House "announcement." As a result, the idea that Iraq or Al Qaeda were behind the anthrax plot continued to persist. Gardiner believes this was an intentional part of the propaganda campaign. "If a story supports policy, even if incorrect, let it stay around." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #25 June 4, 2004 Yes, perhaps it was an unrelated coincidence that media cooperated and we won the war. Or maybe the contribution was negligible. But you never know. In any case: ***You're right. It would have been better if, as is practice today, to have allied reporters lining the beaches of Normandy and inland dropzones before the invasion so that they could get the "real nitty gritty" on the situation. I bet the Germans would have just overlooked that as a sign of invasion.***Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
