Anti-CNN.com: how people get brainwashed

[DenisRS]

^
Compare: vehicle chasing protesters versus original photo, where rioters attack vehicles.

^
Photo of Nepal policeman beating someone presented as crimes in Tibet. Not exactly CNN but very honest of media, do not you think?

----------------------------------------

^

You think at least some media tell truth? Compare "death" of monk in Tibet to original photo from Nepal -- in Bild (Germany)

^ Again, Nepal pictures presented as something happening in Tibet.

^ Some think that "liberal" media in France are better? Still Nepal instead of Tibet.

--------------------------------------------------

Disclaimer:
1) nothing of this means that social-politic conditions in Tibet are any near to be perfect;
2) nothing of this means that media *always* lie and manipulate;
3) however, even by western retired generals memoirs media like CNN were confirmed as heavy manipulating, for example, during Balkan wars in 1990s (sometimes totally turning facts upside down, even photos -- simply changing names of nations participating in something to better view they like). That is how to this day most USA citizens think that Mr.Clinton's war/bombing in 1999 in Kosovo was any more "substantiated" than Mr.Bush's in Iraq, while it is the same crime according to international laws. So whatever tricks with political speculations on Tibet matters are nothing new.

 

[Datsymay]

Bill Clinton's war was as much a fraud as Iraq war. I went to Westminster to join the protest march against that war too.

 

[arXter]

^ Clinton also bombed Iraq quite heavily in 1993 and killed many civilians. people never get to hear about that, though..

here's another atrocity in the US that's dumbing down its citizens into making an evil Hollywood character out of Hugo Chavez:

The Media, the CIA and the Coup

By Christopher Reilly


In a rare sequence of events, democratically elected leader President Hugo Chavez was overthrown in a military coup led by the business elite, only to be reinstated as president days later due to the support of the Venezuelan people.

The democratic leader, winning office in 1998 with 60 percent of the national vote, was disliked by the business class due to his socialist stance on many political issues, such as redistribution of land.
Then on April 12th, business leaders angered at Chavez's handling of the oil industry, organized a large strike. The strike turned into an open street protest marching toward the presidential palace. The local media, operated by the business elite, apparently continued to lambaste the president on television, causing Chavez to temporarily halt all private broadcasting in Venezuela in fears of it causing panic and violent revolt.

The protestors continued to the outside of the palace where they confronted pro-Chavez supporters. Both sides began to clash, resulting in 16 deaths and hundreds of injuries. The media quickly reported that Chavez supporters fired into the crowds of demonstrators. The Western media was quick to follow; one newspaper after another publishing only the version of events reported by the same business community that was attempting to overthrow the Venezuelan democracy.

The version of events made official by Ari Fleischer, spokesman for the Bush Administration, claimed that Chavez shut down the media to stifle opposition and then ordered those loyal to him to fire into the crowd of protestors. Or, in Fleischer's exact words, "Chavez supporters, on orders, fired on unarmed, peaceful demonstrators. Venezuelan military and police refused to fire ... and refused to support the government's role in human rights violations."

The State Department was next to come out in support of the violent military coup, expressing their regret that Chavez did not "act with restraint and show full respect for the peaceful expression of political opinion."

However, the State Department failed to mention the number of dead Venezuelans was also made up of Chavez supporters. According to one South American newspaper, sympathizers of the president were killed, along with the Vice President Diosdado Cabello's personal driver, shot in the face.

Not only that, but it has not even been confirmed that Chavez ordered his forces to shoot into the crowd of people. The military men that reported this fact were the same military figures who supported the coup. They could have easily fabricated the story in order to give justification for junta. For example, news broadcasts stated, as printed in London's The Independent, that "half a dozen men - one wearing a Chavez party T-shirt - firing automatic pistols into a crowd from an overpass, while police launched tear gas canisters into the crowd. Shortly after, 10 officers from the National Guard and armed forces accused Mr. Chavez of 'betraying the trust of the people.' "

This statement was simply taken as fact in media circles, largely ignoring how convenient it was for news cameras to pin the blame on Chavez while those firing on demonstrators wore "Chavez party T-shirt," proving to viewers that Chavez was responsible for the deaths.

​

i don't know if anyone here knows of the great journalist John Pilger, but he's a keen activist to spreading the truth - and especially on this matter.

he made a documentary called The War On Democracy which was great to see and opened up many eyes, i'm sure. it also addresses this issue of the Western media. well worth viewing if you haven't already.

 

[L.J]

but aren't the protests about Tibet occurring in most of the surrounding countries?

 

[DenisRS]

That is right, there were protests in other countries; however, worldwide media-political community decided to take those protests, manipulate it to speculate and provoke on actual Tibet matters. Even though there were significant improvements in that region all recent years due to large investments from government and situation there was getting better and better before those provocations happened (not to say situation became anywhere perfect, though).

Those organizations such as "Amnesty International" have long history of manipulations and provocations on many conflicts around the world. Some of those people in such organizations have their hands in blood and they do not actually care for actual people of those regions as long as they can speculate on local people's problems. If after all situation there actually worsen, then so be it -- more opportunity for speculation there.

To be fair, on international subjects mainstream media lie large-scale, sometime in "wall-to-wall" mode. In one of New York Times international political article I counted like dozen lies, which was in fact complete essence of that piece. It is just as with "reports" on Jackson where almost everything is lie, the same is with international policy. That is how they make people agree that bombing some other country is "justified" and it is some "noble mission" that a powered country "ought" to do.

So the "morals" here is just one thing: before going to judge some other country basing on media reports people may have better choice checking information. In many cases they will find that mass-media so heavily manipulates reality that one could conclude that Orwell's "Ministry of Truth" exists.

 

[eternitys_child]

Interesting information Denisrs. It is impossible to tease out the truth anymore. Media is so corrupt and people in my coutry have such short memories. They often don't seem to recognize the contradictions in the news. People who are struggling to get by don't have time to do full investigations on what they are reading. I don't remember if it is something you said or that I read elsewhere but I think it is correct that it is worse for us in the US (and perhaps other democratic countries as well) because people here do not expect to be lied to like people in countries where people are not so 'free' as us so we don't watch for the lies.

 

[DenisRS]

Since I lived in USSR when that regime still existed I can confirm: that-time propaganda was probably even less outrageous than current "democratic" which we have here in Russia or USA citizens have in their country.

Looking at western politico-historic archives and comparing them to media coverage from previous decades one could conclude that there was never more truth and actual freedom there than in USSR.

That concerns even to big historic events. For example, people in USA taught that there was the evil Khruschev back in 1960s who decided to put nuclear missiles in Cuba and then Kennedy threatened back so Khruschev withdrew those weapons. However, this is only partial story. In reality Khruschev had Eisenhower putting nuclear missile shafts in Turkey and had to answer on it to maintain parity. Also, as result of "Caribbean crisis" was not only Chruschev withdrawing nuclear missiles from Cuba, but also Kennedy withdrawing missiles from Turkey. So Khruschev succeeded with his plan to maintain the parity (this is, of course, not to say that Khruschev was necessaery "good" sides in that story since situation was very cross-linked and complex; actually, one could harldy find "good" sides in politics history events anyway).

That is how even major history events get totally distorted in public view even in "democratic" country. Now here in Russia we also have attempts to bend actual historic events according to political needs; this just never ends. Media and politics are the same everywhere.