....LMB: "Pre-Post War"....

April 07, 2003

How things are shaping up for the days after the "coalition" (does the U.S., a small force of Brits and a handful of Australians really make a "coalition"?) conquers Iraq.

Britain admits there may be no WMD's in Iraq- "Well into the war that was supposed to rid Iraq of its alleged stockpile of weapons of mass destruction, a senior British official [Home Secretary David Blunkett] admitted on Saturday that no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons of mass destruction may after all be found." Whoops.

Red Cross: Iraq Wounded Too High to Count- "The number of casualties in Baghdad is so high that hospitals have stopped counting the number of people treated, the International Committee of the Red Cross said Sunday."

Clash of the Administration Titans- Colin Powell vs. Skeletor Rumsfeld! The winner will determine how blatantly imperial the new U.S. puppet government in Iraq will be.

Wolfowitz says new government might take more than 6 months; U.N.-led government not likely- this article almost makes it sound as though the new Iraq will be okay, but--

Opposition groups reject US military rule plan- "As the time arrives for decisions about running Iraq, both the main Kurdish and Shia opposition groups yesterday rejected US plans to put Jay Garner, a retired general, in charge."

Battle over who can sell Iraq's oil- don't forget the oil!

Iraq bidder's apartheid past- Dear god. "Fluor Corporation, the US building firm tipped to land a massive reconstruction deal in postwar Iraq," is being sued for hiring security guards to dress up in KKK robes and attack employees at Fluor plants in South Africa, during the apartheid era. Just when you think a corporation couldn't sink any lower, you find another one 10,000 feet below.

So, in conclusion, re post-war Iraq:

Fuck.

Posted by Jake at 01:23 AM | TrackBack (0)
Comments

Hoss...if you're going to post about British military officials saying there are no WMD, at least provide some balance by also linking to a Reuters report such as this:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2521303

Let us decide who's lying. That way perhaps you won't have to live in a glass house.

Posted by: Todd at April 7, 2003 09:06 AM

Sites like Jakes remind me why the American Justice system so often fails. It works like this: I will lie and exagerate my side of the story, you will lie and exagerate your side, and out of all this lying and exagerating we will find the truth.
Sad :(
Jake has an agenda and will only seek out and print those stories that "prove" his view of the world. Strangely, this is exactly what the govt. also does. Reminds me of the theme of a Donaldson novel I read where people become the thing they despise the most.

Posted by: Sadworld at April 8, 2003 12:40 PM


hey now let's be nice to jake here.

of course he's got an agenda. he's an activist. and he's the most cynical god damned activist i've ever known. even back in the day. although i may not agree with much of what he says, he does at least do a fantastic job of ripping on everyone and tries to spread it around whether on the right or the left. these days its mostly to the right since they are in power.

besides, isn't this basically all mainly for fun, for expression of speech and maybe some thought provoking on the side? if it were truly about making a huge impact on policy and such, then one would have to not only criticize, but seriously come up with bulletproof alternatives to the way things are currently being done? right? right?

as always...your friend
art

Posted by: art at April 8, 2003 07:09 PM

Well art, I don't have any info about past issues Jake has dealt with so I can only comment on what I see on this site now. BTW, I mostly support Jake's views. What I was trying to address though was the notion that American media is totally biased and that this and other anti-war sites are somehow more honest. This I completely reject.
Also, I don't consider this just for fun. If I want fun I will go to sites like the Onion. I come to sites like this and others to hear all sides to be better informed.
My reasons for opposing the current war were not based on any "anti-war" ideology. I believe that every sitiuation around the world is different and each needs to be examined. If genocide is in progress, then Im all for military action to save lives. My concern here is that many "anti-war" activists take a Nancy Reagan like "just say no" strategy that oversimplifies a complex issue to the point of uselessness. History has clearly shown that inaction can sometimes be more deadly and destructive that action. It's up to us to use are open minds to decide when to act and when not to act. These are the alternatives we need to consider, not just a blanket "Just say no to war"
Your friend too :)
Sad

Posted by: Sadworld at April 9, 2003 10:36 AM

sadly sad,

yes, i understand what you were trying to say previously about the position of antiwar sites and how they are about as hypocritical as pro-war sites etc. in fact, i think there's always a certain level of hypocrisy that can be found on every issue, especially ones dealing with foreign policy and foreign affairs. it's an unfortunate aspect in policy making.

i have to clarify though that i certainly dont think this site is "fun" in the sense of the onion(no offense meant jakey). but i also certainly dont think one should look at this site and its contents as anything more than a window to an alternative way of looking at things in the press/world around us whether right or wrong. and i think that's the sole purpose of what jake has been trying to do. criticize and point out flaws with an emphasis towards the media.

of course, you can always critique the critique, but i believe the grand point of all of this is simply to express the flaws of the minority side of all issues. again, goes back to "rip on them all" theme. be it left right or center. if it's mainstream, point out the problems. that to me is the point here.

but hey, what do i know? i'm just here to throw in a few worthless cents.

your friend,
art

Posted by: art at April 9, 2003 03:14 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






Lying Media Bastards is both a radio show and website. The show airs Mondays 2-4pm PST on KillRadio.org, and couples excellent music with angry news commentary. And the website, well, you're looking at it.

Both projects focus on our media-marinated world, political lies, corporate tyranny, and the folks fighting the good fight against these monsters.

All brought to you by Jake Sexton, The Most Beloved Man in America ģ.


contact: jake+at+lyingmediabastards.com

Media News

December 01, 2004

Media Mambo

The Great Indecency Hoax- last week, we wrote about how the "massive outcry" to the FCC about a racy Fox TV segment amounted to letters from 20 people. This week, we look at the newest media scandal, the infamous "naked back" commercial. On Monday Night Football, last week, ABC aired an ad for it's popular "Desperate Housewives" TV show, in which one of the actresses from the show attempted to seduce a football player by removing the towel she was wearing to bare her body to him. All the audience saw, however, was her back. No tits, no ass, no crotch, just her back.

No one complained.

The next Wednesday, Rush Limbaugh told his shocked viewers how the woman had appeard in the commercial "buck naked".

Then, the FCC received 50,000 complaints. How many of them actually saw this commercial is anyone's guess.

The article also shows the amazing statistics that although the Right is pretending that the "22% of Americans voted based on 'moral values'" statistic shows the return of the Moral Majority, this is actually a huge drop from the 35% who said that in the 2000 election or the 40% who said that in 1996 (when alleged pervert Bill Clinton was re-elected). This fact is so important I'm going to mention it over in the main news section too.

Brian Williams may surprise America- Tom Brokaw's replacement anchor, Brian Williams, dismissed the impact of blogs by saying that bloggers are "on an equal footing with someone in a bathroom with a modem." Which is really funny, coming out of the mouth of a dude who's idea of journalism is to read words out loud off a teleprompter. Seriously, if parrots were literate, Brian Williams would be reporting live from the line outside the soup kitchen.

In related news, Tom Brokaw has quit NBC Nightly News, and it appears that unlike his predecessor, the new guy can speak without slurring words like a drunk.

PR Meets Psy-Ops in War on Terror- in February of 2002, Donald Rumsfeld announced the creation of the Office of Strategic Influence, a new department that would fight the war on terror through misinformation, especially by lying to journalists. Journalists were so up in arms about this that the Pentagon agreed to scrap the program.

Don't you think that an agency designed to lie to the public might lie about being shut down, too?

This article gives some examples about the US military lying to the press for propaganda and disinformation purposes.

Tavis Smiley leaving NPR in December- African-American talk show host Tavis Smiley is opting to not renew his daily talk show on National Public Radio. He criticized his former employers for failing to: "meaningfully reach out to a broad spectrum of Americans who would benefit from public radio but simply donít know it exists or what it offers ... In the most multicultural, multi-ethnic and multiracial America ever, I believe that NPR can and must do better in the future." He's 100% correct. NPR is white. Polar bear eating a marshmallow at the mayonaise factory white. And the reason it's so white is that it is trying to maintain an affluent listener base (premoniantly older white folks) who will donate money to their stations. This is a great paradox of American public broadcasting, that they have a mandate to express neglected viewpoints and serve marginalized communities, but those folks can't donate money in the amounts that the stations would like to see.

U.S. Muslim Cable TV Channel Aims to Build Bridges- it sounds more positive than it is "Bridges TV" seems to simultaneously be a cable channel pursuing an affluent American Muslim demographic, and a way of building understanding and tolerance among American non-Muslims who might happen to watch the channel's programming. I was hoping it would be aimed more at Muslim's worldwide, but it ain't. Still, I'd be interested in seeing how their news programs cover the issues.

Every Damned Weblog Post Ever- it's funny cuz it's true.

Wikipedia Creators Move Into News- Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia, created collectively by thousands of contributors. It's one of those non-profit, decentralized, collective, public projects that show how good the internet can be. Now, the Wikipedia founders are working on a similar project to create a collaborative news portal, with original content. Honestly, it's quite similar to IndyMedia sites (which reminds me, happy 5th birthday, IndyMedia!). I'll admit, I'm a bit skeptical about the Wikinews project, though. IndyMedia sites work because they're local, focused on certain lefty issues, and they're run by activists invested in their beliefs. I'm not sure what would drive Wikinews or how it would hang together.

CBS, NBC ban church ad inviting gays- the United Church of Christ created a TV ad which touts the church's inclusion, even implying that they accept homosexuals into their congregation. Both CBS and NBC are refusing to air the ad. This is not too surprising, as many Americans are uncomfortable about homosexuality, and because TV networks are utter cowards. But CBS' explanation for the ban was odd:

"Because this commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples...and the fact that the executive branch has recently proposed a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast."

Whoa, what? First of all, the ad does not mention marriage at all. Second, since when do positions opposite of the Executive Branch constitute "unacceptable"? This doesn't sound like "we're not airing this because it's controversial", this sounds like "we're afraid of what the President might say."

Posted by Jake at 10:09 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
More Media News

Jake Jake Jake

 

Fake "Ha-Ha" News

News

 

Quotes

"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into."

-Jonathan Swift

More Quotes

Media News

 

Obligatory Blog Links

 

Snapshots

Damn. That joke would have been much funnier if I'd said "apprentice" instead of "intern".

More Snapshots

Columnists Of Note

 

References

Sonic Resistance

 

Dead Trees

 

Heavy Rotation

Archives

 

Squiggles of Insight

SubvertWare

Credits

Design and Layout by Mark McLaughlin and Quang Tang
LMB Logo by Quang Tang

Alt "One Hell of a Leader" logo largely stolen from Obey Giant.
All other material by Jake Sexton (unless otherwise cited)

hosted by nice dream