U.S. Government Propaganda

[Teri Mc]

Amen to that.

Love in Christ

Teri

[Guest Surrender]

Bob is right on the mark about the fact that unabated anger diminishes a Christian's effectiveness.  However, in Neb's defense, I have found in my experience as a researcher and reporter that Neb is equally on target with his information--much of the U.S. media (the mainstream media specifically, and broadcast news in particular) simply regurgitate the government or industry position on many issues. The paradox of our nation is that it alternatively carries out great acts of global courage and compassion in some nations while consistently supporting dictators and oppressive regimes of others.  Neb's assertions about U.S. support for Central American leaders who unleash death squads on their own people is not the work of conspiracy-theorist Web sites; in addition to well-researched books on such subjects, chronicles of U.S. involvement/interference in the affairs of Chile, Cuba, Guatemala, et al, are indeed readily available on the Internet--just search the Web site of the Director of Central Intelligence, for example. I'd like to add one disclaimer to all this, while emphasizing my desire not to be too critical of Bob's response--I don't claim to know what is the best path to being an effective Christian.  It was only days ago that I accepted Jesus as my Savior. In fact, it was only in recent weeks that I equated one's verbal declaration of Jesus as Lord as the equivalent of saying 'abracadabra' and making a wish (the combination of events which have enlightened me to the transformation of Saul into Paul).  Rather than violently striking back at high-level orchestrators of injustice, I hope to take my knowledge of what goes on behind the white curtain of Washington and instead deliver greater doses of compassion to my fellow human beings, those at the "lower" end of the social ladder.  It seems like the the only approach that Jesus would have us take.

[Lanakila]

Surrender Praise the Lord for your recent conversion. I pray you will grow in your faith and knowledge of God and His word.

[traveller]

i agree, welcome brother! and surrender, i love your signature!

[Josephstrks]

Welcome Surrender! I like to throw out food for thought sometimes! I give thanks you have recieved the Lord as your personal Lord and Savior. I also pray you are like an empty vessel never full of his word, always wanting more of him. your brother in Christ Joseph

[Jack777]

I am glad you became a follower of Jesus Surrender.  I would be interested in your perspective on events.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

The main reason that news organizations slant the news is to reflect the governments position on world events.

The main headline on the front page of the New York Times' April 10 final edition was "At Least 8 Killed In Suicide Bombing On A Bus In Israel." The late edition, which is available to more readers, had "13 Israeli Troops Killed in Ambush; Bus Bomb Kills 10," in the 36-point headline size that the paper reserves for what it considers major events.

Six paragraphs into the story, the paper provided this additional information: "More than 100 Palestinians have been killed in Jenin, the Palestinian town that has brought the stiffest resistance to the broad Israeli sweep through the West Bank. Many of the Palestinian dead still lie where they fell."

By its headline choice, the Times suggested that the deaths of 23 Israelis (or eight, in the final edition) are more important than the deaths of 100 Palestinians.

But even those ratios may understate the greater weight that the editors place on Israeli casualties. Beneath the main headline in the late edition were two subheads: "Worst Army Toll" and "A 14th Soldier Is Killed in Separate Attack at a Refugee Camp." The Times might have used one of the subheads to acknowledge the deaths hundreds of Palestinians, but evidently noting the death of a single additional Israeli soldier was considered more newsworthy.

When were the hundreds of Palestinians killed considered to be major, front-page news by the New York Times? A review of the page A1 headlines used by the Times since the March 29 start of the invasion reveals a striking lack of references to the Palestinians killed in the Israeli operations. Generally the headlines were antiseptic: "Israelis Broaden West Bank Raids as Arabs Protest" (4/2/02); "U.S. Envoy Meets Arafat as Israel Steps Up Its Sweep" (4/6/02).

When an April 5 headline used the word "carnage," it was not a reference to the scores of Palestinians dying in the ongoing Israeli attack, but to a suicide bombing that had killed three (including the bomber) a week earlier

Of course, the reason the US controls the flow of news from Palestine is concern that images of civilian bomb victims would shake public support for its Israeli partner. An attack led by the most powerful military might in the Middle East against a starving one, already reduced to ruin, will never be an edifying sight or an easy one to sell.

America is planing a long war with the Arabs and doesn