Why I don't contribute to Desaster-Stricken Pakistan

[SMC]

SMC, bro I can reply to each and every point.
From your post it seems that you seem to know something that the rest of us dont.Probably you were their at the annual meet where in the US president releases the list of nations to the media CEOs to target.

You're showing your ignorance with this kind of **** attitude. I told you that this is standard media protocol - and you'll learn this if you study media. The US government doesn't tell who to target, the media themselves decide who to "target", you dumbass. Btw, I never used the word 'target' or implied it any way. I merely mean their portrayal of certain things.

If you couldn't comprehend that previously, that's your problem. If media only talks one way about certain countries, despite obviously there being more to talk about (and that can be seen from ground reality), then it's obvious that media has an agenda.

There were many positive things to talk about Pakistan few years ago, yet they were never mentioned. If they talk in only one way about Pakistan, China, Iran, North Korea, Middle East, Venezuela, muslims, then clearly something is not right. I doubt you'll be able to get that through your thick, childish, naive and simplistic head, though.

Media is merely a propaganda wing of individuals, state, institutions, and groups. Obviously looking at how ******* simplistic and thick you are, I doubt you'll understand my previous point. You're the kind that uses logic like 'since many people believe it, it must be true' or 'since media portrays you this way, you must be this way'. Why do I see so many of these kind of people from bharat disproportionally from other nations?

Does the concept of interests never cross your mind? Do you think media has absolutely no interests (which is completely against human nature) and shows things with impartiality?

1)Question the reasoning ability of the person you are debating with ?

I showed you why I am questioning it. Now what are you try to imply with the above point?

2) 'It is not that simple but much more complicated than you think it is' is a standard line.

And again, what point are you making? Just because it is used often, does it make it false? Clearly you're making media and public opinion sound like a black and white thing, when some education about media affairs will show you that its not. So the point is very valid.

 

[fast and furious]

You're showing your ignorance with this kind of **** attitude. I told you that this is standard media protocol - and you'll learn this if you study media. The US government doesn't tell who to target, the media themselves decide who to "target", you dumbass. Btw, I never used the word 'target' or implied it any way. I merely mean their portrayal of certain things.

If you couldn't comprehend that previously, that's your problem. If media only talks one way about certain countries, despite obviously there being more to talk about (and that can be seen from ground reality), then it's obvious that media has an agenda.

There were many positive things to talk about Pakistan few years ago, yet they were never mentioned. If they talk in only one way about Pakistan, China, Iran, North Korea, Middle East, Venezuela, muslims, then clearly something is not right. I doubt you'll be able to get that through your thick, childish, naive and simplistic head, though.

Media is merely a propaganda wing of individuals, state, institutions, and groups. Obviously looking at how ******* simplistic and thick you are, I doubt you'll understand my previous point. You're the kind that uses logic like 'since many people believe it, it must be true' or 'since media portrays you this way, you must be this way'. Why do I see so many of these kind of people from bharat disproportionally from other nations?

Does the concept of interests never cross your mind? Do you think media has absolutely no interests (which is completely against human nature) and shows things with impartiality?



I showed you why I am questioning it. Now what are you try to imply with the above point?



And again, what point are you making? Just because it is used often, does it make it false? Clearly you're making media and public opinion sound like a black and white thing, when some education about media affairs will show you that its not. So the point is very valid.

Getting Personal eh.
Ignored.
I m here to learn.Asked a simple question that you could not answer enlightened master.


Why/What/Who governs the media propoganda against certain sections ?
You will just keep ranting about the propoganda which potrays Pakistan,China,muslims in a certain manner.
But you wont give me the reason as per you why all this happens.

Hope you can answer the question without getting personal.Or am I hoping for too much.

 

[SMC]

Getting Personal eh.
Ignored.

You got personal with me by using the laughing emoticons, which was clearly meant to imply something about what I said. Now don't cry when I do it back.

I m here to learn.Asked a simple question that you could not answer enlightened master.

I answered each and every question - you're either putting on blinders or are not reading my post fully.

Why/What/Who governs the media propoganda against certain sections ?

They do it themselves. I mentioned this already.

You will just keep ranting about the propoganda which potrays Pakistan,China,muslims in a certain manner.
But you wont give me the reason as per you why all this happens.

1. When a trend can be seen, the reason why the trend is happening a secondary question.

2. Their mean motivation is to make their public look at things in a certain way. Iraq before 2003, Iran, Pakistan, China, Muslims are all clear cut example.

Now look how in many cases they try to portray Iraq in a positive manner. Why is that? Why do they often try to portray Iraq positively? Because they're involved there militarily. Iraq is in no more better situation than Pakistan.

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

All media will have certain view points and ideologys.it is also a conflict of intrusts (within the channel)they will have their own ideology to maintain, national bias, commercial intrusts, need of being neutral and credible ,journalistic responsibilities and ethics, etc, so the final news we read is a compromise between all these intrusts at varieying degrees.When there is several medias with same situation everything will be counter balanced to a great extend.It is very rare that all media sing same tune as they all have different intrusts and competition.
on disaster and defence spending.
though every county has the right to spend on defence priorities and timing does matter.
in india there is poverty and so many other issues we spend 2.5% to 3% on defence.
pakistan also is spending 4 % on defence to counter india's big defence spending (not in percentage).Fair enough.But the timing of recent increase in defence budget is questionable, if it is against india(means big arms). Reports says that it is for the war on terror, if so i think it is fair enough.

 

[SMC]

^ Did anything get counter balanced in the media regarding Iraq before Iraq War started? If no, then your claim is proven wrong. Their reporting of Muslims, China, Iran, Pakistan, Venezuela, North Korea is almost always same.

 

[fast and furious]

^ Did anything get counter balanced in the media regarding Iraq before Iraq War started? If no, then your claim is proven wrong. Their reporting of Muslims, China, Iran, Pakistan, Venezuela, North Korea is almost always same.

Bhai SMC it was the same media that reported that there were no WMDs in Iraq after the war.

Now please consider the other possibilty.That the 'reality content' of the so called propoganda can be higher than what you percieve.

As far as selective reporting is concerned Why would a US news channel report e.g.The tourist attractions in Iran when they are on an obvious collision path with US/Israel.

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

^ Did anything get counter balanced in the media regarding Iraq before Iraq War started? If no, then your claim is proven wrong. Their reporting of Muslims, China, Iran, Pakistan, Venezuela, North Korea is almost always same.

i guess US MEDIA was hugely reporting those theories. Indian media i remember had a balanced reporting.I at that time reading the news papers got an idea that this so called weapons being there is doubtful, to add to that UN inspectors also refused to claim so. So we not only go by news but use our thinking ability to assertine other circumstances also.
and for an arguement even if i agree that this was not balanced reporting it's one of those rare cases when every body gets it wrong. For that we cannot disbelieve every news report coming..we dont have a better option.

 

[SMC]

Bhai SMC it was the same media that reported that there were no WMDs in Iraq after the war.

Now please consider the other possibilty.That the 'reality content' of the so called propoganda can be higher than what you percieve.

As far as selective reporting is concerned Why would a US news channel report e.g.The tourist attractions in Iran when they are on an obvious collision path with US/Israel.

You guys seem to be in denial despite the obvious trends. They had no choice other than to show that Iraq had no WMDs. Anything else would be stupid. Btw, of course when media describes India with full of slums and ******, it's biased.