Osama Bin Laden is dead

[llcoolphil]

nope, just a true fact for the vast majority of occasions.

[diddly-dee]

So the single greatest story a US President could have announced to America got a bit confused in the 'fog of war'? It's just an accident that they said he was armed and then realised he wasn't? Just an accident they said the president watched it and then he didn't? The most media savvy government with the biggest story to tell got facts completely wrong when they made the initial announcement? You're having a laugh

[worm]

nope, just a true fact for the vast majority of occasions.

[philthee]

or, alternatively, mainstream media has the experience and knowledge to filter out the baseless crap of uninformed amateurs.

Social media theory says we should have long ago abandoned record companies to now discover such things for ourselves. There's very good reason why that's not happened, yet the theory hasn't changed. Think about it!

Edited May 5, 2011 by philthee

[worm]

I have other things to do than keep pointing out where you're wrong, it's a full time job in itself.

[eFestivals]

Is there a website that exists where several researchers comment negatively on the quality of worm's ability as a researcher? Yes or no? Will you provide a link? Yes or no?

Yes. No, because you can't see what I can see, just as there's parts of these forums that you can't see. Get over it.

In the area of government handling of the media, cock-up is very much not responsible for more than contrived.

it depends what things you're looking at within that consideration.

I'm talking specifically about instances such as has happened with Bin Laden - where one thing has been said, and then changed to be something entirely different but more damaging to that govt, with an admission that the first was completely wrong.

Of those, it's mostly cock-up and not contrived.

[eFestivals]

I suppose this is why they often overlook Chomsky, Pilger et al. Are they amateurs or does what they say not fit in with the narrative the MSM wants people to hear?

It's more the case that what they say doesn't fit with what people want to hear. Like it or not, most people aren't interested, and prefer their celebrity gossip or whatever instead.

It's very easy to say that the media controls what's reported, but that's only one side of things. Media which reports stuff of little interest will have a very short shelf life.

While phil gave the lightweight words that all I do here is re-write press releases - and from one angle he's mostly right in that, in that a lot of it is done like that - there's far more going on that he's choosing to not mention or has escaped his consideration. If it was all as simple as he's suggesting I suspect he wouldn't be driving a van for a living.

[eFestivals]

It's not a fact at all. Quality mainstream media has to do that because it has a capitalist investment in supporting the world with entertainment of a specific style and content. And that means assessing newsworthiness on the basis of how it will best fit that audience and its demographic assumptions. The media is the very face of capitalism.

For once, you've almost managed to say something sensible.

And therein lies a far greater basis than all of the conspiracy theories in the world.

[Purple Monkey]

They didn't just f*ck up with reporting he was armed and then he wasn't - the first press statement stated that he'd tried to use his wife as a 'human shield' which was later withdrawn. It's clearly nothing to do with the 'fog of war' but, rather than being a 'conspiracy', my opinion is that the USA government is so used to following the 'might is right' principle and being able to do as they see fit without being held to account or with any fear of recourse for their actions means that they get complacent and don't believe that they have to be 'thorough' in their reporting. There's nobody to hold them to account so why should they care if they 'misunderestimate' the powers of (global) media to scrutinise their pronouncements.

"The most media savvy government" - I think they're a bunch of, very very dangerous, f*ckits myself. I mean, using the codename 'Geronimo' (a hero to many native americans) for the operation shows their crass stupidity.

[worm]

Yes. No, because you can't see what I can see, just as there's parts of these forums that you can't see. Get over it.

Edited May 5, 2011 by worm

[worm]

For once, you've almost managed to say something sensible.

Edited May 5, 2011 by worm

[llcoolphil]

It's more the case that what they say doesn't fit with what people want to hear. Like it or not, most people aren't interested, and prefer their celebrity gossip or whatever instead.

It's very easy to say that the media controls what's reported, but that's only one side of things. Media which reports stuff of little interest will have a very short shelf life.

While phil gave the lightweight words that all I do here is re-write press releases - and from one angle he's mostly right in that, in that a lot of it is done like that - there's far more going on that he's choosing to not mention or has escaped his consideration. If it was all as simple as he's suggesting I suspect he wouldn't be driving a van for a living.

[eFestivals]

Which is complete bullshit as there are no forums on any of the sites I work for. You're such a f**king loser.

the loser ius tyhe one who is adding their own inventions to what I've said.

I know what you're really referring to

Then phil can stop with his liar bollocks then. I'm glad we've cleared that up.

[eFestivals]

I didnt say ALL you did there was republish press releases. I said you republish press releases and call it news. That is a 100% fact because i get some of the same press releases and i can see your newspage.

I'm glad to see you're managing to keep up your own record of inaccuracy and bullshit.

We do not "republish press releases". We write some news stories from the info that we receive in press releases, a different thing to what you claim as "a 100% fact". And nothing about that devalues what we do. It's value is proven by the value that the readers of efestivals place on what we do.

There's no media in existence that doesn't do this to some degree. In fact it's what you yourself have done in this very thread.

Meanwhile, back in the land of the Bin Laden story, the vast majority of stories have been written off the back of press releases - mostly because of the unavailability of other sources for the first 48 hours or so since news of the US's operation in Pakistan broke.

That doesn't mean that the media is rolling over and accepting those official sources as everything that there is to be known, that any part is beyond dispute, or that they are simply the lapdogs of the official line. The media will delve into it until such time as there's no benefit to them in doing so, and report what they - on their own basis - considers to be of interest to its readership. And at the end of the day, baseless conspiracy theorists are the destructor of the free flow of news, not the facilitator.

[worm]

the loser ius tyhe one who is adding their own inventions to what I've said.

[worm]

We do not "republish press releases". We write some news stories from the info that we receive in press releases, a different thing to what you claim as "a 100% fact".

[eFestivals]

If there is no forum, then how on earth can there be written and accesible critiques of my writing skills housed on a website?

I suggest you read what you posted, and what I replied to. There you'll find the root of your lack of understanding.

That'd be perfectly legit if what you were referring to was anything like what you were telling everyone you'd seen, which I can be assured is not a critique of my work housed on a website.

I'm referring to exactly what I've said. Any error with the understanding of that is yours alone - probably in your poor reading skills yet again.

[eFestivals]

Other than it being exactly the same, you have an excellent point.

With it being different, I *DO* have an excellent and 100% accurate point.

But as different is exactly the same in your eyes, that explains a lot.

[worm]

I suggest you read what you posted, and what I replied to. There you'll find the root of your lack of understanding.

I'm referring to exactly what I've said. Any error with the understanding of that is yours alone - probably in your poor reading skills yet again.

[worm]

With it being different, I *DO* have an excellent and 100% accurate point.

But as different is exactly the same in your eyes, that explains a lot.

Edited May 5, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

No one publishes what they say about the writers other than through private e-mails between officiates. It is illegal to view the e-mails if you are not part of the company. And such e-mails cannot be accessed through a search engine so that I may 'seek and find' as you kept saying.

You're a big fat liar.

[eFestivals]

So because I also have cats, people cannot say that my having exotic spiders is 100% true? Interesting theory.

Interesting to someone as brain dead as you perhaps.

f**k me. Heads up arses, a belief that not one iota of what you or him say can ever be wrong.

It appears that you believe yourselves too smart to hold any discussion. But anyway, ones as indisputably smart () as you two can't have anything to contribute here, you have the world to save from your own self-sacrifice. So do please f**k off back to your mummy, she's put a grain of salt too much in tomorrow's packed lunch and she needs to be put right.

Awesome emphasis on the do homeboy.

As you've just proven, a necessary emphasis. It's still not having the desired effect tho, is it dim-boy.

So because you publish 'some' news stories from press releases, Phil is wrong to state that it is 100% true that you republish press releases and call it news.

What I said was fully accurate. What phil said was not, despite claiming it as "100% accurate".

[eFestivals]

Now, dim-boy, do you have anything to say on my comments about bin Laden? If so, shoot.

But if all you're after is scaring even more people from posting, and derailing thread after thread after thread, your time here is indisputably done.

[llcoolphil]

They didn't just f*ck up with reporting he was armed and then he wasn't - the first press statement stated that he'd tried to use his wife as a 'human shield' which was later withdrawn. It's clearly nothing to do with the 'fog of war' but, rather than being a 'conspiracy', my opinion is that the USA government is so used to following the 'might is right' principle and being able to do as they see fit without being held to account or with any fear of recourse for their actions means that they get complacent and don't believe that they have to be 'thorough' in their reporting. There's nobody to hold them to account so why should they care if they 'misunderestimate' the powers of (global) media to scrutinise their pronouncements.

"The most media savvy government" - I think they're a bunch of, very very dangerous, f*ckits myself. I mean, using the codename 'Geronimo' (a hero to many native americans) for the operation shows their crass stupidity.

[worm]

Interesting to someone as brain dead as you perhaps.

f**k me. Heads up arses, a belief that not one iota of what you or him say can ever be wrong.

It appears that you believe yourselves too smart to hold any discussion. But anyway, ones as indisputably smart () as you two can't have anything to contribute here, you have the world to save from your own self-sacrifice. So do please f**k off back to your mummy, she's put a grain of salt too much in tomorrow's packed lunch and she needs to be put right.

As you've just proven, a necessary emphasis. It's still not having the desired effect tho, is it dim-boy.

Edited May 5, 2011 by worm