<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Bill Moyers returns to PBS to dissect the corporate media: &#8220;Buying the War&#8221;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://dangerousintersection.org/2007/04/27/bill-moyers-is-back-on-pbs/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://dangerousintersection.org/2007/04/27/bill-moyers-is-back-on-pbs/</link>
	<description>Human Animals at the Crossroads of Culture, Science, Religion and Media</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 10 Oct 2008 21:58:21 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Erich Vieth</title>
		<link>http://dangerousintersection.org/2007/04/27/bill-moyers-is-back-on-pbs/#comment-15529</link>
		<dc:creator>Erich Vieth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jan 2008 05:21:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=1258#comment-15529</guid>
		<description>Here's John Pilger writing that, just like the American media, the British media failed miserably to report the truth prior to the Iraq invasion:  

This is true not only in America. In Britain, where I live, the BBC - which promotes itself as a nirvana of objectivity and impartiality and truth - has blood on its corporate hands. There are two interesting studies of the BBC's reporting. One of them, in the build-up to the invasion, shows that the BBC gave just two per cent of its coverage of Iraq to anti-war dissent. That was less than the anti-war coverage of all the American networks. A second study by the respected journalism school at University College in Cardiff shows that 90 per cent of the BBC's references to weapons of mass destruction suggested that Saddam Hussein actually possessed them and that, by clear implication, Bush and Blair were right.  

We now know that the BBC and other British media were used by MI6, the secret intelligence service. In what they called Operation Mass Appeal, MI6 agents planted stories about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, such as weapons hidden in his palaces and in secret underground bunkers. All of these stories were fakes. However, that is not the point. The point is that the dark arts of MI6 were quite unnecessary, because a systematic media self-censorship produced the same result. 

http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=267</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here&#8217;s John Pilger writing that, just like the American media, the British media failed miserably to report the truth prior to the Iraq invasion:  </p>
<p>This is true not only in America. In Britain, where I live, the BBC - which promotes itself as a nirvana of objectivity and impartiality and truth - has blood on its corporate hands. There are two interesting studies of the BBC&#8217;s reporting. One of them, in the build-up to the invasion, shows that the BBC gave just two per cent of its coverage of Iraq to anti-war dissent. That was less than the anti-war coverage of all the American networks. A second study by the respected journalism school at University College in Cardiff shows that 90 per cent of the BBC&#8217;s references to weapons of mass destruction suggested that Saddam Hussein actually possessed them and that, by clear implication, Bush and Blair were right.  </p>
<p>We now know that the BBC and other British media were used by MI6, the secret intelligence service. In what they called Operation Mass Appeal, MI6 agents planted stories about Saddam&#8217;s weapons of mass destruction, such as weapons hidden in his palaces and in secret underground bunkers. All of these stories were fakes. However, that is not the point. The point is that the dark arts of MI6 were quite unnecessary, because a systematic media self-censorship produced the same result. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=267" rel="nofollow">http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=267</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: grumpypilgrim</title>
		<link>http://dangerousintersection.org/2007/04/27/bill-moyers-is-back-on-pbs/#comment-12036</link>
		<dc:creator>grumpypilgrim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2007 17:44:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=1258#comment-12036</guid>
		<description>Technically, the "Mission Accomplished" banner was correct:  when Bush landed on that aircraft carrier, the war *was* over.  As I pointed out in my post titled "Stop calling it war" (http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=1215), the "war" ended when all of the Iraqi troops surrendered.  Since that time, it has been a military occupation.  The problem is that Bush and his neo-con pals get so much political power from continuing to call it "war" that they won't likely be changing their terminology anytime soon.  The other problem is that the "war" has developed a chronic case of what is politely called "mission creep."  That's when the boss can't decide what the mission is, so he keeps changing it.  The first reason Bush gave for invading Iraq was to "disarm" Saddam of his WMDs.  When that proved imaginary, the mission became "liberating the Iraqi people."  Then it became, "fighting the terrorists over there, so we don't have to fight them over here;" then "spreading democracy in the Middle East;" then, "bringing peace and stability to the Middle East;" then, "winning the global war on terror;" the list goes on and on.  Of course, the problem with mission creep is that each new mission requires different resources and a different strategy, but what do we hear from the Bushites?  "Stay the course."  It is an unmistakable sign of incompetent leadership.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Technically, the &#8220;Mission Accomplished&#8221; banner was correct:  when Bush landed on that aircraft carrier, the war *was* over.  As I pointed out in my post titled &#8220;Stop calling it war&#8221; (http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=1215), the &#8220;war&#8221; ended when all of the Iraqi troops surrendered.  Since that time, it has been a military occupation.  The problem is that Bush and his neo-con pals get so much political power from continuing to call it &#8220;war&#8221; that they won&#8217;t likely be changing their terminology anytime soon.  The other problem is that the &#8220;war&#8221; has developed a chronic case of what is politely called &#8220;mission creep.&#8221;  That&#8217;s when the boss can&#8217;t decide what the mission is, so he keeps changing it.  The first reason Bush gave for invading Iraq was to &#8220;disarm&#8221; Saddam of his WMDs.  When that proved imaginary, the mission became &#8220;liberating the Iraqi people.&#8221;  Then it became, &#8220;fighting the terrorists over there, so we don&#8217;t have to fight them over here;&#8221; then &#8220;spreading democracy in the Middle East;&#8221; then, &#8220;bringing peace and stability to the Middle East;&#8221; then, &#8220;winning the global war on terror;&#8221; the list goes on and on.  Of course, the problem with mission creep is that each new mission requires different resources and a different strategy, but what do we hear from the Bushites?  &#8220;Stay the course.&#8221;  It is an unmistakable sign of incompetent leadership.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Erich Vieth</title>
		<link>http://dangerousintersection.org/2007/04/27/bill-moyers-is-back-on-pbs/#comment-11970</link>
		<dc:creator>Erich Vieth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2007 22:24:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=1258#comment-11970</guid>
		<description>Check out Glen Greenwald's article on "Buying the War" at Salon.com:  http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/04/26/moyers/index.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Check out Glen Greenwald&#8217;s article on &#8220;Buying the War&#8221; at Salon.com:  <a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/04/26/moyers/index.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/04/26/moyers/index.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
