Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Fake news conference and fake news (update)
Posted by: McQ on Saturday, October 27, 2007

FEMA apparently staged a news conference and had FEMA staffers pose as reporters and ask "softball" questions:
The White House scolded the Federal Emergency Management Agency on Friday for staging a phony news conference about assistance to victims of wildfires in southern California.
I'm not sure what the big deal is since we've all seen plenty of examples of the media faking the news.

UPDATE: Apparently I'm too "nuanced" for my own good - the point of the post isn't to excuse FEMA for their stupidity, it's just to sort of laugh at the MSM for being all horrified by such an event when they haven't a particularly sterling record in the "real news" department themselves.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Yeah, what’s the big deal? The government is righteous and it has the best intentions so government propaganda is good because the government is only doing what is best for everyone and the government should try to convince everybody of that in any way it can. It’s all good. Just ask Leni Riefenstahl.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
It always gets back to Germany somehow, doesn’t it?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
It always gets back to Germany somehow, doesn’t it?


The Bush Administration is making a determined effort to propagandize the GWoT™ and especially the Iraq War. The Nazis were really good at propaganda. Might as well go for the gold.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
Yeah, David, after all, we know how many buildings, Navy vessels, and embassies "da Joooos" blew up before the Nazis labeled them a menace...... Oh wait.

You Copperheads never run out of venom.... until the head is removed.
 
Written By: SDN
URL: http://
until the head is removed.
Oooh. Scary.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
The Bush Administration is making a determined effort to propagandize the GWoT™ and especially the Iraq War.
FEMA has what to do with Iraq? Why are you against YOUR OWN COUNTRY doing a little cheerleading (not defending the FEMA Faux conference), but from many of your previous posts, I gather you want the US to lose and be embarrassed. If Bush loses in Iraq, so do you. Grow up. I’d be rooting for us in Iraq no matter who is president.
 
Written By: Come on, Please
URL: http://
I gather you want the US to lose and be embarrassed.
You are wrong. I want the U.S. to succeed and I don’t think the Bush Adminsitration is helping America succeed. In fact, I am convinced that the policies of the Bush Administration are counterproductive to American interests.
If Bush loses in Iraq, so do you.
Wrong again. But that is the fundamental problem.You conflate what is best for the Bush Administration with what is best for the country. They are not the same. If we began withdrawing troops from Iraq tomorrow, we may have "lost" as far as Bush is concerned, but we have "won" as far as I am concerned because that would be best for the country. Moreover, there is no winning in Iraq. There is only extrication or quagmire. That is what I mean by policies that harm the U.S.
I’d be rooting for us in Iraq no matter who is president.
If that’s true — and I have no reason to doubt you — then I applaud your consistency. On the other hand, you are still mistaken. The Iraq War was and is an ongoing terrible foreign policy blunder. You know, it’s generally a good idea to stop digging when you’re in a hole (or a quagmire).


 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
David, unless the fake FEMA footage is going to be used in a movie that praises the Republicans and Bush administration’s vision of the future, I am not ready to label it Triumph of the Will as you implied.
 
Written By: Paul L.
URL: http://kingdomofidiots.blogspot.com/
Paul L:

Poetic license.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
Well, David S., we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I think the Iraq War was long overdue and winning (creating a stable and America-friendly Iraq) is vital to the interests of the country.
 
Written By: Come on, Please
URL: http://
I think the Iraq War was long overdue and winning (creating a stable and America-friendly Iraq) is vital to the interests of the country.
Fair enough. Four questions for you:

1. Why was the Iraq War "long overdue"?

2. Why is "a stable and America-friendly Iraq" "vital" to American interests?

3. Even if this is "vital" to American interests, do you think this is an achievable goal? If so, how and when?

4. Even if this is "vital" to American interests, does it off-set the costs, however high they might be?

 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
UPDATE: Apparently I’m too "nuanced" for my own good - the point of the post isn’t to excuse FEMA for their stupidity, it’s just to sort of laugh at the MSM for being all horrified by such an event when they haven’t a particularly sterling record in the "real news" department themselves.
What MSM press conference, ever, was not staged?

And David S. - it is a sign of sanity or at lest maturity, when ones abstractions don’t float around in the ozone. If they do, it’s a sign of subjectivism which is closely akin to schizophrenia. (HINT: relevance)
 
Written By: Sharpshooter
URL: http://
Well, Sharpshooter, I may be an irrelvant and immature schizophrenic, but better that than the being the person who launched the most catastrophic war in American history under false pretenses. And better that than supporting such a person and such a policy, too. Evidently, we all have our faults.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
1. Because the entire Muslim world has needed a demonstration since at least 1979 that our patience with their terrorism is not without limits.

2. Because Iraq, a major supplier of a raw material on which the whole world depends, and located in the center of similar suppliers, is suitable for use as a base to project power and protect the interests of America. Those are not your interests, Copperhead, and we all recognize it.

3. Depends on how you want to go about it. George Bush, a far more compassionate and humane person than I, elected not to use the proven and successful Japanese model of convincing the populace that resistance is futile by slaughtering x% of it. This is probably due to his recognizing that we would need to defeat the Fifth Column (take a bow) first.... and being too much of a compassionate conservative to do it. Given the kinder, gentler approach he used, I’d say 20 years is about right. And yes, anyone who actually listened to the President knows he recognized that.

4. By definition, "vital to American interests" means that those interests, including the costs, are served by pursuing them to the desired end.

And the "most catastrophic war in American history?" Check out the war that founded your party, Copperhead. And you didn’t support America’s best interests then, either.
 
Written By: SDN
URL: http://
I think SDN covered much of it.

1. Why was the Iraq War "long overdue"?

Because even after SH was pushed out of Kuwait, he never complied with any of the UN sanctions, like the no-fly zones. He supported terrorism (93 WTC, Abu Sayyaf, Palestinian suicide bombers), too, and was skimming off the top re: oil for food program. In short, after 911, the US, rightfully believing that SH had WMD (it was his job to evidence their dismantling not our job to prove he had them), couldn’t take the chance he’d use or sell them. The Iraq regime was a menace, and I hate to use a cliche, but 911 changed everything.

2. Why is "a stable and America-friendly Iraq" "vital" to American interests?
Well, if we left Iraq now, we’d be turning over the country to the most vile creatures this world has ever known (terrorists), not to mention Iran. I don’t see how this is in anyone’s interests.


3. Even if this is "vital" to American interests, do you think this is an achievable goal? If so, how and when?
Yes, of course. Don’t know when. But no point in giving up now in the thick of it all. We made a commitment, so let’s see it through.

4. Even if this is "vital" to American interests, does it off-set the costs, however high they might be?
I think the costs have been relatively low so far in terms of money and soldiers killed. I say this historically speaking, not in terms of grieving families, etc.

I just get rankled when it seems that the yoke of Iraq is laid solely at GWB’s feet. As if there was no prior history between the US and Iraq. We’re all in this together, and it began a long time ago.

Let’s win this g-damn thing. I wanna go back to voting Libertarian.....
 
Written By: Come on, Please
URL: http://
1. Because the entire Muslim world has needed a demonstration since at least 1979 that our patience with their terrorism is not without limits.
Well, we sure showed them.
2. Because Iraq, a major supplier of a raw material on which the whole world depends, and located in the center of similar suppliers, is suitable for use as a base to project power and protect the interests of America. Those are not your interests, Copperhead, and we all recognize it.
Insane Dr. Strangelove rantings.
3. Depends on how you want to go about it. George Bush, a far more compassionate and humane person than I, elected not to use the proven and successful Japanese model of convincing the populace that resistance is futile by slaughtering x% of it. This is probably due to his recognizing that we would need to defeat the Fifth Column (take a bow) first.... and being too much of a compassionate conservative to do it. Given the kinder, gentler approach he used, I’d say 20 years is about right. And yes, anyone who actually listened to the President knows he recognized that.
See No. 2.
4. By definition, "vital to American interests" means that those interests, including the costs, are served by pursuing them to the desired end.
Wrong. Vital does not mean any and all costs. Especially when, as is often the case, there is conflict with other vital national interests.
And the "most catastrophic war in American history?" Check out the war that founded your party, Copperhead. And you didn’t support America’s best interests then, either.
See No. 2 and No. 3.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
I think it only fair that if Congress can have fake hearings, the Executive branch can have fake news conferences.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider