War makes Newspapers sell

As E.L. Godkin writes in the Atlantic Monthly: "Newspapers are made to sell; and for this purpose there is nothing better than war. War means daily sensation and excitement. On this almost any kind of paper can make money."
Godkin goes on to discuss how was brings all sorts of exciting news and since its live and breaking it does not need to be entirely accurate or factual. This may mean that there can be a mad rush to be the first to print because one may not have to check their facts completely.
Godkin says that in war, events are “probably and agreeable, though disagreeable news sells nearly as well.” He also states that there are newspapers that have a tough time selling news but that during war time they make fortunes.
Simply, war mankes newspapers sell. People are out for sensationalism, they want to be up to date on the event. And papers provide them with this. Newspapers also bring the news to a more personal view since they can cater to the community they are providing for. This is a very important aspect of war and the media.

About the Cartoon: Some questions from a Chinese Christian to other Christians here in the United States

About the Cartoon: Some questions from a Chinese Christian to Christians here in the United States
Question One: Is it true that there is but only one God?
Question Two: Do you believe we should love our neighbors like ourselves?
Question Three: Do you know Muslims take Jesus as a prophet of God?
Question Four: Do you know that Muslims also believe there is but only one God?
Question Five: Do you think we should Turn THE OTHER CHEEK WHEN WE WERE HURT?
Question Six: Did Jesus ever say his apostles should overthrow the Romans or other governments?
Do you really know a Muslim in real life?

I just cannot understand why we should be so different from each other.
When I was still in China, there is literally not much difference among Protestants, but when I cam here to this country—the land of the free and the home of the brave, all of the sudden, there were so many denominations existing at the same time.
In China, we do not even mention much about the difference between Protestantism and Catholicism.
When I was in China, I had many Muslim friends; we shared our experience together; we encouraged each other to be more faithful to our God. We talked about each other’s belief and we even prayed together. We were all believers in an atheism-dominated county.
However, when I came here, the social environment is so different.
Isn’t this a country that encourages people to love each other?
If we think we are unique; if we think we are different, maybe we should give other people the freedom to be different from us.

Turn the other cheek: http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/cheek.htm
Some Knowledge about Islam: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam

March of the Flag

The main question in this reading "March of Flag" by Albert Beveridge was "shallthe american people continue their resistless march towards the commerical suppremacy of the world?"
However, Beveridge demonstrates to his audiance that if England can govern foreign lands, so can America and if Germany can govern foreign lands so can America. The point here is that American ablity to govern has dimished, so we only have to continue the march of the flag.

Moral Hypocracy

http://www.muslims.net/index.php/Image:2aa1.jpg

They make cartoons too!

"Could Exact Millions"

"Spain, with her great marine fighting machine stationed in a New York harbor, will have it within her power to lay waste to the metropolis of America, and without a single competent vessel to oppose her."
This is taken from the New York Journal from February 17th, 1898. It reminds me of "weapons of mass destruction" and the government creating a fear of Iraq in order to accomplish agendas.
To illustrate what Spain's vessel, the Vizcaya, is capable of doing to New York creates not only fear among Americans, but consent for the government to do what is necessary to protect them from such a fate as a warship attacking New York City or a tyrannical dictator with nuclear and chemical weapons.

Cartoons in question

The cartoons can be found about 1/3rd of the way down this page.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/sarticle.php?id=12146

Why are the Muslims so angry?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_drawings.jpg

In case you have not seen the cartoons of Muhammad and would like to see them, then click on the link above and see what all the fuss is about. In the Muslim religion they believe that the way the Quran is suppose to be interpreted says that it is prohibited to create images of Muhammad, and also images of other prophets too, such as Moses and Jesus. Who says that this interpretation is the correct one? Most people who read the bible can agree that it is not to be taken literally. It is a book of stories, all with morals and meanings behind them if you can decipher the truths from the myths and fictional arrays that stray us from the roots. Lets look at the worlds three major religions of the world. Jewish people have been practicing the jewish faith since people started to stray from paganism, and focus on the idea of one god. Christianity started with Jesus who was a jew. Many people have very different ideas of who exactly Jesus was, but the idea that Jesus did infact exist is not debated. Given by the part of the world Jesus was from we know that he had dark skin, and by him being a practicing jew of the old world we also know that he didn't cut his hair or shave his chin as is dictated in the old testament. The coming of Jesus was also spoke of in the ancient scriptures of the Kebra Negast. Now Islam on the other hand is the worlds fastest growing religion, it is also the newest. If Muhammad was supposedly a profit from the biblical days then why did it take till around 600 AD for anyone to recognize he was anyone special, when greatness usually has a more timely following. Here's an idea of why the image of Muhammad being prohibited is so important. (or used to be) Because maybe Muhammad didn't exist. The Quran is a story written about a man who prophecized Christian and Jewish ideas. This man the story is about is named Muhammad. There is much controversy between the ideas of the historical Jesus and the mythical Christ, but it is historically proven that he did exist. Besides for faith there has never been any historical evidence that Muhammad ever existed. Now I'm one for freedom of thought and believing what ever makes you happy. But the muslims that are protesting do not. Because of their actions which are hypocritical and contradictory to their own religion, they are no longer muslims, they are fascists and elitists, and give a bad name to the common muslim. Muslim fanatics also target other religions with animosity such as jews and rastafarians. Why you ask? Because those religions discredit Islam.
Hence the fighting in Israel over holy land that was holy to jews and Christians for thousands of years before the Muslim religion was ever a thought.(Christians not as long) If you look back even further to paganism and even further to cosmotology which most religions are roughly formed around then you would begin to understand that praying to Mecca and praising the Muslim faith is not much more than worshiping the sun. If anyone is interested in reading about ancient religions and practices and how they shaped modern religion, post a comment and I'll list a few books you can read. Here's a question for you: If Muhammad ever lived on this earth than what did he look like?

imperialism and Spanish-American War

i thought the the imperialism packet was interesting b/c i discussed America's role in conquering other countries. its ironic how the United States followed the path of colonization, the same thing we fought to change in our society in the late 1700's.

Science or Propaganda?

George Deutch, the 24 year old former Bush campaign worker appointed to NASA's public affairs office last year, resigned earlier today. His resignation comes in the wake of a growing scandal regarding manipulation of NASA scientists and the altering of scientific reports by political appointees with no background in science.

Among other duties, Deutch was notable for telling Nasa scientists, "to refer to the Big Bang as a "theory" because NASA should not discount "intelligent design by a creator." Aside from this interference, NASA scientists have continually asserted that, "reports on global warming were constantly watered down to minimize the connection to the burning of fossil fuels and other human-made pollution."

James Hansen, NASA's chief climate scientist, has says that he was "threatened with 'dire consequences' by White House appointees at NASA headquarters if he continued to call for prompt action to limit emissions of heat-trapping gases linked to global warming."

When legitimate scientific research is censored and altered by those with a political agenda, it ceases to become science and becomes propaganda. This is especially disturbing in regards to NASA, since the very future of our planet may depend on the actions we take as a result of their studies.

Imperialism and the Spanish-American War

In "I Saw What Was Left" The reading speaks of heinous brutallity towards Cuban dead. It was a shock to the author because the people doing the acts of barbarity, the Spanish come from a civilized society. The Spanish troops cut up the Cuban dead and use their body parts as trophies. They destroyed the skulls of the dead. Even worse they cut up the bodies so disgustingly that they could not be described as a dead human being. They act more barbaric then the American Indians. The author is right. You would have to go hunting to find strong enough terms to describe these inhuman acts on the dead Cuban soldiers. Scott Filaski

This was an interesting quote in chapter two "A propaganda model focuses on this inequity of wealth and power and its multilevel effects on mass-media intersts and choices. It traces the routes by which money and power are able to filter out the news fit to print, marginalize disset, and allow the government and dominant private interets to get their messages across to the public. The essential ingrediant of our propaganda model, or set of news "filter," fall under the following headings:" "Filter 1: the size, concentrated ownership, owner wealth, and profit orientation of the dominant mass media firms." this shows its really not about the indivisual bias. Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky's perspective seems to be not how the reporter votes but the institution in how the media functions, has alot to do with how they do there job. I also tought these filteres were pretty interesting as well it seems there suppossed to let us know about the structure of the media and not the bias's. I quoted filter number one because it seems pretty vital, media corporations are really only getting bigger and bigger, starting from family newspapers to huge chains run by a corport board.

Imperialism and the Spanish American War

One of the primary documents "Blood, blood, blood" stood out the most. This document protrayed that no mans life or property is safe of promised, especially America. America has been robbed of a lot, the war alone cost America about $68,000,000. Property and people of America had been destroyed without any help of anyone or even its government.

WJB- No fan of imperialism

William Jennings Bryan is obviously an opponent of imperialism. In fact, Mr Bryan believed that its idea goes against the ideals for which this country was created.

"The imperialistic idea is directly antagonistic to the idea and the ideals which have been cherished by the American people since the signing of the Declaration of Independence."

Bryan is one who believed that the United States of America would be and would have been better off without entering upon a "career of conquest." The debate which existed more than one hundred years ago still rages on today. Is it necessary for the United States of America to be involved in all matters of the entire world? When did these labels of "worlds greatest superpower" and "global police officer" come into existence?
Some of the problems that exist in this country today are external ones. Our current situation encourages an American to ask him or herself- Would we be better off remaining isolated? George Washington's farewell address warned the nation to "avoid foreign entanglements." This seems to have been an effective policy. One might counter such a policy by suggesting that alliances are needed for the purposes of protection and trade. My answer to that would be that we, as a nation, were safe prior to our military alliances. We also prospered in trade before we engaged in imperialist endeavors.
Americans are sold these overseas campaigns and are told why they are necessary for our safety and survival. Apparently Americans have been the target of such propaganda for a long time. William Jennings Bryan was opposed to such crusades deemed necessary by the government. I would imagine that Mr. Bryan would be appalled by the actions of the current administration with regards to our policies in the Middle East and possibly South America in the near future. (Although this picture has little to do with my post- I thought you might enjoy it)

Media Control

Repesentation as Reality was one of the main topic in Media Control by Noam Chomsky. The main concept here was to overcome sickly inhibitions and to rearrange thoughts. Chomsky gave a very good example of the Vietnam War, he believed too many poeople were getting the wrong impression for the war. So that where you would rearrange the bad thoughts, to tell people that the reason was to defend Vietnamese. Chomsky concludes that: "The truth of the matter is burred under efifice after edifice of lies upon lies."

Imperialism Hostile to Liberty

Imperialism Hostile to Liberty written by Carl Schurz was written in 1899 durning the time where America was invading the Philippines. Schurz was strickly against the invasion and called it un-American. He said it was un-Constitutional and went against the Declaration of Independence. Schurz continued and said we were acting like Spain did when they tried to oppress the Native Americans we were doing the same to the Filipinos.

Schurz basically called imperialism un-American which in a sense is true. The pilgrims left England because of oppression and many of the Native Americans were killed off because of the Spanish Conquest it is unfair for us to do the same to the Filipinos. I don't agree completely with Schurz because I think at the time American needed to expand to show the world that it was a power and needed to be recongized.

Benevolent Expansionists or Tyrannical Imperialists?

"Would not the people of the Philippines prefer the just, humane, civilizing government of this Republic to the savage, bloody rule of pillage and extortion from which we have rescued them?...We cannot retreat from any soil where Providence has unfurled our banner; it is ours to save that soil for liberty and civilization." - Albert Beveridge (pg 29, 30)

"Our form of government, our traditions, our present interests and our future welfare, all forbid our entering upon a career of conquest...The President in his message says that our only purpose in taking possession of Cuba is to establish a stable government and then turn that government over to the people of Cuba. Congress should reaffirm this purpose in regard to Cuba and assert the same purpose in regard to the Philippines and Porto Rico." -William Jennings Bryan (pg 43,44)

"That treaty now commits the free and enfranchised Filipinos to the guiding hand and the liberalizing influences, the generous sympathies, the uplifting education, not of their American masters, but of their American emancipators." -William McKinley (pg 229)

"The United States has always protested against the doctrine of international law, which permits the subjugation of the weak by the strong. A self-governing state cannot accept sovereignty over an unwilling people...Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not from themselves, and under a just God cannot long retain it." -Carl Schurz (pg 287, 289)

Clearly, each argument, standing on its own, is very powerful. However, seeing all of the arguments together shows how a situation such as this can be spun in either direction to win support. While we now know that the primary purpose of keeping the Philippines was to have a strategic coaling station, allowing the United States to expand its sphere of influence into the Pacific, it may easily have been thought at the time that the US was truly saving these people from a greater evil (Spain) or liberating them from the "savage" existence they had to one more like US citizens enjoyed (see the McKinley quote above). It is interesting to see that these very same tactics are at use today to gain support for the pro- or anti-war cause (liberating the people of Iraq from a tyrannical dictator and allowing them self-government or protecting our oil interests).

Brooker T. Washington's "The Better Part"

In this article it talks a lot about "the better part". The choice you make in life was that the best choice. For instance it talks about how the African Americans had a choice between dying or being put into slavery. He asks, was that the better part the best choice.
The article then talks about the British oppositon and American Independence. The slaves had to make a choice to either go with the British or go to the American side and fight for American Independence. The African Americans choice the American side and to fight for American Independence. The African Americans were going to fight a battle for the white people while they remained unfree and under slavery.
In the time of war the African Americans never once complained when they were hurt, hungery, had a fever, and when they got psyically hurt. The only request that they would ask is if a white solider was hurt fighting war, and a black solider would ask to replace them.
The African Americans never portrayed the Americans , and only did what they could to help them out.
Consequently, there was one more victory the Americans needed to win, but didn't. "We have suceeded in every conflict except in the effort to conquer ourselves in the blotting out of racial prejudice". This quote shows us that the African Americans were loyal to the Americans, they fought for them, they gave their bodies for them in battle and did this with no freedom. This shows loyalty and respect toward the Americans.
As Washington states in his article, he wanted to show us how loyal the African American's were and would be rewarded in some way. For instance "we of the black race shall not leave you unaided, we shall make teh task easier for you by acquiring property, habits of thrift, ecomony, intelligence, and character, by each making himself of individual worth in his ocmmunity". This explains that the African Americans will get their reward for the help, and loyalty to the Americans.
Lastly, no matter what it was, whether it be in war, peace, slavery, or freedom, the African American's were always loyal to the Stars and Stripes.

Chomsky and Herman Manufacturing Consent

In the reading on page 17 the paragraph reads " In addition to discrimination against unfriendly media institutions, advertisers also choose selectively among programs on the basis of their own principles. With rare exceptions these are culturally and politically conservative. "
It is interesting how the media institution and advertisers try to separate themselves from one another, because they really work hand in hand . One needs the other to survive. Also to say they choose their programs based on principle is some what insulting to one's intelligence, because all they really care about is marketing their products or ideas.

Hand In Hand

Propaganda and the media go hand in hand. The media is the largest and most efective tool in getting an idea out to the masses. An idea could be a good thing but then if a bad one is pushed upon many people it could spell disaster and lead to a countless number of people beliveing something that's just not right. Jacques Ellul said "modern propaganda profit from the structure of the mass, but exploits the individuals need for self". This shows how propaganda as a machine need the masses for fuel. If no one takes on to it then it fades away, but once that message takes grasp anyone who gives into it is no longer and individual or a free thinker, your just caught up in the mass. It is also important to look at things in context and not to buy into partial truths.

Far From Home

In the primary documents # 7
The Spanish-American War was a brief, intense conflict that effectively ended Spain's worldwide empire and gained the United States several new possessions in the Caribbean and the Pacific. In the document it states " In the democratic age, wars can not be fought without the public's consent". Then again the Spanish war was fought without people knowing that it was taking place right in front of their noses until it was to late.

Propaganda and Elite Culture

The propaganda model is ultimately controlled by two fators: economic interests and political power, according to Edward S.Herman and Noam Chomsky. It's interesting to describe the "consent" as a kind of product that can be manufactured, but this is the reality.In a world of concentrated wealth and major conflicts of class interests, the mass media, unexceptionally, can not protect itself from being contaminated by the complex tastes of business and politics. Considering the five ingredients in a propaganda model, they strongly support the following idea:

"It(the propaganda model)traces the routes by which money and power are able to filter out the news fit to print, marginalize dissent, and allow the government and dominant private interests to get their messages across to the public."

No wonder, actually it's very hard for the mass media to maintain objectivity, for it's strictly confined and shaped by both business and politics from inside to outside. It originates from them and finally serve for them, which traps the mass media into a quandary that neither itself nor its partners, (the business and politis), who are mutually dependents, would like to admit. As we can see from the obvious squelch on the free expression of the working class, the mass meida is eventually the mere mouthpiece for the elite group in society, while the publication of the working class views is filtered continuously until the "director" finally agrees that they are fit to print, and they know clearly that's the only way for the mass media to attract the eyeballs of the advertising agengies which are the backbone of the media operation. Ideology control is just another expression of the interests of the business and politics.

According to the authors, "The magnitude of the public-information operations of large government and corporate bureaucraies that constitute the primary news sources is vast and ensures special access to the media." Mass media get tremendous amount of inexpensive news sources from this two main supports, on which they claim their objectivity rather than dependency. However, they can't operate under their free will, for they are also struggling as a business in the competitive market.