Liberal Media at work

[Ocotillo]

Newsweek uses a different cover for different regions of the world. Here is what is out there this week:



I guess Newsweek is afraid the conservatives might go into "whine" mode if they ran the same cover in the U.S. What was that line from "A Few Good Men",

You can't handle the truth!

applies to the delicate little flowers that are conservative America.

[Yonivore]

I guess Newsweek is afraid the conservatives might go into "whine" mode if they ran the same cover in the U.S.

No, I just think they cater to their audience and it's easier to lie to the Europeans, Latin Americans, and Asians and not be confronted with your lies than it is to try and lie to Americans and be rebutted.

[ChumpDumper]

Only true if the Afghanistan story doesn't run in the US.

[Ocotillo]

No, I just think they cater to their audience and it's easier to lie to the Europeans, Latin Americans, and Asians and not be confronted with your lies than it is to try and lie to Americans and be rebutted.

I thought your take would be they are trying to stir up things in the foreign lands to foster that "anti-American" sentiment.

[Yonivore]

I thought your take would be they are trying to stir up things in the foreign lands to foster that "anti-American" sentiment.

Well, , that's a given. But, this "America is losing the war" reporting isn't stirring up anti-American sentiment, it's just giving those who are already anti-American something to read.

[ChumpDumper]

If you aren't more interested in Annie Leibovitz than Afghanistan, the terrorists have already won.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

No, I just think they cater to their audience and it's easier to lie to the Europeans, Latin Americans, and Asians and not be confronted with your lies than it is to try and lie to Americans and be rebutted.

And I'm sure you count Vietnam as a "win".

Michael Franti said it very well when I saw him in concert last night - "I'm sick and tired of the media, and people, talking about the economic cost and the political cost of this war... what about the human cost? Does anything we've done justify the human cost..?"

Damn straight, Michael. The world needs more like him.

[PixelPusher]

No, I just think they cater to their audience and it's easier to lie to the Europeans, Latin Americans, and Asians and not be confronted with your lies than it is to try and lie to Americans and be rebutted.

Care to explain how we are "winning" the war in Afganistan?

[Yonivore]

Care to explain how we are "winning" the war in Afganistan?

Well, since they've resorted back to assassinations and terrorist tactics because everytime they tried to mount an offensive they were wiped out en masse, that's one sign we're winning in Afghanistan.

That their having to resort to a mafia style protection racket with the Afghanistan poppy farmers instead of receiving funding from al Qaeda or others who traditionally funded their organization, I'd say that's a good sign too.

Those are just two off the top of my head.

[PixelPusher]

Well, since they've resorted back to assassinations and terrorist tactics because everytime they tried to mount an offensive they were wiped out en masse, that's one sign we're winning in Afghanistan.

Considering how poorly our military has dealt with terrorism tactics in Iraq, that actually equates to a BAD turn of events. Our military can kick the crap out of any regular military force it encounters, it doesn't do as well against insurgents and IEDs.

That their having to resort to a mafia style protection racket with the Afghanistan poppy farmers instead of receiving funding from al Qaeda or others who traditionally funded their organization, I'd say that's a good sign too.

Those are just two off the top of my head.

Terror groups like Al Qaeda come and go, but illegal drug trafficing is here to stay. The Taliban have just adopted a more lucrative and stable source of funding. Again, NOT a good sign.

[Yonivore]

Considering how poorly our military has dealt with terrorism tactics in Iraq, that actually equates to a BAD turn of events. Our military can kick the crap out of any regular military force it encounters, it doesn't do as well against insurgents and IEDs.

Such tactics won't gain you geography though.

Terror groups like Al Qaeda come and go, but illegal drug trafficing is here to stay. The Taliban have just adopted a more lucrative and stable source of funding. Again, NOT a good sign.

The poppy farmers are funding them at the point of a gun. Not a tenable scenario for the Taliban.

[PixelPusher]

Such tactics won't gain you geography though.

Seems to be working in in Iraq. Situation Called Dire in West Iraq

The poppy farmers are funding them at the point of a gun. Not a tenable scenario for the Taliban.

Poppy farmer: "Hm...pay the Taliban for protection or sit back and watch the U.S. destroy my lucrative business...oooh, that's a tough one"

Please.

[ChumpDumper]

Such tactics won't gain you geography though.

They don't need geography at this point.

The poppy farmers are funding them at the point of a gun. Not a tenable scenario for the Taliban.

That's what the Taliban do. Don't you remember?

[RandomGuy]

No, I just think they cater to their audience and it's easier to lie to the Europeans, Latin Americans, and Asians and not be confronted with your lies than it is to try and lie to Americans and be rebutted.

So sayeth the Yoni 'bot. I wish I could say I didn't see that one coming.

[RandomGuy]

[Al qaeda/taliban doesn't] need geography at this point.

This is the one essential element of the "war" on terrorism that many fail to grasp.

This struggle is NOT about capturing and holding territory. It is about capturing and holding peoples minds.

Conservatives will never formulate a winning strategy, because they somehow fail to grasp this.

I hate to paint with the broad brush of [all] "conservatives", but I haven't seen this realization really sink into the movement at all.

The concern is always with military solutions, and little else.

[gtownspur]

This is the one essential element of the "war" on terrorism that many fail to grasp.

This struggle is NOT about capturing and holding territory. It is about capturing and holding peoples minds.

Whose minds are we trying to change, Your's or theirs(the people of said region)? How does one know to the full extent of what many native Iraqi's and afghani's do not appreciate our prescence to some extent or another enough to want us to stay there. Do you honestly think that it's gotten so bad to as where as the honest everyday hardworking Iraqi is strapping himself with explosives determined to bring down the new government that has given him nothing but better hospitals, schools, facilities and a free and abundant life? Do you honestly believe that every citizen in Iraq wants to overthrow their government and wants to have a hardline theocratic regime like before?

Or are you wise enough to read beyond the bolden letters to see that the insurgency is what it is. A regional insurgency mainly conducted by non iraqi's and afghani's who were recruited outside of these respected countries, who were already raised in a hateful environment and were already predisposed to extreme ideoligies.

To sit around and point at our prescence in Iraq as causing nothing but increased recruitment as if that is proof enough that you were right about this war's consequences and to list that as a failure on american policy is quite unreasonable. Our presence in the middle east for whatever reason, wether it be just (afghanistan) or unjust (Iraq), will always serve as a recruitment tool for the global network of terrorist and those already predisposed to such belief.

*Our prescence in saudi arabia is what lead to 9/11, and guess what? We were not there to occupy or change their govt. We were just there to put it in plain words, to protect the holy land from Sadaam Hussien if he'd ever wish to invade it! And guess what this act alone was being used as a recruitment tool for alqueda in the 90's.

*Our defeat in somalia to a bunch of pseudo islamic warlords was used as an emboldening recruitment tool for alqueda.

*Our inaction towards the WTC bombing in 93 emboldened more recruits for alqueda.

*Our inaction towards the barrack bombings in lebanon under Reagan emboldened the terrorist.

*There are countless other reasons like the USS Cole, or our pressuring of Israel to halt military action, etc...ie..et al

Win, Lose or Draw, to a people who believe that Allah wills everything and anything to a certain outcome wether good or bad to show that he's on their side, and will never face reality, the point is that pointing towards increased terrorist attacks and increasment in recruiting because of our Iraq prescence as bad american policy, and that by that we are losing this war, is very lazy thinking. You should know better.

And you should also know that many of our dissenters overseas in arab countries do not care for our safety in the first place. They are indifferent and do not appreciate our prescence in that region because; a) we are infidels anyway b) they are content enough with their government to not want to overthrow it into a democratic form, and even if they did, would want to reform it to a more extreme conservative ideology. and c) have animosity towards our way of life insuch way that they blame us for their kids importing levi's, hip hop, liquor, western culture into their way of life. They will sit by idle with the islamic threat because they themselves are not in danger...yet.

Therefore, it is also prudent to know that the dissenters overseas in europe, latin america do not take the threat seriously and have no guts to fight the growing Islamic global jihad. If you are outside of the quack conspiracy or cynical crowd, you do see hints of global jihad do you? And what has made you believe till now that any country other than the U.S of A and Israel will actually want to go toe to toe against this threat that will engulf the world.

What country and it's citizenry, in the face of the earth has shown you that they will commit to figthing global jihad proactively? And what makes you think that they have any interest in us winning this war effectively, and that if it comes down to interrogation techniques to save their citizens, they would treat said terrorist much fairer than our land has?

What proof have you seen from any country that they too will be practicing Geneva laws when it comes to saving their citizens from terrorist attacks? Whose to say that France would resort to only tickling techniques to extort info to thwart an assasination plot on their prime minister?

So why do you and even other conservatives like Extra Stout,insist on trying to engage other countries;

1.who don't take the threat seriously, and don't want to commit any manpower to the War On Terror wether it be in just scenarious or unjust
2. are hypocritical themselves on interrogation tactics and will not change even if we follow a much softer interrogation technique.

, to persuade them in our form of thinking and prosecution of this war?

Who here actually believes that if we were to become softer on interrogation techniques, that we will actually change any significant country's own practices. WHo here thinks that Nkorea, China, Russia will treat our own intelligence and army officials like powder puffs if were were to tone down our efforts?

And even if in order for your world to exist the way you believe, and you were to tell me that there are more effective interrogation techniques that are softer and more humane, what study can you lead to me to prove this? What Empirical data, or even logical reasoning has concluded you to believe that toning down our interrogation techniques will help gather more information? Because us conservatives must be out of the loop on this one.

The US trying to persuade the world that into fighting this war seriously is like one trying to persuade Wilt Chamberlian into chas y.

The world is content, and has no interest in mankind. While one can point to our no bid contracts in iraq as being self serving, nevertheless our commitment to commit more american lives in that region so that we and the innocents in that region can live in a better world, is astounding. If we were there for oil, we have surely failed on that one. If we were there for economic gain on behalf of our country, we have failed on that one too. But we are there to actually eradicate the root problem, which will take time.


Conservatives will never formulate a winning strategy, because they somehow fail to grasp this.

I hate to paint with the broad brush of [all] "conservatives", but I haven't seen this realization really sink into the movement at all.

The concern is always with military solutions, and little else.

Describe to me how one would be winning in this war in Iraq, and afghanistan, succesfully while maintaning world oppinion at a positive high?

Since we were already in Iraq pre 2004, what would your administration have done?

How would you have done things differently while still fighting terrorism, and not come across as defeatist by withdrawing troops.

Tell me, since we are already in IRaq. What would have been signs of us winning there?

*Reduced recruitment of jihadist. (already an impossibility right now as I pointed out earlier in this thread.)

*NO terrorist attacks in iraq or minimal terrorist attacks

*No troop fatalities

*A functioning democracy that is on par with Brazil already in existence despite ALqueda's efforts to shut it down?

It seems to me that all these signs would be impossible to happen right away. It would be the equivalent to hoping that the moon would turn to Chocolate or some amamie idea.

And what if we had not invaded iraq in the first place, Wouldn't we have the same commitment of terrorist attacks in Afghanistan? Wouldn't our efforts be constantly being thwarted by alqueda there, or do you think that alqueda actually wouldn't mind our prescence there either?

Would winning the war on terror to you mean that we'd be having the same attacks as we have now in Iraq, but have world oppinion on our side.

Is victory then considered to be winning the hearts of every european, and jihadist into making them believe we are caring and just and humane?

Are we trying to make ourselves feel better or are we actually trying to commit ourselves to actually eradicating the problem?

Don't you think that if both Repug and Democrats shared the same exact commitment and willingness to fight terrorism, world oppinion wouldn't matter as much since we'd have the backing of an entire nation of people who so happens to succeed when they set their hearts on something, ex WW2 and WW1.

Because the way i see it, you either wipe out the whole mid east with a push of a couple buttons, or you take slow and painful techniques that will amount to many year decades, and administrations all putting that effort to gradually help that part of the region enter the 21'st century.

Because the world my freinds does not care or are serious about this matter.

Any one that believes so otherewise, show me right now and prove me wrong.

[ChumpDumper]

Brazil?

[Slomo]

Only true if the Afghanistan story doesn't run in the US.

Good point. So was the story in the US issue?

[Yonivore]

Good point. So was the story in the US issue?

Except that the cover is intended to sell the magazine on stands.

The Afghanistan cover is meant to appeal to those who would be interested in that story and would, therefore, be more likely to buy a copy off the newstand. I doubt these people would be equally interested in a story about Annie.

Obversely, in the United States, those who would buy the magazine to read a story about Annie Leibowitz (sp?) are less likely to be interested in the Afghanistan story.

So, why are they changing the cover for the U.S. issue?

[Slomo]

Except that the cover is intended to sell the magazine on stands.

The Afghanistan cover is meant to appeal to those who would be interested in that story and would, therefore, be more likely to buy a copy off the newstand. I doubt these people would be equally interested in a story about Annie.

Obversely, in the United States, those who would buy the magazine to read a story about Annie Leibowitz (sp?) are less likely to be interested in the Afghanistan story.

So, why are they changing the cover for the U.S. issue?

That's not the answer to my (extremely) simple question.

[Yonivore]

That's not the answer to my (extremely) simple question.

I don't know the answer to your question, I don't read the magazine.

But, that doesn't change the point that circulation and to whom they are targeting the issue -- outside subscription sales -- is largely driven by the cover. And, that those who pick up the magazine because Annie Liebowitz want's to talk about her life are probably not the same type of person who would pick up the magazine to read about the war in Afghanistan...and vice versa.

, go to the store and crack open the magazine if you want to know if the story is there. Or, e-mail the Newsweek ombudsman and ask.

[Slomo]

If you could do that I'd be grateful

Seriously though, while I agree that the cover drives sales, and I don't really have a problem with this, it's an entirely different thing to have the content of the same magazine adapted to the market in which it is distributed.

The brand name of Newsweek is supposed to stand for something and everything distributed under that brand should present a similar set of values or type of content or even from the same side of the political spectrum. If the magazine's content is different in different countries/continents then it should be clear at first glance that you are looking at different products. Even calling it Newsweek Japan or Newsweek Europe with added big Japanese or European flags in the logo would not be an acceptable solution if the European version is a left wing political magazine while the US version is a lifestyle/celebrity magazine. In such a case it really should be two different names/products.

And finally if you let the market absolutely dictate your editorial policies then your really have something that is not much more than a tabloid - and that should also be obvious to the reader. I'm not going to go as far as to invoke truth in advertising, but I think you can see my point.

So if the article is the same in all of those issues, then the issue is moot, and the only thing left to discuss are marketing strategies.

[ChumpDumper]

So, why are they changing the cover for the U.S. issue?

Because an American celebrity photographer would sell more issues in the US.

Period.

[Yonivore]

Because an American celebrity photographer would sell more issues in the US.

Period.

American priorities.

[ChumpDumper]

American priorities.

Yep.