Comments on: The Dumbing Down of America

By: Ugly American

Ugly American — Thu, 31 May 2007 04:33:17 +0000

As someone born and raised in the USA I can say without reservation that our mainstream media is bought and paid for.

The purpose of ‘news’ is not to tell the truth but to sell advertizing.

What people in other countries need to realize is that their media is also being manipulated.

By: Barnegat Blummis

Barnegat Blummis — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:51:23 +0000

also: a pox on fox!

By: Barnegat Blummis

Barnegat Blummis — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:50:37 +0000

Newsweek and Time and US News & World DamnedLies are all propaganda, crap and abunchahooey. So, what did you expect? The network “news” (what a joke when they call themselves “journalists” when they are simply non-entertaining entertainers. Katie , Meredith , Matt are just corporate whores and poseurs. So Americans continue to slumber. The phony controversies they create and project and their focus on death and “how did you feel when you heard the news of your son’s murder?” are their substitutes for taking a hard clear look at the lies, crimes and tasteless felonies of the Bush Gang. The hell with them all.

By: Milander

Milander — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:00:40 +0000

Bottom line is that anyone who reads these publications and thinks that they are geting balanced, informed news reportage is very, very, very sadly misguided… they may as well place their trust in FOX news. Nuff said.

By: Ken D

Ken D — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 16:54:43 +0000

What do you expect? Time magazine is the USA Today of magazines and appeals to the lowest common denominator. It generates revenue by spreading fear and rumors while avoiding thoughtful analysis. If you want analysis, read the Economist, if you want light weight things to scare you read Time and watch Fox.

By: James Taylor

James Taylor — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 16:08:06 +0000

Unbelievable. Now I feel completely justified in reading the Guardian website (http://www.guardian.co.uk/) instead of Time or Newsweek. What nonsense – who are they to say that American’s want tripe instead of news?

By: Brian II

Brian II — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:27:36 +0000

“The Taliban were not removed from power because of their human rights record as much as I might wish that were the case. They were removed because they were not sympathetic enough to UNOCAL”

Classic internet fiction. By the way, do you think that the Taliban were not well compensated (arms, money) by OBL for letting them train in AF? So you would rather that the Taliban get paid by OBL than have an oil company come in and diversify the economy away from heroin? Love those armchair QB’s!

By: Joshua Foust

Joshua Foust — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 12:59:15 +0000

It is, and if you think Unocal had anything to do with the invasion, then you really have no business commenting here further.

The plain and simple fact of the matter is: the Taliban and al-Qaeda were intricately intertwined, and continue to be so in Pakistan. That is the source of much of the violence in Wana: clashes between the Taliban and their Arab al-Qaeda allies, and the Uzbek extremists who take advantage of the lawless expanse of mountains.

Remember, even after September 11 (and for years beforehand), the U.S. was trying to get the Taliban to give up bin Laden. The two were allies, and bin Laden’s camps trained all of the Taliban’s fighters. They were virtually indistinguishable in that sense. So, yes, saying “Afghanistan” attacked us on 9/11 is a simplification, perhaps even an over-simplification, but it isn’t inaccurate.

Those hijackers were funded, trained, and supported by Osama bin Laden, living under official sanction of the Taliban in Afghanistan. This isn’t hard. It is basic history. Maybe if you didn’t read Time you’d have realized this.

By: tc

tc — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 12:46:26 +0000

Perhaps I wasn’t clear. The point is that the Taliban, as odious as they are, did not attack the US. The Taliban were not removed from power because of their human rights record as much as I might wish that were the case. They were removed because they were not sympathetic enough to UNOCAL. And they have been replaced by the Northern Alliance, a group with an equally atrocious record on human and women’s rights. But the evils of current and past regimes aside, none of them were among the alleged hijackers, who were primarily Saudi, which doesn’t mean that Saudi Arabia attacked the US either. I don’t believe it’s fair to blame a country for the actions of a small group of people that lived for some time within the borders of that country. If that were the case it would be equally factual to say that “the US actually attacked the US on 9/11″ because the alleged hijackers were living in the US.

The point of this post is that people in the US should be educated and articulate about foreign policy concerning Afghanistan right?

By: Joshua Foust

Joshua Foust — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:30:48 +0000

Kieth – sorry, you’re not going to get me to think that a celebrity photographer or the stale old debate about the bible in public school is a more important story than losing Afghanistan.

tc – I must have missed the time we established diplomatic and economic ties with the Taliban and Madeline Albright and Hillary Clinton didn’t publicly condemn them for their horrible treatment of women.

Johnny – we Americans love schadenfreude as well. That doesn’t mean a story must be only schadenfreude: losing Afghanistan might please the Europeans who enjoy seeing us humbled, but it is of rather significant strategic import.

Final thought: It would be one thing if these rags never covered the area in the first place. I could honestly see why, as “it’s simply too complicated and remote for our readership,” though puzzling considering both have pretensions of Serious News, is at least defensible. There is no excuse to send the rest of the world cover stories about American failures while covering up the same in the States. None. It is absolute condescension.