Movies and News That Go Beyond Propaganda
It has been quite a while since I have actually seen a movie in a theater. It represents my protest against the prices and the previews that assault my eyes and ears. I watch movies only after they come out on DVD, and I do watch a lot of them.
Today I watched “September Dawn”, a movie that supposedly retells the story of a massacre carried out by Mormons on innocent pioneers back in 1857. The story reeks of Mormon craziness, deception and cruelty that rival the Islamic butchers who cut off people’s heads and set off bombs in crowded marketplaces. It definitely makes an attempt to equate the Mormons of the mid-1800’s with the Islamic terrorists we face today.
Isn’t it interesting that this movie was made and released (2007) by Hollywood just as a Mormon, Mitt Romney, was preparing to run for president as a conservative Republican who supports President Bush and his prosecution of the War on Islamic terrorists?
Isn’t it also interesting that Hollywood has also released recently at least four movies (like “Home of the Brave”) that portray soldiers returning from Iraq duty as crazed, walking time-bombs?
Isn’t it also interesting that, as unmistakable evidence of the success of the ‘surge’ bubbles up everywhere, the New York Times recently turned data upside down to try to portray returning soldiers as more-likely to commit murder than their contemporaries? The data actually showed just the opposite – that American soldiers who served in Iraq were much more likely to be model citizens than average. See “SMEARING SOLDIERS By RALPH PETERS”.
Late Edition: Isn’t it also interesting that the New York Times would choose now to run a story smearing Senator McCain?
Tale's tall on innuendo, short on proof
Thursday, February 21st 2008, NY DailyNews (Excerpt)
“Get ready for a feeding frenzy, with the press as the sharks and John McCain as the bloody chum.
The long-winded article The New York Times dropped on McCain Wednesday night falls between an impeccable investigative project and the "hit-and-run" smear job his campaign calls it. It is a meringue of tantalizing hints and innuendo about the steamy nexus of sex and power. It's all there - except a clear and firm direct allegation, let alone proof.
It suggests McCain had an affair with an attractive young lobbyist and used his Senate office to do favors for her clients. But it never actually says either of those things directly, relying instead on the worries of his aides that he was risking his reputation and career by being so close to the lobbyist and her clients.
Said aides are, unfortunately, mostly anonymous in the article.
Both McCain and the woman denied an affair, The Times reported. And the support McCain gave to her clients had been previously reported. And, oh, did I mention that this happened, if it all did happen, eight or nine years ago?”
Labels: Mainstream Media