PDA

View Full Version : Should news corporations be connected to war?



iustitia
03-10-2015, 01:38 PM
America is constantly at war. That's not a controversial statement. In 1983, 90% of US media was owned by 50 companies. Now over 90% of US media is controlled by 6 media giants (General Electric, Newscorp, Disney, Viacom, AOL/Time Warner, and CBS). 2 of which, Viacom and CBS, are part of a larger conglomeration (National Amusements).

http://www.militaryindustrialcomplex.com/totals.asp?thisContractor=General%20Electric

General Electric has had over 23 billion dollars in defense contracts and that's since 2003. GE owns Comcast, NBC and MSNBC.

Should companies that report news and have the power to sway public opinion be connected to the war industry?

Captain Obvious
03-10-2015, 01:40 PM
Doesn't it already?

iustitia
03-10-2015, 01:41 PM
Of course. They always have. But I'm suggesting that maybe a company shouldn't be reporting news when it has a financial incentive to not merely report on wars but also start them.

Green Arrow
03-10-2015, 01:43 PM
No, but frankly this is nothing new. The Spanish-American War was 100% caused by U.S. newspapers and that happened back in 1898. To this day, we give an award to journalists called the "Pulitzer Prize," named after one of the leaders of the yellow journalism movement that caused the Spanish-American War, Joseph Pulitzer.

Captain Obvious
03-10-2015, 01:44 PM
Of course. They always have. But I'm suggesting that maybe a company shouldn't be reporting news when it has a financial incentive to not merely report on wars but also start them.

Back it up here, how about "no company profits from war"?

Period?

What's wrong with that?

Chris
03-10-2015, 01:44 PM
Interesting thought and I can see how the media profits from war but it needs to be reported so there seems to me to be a conundrum.

iustitia
03-10-2015, 01:45 PM
A slight difference between muckraking then and now is that the media is literally a branch of the military-industrial complex.

Green Arrow
03-10-2015, 01:46 PM
A slight difference between muckraking then and now is that the media is literally a branch of the military-industrial complex.

Absolutely.

Chris
03-10-2015, 01:54 PM
A slight difference between muckraking then and now is that the media is literally a branch of the military-industrial complex.

True, it's much more propagandist today. Or is it? The so-called federalists and anti-federalists used the media to argue their points for example.

southwest88
03-10-2015, 02:52 PM
Of course. They always have. But I'm suggesting that maybe a company shouldn't be reporting news when it has a financial incentive to not merely report on wars but also start them.

Exactly. The concentration of media ownership in the US should frighten anyone concerned about the republic. & Newscorp - a flag of convenience - shouldn't be allowed to own any mass media outlets in the US. Murdock puts on & off nationalities, wives, whatever is required to muscle his way into markets.

The Founding Fathers did not carve out preferential treatment for the press because they loved the press, it was to disseminate all points of view & make sure no arguments of merit were ignored or missed. The megalocorps that regularly diddle the news in the US are now about controlling what gobbets of news gets out of the McMansions, palaces & smoke-filled rooms.

I would move to reinstate the former limitations on concentration of ownership by large media firms in the US. One newspaper, one TV station, one radio station per market with the same ownership. AM radio, for instance, is down to talk radio or cart machines CPU-controlled from some headquarters. If there is local news of import - a tornado, a flood, chemical spill, etc. - there's no one @ the station to broadcast it. & there's typically no way to get to a human @ the central office - it's all droids putting out product for other droids. Unless, of course, you prefer mechanical music to human music.

Chris
03-10-2015, 03:02 PM
Exactly. The concentration of media ownership in the US should frighten anyone concerned about the republic. & Newscorp - a flag of convenience - shouldn't be allowed to own any mass media outlets in the US. Murdock puts on & off nationalities, wives, whatever is required to muscle his way into markets.

The Founding Fathers did not carve out preferential treatment for the press because they loved the press, it was to disseminate all points of view & make sure no arguments of merit were ignored or missed. The megalocorps that regularly diddle the news in the US are now about controlling what gobbets of news gets out of the McMansions, palaces & smoke-filled rooms.

I would move to reinstate the former limitations on concentration of ownership by large media firms in the US. One newspaper, one TV station, one radio station per market with the same ownership. AM radio, for instance, is down to talk radio or cart machines CPU-controlled from some headquarters. If there is local news of import - a tornado, a flood, chemical spill, etc. - there's no one @ the station to broadcast it. & there's typically no way to get to a human @ the central office - it's all droids putting out product for other droids. Unless, of course, you prefer mechanical music to human music.


OK, but how would you do that short of putting government in monopolistic control of the media?

iustitia
03-10-2015, 03:09 PM
Recognizing that legislation has only ever propped up monopolies, not harmed them, I would personally rather see it become law that no sector of the war industry may have commercial/corporate connections to the press. Conglomerates that own media outlets would be barred from receiving military contracts.

Chris
03-10-2015, 03:18 PM
Recognizing that legislation has only ever propped up monopolies, not harmed them, I would personally rather see it become law that no sector of the war industry may have commercial/corporate connections to the press. Conglomerates that own media outlets would be barred from receiving military contracts.

I prefer putting it the government, especially the ilitary, would be barred from making contracts with media outlets, same difference I suppose, but I prefer limiting government.

southwest88
03-10-2015, 03:36 PM
OK, but how would you do that short of putting government in monopolistic control of the media?

There are various models. There's the UK licensing fee per TV, for instance. The funding could go to community-based TV consortia (providing programing) or stations. Or even to PBS, to fund expanding into all the major markets in the US (they may already be there, I'd have to look). Or setting up a different distribution net, over the Internet, for instance.

We could look into how Canada manages their mass media, or other countries. The overriding aim should be free & wide-ranging debate & exposition of the issues - not just the latest gossip on celebs, sports figures & reality shows. Or funding & talent could be put to serious programming - grants, loans, etc. We don't need another warmedy about 20-somethings in the big city.

Chris
03-10-2015, 03:42 PM
There are various models. There's the UK licensing fee per TV, for instance. The funding could go to community-based TV consortia (providing programing) or stations. Or even to PBS, to fund expanding into all the major markets in the US (they may already be there, I'd have to look). Or setting up a different distribution net, over the Internet, for instance.

We could look into how Canada manages their mass media, or other countries. The overriding aim should be free & wide-ranging debate & exposition of the issues - not just the latest gossip on celebs, sports figures & reality shows. Or funding & talent could be put to serious programming - grants, loans, etc. We don't need another warmedy about 20-somethings in the big city.


Your examples are all of government managing media. How does that control result in greater freedom? How do you avoid the monopolizing tendency of government to as iustitia said "Recognizing that legislation has only ever propped up monopolies"? How would you stop government from controlling the media to their own benefit to, say, support the military-industrial complex, the war racket?

southwest88
03-10-2015, 04:27 PM
Your examples are all of government managing media. How does that control result in greater freedom? How do you avoid the monopolizing tendency of government to as iustitia said "Recognizing that legislation has only ever propped up monopolies"? How would you stop government from controlling the media to their own benefit to, say, support the military-industrial complex, the war racket?

I am interested in wider discussion of a bigger field of ideas, domestically, in our mass media. Freedom is a wonderful concept - but hard to translate into practice. So I prefer to break up the existing/forming mass media networks, & allow wider dispersal of media power - to smaller communities, to rising groups, to outsider groups, if you like.

I believe that if programming is of interest & of quality, it will find a demand. The commercial mass media seem to operate from the other end of the spectrum, in the belief that if the product is dumbed down sufficiently, anyone with a pulse may watch & so boost the CPM - the money charged to advertisers to reach eyeballs.

I think there's an inherent flaw there - if the corporates keep expanding @ the rate they're going, they'll soon be selling & buying & providing content, packaging, marketing - all things to all people (other corporates included, of course). @ that point, the mass media market in the US will simply be an up-technology version of the arts & crafts set in Santa Fe & other art colonies. We'll all take in each others' ceramics & hangings & macramé.

That's not a future I'm interested in. I can entertain myself just fine - I want some serious content to the means of mass communication in the US. Else we should strip them of their privileged place in the domestic political economy, & move on to try something else in their stead.

Howey
03-10-2015, 05:13 PM
America is constantly at war. That's not a controversial statement. In 1983, 90% of US media was owned by 50 companies. Now over 90% of US media is controlled by 6 media giants (General Electric, Newscorp, Disney, Viacom, AOL/Time Warner, and CBS). 2 of which, Viacom and CBS, are part of a larger conglomeration (National Amusements).

http://www.militaryindustrialcomplex.com/totals.asp?thisContractor=General%20Electric

General Electric has had over 23 billion dollars in defense contracts and that's since 2003. GE owns Comcast, NBC and MSNBC.

Should companies that report news and have the power to sway public opinion be connected to the war industry?


GE doesn't own them anymore. Comcast bought them out in 2013.

Chris
03-10-2015, 05:23 PM
I am interested in wider discussion of a bigger field of ideas, domestically, in our mass media. Freedom is a wonderful concept - but hard to translate into practice. So I prefer to break up the existing/forming mass media networks, & allow wider dispersal of media power - to smaller communities, to rising groups, to outsider groups, if you like.

I believe that if programming is of interest & of quality, it will find a demand. The commercial mass media seem to operate from the other end of the spectrum, in the belief that if the product is dumbed down sufficiently, anyone with a pulse may watch & so boost the CPM - the money charged to advertisers to reach eyeballs.

I think there's an inherent flaw there - if the corporates keep expanding @ the rate they're going, they'll soon be selling & buying & providing content, packaging, marketing - all things to all people (other corporates included, of course). @ that point, the mass media market in the US will simply be an up-technology version of the arts & crafts set in Santa Fe & other art colonies. We'll all take in each others' ceramics & hangings & macramé.

That's not a future I'm interested in. I can entertain myself just fine - I want some serious content to the means of mass communication in the US. Else we should strip them of their privileged place in the domestic political economy, & move on to try something else in their stead.



Freedom in this context would be "wider discussion of a bigger field of ideas."

Doesn't the Internet with it's pull technology accomplish the defeat of the push technology you desire? Push = broadcast to us. Pull = we seek information.

SO I think it's already happening so log as we can escape the misname net neutrality.

southwest88
03-10-2015, 06:41 PM
Freedom in this context would be "wider discussion of a bigger field of ideas."

Doesn't the Internet with it's pull technology accomplish the defeat of the push technology you desire? Push = broadcast to us. Pull = we seek information.

SO I think it's already happening so log as we can escape the misname net neutrality.

Yes, if the backbones of the 'Net weren't rife with interception protocols, induction taps, backdoors to hardware & software, intercepts & decrypts (lots of cycles to throw @ the problem) & on & on. If the US domestic intel organs had been content to leave well enough alone, perhaps we could rely on market forces. But actually, I doubt it.

The intel organs, no matter whose they are, are always greedy for the next plateau of control/transparency - so long as it's the other guy they're targeting. As our domestic router & other manufacturers & designers are finding out/have found out to their sorrow - once you get tagged with the deceptive practices tag, it's v. hard to get rid of it.

Which will lead to diminishing market share for our tech/software manufacturers, & the rise of foreign counterparts & 'nets. Which was bound to happen anyway, just as the Soviets were bound to manage nuclear weapons once they knew it was possible (& China, Israel, Pakistan, etc.)

In the case of the US nets, lots of World traffic passes through our nets, directly or indirectly. This is changing/will change, since the NSA & related have been foolish enough to have grown beyond their ability to manage the distribution of product/vet their personnel thoroughly. & no military/intel/diplomatic service will ever run their traffic through our nets again - unless to plant disinformation, perhaps.

The relevant question on the 'Net v. ordinary mass media - who owns the backbone? TMK, that's the large CPU clusters that are mainly in the public sectors - big education (universities, especially technical ones), big health, big weather outfits, & the plethora of federal agencies that use vast amounts of CPU cycles in their daily work - economics, finance, oceanology, power modeling, the spook agencies, the military, the state governments, census, & so on. Effectively, if the feds were to pull out of the various consortia, the 'net would collapse.

However unlikely - because of the shared pain implicit in doing so - if you can destroy something, you control it - even if the iron glove has a nice velvet skin.

iustitia
03-10-2015, 08:02 PM
GE doesn't own them anymore. Comcast bought them out in 2013.

Oh wow I'm an idiot. I thought for a second that Comcast was still connected to GE and NBC was a common property. I was going off an old infograph from 2012 which is now obviously out of date.

http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/4fd9ee1e6bb3f7af5700000a/media-infographic.jpg

Oh well, guess the only thing we need to worry about is Operation Mockingbird. :afro:

Howey
03-10-2015, 08:08 PM
Oh wow I'm an idiot. I thought for a second that Comcast was still connected to GE and NBC was a common property. I was going off an old infograph from 2012 which is now obviously out of date.

http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/4fd9ee1e6bb3f7af5700000a/media-infographic.jpg

Oh well, guess the only thing we need to worry about is Operation Mockingbird. :afro:

@Thats what I like about you, iustitia.

Chris
03-10-2015, 08:09 PM
Yes, if the backbones of the 'Net weren't rife with interception protocols, induction taps, backdoors to hardware & software, intercepts & decrypts (lots of cycles to throw @ the problem) & on & on. If the US domestic intel organs had been content to leave well enough alone, perhaps we could rely on market forces. But actually, I doubt it.

The intel organs, no matter whose they are, are always greedy for the next plateau of control/transparency - so long as it's the other guy they're targeting. As our domestic router & other manufacturers & designers are finding out/have found out to their sorrow - once you get tagged with the deceptive practices tag, it's v. hard to get rid of it.

Which will lead to diminishing market share for our tech/software manufacturers, & the rise of foreign counterparts & 'nets. Which was bound to happen anyway, just as the Soviets were bound to manage nuclear weapons once they knew it was possible (& China, Israel, Pakistan, etc.)

In the case of the US nets, lots of World traffic passes through our nets, directly or indirectly. This is changing/will change, since the NSA & related have been foolish enough to have grown beyond their ability to manage the distribution of product/vet their personnel thoroughly. & no military/intel/diplomatic service will ever run their traffic through our nets again - unless to plant disinformation, perhaps.

The relevant question on the 'Net v. ordinary mass media - who owns the backbone? TMK, that's the large CPU clusters that are mainly in the public sectors - big education (universities, especially technical ones), big health, big weather outfits, & the plethora of federal agencies that use vast amounts of CPU cycles in their daily work - economics, finance, oceanology, power modeling, the spook agencies, the military, the state governments, census, & so on. Effectively, if the feds were to pull out of the various consortia, the 'net would collapse.

However unlikely - because of the shared pain implicit in doing so - if you can destroy something, you control it - even if the iron glove has a nice velvet skin.


Right, but we're moving toward the Internet of Things where the networks will be decentralized, distributed, and no one will have control.

Polly, one of your fellow Marxists here on the forum places great hope in them. I,as a freemarket anarchist, see great potential as well.

gamewell45
03-10-2015, 08:14 PM
America is constantly at war. That's not a controversial statement. In 1983, 90% of US media was owned by 50 companies. Now over 90% of US media is controlled by 6 media giants (General Electric, Newscorp, Disney, Viacom, AOL/Time Warner, and CBS). 2 of which, Viacom and CBS, are part of a larger conglomeration (National Amusements).

http://www.militaryindustrialcomplex.com/totals.asp?thisContractor=General%20Electric

General Electric has had over 23 billion dollars in defense contracts and that's since 2003. GE owns Comcast, NBC and MSNBC.

Should companies that report news and have the power to sway public opinion be connected to the war industry?

General Electric sold it's share of NBC Universal to Comcast in 2013 and is effectively out of the broadcast business.

http://nypost.com/2013/02/13/ge-sells-nbcuniversal-stake-offices-and-studios-to-comcast-for-18b/

iustitia
03-10-2015, 08:35 PM
@Thats what I like about you, @iustitia (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=926).

lol That I'm an idiot? :pointlaugh:

Green Arrow
03-10-2015, 10:15 PM
General Electric sold it's share of NBC Universal to Comcast in 2013 and is effectively out of the broadcast business.

http://nypost.com/2013/02/13/ge-sells-nbcuniversal-stake-offices-and-studios-to-comcast-for-18b/

That doesn't change the point.

Howey
03-10-2015, 11:06 PM
lol That I'm an idiot? :pointlaugh:

lol, no. That you admit to your mistakes.

gamewell45
03-10-2015, 11:21 PM
That doesn't change the point.

Perhaps not, but never hurts to be factual.

iustitia
03-10-2015, 11:33 PM
lol, no. That you admit to your mistakes.

Ah. I'll always concede when I'm wrong. Pride, in my opinion, is possibly the worst sin man is capable of. One of the reasons I hate neoconservatism so much is that militarism is based in ignorant pride, whereas true conservatism is historically rooted in modesty and restraint. Hubris causes more problems than it fixes. I get hot-headed sometimes but I try to resist the urge to act the fool, unlike many 'conservatives' here that'll jump on any issue involving race, sexuality, science, et al.

*ahem*

lib lib lib libs librul libtard libertarian libertine socialist obumer muzzies

Bob
03-10-2015, 11:35 PM
No, but frankly this is nothing new. The Spanish-American War was 100% caused by U.S. newspapers and that happened back in 1898. To this day, we give an award to journalists called the "Pulitzer Prize," named after one of the leaders of the yellow journalism movement that caused the Spanish-American War, Joseph Pulitzer.

Right, papers started WW2 as well at Pearl harbor with more battleships sunk. :rollseyes:

Green Arrow
03-10-2015, 11:36 PM
Right, papers started WW2 as well at Pearl harbor with more battleships sunk. :rollseyes:

Nope, to my knowledge U.S. newspapers had nothing to do with the start of WWII.

iustitia
03-10-2015, 11:49 PM
FDR did manipulate the country by repeating the lie that Hitler was behind Pearl Harbor. Kind of like Saddam being linked to 9/11. And there's also the unintended leak to The Chicago Tribune of Plan Rainbow Five to invade Europe with 5 million troops to get Hitler, which Hitler ended up referencing in his 'declaration of war' speech. The press was definitely used as a weapon by FDR.

Scumbag.

Green Arrow
03-10-2015, 11:52 PM
FDR did manipulate the country by repeating the lie that Hitler was behind Pearl Harbor. Kind of like Saddam being linked to 9/11. And there's also the unintended leak to The Chicago Tribune of Plan Rainbow Five to invade Europe with 5 million troops to get Hitler, which Hitler ended up referencing in his 'declaration of war' speech. The press was definitely used as a weapon by FDR.

Scumbag.

Sure, the press was used by the government, but it wasn't nearly the same as pretty much every major newspaper in the nation pushing the American government into declaring war on Spain in 1898. In the case of WWII, the government used the press. In 1898, the press used the government.

iustitia
03-11-2015, 12:02 AM
I would argue that the government was just as eager for war and muckraking/yellow journalists just armed them with ammo. Many business and political interests wanted Cuba. The fact is sadly that the press has backed every war at first. The press are always hawks at the start and when or if they become doves it's too little too late.

But what caused me to make this topic was the thought that collusion was even easier if the military and press are one and the same. The ability to literally sell Americans the war you're going to start. The Spanish-American War, like 1812 and Mexico, was a land/resource grab. Since WWI, however, we've had a military-industrial complex. It's not merely land, sugar or oil that propels war, but war itself. War is an industry, both the means and the ends. Combined with a propaganda arm, the press, it's an unstoppable force.

Green Arrow
03-11-2015, 12:07 AM
I would argue that the government was just as eager for war and muckraking/yellow journalists just armed them with ammo. Many business and political interests wanted Cuba. The fact is sadly that the press has backed every war at first. The press are always hawks at the start and when or if they become doves it's too little too late.

I don't know that I'd agree with that. Everything I've studied on the matter suggests that the government was reluctant to go to war with Spain, and the only reason they finally ended up doing so was because the newspapers had so incensed the populace toward war that they literally had to do it or they'd lose their jobs in the next election.


But what caused me to make this topic was the thought that collusion was even easier if the military and press are one and the same. The ability to literally sell Americans the war you're going to start. The Spanish-American War, like 1812 and Mexico, was a land/resource grab. Since WWI, however, we've had a military-industrial complex. It's not merely land, sugar or oil that propels war, but war itself. War is an industry, both the means and the ends. Combined with a propaganda arm, the press, it's an unstoppable force.

I don't disagree with any of that.

iustitia
03-11-2015, 02:59 AM
I don't know that I'd agree with that. Everything I've studied on the matter suggests that the government was reluctant to go to war with Spain, and the only reason they finally ended up doing so was because the newspapers had so incensed the populace toward war that they literally had to do it or they'd lose their jobs in the next election.

The sinking of the second-class battleship U.S.S. Maine and Hearst's publishing of the De Lme Letter should be seen as contributing factors but not causes of the war. Empire was already in the American mind which is why the anti-imperialist movement was the exception and not the rule. Plans for an expansionist empire spanning from Canada, to Latin America and the Caribbean, and to the Pacific existed as far back as Lincoln's Secretary of State William Steward. August Belmont also backed the course of war with Spain on behalf of the Rothschild banking interests. The Rothschilds financed Spain for some time and refused to give them further credit, then funded the Cuban revolutionaries. US intervention in Cuba goes back to the Morgan-backed administration of President Grover Cleveland and Secretary of State Richard Olney. Supporters of American meddling in Cuba included the millionaire sugar king Edwin F. Atkins, a close friend of Richard Olney (a fellow-Bostonian), and a partner of J.P. Morgan and Company. By the end of 1895 Olney concluded Spain was too weak to win against a Cuban revolution and advocated recognizing Cuban independence and US-backing of rebels to support American commerce and capital.

Beyond Cleveland's administration John Hay, Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan, Elihu Root, Henry Cabot Lodge, and Theodore Roosevelt were the founding fathers of American imperialism overseas. Mahan, Lodge and Roosevelt plotted the warpath with Spain. Mahan was a friend of Teddy and retired from the Navy in 1896, then worked out rationale for expansionism through writing and essentially setting the philosophy of American Navy doctrine for the Spanish-American War and inter-war period. Henry Cabot Lodge exploited his power in the Senate to push and win support for war. The man was a political manipulator and Roosevelt's mentor. Roosevelt, the activist, used his position as Assistant Secretary of the Navy to persuade higher-ups, McKinley included. Teddy, keep in mind, essentially ran the department. John Hay was Secretary of State under McKinley and Roosevelt, and Root was Secretary of War under them as well. These two men were not as blood-thirsty as the others, however they still set the course of American imperialism in Asia and the Caribbean respectively with the war's end. Roosevelt, Mahan and Lodge's plotting set the framework for even Woodrow Wilson's interventions in Latin America, which is ironic because Lodge and Roosevelt were Wilson's enemies. The men that crafted American policy were essentially easterners, proclaimed intellectuals, politically-connected, wealthy or professionals, and belonged to clubs in New York and Washington.

I would also posit that, had war been forced on American politicians, the US would not have so thoroughly relished committing the genocide of 300,000 Filipinos. McKinley confessed to a visiting delegation of Methodist ministers that he fell to his knees and prayed for enlightenment and that God told him it was his duty to uplift, civilize, and Christianize the Filipinos. McKinley understood that to his electorate, imperialism was a dirty word, and so he made Americans believe that their nation’s boldly imperial moves were instead efforts of great compassion and sacrifice. If the average American felt pity for Others, he had a Christian duty to help. The problem here is that the Filipinos were already Christians. You know, because of Spain and all that.

I seriously question yellow journalism regarding Cuba leading to possession of Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines as colonies and Cuba by luck. Andrew Carnegie offered to buy the Philippines' independence from the US with a $20 million check, the amount the US paid Spain. No takers. In the words of the long forgotten William Sumner, "My patriotism is outraged by the notion that the United States never was a great nation until in a petty three months campaign it knocked to pieces a poor, decrepit, bankrupt old state like Spain." Cuba itself became a protectorate and despite claiming its independence, the Platt Amendment gave us the right to maliciously and chalantly intervene in their affairs for corporate interests.

And just to put something crazy out there, there is evidence that could suggest that Theodore Roosevelt was plotting policy in the Philippines while he wasn't even in office. If one considers that the full title of "The White Man's Burden" is actually The White Man’s Burden: The United States and The Philippine Islands. Its author, Rudyard Kipling, wrote to Teddy in September of 1898- "Now go in and put all the weight of your influence into hanging on permanently to the whole Philippines. America has gone and stuck a pickaxe into the foundations of a rotten house and she is morally bound to build the house over again from the foundations or have it fall about her ears".

He forwarded the poem to Roosevelt in November of the same year. Why though? In the fall of 1898, Roosevelt had no official office. Yet Kipling sent the poem to him. Not to McKinley, who was President at the time; not to John D. Long, who was Secretary of the Navy then. Economics. Roosevelts were Morgan men and McKinley was a Rockefeller man. It's very interesting to go through the financial connections of the elites of our past to better understand its politics. Teddy became Vice President as a compromise within the GOP, and this is also related to why Republicans switched from traditional support for fiat currency to the gold standard. It was also this Morgan power grab that, upon McKinley's convenient assassination, threw Roosevelt into power and cemented the "Great Rapprochement" policy that allied America with its longtime enemy Great Britain, and would lead to an end to friendly German-American relations and inevitably Anglo-American machinations for world wars. Teddy also pretty much convinced the Japanese they were "Honorary Aryans" which pretty much gave the green light for imperialism in Manchuria and Korea, which is totally not ironic considering Franklin Roosevelt would take us to war over Japan's militarism. Which totally was not planned by the way.

History is fucked up.

Green Arrow
03-11-2015, 02:59 AM
The sinking of the second-class battleship U.S.S. Maine and Hearst's publishing of the De Lme Letter should be seen as contributing factors but not causes of the war. Empire was already in the American mind which is why the anti-imperialist movement was the exception and not the rule. Plans for an expansionist empire spanning from Canada, to Latin America and the Caribbean, and to the Pacific existed as far back as Lincoln's Secretary of State William Steward. August Belmont also backed the course of war with Spain on behalf of the Rothschild banking interests. The Rothschilds financed Spain for some time and refused to give them further credit, then funded the Cuban revolutionaries. US intervention in Cuba goes back to the Morgan-backed administration of President Grover Cleveland and Secretary of State Richard Olney. Supporters of American meddling in Cuba included the millionaire sugar king Edwin F. Atkins, a close friend of Richard Olney (a fellow-Bostonian), and a partner of J.P. Morgan and Company. By the end of 1895 Olney concluded Spain was too weak to win against a Cuban revolution and advocated recognizing Cuban independence and US-backing of rebels to support American commerce and capital.

Beyond Cleveland's administration John Hay, Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan, Elihu Root, Henry Cabot Lodge, and Theodore Roosevelt were the founding fathers of American imperialism overseas. Mahan, Lodge and Roosevelt plotted the warpath with Spain. Mahan was a friend of Teddy and retired from the Navy in 1896, then worked out rationale for expansionism through writing and essentially setting the philosophy of American Navy doctrine for the Spanish-American War and inter-war period. Henry Cabot Lodge exploited his power in the Senate to push and win support for war. The man was a political manipulator and Roosevelt's mentor. Roosevelt, the activist, used his position as Assistant Secretary of the Navy to persuade higher-ups, McKinley included. Teddy, keep in mind, essentially ran the department. John Hay was Secretary of State under McKinley and Roosevelt, and Root was Secretary of War under them as well. These two men were not as blood-thirsty as the others, however they still set the course of American imperialism in Asia and the Caribbean respectively with the war's end. Roosevelt, Mahan and Lodge's plotting set the framework for even Woodrow Wilson's interventions in Latin America, which is ironic because Lodge and Roosevelt were Wilson's enemy. The men that crafted American policy were essentially easterners, proclaimed intellectuals, politically-connected, wealthy or professionals, and belonged to clubs in New York and Washington.

I would also posit that, had war been forced on American politicians, the US would not have so thoroughly relished committing the genocide of 300,000 Filipinos. McKinley confessed to a visiting delegation of Methodist ministers that he fell to his knees and prayed for enlightenment and that God told him it was his duty to uplift, civilize, and Christianize the Filipinos. McKinley understood that to his electorate, imperialism was a dirty word, and so he made Americans believe that their nation’s boldly imperial moves were instead efforts of great compassion and sacrifice. If the average American felt pity for Others, he had a Christian duty to help. The problem here is that the Filipinos were already Christians. You know, because of Spain and all that.

I seriously question yellow journalism regarding Cuba leading to possession of Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines as colonies and Cuba by luck. Andrew Carnegie offered to buy the Philippines' independence from the US with a $20 million check, the amount the US paid Spain. No takers. In the words of the long forgotten William Sumner, "My patriotism is outraged by the notion that the United States never was a great nation until in a petty three months campaign it knocked to pieces a poor, decrepit, bankrupt old state like Spain." Cuba itself became a protectorate and despite claiming its independence, the Platt Amendment gave us the right to maliciously and chalantly intervene in their affairs for corporate interests.

And just to put something crazy out there, there is evidence that could suggest that Theodore Roosevelt was plotting policy in the Philippines while he wasn't even in office. If one considers that the full title of "The White Man's Burden" is actually The White Man’s Burden: The United States and The Philippine Islands. Its author, Rudyard Kipling, wrote to Teddy in September of 1898- "Now go in and put all the weight of your influence into hanging on permanently to the whole Philippines. America has gone and stuck a pickaxe into the foundations of a rotten house and she is morally bound to build the house over again from the foundations or have it fall about her ears".

He forwarded the poem to Roosevelt in November of the same year. Why though? In the fall of 1898, Roosevelt had no official office. Yet Kipling sent the poem to him. Not to McKinley, who was President at the time; not to John D. Long, who was Secretary of the Navy then. Economics. Roosevelts were Morgan men and McKinley was a Rockefeller man. It's very interesting to go through the financial connections of the elites of our past to better understand its politics. Teddy became Vice President as a compromise within the GOP, and this is also related to why Republicans switched from traditional support for fiat currency to the gold standard. It was also this Morgan power grab that, upon McKinley's convenient assassination, threw Roosevelt into power and cemented the "Great Rapprochement" policy that allied America with its longtime enemy Great Britain, and would lead to an end to friendly German-American relations and inevitably Anglo-American machinations for world wars. Teddy also pretty much convinced the Japanese they were "Honorary Aryans" which pretty much gave the green light for imperialism in Manchuria and Korea, which is totally not ironic considering Franklin Roosevelt would take us to war over Japan's militarism. Which totally was not planned by the way.

History is fucked up.

I'm not arguing against any of that. I recognize that there were many factors involved, but you simply can't just wash out the powerful effect Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Heartz (who led the movement, but were by far not the only ones) had through the newspapers.

iustitia
03-11-2015, 03:13 AM
I'm not arguing against any of that. I recognize that there were many factors involved, but you simply can't just wash out the powerful effect Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Heartz (who led the movement, but were by far not the only ones) had through the newspapers.

I'm not trying to whitewash anything, just asserting that the government wasn't as unwilling to fight as we might think and indeed the plotters were plotting for some time. Any resistance to open warfare can be attributed to business concerns of commerce and capital disruption, as the policy immediately before war was to minimize Spanish influence while also pacifying the Cuban people. This "middle-ground" was Spanish rule with Cuban autonomy. It was always about hegemony and maneuvering. When fall came in 1895 Olney saw no reason to continue humoring a pathetic Spain.

Common
03-11-2015, 04:26 AM
News hasnt been news since cable started 24/7 shows. There is not enough news to report so the lionshare is entertainment and brainwashing.

Traditional News has become well Brian Williams and all the rest that have been busted and lost their jobs in their last few years.

When americans had the 6oclock news and the 11 oclock news, they trusted the news and thier reporters far more. Cable news destroyed all that.

Most every segment of our society has been destroyed by unbridled greed cable news is no different.

Middle america is screwed, they cant trust their politicians cant trust the news, wtf do they have.

Bob
03-11-2015, 10:38 AM
Nope, to my knowledge U.S. newspapers had nothing to do with the start of WWII.

Interesting you blame papers for the spanish /american war. You probably are alone in that belief.

iustitia
03-11-2015, 11:47 AM
He's not really wrong, there's just more to it. But muckraking and yellow journalists were behind quite a bit in the age of imperialism and progressivism. Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, for instance, was a muckraking hitpiece and absurdly resulted in the FDA. Ironically that book was about working rights but the state used it as an opportunity to regulate the market and waste 30 million dollars a year on inspections that it itself proved were not needed because Sinclair's claims were false.

But yeah. Popular sentiment leads to shitty things, from legislation to war.

Green Arrow
03-11-2015, 01:25 PM
Interesting you blame papers for the spanish /american war. You probably are alone in that belief.

I'm not.

iustitia
03-11-2015, 01:30 PM
Bob, it's actually a fairly accepted view that atrocity propaganda was a major part of the war hysteria.

iustitia
03-11-2015, 01:34 PM
That's not just in 1898, btw. The Gulf War was entirely manufactured from America's backroom power plays pitting Kuwait and Iraq against one another, to the atrocity propaganda lies about Iraqis stealing Kuwaiti baby incubators. All our wars are entirely manufactured and the press is a part of it.

Bob
03-11-2015, 01:36 PM
I'm not.

Let's get at the real reason why McKinley waged war on Spain.

This grew sharper after the insurgents, refusing a Spanish offer of partial autonomy, determined to fight for full freedom.
Although the majority of Americans, including President McKinley (http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/people/mckinley-william.html), wished to avert war and hoped to settle the Cuban question by peaceful means, a series of incidents early in 1898 intensified U.S. feelings against Spain. The first of these was the publication by Hearst of a stolen letter (the de Lôme letter) that had been written by the Spanish minister at Washington, in which that incautious diplomat expressed contempt for McKinley. This was followed by the sinking of the U.S. battleship Maine (http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/history/maine-ship.html) in Havana harbor on Feb. 15, 1898, with a loss of 260 men. Although Spanish complicity was not proved, U.S. public opinion was aroused and war sentiment rose. The cause of the advocates of war was given further impetus as a result of eyewitness repo


Read more: Spanish-American War: Causes of the War (http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/history/spanish-american-war-causes-war.html#ixzz3U6TxPQQf) http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/history/spanish-american-war-causes-war.html#ixzz3U6TxPQQf

Bob
03-11-2015, 01:38 PM
That's not just in 1898, btw. The Gulf War was entirely manufactured from America's backroom power plays pitting Kuwait and Iraq against one another, to the atrocity propaganda lies about Iraqis stealing Kuwaiti baby incubators. All our wars are entirely manufactured and the press is a part of it.

The press always issues reports. Nobody believes every report is true. A particular press can't start a war.

Politics does not operate that way.

When the Maine sunk, that is what historians allege is the cause of the war.

The fact that at the time it was just a guess it was Spain's fault, does not change it was the excuse used by our government.

Bob
03-11-2015, 01:40 PM
Bob, it's actually a fairly accepted view that atrocity propaganda was a major part of the war hysteria.

Certainly but citizens don't start wars. Government starts wars. The sinking of the Maine is the cause, though never proven to have been sunk by the Spanish.

iustitia
03-11-2015, 01:43 PM
I would suggest imperialism was the underlying cause, and the Maine and propaganda were justifications.

Mister D
03-11-2015, 01:45 PM
Allied atrocity propaganda was widespread during WW1. Britain took the lead in that. It's interesting because the Germans really did commit atrocities in Belgium and France but some of the stories were either completely fabricated or took on legendary proportions. It became common knowledge after the war that the Wellington House, for example, had been manipulating public opinion so when word began to travel back from the continent about Nazi atrocities this was the primary reason why no one believed it. Interesting tidbit some of you might not know.

Green Arrow
03-11-2015, 01:58 PM
Let's get at the real reason why McKinley waged war on Spain.

This grew sharper after the insurgents, refusing a Spanish offer of partial autonomy, determined to fight for full freedom.
Although the majority of Americans, including President McKinley (http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/people/mckinley-william.html), wished to avert war and hoped to settle the Cuban question by peaceful means, a series of incidents early in 1898 intensified U.S. feelings against Spain. The first of these was the publication by Hearst of a stolen letter (the de Lôme letter) that had been written by the Spanish minister at Washington, in which that incautious diplomat expressed contempt for McKinley. This was followed by the sinking of the U.S. battleship Maine (http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/history/maine-ship.html) in Havana harbor on Feb. 15, 1898, with a loss of 260 men. Although Spanish complicity was not proved, U.S. public opinion was aroused and war sentiment rose. The cause of the advocates of war was given further impetus as a result of eyewitness repo


Read more: Spanish-American War: Causes of the War (http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/history/spanish-american-war-causes-war.html#ixzz3U6TxPQQf) http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/history/spanish-american-war-causes-war.html#ixzz3U6TxPQQf

Spanish complicity was not proved and the press used the sinking of the Maine to outrage the American people and coax them into supporting the war. Even your own source identifies the press as part of the problem.

iustitia
03-11-2015, 02:01 PM
It's also ironic that the Germans were accused of horrible crimes against the Belgians. The Belgians recently killed over 10 million Africans. African hands were basically used as currency IIRC.

iustitia
03-11-2015, 02:07 PM
^ The irony of course being that the Germans were later accused of cutting off the hands of Belgian babies.

Mister D
03-11-2015, 02:07 PM
It's also ironic that the Germans were accused of horrible crimes against the Belgians. The Belgians recently killed over 10 million Africans. African hands were basically used as currency IIRC.

lol Yeah, that's true. OTOH, there was very little oversight in the Congo Free State. It was really a cabal of laissez faire brutes.

Mister D
03-11-2015, 02:11 PM
The German atrocities in question consisted mostly of forced labor and the execution of non-combatants.

iustitia
03-11-2015, 02:18 PM
And BAYONETING BABIES OMG!!!!111

The Xl
03-11-2015, 03:01 PM
Fuck no.

PolWatch
03-11-2015, 03:06 PM
That's not just in 1898, btw. The Gulf War was entirely manufactured from America's backroom power plays pitting Kuwait and Iraq against one another, to the atrocity propaganda lies about Iraqis stealing Kuwaiti baby incubators. All our wars are entirely manufactured and the press is a part of it.

I have always believed that the prolonged delay for the invasion of Iraq was to allow the Madison Ave. advertising campaign to reach full effect. People were bombarded with so-called news reports proving that an invasion of Iraq was the only reasonable response to 9-11.

Bob
03-11-2015, 03:10 PM
Spanish complicity was not proved and the press used the sinking of the Maine to outrage the American people and coax them into supporting the war. Even your own source identifies the press as part of the problem.

Now you admit the sinking of the maine is the reason. But you don't blame that, you blame the press.

LMAO

You honestly think the then president did it for the press?

Green Arrow
03-11-2015, 03:16 PM
Now you admit the sinking of the maine is the reason. But you don't blame that, you blame the press.

LMAO

You honestly think the then president did it for the press?

Stop while you're behind, Bob. Your own source that you yourself linked and quoted acknowledged that the press played a critical role in starting the war, as much as you choose to deny it.

Bob
03-11-2015, 03:26 PM
Stop while you're behind, Bob. Your own source that you yourself linked and quoted acknowledged that the press played a critical role in starting the war, as much as you choose to deny it.

Why won't you read the entire article?

You act as if the president did not care about the sunk ship and was such a pussy he and the congress only got with war once the press told them to.

I don't buy your crap.

Green Arrow
03-11-2015, 03:28 PM
Why won't you read the entire article?

You act as if the president did not care about the sunk ship and was such a pussy he and the congress only got with war once the press told them to.

I don't buy your crap.

None of that is anything I said. Like I said, stop while you're behind. It's okay to save face.

Bob
03-11-2015, 03:32 PM
None of that is anything I said. Like I said, stop while you're behind. It's okay to save face.

You misrepresented the article by focusing on a not that significant event, the yellow press.

Pearl harbor woke Roosevelt up and you damned better believe it was the headlines on Dec 7, 1941. But i don't blame the press for WW2 but blame both the attackers and FDR since he could have prevented our being involved.

You take the cake by putting all the blame on the press. And yes i mean for the Spanish American war. I studied history in school. Maybe in Bakersfield they did not know that part.

Green Arrow
03-11-2015, 03:34 PM
You misrepresented the article by focusing on a not that significant event, the yellow press.

You will not find a single source of any repute that says the press was insignificant in the cause of the war. Your own article listed the press as a major factor that caused the war, along with the sinking of the Maine (which the press used to amp up support for the war).

Bob
03-11-2015, 03:35 PM
GA, you are the sole person to blame the press when you know it was over the sunk ship.

Green Arrow
03-11-2015, 03:36 PM
GA, you are the sole person to blame the press when you know it was over the sunk ship.

I am not the sole person. Why are you failing to understand that the press used the sinking of the Maine to drive the American populace to support the war?

Bob
03-11-2015, 03:40 PM
You will not find a single source of any repute that says the press was insignificant in the cause of the war. Your own article listed the press as a major factor that caused the war, along with the sinking of the Maine (which the press used to amp up support for the war).

Bullshit. Though it mentioned yellow press, that did not start any war. The shrinking of the ship did.

God I can see it now.

Future GA

Say, did you know that Pearl Harbor was bombed due to the yellow journalists?

Admit the ship sinking is why the president went to war.

Green Arrow
03-11-2015, 03:41 PM
Bullshit. Though it mentioned yellow press, that did not start any war. The shrinking of the ship did.

God I can see it now.

Future GA

Say, did you know that Pearl Harbor was bombed due to the yellow journalists?

Admit the ship sinking is why the president went to war.

You cannot seriously be this dense.

Bob
03-11-2015, 03:46 PM
I am not the sole person. Why are you failing to understand that the press used the sinking of the Maine to drive the American populace to support the war?

You are saying an informed public supports war?

You act as if the sunk ship does not matter. And you put all of the blame on the press.

Common Sense
03-11-2015, 03:52 PM
You are saying an informed public supports war?

You act as if the sunk ship does not matter. And you put all of the blame on the press.

The press misrepresented the sinking.

Most evidence suggests it was either an accident, or a false flag. Bit probably an accident.

iustitia
03-11-2015, 04:05 PM
Pearl harbor woke Roosevelt up

wut

Bob
03-11-2015, 04:21 PM
The press misrepresented the sinking.

Most evidence suggests it was either an accident, or a false flag. Bit probably an accident.

You and I don't know what sunk the ship. Given the circumstances at that time, believing the Spanish sunk it was pretty reasonable.

Since today we can't pinpoint why it sunk, why put all the blame on the press?

What happened is Green Arrow stumbled onto some site, I think I also used the same one and took out his hard on and went after the press.

The thing is, the Government has many ways to decide to go to war. I just am not willing to put the entire blame on the media.

Bob
03-11-2015, 04:23 PM
wut

Roosevelt was more worried about Germany and it's invasions in Europe. He was warned about the Japanese but set up a plan to make the Japanese engage in war. But to blame the press is nuts. I feel that same way about the sinking of the Maine. My teachers in school always blamed that sinking and not the press.

Bob
03-11-2015, 04:26 PM
You cannot seriously be this dense.


No, but clearly you are. You are the only person I ever read to claim the sinking is not the reason for the war.

Ransom
03-11-2015, 04:29 PM
You are saying an informed public supports war?

You act as if the sunk ship does not matter. And you put all of the blame on the press.

The media did get Green Arrow to vote for Obama so....

Bob
03-11-2015, 04:38 PM
The media did get Green Arrow to vote for Obama so....

I totally forgot that is why he voted for Obama. I guess the media is why he says he will vote for Webb, one more Democrat.

Bob
03-11-2015, 04:44 PM
Zelmo

I want to address some of your points.

Do I get told lies by Republicans.

Certainly I get told lies.

Am I smart enough to see those lies?

Definitely.

Why vote for liars?

All of them lie.

Well, about third parties??

They lie.

I have no choice but to vote for liars. I vote for the people who lie the least and have a serious chance to win.

All politicians lie.

Common Sense
03-11-2015, 04:55 PM
You and I don't know what sunk the ship. Given the circumstances at that time, believing the Spanish sunk it was pretty reasonable.

Since today we can't pinpoint why it sunk, why put all the blame on the press?

What happened is Green Arrow stumbled onto some site, I think I also used the same one and took out his hard on and went after the press.

The thing is, the Government has many ways to decide to go to war. I just am not willing to put the entire blame on the media.

Yellow journalism's role in the Spanish American war is just a fact. A well documented fact.

Bob
03-11-2015, 06:00 PM
Yellow journalism's role in the Spanish American war is just a fact. A well documented fact.


While all reporting is a factor, nothing does it like the sinking of a warship. This was part of a history course in school and the teacher did not blame journalists for the war.

But feel free to evade the history of the ship sinking as Green Arrow keeps doing.



After the mysterious sinking of the US Navy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Navy) battleship Maine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Maine_(ACR-1)) inHavana harbor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havana_Harbor), political pressures from the Democratic Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Democratic_Party_(United_States)) and certain industrialists pushed the administration of Republican (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Republican_Party_(United_States)) PresidentWilliam McKinley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_McKinley) into a war he had wished to avoid.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish%E2%80%93American_War#cite_note-10) Compromise was sought by Spain, but rejected by the United States which sent an ultimatum to Spain demanding it surrender control of Cuba. First Madrid, then Washington, formally declared war.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish%E2%80%93American_War#cite_note-11)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish%E2%80%93American_War

Green Arrow
03-11-2015, 09:40 PM
No, but clearly you are. You are the only person I ever read to claim the sinking is not the reason for the war.

I never claimed it was the sole cause. Now you're lying.

Bob
03-11-2015, 09:43 PM
I never claimed it was the sole cause. Now you're lying.

Oh really. When did you blame the sinking of the ship as the cause? I would appreciate it if you stopped lying and acting dense.

Peter1469
03-11-2015, 09:57 PM
The Maine was likely sunk in an early red flag operation to get America into war. It worked.

Hal Jordan
03-11-2015, 10:03 PM
Oh really. When did you blame the sinking of the ship as the cause? I would appreciate it if you stopped lying and acting dense.

The only one who is being dense here is you, Bob. The journalism regarding the sinking of the Maine was a major factor of the war, and has been mentioned as such in every book on the history of the war that I have seen. In fact, look at your own Wikipedia article and actually read it this time.


After the Maine was destroyed,[40] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish–American_War#cite_note-44) newspaper publishers Hearst and Pulitzer decided that the Spanish were to blame, and they publicized this theory as fact in their New York City papers using sensationalistic and astonishing accounts of "atrocities" committed by the Spanish in Cuba by using headlines in their newspapers, such as "Spanish Murderers" and "Remember The Maine". Their press exaggerated what was happening and how the Spanish were treating the Cuban prisoners.[41] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish–American_War#cite_note-45) The stories were based on factual accounts, but most of the time, the articles that were published were embellished and written with incendiary language causing emotional and often heated responses among readers. This caused many Americans to become jingoes, who were American citizens that were excessively patriotic about supporting their country and who would look down upon any people who they thought were inferior to them or who disparaged American culture. A common myth states, to the opinion of his illustrator Frederic Remington (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederic_Remington), that conditions in Cuba were not bad enough to warrant hostilities, Hearst responded: "You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war."[42] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish–American_War#cite_note-46)

That's from the wiki article you posted. Here are some more things that you need to read.

http://www.pbs.org/crucible/frames/_journalism.html
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1866-1898/yellow-journalism
http://www.sparknotes.com/history/american/spanishamerican/section2.rhtml

Yes, the sinking of the Maine was the largest factor, as nobody has denied in this thread. The fact is, the reporting of the sinking of the Maine also had a large role to play in the starting of the war as well.

Also, I suggest you reread Green Arrow's posts. In a large majority of them he mentioned the sinking of the Maine.

Green Arrow
03-11-2015, 10:27 PM
Oh really. When did you blame the sinking of the ship as the cause? I would appreciate it if you stopped lying and acting dense.

Several times in this thread. Why don't you read the damn thing.

Bob
03-11-2015, 10:41 PM
The only one who is being dense here is you, Bob. The journalism regarding the sinking of the Maine was a major factor of the war, and has been mentioned as such in every book on the history of the war that I have seen. In fact, look at your own Wikipedia article and actually read it this time.



That's from the wiki article you posted. Here are some more things that you need to read.

http://www.pbs.org/crucible/frames/_journalism.html
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1866-1898/yellow-journalism
http://www.sparknotes.com/history/american/spanishamerican/section2.rhtml

Yes, the sinking of the Maine was the largest factor, as nobody has denied in this thread. The fact is, the reporting of the sinking of the Maine also had a large role to play in the starting of the war as well.

Also, I suggest you reread @Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868)'s posts. In a large majority of them he mentioned the sinking of the Maine.

Actually I am the one that has always mentioned the sinking of the ship.

This from your own link should help you figure it out.


But it was the sinking of the battleshipMaine in Havana Harbor that gave Hearst his big story--war. After the sinking of the Maine, the Hearst newspapers, with no evidence, unequivocally blamed the Spanish, and soon U.S. public opinion demanded intervention.
Today, historians point to the Spanish-American War as the first press-driven war. Although it may be an exaggeration to claim that Hearst and the other yellow journalists started the war

Green Arrow
03-11-2015, 10:50 PM
Actually I am the one that has always mentioned the sinking of the ship.

This from your own link should help you figure it out.


But it was the sinking of the battleshipMaine in Havana Harbor that gave Hearst his big story--war. After the sinking of the Maine, the Hearst newspapers, with no evidence, unequivocally blamed the Spanish, and soon U.S. public opinion demanded intervention.

Today, historians point to the Spanish-American War as the first press-driven war. Although it may be an exaggeration to claim that Hearst and the other yellow journalists started the war


Thank you for proving my point.

Bob
03-11-2015, 10:56 PM
Thank you for proving my point.

And your pal hal claims you said it was the ship.

Go figure.

This is not worth my trouble.

Bob
03-11-2015, 10:58 PM
Several times in this thread. Why don't you read the damn thing.

Then why did you claim it was the journalists that caused the war?

I say the ship and you say the reporters did it.

I stand by the sinking as the reason the feds went to war. Journalists did not make that decision.

Hal Jordan
03-11-2015, 11:05 PM
And your pal hal claims you said it was the ship.

Go figure.

This is not worth my trouble.

Then leave the thread. You can't separate the two. They are connected.

Hal Jordan
03-11-2015, 11:05 PM
Then why did you claim it was the journalists that caused the war?

I say the ship and you say the reporters did it.

I stand by the sinking as the reason the feds went to war. Journalists did not make that decision.

Read what he actually says. It is a combination.

Peter1469
03-11-2015, 11:17 PM
And your pal hal claims you said it was the ship.

Go figure.

This is not worth my trouble.

Why not, it is an important point in history.

iustitia
03-11-2015, 11:23 PM
Jesus. Christ.

Green Arrow
03-11-2015, 11:25 PM
Jesus. Christ.

I know right?

Tell me, iustitia...did I not talk about the Maine in our discussion and agree that it was a factor?

Green Arrow
03-11-2015, 11:26 PM
Bob, I just want you to know.. Hal Jordan makes more sense drunk than you do sober.

iustitia
03-11-2015, 11:29 PM
I know right?

Tell me, @iustitia (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=926)...did I not talk about the Maine in our discussion and agree that it was a factor?

I know not of what you speak, heretic. You mention only that newspapers were taking advantage of the Maine sinking. But why haven't you mentioned that the Maine sank?

Bob
03-11-2015, 11:29 PM
I know right?

Tell me, @iustitia (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=926)...did I not talk about the Maine in our discussion and agree that it was a factor?

I say the Maine and you call me dense.

Funny how fast you forgot that.

I started saying it was the Maine and you told me and told me it was journalism.

I am talking of the war. Not reporters.

Anyway, I agree to drop it. You have yet to ever admit you are wrong. I have admitted to being wrong just today or was it yesterday? Anyway, i am not ashamed to admit to being wrong.

Bob
03-11-2015, 11:30 PM
@Bob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1013), I just want you to know.. @Hal Jordan (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=994) makes more sense drunk than you do sober.

Thanks for your fucking insult ... normal for you.

Green Arrow
03-11-2015, 11:31 PM
I know not of what you speak, heretic. You mention only that newspapers were taking advantage of the Maine sinking. But why haven't you mentioned that the Maine sank?

The sad part is, that was still more sensible than what Bob's been saying.

Green Arrow
03-11-2015, 11:31 PM
Thanks for your fucking insult ... normal for you.

Normal for you, too, but go on ahead with the denials.

iustitia
03-11-2015, 11:36 PM
http://new2.fjcdn.com/thumbnails/comments/Its+an+apc+_60c9c543c09a85f4a0d8aa04ffe8a19a.png

The Maine sank. Have you all heard about this?

Bob
03-11-2015, 11:49 PM
Yeah and Teddy Roosevelt had nothing at all to do with the war as a person who played his role?????????

http://www.history.com/topics/spanish-american-war

Bob
03-11-2015, 11:50 PM
http://new2.fjcdn.com/thumbnails/comments/Its+an+apc+_60c9c543c09a85f4a0d8aa04ffe8a19a.png

The Maine sank. Have you all heard about this?

Roosevelt moved the ship to Cuba and when it sank, it was the cause of war.

http://www.history.com/topics/spanish-american-war

Bob
03-11-2015, 11:52 PM
http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by iustitia http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=995779#post995779)
I know not of what you speak, heretic. You mention only that newspapers were taking advantage of the Maine sinking. But why haven't you mentioned that the Maine sank?


The sad part is, that was still more sensible than what Bob's been saying.

Sensible eh? That is because Justitia agrees with me. Certainly it is sensible.


http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by iustitia http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=995779#post995779)
I know not of what you speak, heretic. You mention only that newspapers were taking advantage of the Maine sinking. But why haven't you mentioned that the Maine sank?

Green Arrow
03-11-2015, 11:52 PM
Yeah and Teddy Roosevelt had nothing at all to do with the war as a person who played his role?????????

http://www.history.com/topics/spanish-american-war

Adding multiple question marks does not make your posts any less silly.

Hal Jordan
03-11-2015, 11:54 PM
Sensible eh? That is because Justitina agrees with me. Certainly it is sensible.
10825

Bob
03-11-2015, 11:57 PM
Adding multiple question marks does not make your posts any less silly.


I am not blaming a fucking paper for the war. You did.

Bob
03-11-2015, 11:58 PM
10825

You are also young. You like GA refuse to learn history.


http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by iustitia http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=995779#post995779)
I know not of what you speak, heretic. You mention only that newspapers were taking advantage of the Maine sinking. But why haven't you mentioned that the Maine sank?

Green Arrow
03-12-2015, 12:03 AM
I am not blaming a fucking paper for the war. You did.

So is every source you've posted in your repeatedly failed efforts to prove me wrong.

Hal Jordan
03-12-2015, 12:04 AM
You are also young. You like GA refuse to learn history.

I'm younger than you, but older than GA. I am a student of history. You are the one refusing to look at all of the facts of history, instead focusing on specific parts of history...

Also, you respond where I was pointing out to you that he was being sarcastic about agreeing with you...

Bob
03-12-2015, 12:06 AM
So is every source you've posted in your repeatedly failed efforts to prove me wrong.

Not so fast. You did not see the video blaming the sinking of the Maine which was put into Cuby by Theodore Roosevelt. Funny yo9u never blamed him.

I know, you saw it but you said, it is full of shit.

Bob
03-12-2015, 12:09 AM
I'm younger than you, but older than GA. I am a student of history. You are the one refusing to look at all of the facts of history, instead focusing on specific parts of history...

Also, you respond where I was pointing out to you that he was being sarcastic about agreeing with you...

Well, look at this history.

I knew it was over the sinking of the Maine all along.

I forgot it was Theodore roosevelt that sent the ship to Cuba.

http://www.history.com/topics/spanish-american-war

Green Arrow
03-12-2015, 12:10 AM
Not so fast. You did not see the video blaming the sinking of the Maine which was put into Cuby by Theodore Roosevelt. Funny yo9u never blamed him.

I know, you saw it but you said, it is full of shit.

Where did I say that, Bob? Show me a link.

iustitia
03-12-2015, 12:10 AM
You guys make me wish I signed up as Batman. Or Deathstroke.

Green Arrow
03-12-2015, 12:13 AM
Spanish complicity was not proved and the press used the sinking of the Maine to outrage the American people and coax them into supporting the war. Even your own source identifies the press as part of the problem.
Bob, here you go. Page 5, I acknowledged that the sinking of the Maine was a factor and explained my point, which is that U.S. newspapers then used the sinking of the Maine to gin up support for the war.

Green Arrow
03-12-2015, 12:14 AM
You guys make me wish I signed up as Batman. Or Deathstroke.

It's not too late to change your username, I have the power to do it any time you want :tongue:

Bob
03-12-2015, 12:25 AM
@Bob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1013), here you go. Page 5, I acknowledged that the sinking of the Maine was a factor and explained my point, which is that U.S. newspapers then used the sinking of the Maine to gin up support for the war.

I never claimed they did not gin up for war. I claim the federal Government did not claim that is the reason for the war. The reason as I keep saying is the sinking of the ship.

Try this video. i am done trying to help you.

http://www.history.com/topics/spanish-american-war

iustitia
03-12-2015, 12:26 AM
It's not too late to change your username, I have the power to do it any time you want :tongue:

http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080325000932/marvel_dc/images/1/10/Deathstroke_the_Terminator_Vol_1_1.JPG

I'll consider it. :afro:

Hal Jordan
03-12-2015, 12:33 AM
http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080325000932/marvel_dc/images/1/10/Deathstroke_the_Terminator_Vol_1_1.JPG

I'll consider it. :afro:

If it means anything, this has my full support...

Hal Jordan
03-12-2015, 12:36 AM
Well, look at this history.

I knew it was over the sinking of the Maine all along.

I forgot it was Theodore roosevelt that sent the ship to Cuba.

http://www.history.com/topics/spanish-american-war

Your link proves something that I've known all along... Theodore Roosevelt was a total badass... Is that your only point with that link?

Green Arrow
03-12-2015, 12:39 AM
I never claimed they did not gin up for war. I claim the federal Government did not claim that is the reason for the war. The reason as I keep saying is the sinking of the ship.

Try this video. i am done trying to help you.

http://www.history.com/topics/spanish-american-war

If you were done trying to help me, then you'd just stop posting in this thread altogether, since every link thus far you have given me has said the exact same things I've been saying.

Bob
03-12-2015, 12:46 AM
If you were done trying to help me, then you'd just stop posting in this thread altogether, since every link thus far you have given me has said the exact same things I've been saying.

Been saying what i have said from the first or second post by me.

Bob
03-12-2015, 12:55 AM
Your link proves something that I've known all along... Theodore Roosevelt was a total badass... Is that your only point with that link?

The video explains that if one must blame anybody for the war, blame Theodore Roosevelt. He put the ship at Cuba. When war broke out, he quit the navy job and engaged in combat.

That video does not blame journalists as the cause of war. It blames the ships sinking.

How many more times do I need to say the Government waged war due to the ship sinking?

Can you imagine the Government using as an excuse the Journalists? :rollseyes:

Hal Jordan
03-12-2015, 01:23 AM
The video explains that if one must blame anybody for the war, blame Theodore Roosevelt. He put the ship at Cuba. When war broke out, he quit the navy job and engaged in combat.

That video does not blame journalists as the cause of war. It blames the ships sinking.

How many more times do I need to say the Government waged war due to the ship sinking?

Can you imagine the Government using as an excuse the Journalists? :rollseyes:

Of course it's unlikely that the government will acknowledge the role of the media in war... That says nothing... We all agree about the ship sinking. Why do you continue to ignore the role of the media when it has been pointed out time and time again, even when the links you post mention the media's role?

Bob
03-12-2015, 01:24 AM
Of course it's unlikely that the government will acknowledge the role of the media in war... That says nothing... We all agree about the ship sinking. Why do you continue to ignore the role of the media when it has been pointed out time and time again, even when the links you post mention the media's role?

The history link did not blame the media. But you go right ahead. Good day.

Hal Jordan
03-12-2015, 01:25 AM
Been saying what i have said from the first or second post by me.

Sure you've been saying that the media had no role in the war, even though most of the links you've posted said the opposite...

Hal Jordan
03-12-2015, 01:27 AM
The history link did not blame the media. But you go right ahead. Good day.

I didn't say the last link you posted directly blamed the media. It did mention the popular opinion, though, which was in part because of the media...

Bob
03-12-2015, 01:27 AM
Sure you've been saying that the media had no role in the war, even though most of the links you've posted said the opposite...

Really, why not read the history link? I provided it enough times.

Bob
03-12-2015, 01:31 AM
I didn't say the last link you posted directly blamed the media. It did mention the popular opinion, though, which was in part because of the media...

You and Arrow keep forgetting one thing.

The media nor the public declared war. And you keep ignoring the sinking of the ship for a rather odd reason. Congress declared war and Theodore was more than pleased since he waged war.

But put the blame on the media. Good day.

Hal Jordan
03-12-2015, 01:31 AM
Really, why not read the history link? I provided it enough times.

I read it and watched the video. I still see no real point to you posting it, other than to say that Teddy Roosevelt was a badass...

iustitia
03-12-2015, 01:32 AM
Jesus. Mary. Joseph.

Hal Jordan
03-12-2015, 01:35 AM
You and Arrow keep forgetting one thing.

The media nor the public declared war. And you keep ignoring the sinking of the ship for a rather odd reason. Congress declared war and Theodore was more than pleased since he waged war.

But put the blame on the media. Good day.

Nobody blamed the media alone. You keep implying that we did, but that just shows a lack of reading comprehension. The media and public opinion played a role in the decision to declare war, and only a complete idiot would say otherwise. Theodore Roosevelt didn't declare war either, you know...

You keep saying good day, but don't have the good sense to admit defeat or leave when you are losing miserably...

Green Arrow
03-12-2015, 01:36 AM
Jesus. Mary. Joseph.

I've given up. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. I'm more interested in running around the beautiful fields of Rohan with my Hobbit hunter.

donttread
03-12-2015, 01:34 PM
America is constantly at war. That's not a controversial statement. In 1983, 90% of US media was owned by 50 companies. Now over 90% of US media is controlled by 6 media giants (General Electric, Newscorp, Disney, Viacom, AOL/Time Warner, and CBS). 2 of which, Viacom and CBS, are part of a larger conglomeration (National Amusements).

http://www.militaryindustrialcomplex.com/totals.asp?thisContractor=General%20Electric

General Electric has had over 23 billion dollars in defense contracts and that's since 2003. GE owns Comcast, NBC and MSNBC.

Should companies that report news and have the power to sway public opinion be connected to the war industry?

For freedom to live, the megacorps must die

Bob
03-12-2015, 03:34 PM
Nobody blamed the media alone. You keep implying that we did, but that just shows a lack of reading comprehension. The media and public opinion played a role in the decision to declare war, and only a complete idiot would say otherwise. Theodore Roosevelt didn't declare war either, you know...

You keep saying good day, but don't have the good sense to admit defeat or leave when you are losing miserably...

Nobody denied the media engaged in yellow journalism. But the truth is the war was caused by the sinking of the ship and as you were told, more than once, Roosevelt rooted for war, put the Maine at Cuba, resigned his job when war was declared by Spain (dumb move by Spain) and led the roughriders.

Try as you might, you don't connect the journalists to the reason why Congress declared war in return. Had you said Spain first declared war, i would instantly agree. Your and Arrow's age of rebellion is showing is all this is.

Hal Jordan
03-12-2015, 03:47 PM
Nobody denied the media engaged in yellow journalism. But the truth is the war was caused by the sinking of the ship and as you were told, more than once, Roosevelt rooted for war, put the Maine at Cuba, resigned his job when war was declared by Spain (dumb move by Spain) and led the roughriders.

Try as you might, you don't connect the journalists to the reason why Congress declared war in return. Had you said Spain first declared war, i would instantly agree. Your and Arrow's age of rebellion is showing is all this is.

Age of rebellion? You don't know my age, as I have not posted it on here. Like I said, I'm younger than you, but older than Green Arrow. We don't have to try very hard to connect it, since a vast majority of the links you have posted have said the same thing. I suggest you go back to school, because you have a lot to learn. You at least need to learn how to understand what you read.