how the media spins the information/ manipulation of information about war in afghanistan and use of propaganda…forexample are the US military really there to help afghanistan or for thier own benift??any news articles or vidoes would be really helpful please

Main Stream Media Ignorance and Spin
Key Words in Speeches
Propaganda Video Releases at Opportune Times
Open Threats to our Security at Opportune Times

And best of all the delayed response during Katrina to prove and put in your minds that the Government can act immediate or delay relief and that we must depend on them for our survival

Can’t you people see that!

"Terrorism" is a tool – not a threat!

Unless you still believe a sick guy in a cave and 19 Arab students actually planned and executed the most complicated attack in our history!

Here is some additional information on 9/11 being an inside job – and its on video for those of you who can’t read or refuse to read.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/flight_93_new_video_claims_proof_flight_93_no_crash.htm

The Flight 93 crash did not occur!

I know it’s a common to attack CNN by calling it "liberal propaganda", but look at a few of their articles and headlines:

"You can’t keep a good man down.

That might be the simplest way to sum up John McCain’s campaign for the US presidency right now. He’s not winning, but he’s running stronger than anyone knows how to explain.

McCain is a fascinating figure with a compelling personal and political story."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/31/mann.mccain/index.html

"Obama agrees to only 3 debates with McCain" (Why add "only"? They are adding the McCain spin)

"Obama: Slavery apology, reparations not enough" (which just mysteriously changed to "Obama: Slavery reparations not the answer")

http://img357.imageshack.us/my.php?image=44ecb899348535eb0b05e63mb5.jpg

A closer race means higher ratings an more money. Is there any reason CNN wouldn’t help out McCain for more money in their pockets?

Here are some examples of right-wing "spin" articles:

Christian Minister writes "Soy Milk Is Feminizing and Makes Your Kids Come Out Gay":

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53327

That same Blogger continues the Michelle "Whitey Tape Saga" long after having been discredited by even the most conservative pundits who were embarrassed by their extreme interest in the rumor:

http://www.hcsfjm.com/comments3.html

The "Jesus Camp Lady" Becky Fisher uses children to advance McCain’s attacks on Iran:

https://kidsinministry.org//index.php?option=com_myblog&show=God-Using-Kids-to-Bring-Attention-to-Israel.html&Itemid=37

I have never seen a "left wing" propaganda site that could be comparable to these… if they exist, please post links?
Nope… Huffington Post and DailyKos are reputable…
you can’t name a lie or half-truth coming from them…

Here’s how James Gerstenzang of the Los Angeles Times spins the story on the immigration bill. On page one of the article, beginning in paragraph 2, he recounts a story of Senator Menendez saying it would cost 0 billion to deport all the illegals now here when he is confronted by “a guy” who says illegals should be deported (in accordance with existing law). The article quotes the senator as saying it would cost 0 billion to deport the illegals already here. To this, the “guy” is quoted as saying “I don’t care,” and that sums up the whole argument for deporting illegals as far as this Los Angeles Times article goes.

Isn’t this how good propaganda works, not through outright lies, but by simply framing the argument in terms that will lead the audience to the desired conclusion? Now what if the senator had been confronted by a “guy” who had asked which is cheaper, spending 0 billion to deport illegals or spending .5 trillion to support them with social services if you don’t deport them? Would that question and response have found its way to page one?

Here’s how James Gerstenzang of the Los Angeles Times spins the story on the immigration bill. He says in a front page article that “the bill includes tough new measures on border enforcement.”

Hoo, boy! If we support this bill we’ll get “tough new measures.” This must be a great bill for controlling immigration, if you take this statement at face value.

The assertion of “tough new measures” is simply stated as fact. What if the reader doesn’t know the 1986 amnesty bill also contained tough new measures that were never enforced? What if the reader doesn’t know that the much-ballyhooed 700-mile fence on the 1600-mile-long border the last congress authorized has not been built and is not even planned to be completed, ever? Would the anti-immigration reader have a positive attitude towards the “tough new measures,” or would the reader be skeptical?

Isn’t this how propaganda works, to select the “facts” to include in the information you put forward, and to not discuss other facts that might detract from the conclusion you want the audience to reach?