A friend of mine says the media is to blame for wars taking so long and for us losing them, so far I disagree. What do you think?

Well, first off, you can easily correct your friend by telling him the media ARE to blame for everything wrong with the country that the politicians haven’t already messed up worse, first.

I agree with @CyanoticWasp on this one, essentially. I don’t think I’m willing to give the media the credit for being behind all the wars – that’s kind of a lot, and reeks of conspiracy theory.

However, I would say that the media is plenty fine with playing into the hands of the politicians much of the time when fearmongering comes into the game. If it bleeds, it leads after all.

Wars take a long time because there is so much money to be made from them. The industrialists/big businesses who make the money, also own the various facets of the “media”. So it stands to reason that the “media” will reflect the desire of their owners for the wars to continue so they can continue to get rich(er) from them. Where wars are concerned, money is the name of the game.

I checked out of all media after 9–11

While maybe not responsible for lengthening wars it thrives on hooking us up to a slow fear drip that is incredibly powerful in keeping a captive audience.

Just say “NO” to media! lol

And yes, I agree with @Linda_Owl

Lots of subtle control happening.

Seriously – how many times were the words “9/11” stated in close proximity with discussions of “Iraq” or “Saddam Hussein.”

Without making claims about a direct relationship between the two, the rhetoric meant that a majority of Americans ended up thinking that there was a direct relationship.

Also, remember how there was all that hype over WMDs? And remember when there weren’t any? Why wasn’t the media outraged enough to plaster their reports with evidence of the lies that the administration had been spreading… because people still are of the opinion that there was irrefutable evidence that there were WMDs.

Getting the US geared up to invade Iraq was already on the drawing board for the Bush administration prior to 9/11 – but not all of the people in the US believed in the WMD. I certainly did not believe it & I also knew that it was inevitable that Bush was going to invade Iraq using 9/11 as the excuse (after all, the mid-east is where most of the oil is). Bush destabilized the mid-east to an even greater extent than it already was, when he invaded, & he united the various factions against the US. The various news media did not denounce Bush when there were no WMD found, because big business was making money hand-over-fist from the invasion, & the businesses making the money also own the news media. Now Bush has “written” a book (I wonder who ‘ghosted’ it?) & he has his presidential library being built on the campus of a well-known Texas university, & he is being treated like a respected elder statesman. Does anyone doubt that war is a direct pipeline to a sustained cash flow, & a sustained cash flow generates any number of ‘toadies’ to their respective egos?

It is the media. Of course. I mean, if they weren’t around trying to get an independent view of what is happening, the government would tell us all that we had won, and we wouldn’t know the difference.

Your friend is either confused or deliberately obtuse. of course the media are not to blame for the outcome of wars.

He just said that the government needs to be able to lie and get away with it so they can accomplish things that’ll help us in the long run, and that the media being able to nose around obstructs the government from doing so. Wow.

@Winters Yeah, wow!

I hope that people recognize that my previous post was sardonic.

pretty much all proxy wars drag on. That is all that is happening these days. They are complicated with many moving parts.In the old days there were two sides (countries) who just slugged it out until one capitulated. When you drag religion into the mix the media just has a heyday with that. it’s like the gift that keeps on giving.

The government does lie, does get away with it, but not always because it needs to accomplish things “that will help us in the long run,” but because it’s politically or financially expedient for someone. The government actually uses the media to misdirect the public more than resents its interference; the American mainstream media is biased and skewed.

How often did you see video footage of the KOP on US news? Unless you knew what to look for, or read the Washington Post, you’d have no clue what was going on over there for so long.

Did you know that for the early part of the Iraqi invasion, that National Guard troops were sent over without any body armor, that women in small towns were holding bake sales to buy equipment for their sons and husbands because the US military deemed it unnecessary? It was only after the media turned up the heat on that issue, that Congress passed an act requiring the goverment to provide it. Would you want to know if the body armor they issued you failed a bullet blocking test?

None of this is new; war has always required both obsfucation and discovery.

@BarnacleBill The Canadian army sent our troops to Afghanistan in their green uniforms. Media had a heyday with that as well it should. News is different about Iraq if you listen to the BBC compared to CNN.

I love the BBC.

Not one media outlet stood up and asked the hard questions during the Bush administration. In fact they all clamored to get on board as an inbed reporter for the great rush on bagdad. The administration not only cotrolled the information but used their spin doctors to make it un-patriotic to question our leaders during wartime.(Doesn’t seem to be the case with a democrat in office, but I digress) The press needs to fill 24hours of air time and cable news feasted on the Iraq war.

George Bush said it best when he said ‘We are a war time economy” and if you follow our last 100 years, he’s correct.