|
[ Create New Post ]   | 1 of 1 |   |
|||||
|
[#148731]
Written by: JungleBoy [17/12/10, 16:16] Action: [ Reply ] [ Quote ] |
|||||
|
ITV The War You Don't See PDTV Xvid MP3 MVGroup 2010 John Pilger investigates the media's role in war, tracing the history of 'embedded' and independent reporting from the carnage of the First World War through to the destruction of Hiroshima, the invasion of Vietnam and the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. As the nature of war has changed, who is the real enemy today? Is it the people at home watching TV? And is the journalist's job to normalise the unthinkable? The film contains shocking, never before seen footage from Iraq and Afghanistan and revealing interviews with former BBC reporter Rageh Omaar, former CBS anchor Dan Rather and Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks. ITV Site1: http://www.itv.com/presscentre/johnpilgerthewaryoudontsee/week50/default.html  ITV Site2: http://www.itv.com/presscentre/presspacks/johnpilgerthewaryoudontsee/default.html Technical Spec Video Codec: Xvid Video Bitrate: 1500 Kbps Video Resolution: 720x400 Video Aspect Ratio: 1.800:1 Audio Codec: MP3 Audio Bitrate: 128 Kbps CBR 48KHz Audio Channels: 2 Run-Time: 97 mins Framerate: 25FPS Number of Parts: 1 Part Size: 1.07 GB Subtitles: none Source: DVB-S (ITV1 HD) |
|||||
|
[#148732]
Written by: JungleBoy [17/12/10, 16:17] Action: [ Reply ] [ Quote ] |
|||||
|
720p and 1080p editions coming up. |
|||||
|
[#148733]
Written by: Dandyandys [17/12/10, 16:20] Action: [ Reply ] [ Quote ] |
|||||
|
I hope a lot of people take a look at this. The mainstream media 'news' are lying to you on a daily basis. See for yourself. Thanks for upping this. |
|||||
|
[#148735]
Written by: sandbag [17/12/10, 16:28] Action: [ Reply ] [ Quote ] |
|||||
|
Watched it when it was broadcasted on ITV, well worth watching, like how it covered both UK / US media. Strangely fitting this programme with Wiki leaks with the interview with Julian Assange included |
|||||
|
[#148743]
Written by: JayII [17/12/10, 21:21] Action: [ Reply ] [ Quote ] |
|||||
|
Thanks for uploading. I must admit that where I do agree with some of the facts discussed in this video it is a total contradiction of its purpose. This video and the guy interviewing is propaganda in its own and it has been very well rehearsed. And for those that think journalists only provide what the world wants to see you are wrong. The majority of the journalists out are fed up with media groups and Gov. agencies denying them rights to provide people with real raw coverage. Unfortunately if these journalists do not abide they would be out of jobs and we would be left not knowing anything about what goes on in the world. We people at home viewing the news are not the enemy. We are DENIED the truth by agencies like Fox News and are only victims as well. We are force fed lies till we believe them. This is why I try to use free lance footage as my outlet to know whats real. |
|||||
|
[#148753]
Written by: PusanCanadian [18/12/10, 06:06] Action: [ Reply ] [ Quote ] |
|||||
|
Thanks to JungleBoy and all the other mvgroup releasers, who keep upping great content from ITV and BBC on to eztv. It's appreciated! |
|||||
|
[#148769]
Written by: Volvi [18/12/10, 19:48] Action: [ Reply ] [ Quote ] |
|||||
|
Ironically this programme itself is also a propoganda piece that it seeks to expose. I am not denying many of the truth portrayed, but to parade your message by accompanying dead children buried in rubble is simply another propoganda ploy to re-enforce 'your' own truth. It is well known that the first victim of any war throughout human history is the "TRUTH". There is no doubt that media and what is being reported is just another facet of war. The war of information. Dis-information and spin is nothing new and will always be with us in the future. To think any war can be conducted without civilian casualties is ludicrous. Interviewer: In essence you are advocating an attack on.....wait for it....a "defensless" country, thats quite something isnt it? Defenseless? Using chemicals on its own people (Kurds) Invading a neighboring country and raping it (Kuwait) Building a neuclear weapons program (destroyed by Israel) Aid and abett terrorists world wide. Attacking countries not involved in the war by sending 39 Scuds to Israel. The interviewer lost me then and there with his question. He was mouthing his own propoganda dis- information speech culminating in an entire program and white-washing any antagonists. |
|||||
|
[#148777]
Written by: Worpe [19/12/10, 00:23] Action: [ Reply ] [ Quote ] |
|||||
|
@Volvi I did not watch this (yet) but the war bush junior started was done after bush senior's war basically defeated them, they had no airdefense for instance, so then you could certainly call them almost defenseless (comparatively), and they had no WMD either, the poisonous gas had expired long ago at that point and as we know and has been proven the nuclear weapons nonsense was a lie set up by people in the UK/US government. As for Kuwait, those people are not exactly clean themselves and the only reason the US helped them was because they had an oil deal with them, purely opportunistic. Not that you don't make a good point though, and journalist will be journalist, and those people are not the pick of the litter of humanity as everybody knows, regardless of what side they are on and indeed there's a information battle and for journalist there's a 'watch me' battle riding on people's manipulated emotions to score points, they all do it and they all don't have the ability to see what's wrong about their behavior. |
|||||
|
[#148793]
Written by: stillatcalvin [19/12/10, 11:27] Action: [ Reply ] [ Quote ] |
|||||
|
I concur with the propaganda piece accusation some have levied against this program, particularly the 750,000 widow figure, a demonstrable false claim. Even sicker than downplaying the dead in a conflict is to grossly exaggerate the toll of human suffering, thus diminishing the actual loss of life. You can't calculate the number of dead by interviewing people, you count the dead by actually, you know, counting dead bodies. The high figures for those killed in Iraq were derived by faulty methods, but are still clung to by those for whom 100,000 dead, is not enough. Please, and the "masses" are the ones anesthetized against civilian casualties? This "reporter" is more guilty of flagrant distortion than the news outlets he rails against. |
|||||
|
[#148798]
Written by: McTorrent [19/12/10, 12:42] Action: [ Reply ] [ Quote ] |
|||||
|
@stillcalvin - Funny how another historical incident comes into mind when reading your words: The Holocaust. Equally, I wouldn't say John Pilger is "distorting" but rather giving the other PoV. The part which I found most fascinating regarding this very issue of PoV was when he was asking the BBC lady about the Palestinian equivalent of the Israelis that appear so very often on air. The lady simply couldn't answer and was all defensive about it. You say the figure is distorted, what if that figure was 300,000 or 100,000, would that make it right? Would that make it acceptable? Would you accept such a toll if it were your own countrymen and women? If your moral compass isn't as f***ed as some of the politicians and military personnel running around committing these atrocities then your answer on all accounts should be: HELL NO! |
|||||
|
[#148836]
Written by: Worpe [20/12/10, 15:49] Action: [ Reply ] [ Quote ] |
|||||
You are way off the mark there, what he said was that figures like 100 000 for instance is already so bad that for a journalist to say 'let's spice that up a bit and make it 2 times as much' is insane and only makes a mockery of it all, and he was quite clear about what he meant and went through the trouble to make sure. I for me believe the figure is around 400 to 500 thousand easy since in the past they calculated that with all the bombardments and the time they shelled that city where many people were still present would inevitably lead to large amounts of casualties, and some of the leaked wilikleak stuff might have lower numbers but those are the directly verified 'kills', and shelling a place from a distance or saturation bombing areas like they did several times leaves a lot of uncounted people dead. |
|||||
|
[#148896]
Written by: fromers [22/12/10, 03:33] Action: [ Reply ] [ Quote ] |
|||||
|
context free and guilty of its own charges, just with a different bias, that is the problem. the left is guilty of using a moralistic tone when in fact the agenda and only moral principle that seems to apply is being against being in war. hundreds of thousands..millions die in places like the congo, but you don't see that either. out of sight, out of mind. rwanda? out of sight, out of mind, hands not dirty, and so we remain morally superior and pat ourselves on the back for our noble tears over the genocide. the false idea that the media were fooled by the wmd charges is just bs. its disingenous to claim one was fooled or that it was sold on that fact alone, that was the legalistic reason,t here were others. you can report pictures of dead babies and bombed homes, but it would have been bad regardless. sanctions were slipping away and saddams sons were as bad or worse than he was, one was simply a psychopathic rapist. It is disingenous to pretend the world would have been wonderful if there were just no war, or that it happened for no reason at all. The only thing the media fell down on was reporting of the more complex reasons for taking out such a regieme, and of course this documentary fails to do that as well, choosing the simplistic argument without regard to reality as well. So it is, yet another one sided bash documentary. A clip here or there of western troops being rough, no context given, and not even an acknowledgement that those they fight behave FAR FAR worse. Just the standard hour and a half of moral relativism i've come to expect from some folks. Everytime this documentary claimed to be telling you something the other side didn't mention, it does the same itself, it fails to mention the wider context or arguments against that position as well, a sliver of evidence without the whole truth in order to mislead based on a biased agenda. Total hipocrisy in a documentary, quite sad. |
|||||
|
[ Create New Post ] | 1 of 1 | |
|||||
