RUMMY TV

[Boomer Chick]

RUMMY TV

By Arianna Huffington

The Bush administration has shown a willingness to do just about anything to manipulate public opinion. It paid pundits to say nice things about it. It spent lavishly to create bogus--and, according to the comptroller general, illegal--video news reports on the president's Medicare, education and drug policies. And it has given us Gannon/Guckert-gate.

Now the Bushies are taking things to the next level. Not content to buy their press coverage retail, they are producing and distributing their own news network. And, no, I'm not talking about Fox. It's the Pentagon Channel, a 24/7 niche network brought to you by the Department of Defense.

Started last year as an internal public relations unit within the Pentagon designed to keep U.S. soldiers and their families informed about all things military, the network is now expanding its reach to the general public. A number of cable systems, including Time Warner, already carry the Pentagon Channel--and the Dish Network will soon begin beaming the station to its more than 11 million viewers right alongside the half-dozen porn channels the satellite giant offers.

DoD television execs (there's a new phrase) say Pentagon Channel viewers can expect programming that is "a mix between CNN and C-SPAN"--combining military news and lifestyle shows with live coverage of military briefings, speeches by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Congressional appearances by The Man himself, Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld.

So fire up those TiVos, disinformation fans; Rummy TV is coming soon to a flat screen near you. "If you hate the truth, you'll love DoD TV!"

According to the network's Web site, current Pentagon Channel programs include: "Why I Serve" ("Vignettes that allow military members . . . to share their stories and motivation for serving"); "Korea Destinations" ("Monthly preview of some great getaway locations in and around the Korean peninsula"); and "The American Veteran" ("a half-hour video news magazine designed to inform veterans. . . about the services and benefits they have earned through their service to America").

Which is all well and good. But, as is so often the case with the Bush administration, the Pentagon Channel's programming appears to have been prepared by--to quote Jeff Gannon--"people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality."

Now, if Secretary Rumsfeld were really interested in following the network's motto--"Serving Those Who Serve"--he might want to consider a more realistic lineup. How about:

-- "The Real World: Fallujah." What happens when a group of former Abu Ghraib guards, forced to share a bombed-out, camera-filled apartment in Fallujah with a collection of their former prisoners, stop being polite? Series highlights: Lynndie England hooking up at a Green Zone nightclub with a Baathist hottie who turns out to be none other than the guy she had on the leash! Then Mohammed, one of the ex-prisoners, getting wasted, prank-calling new Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and asking him if being sodomized with a broomstick sounds "quaint."

-- "Pimp My Humvee." Xzibit, Mad Mike, Big Dane and the "Pimp My Ride" crew lend a helping hand to American soldiers forced to scrounge through junk yards in an effort to outfit their vehicles with the armor the military has failed to provide--hooking our troops up with protective plates, as well as slammin' paint jobs, state-of-the-art sound systems, and spinning tire rims able to detect the roadside explosives responsible for so many U.S. casualties. The Humvees go from wimp to pimp while the soldiers go from sitting ducks to Mac Daddies.

-- "Desperate Military Housewives." There may be a lot of dark secrets on Wisteria Lane--but not half as many as there are in the homes of America's military families. "DMH" peels the curtain back on the home-front havoc being caused by President Bush's stop-loss policies and the extended tours of duty that result. Don't miss the very special episode where the president promises to "support our troops," then proposes a budget that slashes veterans' benefits and leaves one in five military families needing food stamps or Women, Infants and Children program aid to get by. Is it drama? Is it comedy? We produce. You decide.

-- "Iron Chef, Iraq." It's military cooking on an unlimited budget! Watch as the master chefs at Halliburton show what kind of battlefield-mess-hall-magic they can create with a noncompetitive, no-bid, cost-plus contract that allows them to overbill the Pentagon $186 million for meals that were never served. Who needs fast food when you can feed the troops phantom food? Sponsored by (who else?): "Halliburton, proud to serve our troops . . . and even prouder of the money we rake in by not serving them!"

-- "Survivor: Pentagon." Forget Africa, the South Pacific and the Australian Outback. This classic reality show really gets interesting when Donald Rumsfeld is cast adrift in the halls of the Pentagon with a tribe made up of people he has clashed with and helped push out the door, including former Secretary of State Colin Powell, former Secretary of the Army Thomas White, former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki, former Secretary of the Air Force James Roche, and former head of the Iraqi Occupation, Jay Garner. Outwit. Outplay. Outlast. Out on your ass.

Will Rummy TV be a hit? Who can say? As The Man himself once put it: "As we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns--the ones we don't know we don't know."

Stay tuned.

© 2005 ARIANNA HUFFINGTON.
DISTRIBUTED BY TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.

[Boomer Chick]

OMG!!! I was laughing so hard I could barely stay in my computer chair !!!

You've really outdone yourself on this one, Arianna! I would imagine John Stewart and Bill Maher are kicking themselves for not thinking of the comedy schtick and satire themselves! I hope they have to buy your copywrite to do spin offs in this direction! What great political TV comedy your imagined Rummy shows would be------- shockingly true and devastatingly accurate .... definately Maher and Stewart material......... but you, my sister, a woman, have beat them all to the punch and I'm so proud!

Thanks, Arianna, for showing the world your searing and uncompromising wit and political acumen!!! Telling it like it is with the satiric wit only known by the great Jonathan Swift of ages gone by!

Now if only I could be Greek, but being a woman is enough!

BC :D

[dewey189]

I agree... very funny stuff!

[TheCurmudgeon]

Your wonderful column about Rummy TV offers countless opportunities for savvy creative types to develop new shows. Who knows? Some may become so popular that syndication sales could pay for the war in Iraq. Oh, wait. Pres. Bush said that oil revenues would do that, and we all know how well that worked out.

Here are a few more suggestions for DoD creative programme executives – and, by the way, not only is "DoD creative programme executives" a phrase not heard very often, it’s downright scary when someone says it:

All M*A*S*H*ed Up. Parents of wounded soldiers watch the wonderful medical care their crippled children receive in Germany after the kid’s poorly protected Humvees are blown to smithereens by roadside bombs and RPGs. All medical equipment, provided at exorbitant cost by corporate friends of the administration, bears clearly visible logo in the latest twist on product placement. Every week, a doctor discusses some piece of medical gear that never arrived but for which the army was billed twice.

Col. Dame Edna. Downunder’s favourite cross-dressing personality adapts her wildly popular syndicated show’s format, broadcasting live from The Ali Baba Café deep in the heart of the Green Zone. She interviews one-time celebrities such as Paul Bremer, Achmed Chalabi and many others who helped Iraq the free and peaceful place it is today. Chris Rock was considered for Edna’s sidekick but in focus groups the producers discovered that Dubya didn’t get the jokes.

I've Got A Military Secret. An updated version of the perennial hit quiz show in which "senior government officials" from Iraq and the US try to guess the military secrets of "Pentagon sources.".

I can't wait for RummyTV to arrive on my 500 channel digital cable universe.

[Boomer Chick]

:D

Great programs, Curmudgeon!!! ROFLMBO!

Now I feel compelled to add to the programming! Hmmmm..... give me some time!

BC ;)

[Rob]

Arianna is off base on this one, folks.

It's pretty obvious she hasn't seen The Pentagon Channel and we all know what can happen when we a s s u m e.

Actually, the channel is exactly as described by the DOD. It's mainly news & info related to the military for stateside based service personnel & their families.

Yep, they carry news conferences from the DOD and commanders in the field from time to time - the same ones you might see in abbreviated form on CNN, MSNBC and major network news (as well as FOX News) - but without the commentary.

It really isn't a Bushie propoganda vehicle. Havn't seen much in the way of "bad" news such as Star Wars missle test failures, casualty reports, etc. but I would say that's to be expected in the context of this channel and there are plenty of other venues for it.

It's similar to the Armed Forces Radio and Television Service available on many bases overseas but without the programs provided from the other networks for the folks to have a glimse of "what's on" back home.

And, no, it's not right along side the half dozen porn channels either. (Those are PPV.)

On DISH Network The Pentagon Channel is with the other free public access channels including Free Speech TV, World Link, Colours, PBS You, and UCTV - all pretty much progressive and educational stations.

It's been on DISH for over a month but most people will never see it because it's on the "wing" satellites that require a 2nd "dish" antenna.

BTW, I'm an Ariannna fan or I wouldn't be here. But we all need to remember to know what we are talking about.

*typos corrected 2.26.05

[Boomer Chick]

Arianna is not off base.

She realizes, like probably over 50% of us, that propaganda plays a huge role in this administration's policies. Let's see, we had newspapers supporting the Iraq invasion and the WWM line without question. No WWM. Her referencing to FOX news channel underlines, as one example, the various news outlets who merely repeat the Bush Administration's policies and entertain so-called experts who in measured studies tout the right wing agenda only. News, therefore, is not balanced anymore and many journalists can be bought. Didn't you follow the news about the recent journalists who were paid to support various Republican bills? Have you read about Gannon who was not going by his real name, Guckert, discovered by bloggers to be a male prostitute and who somehow became a White House reporter for the administration and was allowed to ask his soft-ball questions of even the president? He wasn't even a real journalist. You didn't hear of this kind of journalistic "plant"situation? This idea of planting people for political purposes and paying journalists as if they were commercials and advertisers is a relatively new blatant form of propaganda in journalism and politics and Arianna is a journalist herself and is concerned about the role of journalism in a democratic society. At one time it was called "yellow journalism" and America prided itself in offering its people fair and objective reporting and interviewing.

She makes very cogent and sarcastic points regarding the Pentagon Channel as one more channel to simply feed those who watch it a narrow and supportive view of war and all the neocon plans regarding it. You won't see coffins or wounded soldiers, nor the numbers of our wounded and dead. It, like so many outlets, and even more so, will be carefully programmed to display only the "freedom" and "glory" aspects of war and occupation. Meanwhile, the truth of the situations like Halliburton failing to feed the troops properly, other funding failing to equip the troops with the bare necessities of armor, and other blunders are simply ignored in the mainstream media. And the issues regarding Rumfeld and who was responsible for the torture, which by the way, was headed by a contracted outside company. And do you think this Pentagon Channel will cover the subject of torture in an objective way? Of course not, because in essence, it will become an unrealistic reality show, most concertedly a glorified commercial for war.

Where have you been?

I love the people in our military, but I don't love the people running the military and many of the military personnel themselves do not love who's running their lives right now. But the best we can do is support our troops where they are.

As far as nailing the aspect of propaganda in an all time insidious and robust way nearly comparible to the Nazis --- Arianna is RIGHT ON and always has been!

Sorry, folks, whoever this guy is...... cannot be more wrong. Watch the Pentagon Channel if you want, but realize that what you're seeing is not the true story, is not the real story, and watching it does not support the troops.... it only makes money for the broadcasting stations, gives the various branches of the military time to advertise for their recruitment, and lures unsuspecting people, like this gentleman, into believing that all is hunky dory with the Pentagon and the neocon agenda to commit our nation to constant wars and occupations in various places until their final (unreachable) goal, domination of space. You can count on the Pentagon Channel as one large commericial for the DOD. And like any ad company, they've got the bucks to hire the best in the ad business.

Now considering these same leaders allow outsourcing of our jobs, fail to tax the rich, condone corporations avoiding paying their fair share of taxes...... do you think we can afford to finance all of these occupations and mistakes? And who pays for the Pentagon Channel? Ever think of that?

And to add insult to injury, they now want to literally take money from Social Security to invest in their Wall Street coffers.

Do you see any connections here? Do you see that corporations and government officials are now in total partnership with one another -- Halliburton, TITAN, Brown & Root, Oil Companies, Pharms, Insurance Companies, banks, media moguls --- and the corporations without direct representative relationship in Congress have strong lobbiests who make deals with various representatives and donate to the party that gives them the bills they want passed and slashes parts of bills they don't want slashed. And what determines their motivation for this? The people? The efficacy of their product? The safety of their workplace? The purity of their byproducts? NO! It's the amount of profit they make and the representatives in our government and the top leaders in power now, like Reagan, continue to favor the CEO's and their profits assuming a trickle-down economic theory that simply doesn't work. So.... lives are sacrificed, safety is sacrificed, our general tax fund is sacrificed, our trade deficit increases, jobs are sacrificed. And while our country suffers with social and environmental bills that could have helped people, raised education standards, cleaned the air, cleaned the earth and water, assured that all our elderly are taken care of... the CEOs in these specially connected corporations are raking in millions. Do you like that?

Fighting terrorism is not fighting wars in other lands in order for connected and contracted corporations to make money while draining our taxpayer kitty. It is to protect the general welfare of our citizens and this can be done here, not in another country stirring up even more hatred and stimulating those who were previously content to now fight to the death for revenge. And while the military/industrial complex propagandizes and attempts to instill fear and hate toward a nation of people, when only a handful were initially involved, those that are the victims of torture and those who have been bombed and whose relatives have been killed join the side of the terrorists. This, of course, gives the administration a bigger enemy and they like that and push the word "terrorism" and "911" to even further their nefarious war schemes, further dividing our nation and the world against our administration and our nation, and take away our freedoms at the same time. And watch, because soon a new enemy will come into the picture-- not Korea, but Iran.

So you see, while they drain our country of its taxpayer base, attempt to steal money from the future security of our young people today and fail to fund already ailing social programs such as Medicaid, dirty our air and water, and fund scientists through billions of dollars for high tech weaponry and surveillance, give taxbreaks to the wealthy, and fund wars---- they think we'll accept this degradation of our nation because of the fear-producing enemy-creating propaganda. Arianna doesn't accept this and neither do quite a huge population of us citizens.

It's time to call a spade a spade, Mr. Rob, whoever you are!

And Arianna Huffington does just that!

Blessings, Arianna, you are a true patriot!

BC :)

[foot_soldier]

The Bush administration more closely resembles a slick public relations team than a group of mature, thoughtful, responsive individuals practicing good statesmanship.

[Rob]

Sorry, Boomer Chick, but you don't know what you're talking about either.

If you know anybody who receives The Pentagon Channel you ought to check it out before expressing an opinion. Arianna made the same mistake in assuming that the "news" it provides is similar to other media or slanted like FOX News and the right wing media.

(Yes, I know very well how some "news sources" are basically propoganda vehicles, thank you.)

The military news on The Pentagon Chanel consists mostly of service people describing daily operations & training, new policies and ways of doing things in the service, using benefits, preparing for discharge & veterans' benefits, R&R opportunities, etc., etc.

There are no national or international news programs, talk shows, or political commentary. There are no sitcoms or dramas either.

As noted, there are DOD press conferences from time to time so once in a while you might see "Rummy" spouting off & trying to spin. But it isn't broken down & edited into sound bites and there's no rah-rah "commentary."

Typical programs would be a disbursements officer advising personnel how to save money & invest in retirement programs, a video of a Navy ship making a port call, the Marine Band having a concert, etc. There are specific programs particular to things going on in the different branches, too.

As a matter of fact, you're likely to find this channel to be a big bore if you're not in the service (and maybe if you are). You certainly aren't in danger of being brainwashed or indocrinated into neocon or right wing politics.

If you are in the Southern California area you can PM me if you want to see it for yourself. Who knows, you might wind up getting a DISH Network system. I bet Arianna would like the Greek language channels. You'd probably love Free Speech TV and World Link .

[Boomer Chick]

Rob, we have Dish Network.

I scanned for the Pentagon Channel -- we do not have it, and all channels, even the few that aren't allowed on our subscription (which is deluxe containing all the movie channels, educational channels, college channels, and sports channels, news channels... all of it) are listed, printed in white, box filled in with red. It is not listed as yet.

Why would I want to pm you? How odd.


How come military entities, the Pentagon et al, have only recently decided it's time to have their own cable channel? Isn't private good enough? Isn't the military cable networking good enough? Why have it available to the public?

Since you watch it, please list the advertisers.

And if there are no advertisers, who do you think pays for the channel?

What political agendas are forwarded by the channel? Both Democratic party and the Republican party agendas are equally covered on the channel? Is it true that the recent social security privatisation plan will be advertised or let's say -- "covered" -- on the Pentagon Channel? Will the Democrats who oppose it get equal time?

CSpan offers a pretty fair rendition of what goes on in Congress and the Senate. It keeps the cameras rolling for the public good and public information.

Do you think the cameras roll on anything that the Pentagon doesn't want you to see? Come on, we all know how the DOD works. It's OK, except when the leadership at the top takes the country in the wrong foreign policy direction.

Boring? When our Dish Network carries the program, I'll give it a fair critique.

The very fact of the Pentagon's choosing to air a channel all its own and available to the public, when other departments of the government do not have their own channels, and considering the media news coverage as it is regarding honesty and thoroughness of foreign affairs and wars coverage..... the Pentagon Channel will be reviewed by many and found to be precisely what Arianna has predicted.

Time will tell.

What one needs to have when watching any programming is the ability to discern:

What is missing?
What is true?
What is factual?
Whom does the coverage benefit?
Who pays for the programming?

On CSpan one rarely needs to question what is open and taped for all to see.

I can predict just as well as anyone on what would and would not be covered and HOW it might be covered on the Pentagon channel. No need to tell me what my freedoms are on this board, Mr. Rob. Arianna has the freedom to write columns and I have the freedom to agree or disagree with her just as you do. She commented on the existence of the P Channel and was not critiquing it per se, just projecting upon the present media state of affairs regarding foreign policy and commenting on the military's possible purpose for a public access P Channel --- all of that HUMOROUSLY I might add, with comparative thinking skills, more righteous indignation toward our already faulty access to accurate and honest war coverage, and written to alert the public to the possible and probable supposition that propaganda will once again be part of the P Channel play! Fine for the scheduling and general military personnel information, but no one of sound mind accepts that the offerings will be ONLY geared to lists of schedules and events calendars.

Please.

BC

ps -- I do watch Link and FSTV ! I like most of it and I also like some of the college channels and their science and art programs. Did I mention CSpan?

[Boomer Chick]

Pentagon Channel Live Feed:


http://pentagonchannel.feedroom.com/iframeset.jsp?ord=328159

I'm listening to a program about invading Baghdad right now.

BC :(

[Boomer Chick]

Excellent article and interview with Bill Moyers in..... Santa Barbara


Corporate Media, Coming of the Rapture, and the Culture of Fear: Coffee Talk with Bill Moyers

by Nick Welsh, Santa Barbara Independent

Spend five minutes on the phone with Bill Moyers, dubbed by some “the conscience” of American journalism, and it’s abundantly obvious that the man is troubled, and profoundly pissed off; though it’s doubtful someone so imbued with good Southern manners would use such talk. Now 70, Moyers has spent most of the past 55 years hunting the truth behind his craft, a working journalist tracing the twisted paths of power for both newspapers and television. Embodying that rare combination of graciousness, dignity, and passion, Moyers has been audacious enough to tell “the truth behind the news,” rather than to report the “he-said-she-said” ping-pong that often passes for news. And the truth about the news business — and democracy — as Moyers sees, could not be more grim.

Read more at the link:

http://www.reclaimthemedia.org/stories.php?story=05/02/26/3142813

BC

[Rob]

Questions & Answers

Rob, we have Dish Network.

I scanned for the Pentagon Channel -- we do not have it, and all channels, even the few that aren't allowed on our subscription (which is deluxe containing all the movie channels, educational channels, college channels, and sports channels, news channels... all of it) are listed, printed in white, box filled in with red. It is not listed as yet.

>>As I explained, most DISH Network subscribers won't get The Pentagon Channel because it comes from a different satellite than the ones that provide the "core" programming. Depending upon where you live, you would need a 2nd "dish" aimed at either the 61.5 or 148 degree orbital position. These are the satellites that provide most of the International channels, some local-to-local channels, and other "specialty" programming. You might even live in an area where a few of your local channels are there in which case you could get the 2nd "dish" for free if you wanted it.

Why would I want to pm you? How odd.

>>I meant that if you lived in my neck of the woods, the LA, CA area, and were interested in viewing the content you were commenting on despite your unfamiliarity, I would see to it that you had the opportunity to see what you were talking about.


How come military entities, the Pentagon et al, have only recently decided it's time to have their own cable channel? Isn't private good enough? Isn't the military cable networking good enough? Why have it available to the public?

>>Cable TV is still unavailable in many, mostly rural, areas. The only cable companies that are likely to be motivated to carry it anyway are those proximate to some large bases. But they have enough bandwidth issues as it is. DBS satellite TV is the easiest soulution for most potential viewers. The military has had the Armed Forces Radio & Television Service for personnel stationed overseas for decades. This is similar programming for those based state-side but without the "regular" shows from here that are provided to those can't otherwise receive them. There is no material that would be inappropriate for the general public and most of it would probably not be of interest.

Since you watch it, please list the advertisers.

>>There are no advertisers. As stated, this is provided as a free public access channel (like FSTV, LINK, COLOURS, LINK, etc.)

And if there are no advertisers, who do you think pays for the channel?

>>The Defense Dept.

What political agendas are forwarded by the channel? Both Democratic party and the Republican party agendas are equally covered on the channel? Is it true that the recent social security privatisation plan will be advertised or let's say -- "covered" -- on the Pentagon Channel? Will the Democrats who oppose it get equal time?

>>There are no political agendas put forward by the channel. People in the military service are Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Libertarians, Socialists, etc., etc. If the network carries a press conference with a DOD official or an interview with a service person it is certainly possible that a political opinion might be stated just like on any other network.

CSpan offers a pretty fair rendition of what goes on in Congress and the Senate. It keeps the cameras rolling for the public good and public information.

Do you think the cameras roll on anything that the Pentagon doesn't want you to see? Come on, we all know how the DOD works. It's OK, except when the leadership at the top takes the country in the wrong foreign policy direction.

Boring? When our Dish Network carries the program, I'll give it a fair critique.

The very fact of the Pentagon's choosing to air a channel all its own and available to the public, when other departments of the government do not have their own channels, and considering the media news coverage as it is regarding honesty and thoroughness of foreign affairs and wars coverage..... the Pentagon Channel will be reviewed by many and found to be precisely what Arianna has predicted.

>>Nope.

Time will tell.

What one needs to have when watching any programming is the ability to discern:

What is missing?
What is true?
What is factual?
Whom does the coverage benefit?
Who pays for the programming?

>>Thank you for the tips regarding critical viewing but, believe it or not, I am already a critical reader, listener and viewer. But I try to avoid criticising what I haven't seen or heard based on assumption or hearsay. If I ever do I will try to get my facts straight if someone points it out to me.

On CSpan one rarely needs to question what is open and taped for all to see.

I can predict just as well as anyone on what would and would not be covered and HOW it might be covered on the Pentagon channel. No need to tell me what my freedoms are on this board, Mr. Rob. Arianna has the freedom to write columns and I have the freedom to agree or disagree with her just as you do. She commented on the existence of the P Channel and was not critiquing it per se, just projecting upon the present media state of affairs regarding foreign policy and commenting on the military's possible purpose for a public access P Channel --- all of that HUMOROUSLY I might add, with comparative thinking skills, more righteous indignation toward our already faulty access to accurate and honest war coverage, and written to alert the public to the possible and probable supposition that propaganda will once again be part of the P Channel play! Fine for the scheduling and general military personnel information, but no one of sound mind accepts that the offerings will be ONLY geared to lists of schedules and events calendars.

>>I didn't make any comments about your rights or Ariannas. I suppose that in light of the Gannon affair, the revelations about paid columnists & commentators, and having actors posing as jounalists in PR spots, it was natural to assume that a "Pentagon Channel" was designed by the Bush admistration as a propaganda vehicle. IT JUST DOESN'T HAPPEN TO BE THE CASE. I recogise Arianna's attempt at satire & humor but had she made the effort to view the content on this channel the idea for the column would have been scraped. And I bet she doesn't need you, Ms. Boomer Chick, to defend her. Somehow I think she's big enough to admit a mistake when she makes one. I doubt she wants or needs all her fans to be fawning sycophants, either.

Please.

BC

ps -- I do watch Link and FSTV ! I like most of it and I also like some of the college channels and their science and art programs. Did I mention CSpan?

[Boomer Chick]

Rob,

I genuinely agree with Arianna, just as you would deny that you're a fawning sycophant for Bush.
I've been reading Huffington's columns for years, bought two of her books, and don't need some conservative blind Rob somebody in LA telling me I can't post one of her articles, agree with it, and argue with her critics! Besides, this is HER forum, or didn't you notice?

And you are free to disagree with her columns as well.

BTW, our area happens to host over five military bases -- three airforce and one Army -- Ft. Carson, AF Academy, Peterson AFB, Shreiver AFB (Space Command), and NORAD. You would think they'd offer the Pentagon Channel on our satellite.

And cable channels are not free. They're a paid subscriber service. Our money pays for the channels and MANY cable channels do have advertising, also, not all, so it's not a free public service as you say.

As I said and you failed to realize, she wasn't critiquing the programming. Considering I streamed audio on the Pentagon Channel site and heard their rendition of the Baghdad invasion, I would say from the little I heard that they are reframing the invasion on air with their rendition of it excluding any "extraneous" information like suspiciously missing facts, so that they can continue to motivate the troops. I wouldn't deny them that, except that, to not include all the facts is to deny the whole truth. And that's the crux of the problem with this administration and the Pentagon. Ever read Karen Kwiatkowski's columns? She was a Pentagon insider and has a lot to say about the new Pentagon and their public relations department.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowsi-arch.html

Better get thee to an internet library!

BC

[Rob]

Evidently you have some kind of attention, judgement, and/or reading disorder. It's obviously pointless to try & reason with you because you make up your mind regardless of your ignorance and once its made up no attempt at education is going to work with you.

Now, everybody is ignorant about different things. So ignorance alone is not a negative quality. It is curable with the proper education.

But willfull ignorance and uninformed opinion are best defined by the word you will find in any dictionary between the words stupor and stupendous .

I characterize most people on the right that way because they seem to me to be devoid of reason, confusing feeling with thought. They, too seem to be willfully ignorant and happy to be misinformed and disinformed. But obviously the same state of mind, or lack of mind can apply to those who consider themselves to be liberal or progressive.

It makes me mad when I see it from the right. It makes me sad when I see it on the left.

Rob,

I genuinely agree with Arianna, just as you would deny that you're a fawning sycophant for Bush.

>>I guess it would surprise you then to learn that I despise Bush and his entire cabal of kleptocrats and war-mongers. I reject lables but politically I am somewhere between liberal and social libertarian. I can only think of one time in 30 years that I ever voted for a Republican and that was due to the outrageous stupidity & corruption of her opponent.

I'm a Navy veteran so I know something about the military. I was a Medical Corpsman during the Vietnam War - another stupid, illegal war I opposed like many of my comrades. I participated in anti-war demonstrations while stateside & off duty. My 1st job when I got out of active duty was as a county coordinator for the McGovern campaign. Many other veterans participated. I happened to be in D.C. on the day of Nixon's 2nd innauguration and marched with hundreds of other veterans in the "Counter-Innaugural Parade."

I've been reading Huffington's columns for years, bought two of her books, and don't need some conservative blind Rob somebody in LA telling me I can't post one of her articles, agree with it, and argue with her critics! Besides, this is HER forum, or didn't you notice?

>>Again, I'm about as far from being conservative as you can get before becoming a Marxist. I didn't tell you not to post her articles. I read her column every week at Salon.com, listen to Left, Right and Center on KCRW-FM every week, and take almost every opportunity to check her out. I was against the recall of Gov. Davis but I seriously considered voting for Arianna as a replacement, if neccessary...until the debate.

I came here because it is her forum & website hoping there was a "talk to Arianna" app or something just to let her know she happened to be wrong about The Pentagon Channel. I didn't suspect she had a pack of "Dittoheads" like Rush Limbaugh.

And you are free to disagree with her columns as well.

>>Thank you, although I rarely do. In this case she simply made a mistake in judgement in that she pre-judged something she hadn't seen. The way you continue to do.

BTW, our area happens to host over five military bases -- three airforce and one Army -- Ft. Carson, AF Academy, Peterson AFB, Shreiver AFB (Space Command), and NORAD. You would think they'd offer the Pentagon Channel on our satellite.

>>It's not surprising that you don't understand how satellite TV works technically. I'm sure you're not intested and that's fine. But I already explained to you twice that it is available to you.

BTW, DISH Network has a "constellation" of 9 spacecraft in orbit and leases transponders on 2 more. You currently receive programming from 4 of them and you can easily get additional programming from others if desired by putting up additional "dish" antennas at little or no cost.

And cable channels are not free. They're a paid subscriber service. Our money pays for the channels and MANY cable channels do have advertising, also, not all, so it's not a free public service as you say.

>>It's not your ignorance of broadcasting regulations and how fees are derived that's surprising - it's your willingness to lecture others about that which you do not know. The assumption of knowledge that is lacking is another condition that is best described by that s-word adjective.

It so happens that the FCC requires the satellite tv companies to provide a small percentage of their programming at no cost (that means "free") to subscribers of their pay-TV services. These are designated as "Public Access Channels." Only non-profit and educational channels qualify. The ones you see in the 9400s on DNW are the ones you have access to and there are others, including TPC, beamed from the other satellite orbital positions per FCC regulations.

As I said and you failed to realize, she wasn't critiquing the programming. Considering I streamed audio on the Pentagon Channel site and heard their rendition of the Baghdad invasion, I would say from the little I heard that they are reframing the invasion on air with their rendition of it excluding any "extraneous" information like suspiciously missing facts, so that they can continue to motivate the troops. I wouldn't deny them that, except that, to not include all the facts is to deny the whole truth. And that's the crux of the problem with this administration and the Pentagon. Ever read Karen Kwiatkowski's columns? She was a Pentagon insider and has a lot to say about the new Pentagon and their public relations department.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowsi-arch.html

Better get thee to an internet library!

>>Blah. Blah Blah. If you just looked at the content of this innocous channel you would immediately realize how silly your whole argument is. Better get thee to a TV connected to it. It will remind you of nothing so much as CSPAN except that it focuses on the Defense Dept. instead of the House or Senate.

BC

BTW, you ought to check out this past Sunday's Doonesberry strip. You might get a more realistic idea of what people are like in the service. I was sort of like the "Professor" character except they called me, "Doc."

[Boomer Chick]

Rob,

OK, you skillfully avoided my Karen Kwiatkowsky recommendation which supported my intellectual argument regarding the Pentagon and their new propaganda course.

You also deftly illustrated my ignorance about satellite broadcasting while simultaneously shifting the focus of our discussion from Arianna's column to my ignorance on your political affiliations (due to my assumptions), and just like a man often does (I assume you're a man) feels totally justified in doing so. Yes, I'm married for many years so I know the male ego and realize how tender it really is.

But you chose to concentrate on the off topic discussion to what purpose? And in avoiding the reading and commentary on Kwiatkowski you also avoided recognizing the underlying proposition in both my supportive commentary for the column as well as Arianna's premise regarding her projections on the quality and content of the Pentagon Channel.


So, in essence, you're a liberal and you thought that Arianna should have seen the program before commenting on it. And I, on the otherhand, stressed to you that she needn't have watched the program to speculate upon it regarding all signs of propaganda in the mainstream media and the even deeper evidence in their campaigns to affect American opinion regarding post 911 foreign policy as well as the evidence from a Pentagon insider that indeed their public relations department was revamped and changed as soon as the neocons came into office.

Congratulation on your military service. I've known many a Vietnam Vet who realized the futility of that war and began to think independently of the PTB of that era. I know many now. And they're flaming angry. They would also be the first to criticize the Pentagon Channel as well. I will be consulting them on it and posting back to get their views as well as yours.

If you have watched the channel, which according to your testimony, must be quite different than the streaming link called "The Pentagon Channel" on the internet because your view differs so markedly from mine. How does that compute? You're a liberal (a general term) and I'm a liberal yet we see things so differently, referring to the Pentagon channel on the net and the Pentagon Channel on satellite which frankly must be the same. Please corect me if I'm wrong. I find it strange at this point, but I will simply call a male ego a male ego and wait for a more objective analysis of the Pentagon Channel from you. I will then compare it to my Vet friends' views of same.

Fair?

That s.... comment really added grace and intellect to your posting. I was a teacher, BTW, and protested Vietnam while in college in the early 70's (Bay Area) and have protested since Bush gave his Axis of Evil speech. (earned another degree in the late '90s) I am also an activist Dem in my community -- precinct leader, volunteer, poll watcher, etc. I do walk the walk and talk the talk, so sycophantic notions are beyond me. But I'm glad you revealed some of who you are. Where are you now in terms of foreign policy? In your defending the Pentagon Channel, I was not totally illogical in assuming your conservativism.

BC

[halva]

Until 1981 Greece had two television channels, a government channel and an armed forces channel. The abolition of the armed forces channel was universally greeted as a welcome move away from the statist authoritarian culture of the post-civil-war Greece of the 50s and of the 1967-74 military dictatorship.

[Boomer Chick]

Thanks you for your input, Halva. :D

I see no redeeming qualities of spreading military mindsets, as they are, through increased propagation of various media.

We should be moving into an era of cooperative spirit and diplomatic civilian intercourse. Military should be the last resort, not the social structure of a new neocon futuristic military state.

BC

[Rob]

Rob,

OK, you skillfully avoided my Karen Kwiatkowsky recommendation which supported my intellectual argument regarding the Pentagon and their new propaganda course.

>>No. Your link doesn't work. Besides, I've actually seen the content on the channel in question of a few occasions (unlike you) so I don't particulary need to read another columnist's unrelated remarks on pentagon policy & propoganda to speculate about it. Your "argument" is anything but "intellectual."

You also deftly illustrated my ignorance about satellite broadcasting while simultaneously shifting the focus of our discussion from Arianna's column to my ignorance on your political affiliations (due to my assumptions), and just like a man often does (I assume you're a man) feels totally justified in doing so. Yes, I'm married for many years so I know the male ego and realize how tender it really is.

>>I didn't shift any focus. I responded directly to some asinine statements just as I'm doing now.

And what would have been the response if I made some sexist comment about how your unwarranted assumptions and uninformed opinions were "typical of women?"

But you chose to concentrate on the off topic discussion to what purpose? And in avoiding the reading and commentary on Kwiatkowski you also avoided recognizing the underlying proposition in both my supportive commentary for the column as well as Arianna's premise egarding her projections on the quality and content of the Pentagon Channel.

>>You took the discussion "off-topic" if you now choose to characterize it as such. I responded to you point-by-point just like this.

Again, your link doesn't work. But since I can see the channel anytime I want (which isn't going to be often since I'm not particularly interested in it) I don't have to be instructed in it's purpose or meaning.

So, in essence, you're a liberal and you thought that Arianna should have seen the program before commenting on it. >>Duh<< And I, on the otherhand, stressed to you that she needn't have watched the program to speculate upon it regarding all signs of propaganda in the mainstream media and the even deeper evidence in their campaigns to affect American opinion regarding post 911 foreign policy as well as the evidence from a Pentagon insider that indeed their public relations department was revamped and changed as soon as the neocons came into office.

>>Well, you are just plain wrong. Ever been told that before?

Congratulation on your military service. I've known many a Vietnam Vet who realized the futility of that war and began to think independently of the PTB of that era. I know many now. And they're flaming angry. They would also be the first to criticize the Pentagon Channel as well. >>Nope.<< I will be consulting them on it and posting back to get their views as well as yours.

If you have watched the channel, which according to your testimony, must be quite different than the streaming link called "The Pentagon Channel" on the internet because your view differs so markedly from mine. How does that compute? You're a liberal (a general term) and I'm a liberal yet we see things so differently, referring to the Pentagon channel on the net and the Pentagon Channel on satellite which frankly must be the same. Please corect me if I'm wrong. >>I've already done that many times. Do you seriously expect me to sit in front of the TV, watch that boring channel, log in every program and report back to you? Just go watch it yourself for Chrissake and then report back to me!>> I find it strange at this point, but I will simply call a male ego a male ego >>(more sexist BS)<< and wait for a more objective analysis of the Pentagon Channel from you. I will then compare it to my Vet friends' views of same.

Fair?

>>FYI, yesterday I tuned in for a few minutes on and off and saw:

A Marine Corps news program with segments on new armor kits for Humvees and their anti-suicide program (try to resist pre-judging that one), among others.
A press conference at the State Dept. which voiced SD's disappointment with the "light sentences" some convicted terrorists received in Indonesia
A service in the Pacific program featuring (among other things) an aircraft carrier making a port-call in Guam and another coming back to home port in Washington state.
The start of a DOD press conference I couldn't stay to watch due to work.

Unlike yours, my comments have been completely objective. Sure, ask your friends' opinions if you are incapable of forming an informed opinion of your own. That seems to be your basic problem.

That s.... comment really added grace and intellect to your posting. I was a teacher, BTW, and protested Vietnam while in college in the early 70's (Bay Area) and have protested since Bush gave his Axis of Evil speech. (earned another degree in the late '90s) I am also an activist Dem in my community -- precinct leader, volunteer, poll watcher, etc. I do walk the walk and talk the talk, so sycophantic notions are beyond me. But I'm glad you revealed some of who you are. Where are you now in terms of foreign policy? In your defending the Pentagon Channel, I was not totally illogical in assuming your conservativism.

>>Yes, you were. And I'm not "defending" The Pentagon Channel. I don't even care about it. I simply came into this thread to correct a misapprehension that it was created as a Bush administartion or DOD neocon propoganda vehicle. In fact, it is simply an information source about military life & events for servicepeople and their families. If it was a military or right-wing or Bush propoganda organ I would denounce it in no uncertain terms.

BC

halva's post is informative in that it shows another reason why Arianna could have made the wrong assumption based on her past experience with another military channel - that of a military dictatorship.

But If she ever sees the one we are talking about I'd bet she would be "big" enough to admit she was wrong. One of the reasons I do admire her is that she came around from the conservative Republican side to the progressive side.

I don't think she needs you do defend her with more unwarranted assumptions and uninformed opnions, BC. She can take care of herself.

I've wasted enough of my time in this thread. From now on if I have time to waste "debating" with fools I will do it in other forums I visit where I get into it with Bushies, Limbaugh dittoheads and religious right-wingers.