MSNBC reairing the Today Show from 9/11

[RidonKs]

Every since then they have been preping the rollout of the speech announcing the policy and building the coaltion. Kerry has been travelling all over the place. Obama met with previous Nation Security officials. I'm sure that within this context they chose September 10 as a very useful date, but I don't really see any big delay.

again, i'm not suggesting this 'plot' or 'scheme' is important in any particular way. it's just useful in understanding how powerful interests use the mass media to interact with the public.

a big delay is unnecessary to give credence to the point i'm making. let's say everything that's happened over the past six months gets pushed back a day... or even a week. hypothetically. would the president have delivered his speech to the american public declaring an attack on another country at the same time? or would he have waited until september 10th? i believe he would have waited until the eve of the anniversary.

once again, i have no evidence for this belief nor do i think it's particularly important and i'm not going to waste any more time on it starting.... now. but i do think it's worth a few minutes of consideration from somebody else which is why i posted it.

[Jailblazers7]

again, i'm not suggesting this 'plot' or 'scheme' is important in any particular way. it's just useful in understanding how powerful interests use the mass media to interact with the public.

a big delay is unnecessary to give credence to the point i'm making. let's say everything that's happened over the past six months gets pushed back a day... or even a week. hypothetically. would the president have delivered his speech to the american public declaring an attack on another country at the same time? or would he have waited until september 10th? i believe he would have waited until the eve of the anniversary.

once again, i have no evidence for this belief nor do i think it's particularly important and i'm not going to waste any more time on it starting.... now. but i do think it's worth a few minutes of consideration from somebody else which is why i posted it.

I think it is almost a basic human instinct to appropriate the emotional weight of an event for other purposes. Even children do it to a far lesser extent when thy play off their parents emotions and events in their lives to get a new toy or deliver some bad news. I don't think the White House was exactly subtle about it since it's an easy connection to make and has probably been brought up on many national media outlets.

[RidonKs]

I think it is almost a basic human instinct to appropriate the emotional weight of an event for other purposes. Even children do it to a far lesser extent when thy play off their parents emotions and events in their lives to get a new toy or deliver some bad news. I don't think the White House was exactly subtle about it since it's an easy connection to make and has probably been brought up on many national media outlets.

you may think it's natural and part of our instinct. i think its shameful.

[Jailblazers7]

you may think it's natural and part of our instinct. i think its shameful.

I'm not saying it isn't a little perverse and manipulative but I don't think it is so egregious that I'd feel strongly about it. Didn't watch the speech so I can't comment about whether or not the contents of the speech played into the date too heavily but the mere fact that he used the proximity to 9/11 to add emotional weight to his address isn't a huge concern to me.

[KevinNYC]

a big delay is unnecessary to give credence to the point i'm making. let's say everything that's happened over the past six months gets pushed back a day... or even a week.

I think a week's delay is pretty minor, too minor to worry about. A venal sin rather than a mortal sin.

[RidonKs]

I'm not saying it isn't a little perverse and manipulative but I don't think it is so egregious that I'd feel strongly about it. Didn't watch the speech so I can't comment about whether or not the contents of the speech played into the date too heavily but the mere fact that he used the proximity to 9/11 to add emotional weight to his address isn't a huge concern to me.

the contents of the speech did not play too much into it because that would have been too overt... imo.

and again without evidence to back up my belief, it would not surprise me in the slightest to find out 30 years down the road from declassified records that this particular speech found yesterday's particular date through no sheer accidence.

and again i agree the 'coincidence' does not concern me. but it does happen to shed light on institutional dynamics that concern me significantly.

[RidonKs]

I think a week's delay is pretty minor, too minor to worry about. A venal sin rather than a mortal sin.

i don't think you're following my logic here. the extent of delay has nothing to do with it, which is what i meant by "a big delay is unnecessary to give credence to the point i'm making".

[Jailblazers7]

the contents of the speech did not play too much into it because that would have been too overt... imo.

and again without evidence to back up my belief, it would not surprise me in the slightest to find out 30 years down the road from declassified records that this particular speech found yesterday's particular date through no sheer accidence.

and again i agree the 'coincidence' does not concern me. but it does happen to shed light on institutional dynamics that concern me significantly.

I get what you're saying because it loosely falls under the idea of manufacturing consent that Chomsky wrote about but I think this is almost entirely benign and doesn't shed much light on those institutional dynamics. The truly concerning stuff is how media narratives tend to fall in line with government goals and how the government (with help from the media) largely controls the flow of information regarding foreign policy matters. I just don't think that the date of this speech is very connected to that dynamic.

[RidonKs]

more accurate : we have no proof that it's connected and it might not be. it would just make a lot of sense if it were

you're right, by comparison to other examples of the mass media dynamic, this particular case is benign and belongs in the category of afterthought. but to fresh eyes who have never encountered these ideas before, the hypothesis that a presidential speech was dated specifically for its emotional impact on a still grieving / ever fearful american public is a powerful one. hence my mentioning it.

and yeah, i'm using the propaganda model to some extent

[longhornfan1234]

Bubba's administration dropped the ball. He had Osama in sight.

[KevinNYC]

Cool

Can I bring girls back or nah?

No need, we're pretty well stocked.

However, we charge for liquor and ice.

[KevinNYC]

Really eerie to see the coverage of the event again. RIP to those who lost their lives that day.

The Atlantic has an amazing photo gallery up about the day of. If didn't know why there was so much smoke, this is just a beautiful photo.



Some of the photos are real rough, though, so I won't link to it.

There's another gallery about the aftermath. I forgot about this



Posters of people who never came home. Damn.

These were all over NY for a while.

[ThePhantomCreep]

Stern show 9/11 coverage was the best.

Eh, not really. I love Howard, but the xenophobia he and his listeners displayed as the events unfolded was cringe-worthy.

[JohnFreeman]

Eh, not really. I love Howard, buy the xenophobia he and his listeners displayed as the events unfolded was cringe-worthy.

It is funny to listen to, they were so wrong about anything

[tomtucker]

Uh, what?

did bush and company not claim saddam and his (never found) weapons of mass destruction had links to 9-11 ? ...........even if the terrorists and osama were saudis .

.
were iraq and afghan. wars not only given the green light because of 9-11 ?