Need some verification

[Worm of Despite]

Well, after my grandfather heard this story on the channel 2 news, he laughed and said, "This is nothing but a 'showboat' war!"

Anyway, seems the story is that Jessica Lynch doesn't remember any "rescue". They tried to return Jessica Lynch to the troops, but they were turned back by fire, and so they had not choice but to take her back to the hospital. Then our troops went in there, got her, and called it a "rescue". Seems like the whole thing was nothing but a morale thing. Apparently, she wasn't captured--she was caught in an ambush and put in the hospital. Either way, I don't know what's the truth, but I tend to lean toward the above description of how things went down.

Anybody else heard this story, or know the facts

[[Syl]]

It looks like Peter Jennings aired the story, but the article originally broke in the Toronto Star. The whole ordeal was grossly overdramatized (but hey, who does it hurt, really?), but the motives and actions behind the rescue appear to have been genuine.

Picked it up on google at www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2003/ ... 0509.asp#1 .

[Skyweir]

who does it hurt really??

well it hurts the concept of truth .. and the credibility of those espousing 'truth' .. it discredits the US administration does it not?? and exposes the US admins media war strategem ..

maybe its not their fault .. perhaps the 'truth' is just a foreign concept to them

[[Syl]]

The "media war stratagem" is older than what we know as the media itself, and is even more prominent in this "information age." Like it or not, it has always been a part of war, and like any other division, it has its successes and its failures.

Truth, or "the concept of truth" is a rather narrow and scholastic approach to reality (even narrower when considering most people think they have a solitary claim to said concept). Sorry, there's not a single government, much less a military, run by philosophers (one only has to look at the example of Tibet to see why that is). It will take a whole lot of good men and women who are interested in doing more than criticizing from the sidelines to change that.

[Skyweir]

oh I see .. and I dare say you'd make a brilliant politician .. Their not known for their appreciation of representing facts as they are either ..

Sure media - the dissemination of propaganda has been around for millenias .. but thats not really the point is it ..

The question was overdramatising or misrepresenting facts such as these .. who does it hurt really??

It hurts those representing them falsely .. how can they be trusted to represent facts accurately ..

lets leave 'truth' out of the equasion as you seem to want to propose a philosophical argement for its non-existence anyway ..

What about accurate representation ..

And as far as the media hype promoted by the Bush Administration .. if the information disseminated from that source cannot be relied upon to be accurate .. then its credibility is shot to pieces ..

the only saving grace is that people's memories are short .. and apathy is expansive .. so many will not care ..

as you proposed yourself .. what does it really matter??

principles matter .. they should .. and when they dont any more .. then there's nothing to fight for .. nothing to live for any more ..

[[Syl]]

oh I see .. and I dare say you'd make a brilliant politician .. Their not known for their appreciation of representing facts as they are either ..

I dare say I would, if by politician you mean one who is more interested in serving his polis than he is in promoting his own agenda. I'd make a damn fine politician, I think. I have a deep appreciation for the more ethereal facets of life, but I also pay close attention to the concrete world I live in. I'm a realist with just enough optimism to plan for things to better than just the way things are.

Sure media - the dissemination of propaganda has been around for millenias .. but thats not really the point is it ..

Well, that was one of my points. I'm not saying things should be as they've always been, quite the opposite. However, I am saying, despite my own feelings toward this administration, much less the commercial media, it is inappropriate to demonize them for something of which they are neither the original nor sole perpetrators. The other side of the fence practices enough spin doctoring to balance it out, and in this case, they are not trying to smooth over a wrong (if it's ok to embellish a fish story, it's ok in my book to embellish a rescue story... though I suppose the fish might feel a bit of umbrage).

The question was overdramatising or misrepresenting facts such as these .. who does it hurt really??

It hurts those representing them falsely .. how can they be trusted to represent facts accurately ..

I don't trust any news outlet to disseminate the facts without flaw or bias (especially Fox News... "We distort. You decide."). Hell, look at the NY Times' current predicament. Journalism, since its inception, has had less than perfect objectivity.

lets leave 'truth' out of the equasion as you seem to want to propose a philosophical argement for its non-existence anyway ..

I'm not saying it doesn't exist; I'm saying it's relative, and no single viewpoint can lay sole claim to it, not yours, not mine, not the Coalition's, not France's, not even Buddha's. The accuracy of any measurement, and thus any evaluation, can only be as accurate as the most precise degree to which it's measured and is inversely affected by the degree of chaos inherent in the system. It's true in engineering, and it holds true for the very imprecise and chaotic human nature.

What about accurate representation ..

See above.

And as far as the media hype promoted by the Bush Administration .. if the information disseminated from that source cannot be relied upon to be accurate .. then its credibility is shot to pieces ..

No argument there. That's probably my biggest misgiving with this administration, the fact that they've shown very little regard to our nation's credibility. Not that the U.S. govt. as a whole isn't a bit full of it anyway, but they haven't helped

the only saving grace is that people's memories are short .. and apathy is expansive .. so many will not care ..

as you proposed yourself .. what does it really matter??

principles matter .. they should .. and when they dont any more .. then there's nothing to fight for .. nothing to live for any more ..

I agree with you there, just as disappointed as you must feel, but I disagree to a small degree to the very last. Principles matter, but the feelings, the spirit, of the people matter more.

[Skyweir]

I very much appreciated your post! An excellent addressing of the issues raised.

my reference to politicians was not meant to be complimentary .. but more so as the irony observed in your rationalisation of the value of concepts .. like 'truth' .. I have high regard for you as a person .. and I agree with most of your last post .. In particular I concur with you .. that 'truth' is relative .. in some degree. Yet as a concept .. it offers an immutable standard. It is only relative to the degree that subjectivity defers .. otherwise it 'truth' is a concept widely understood and accepted. The notion of 'truthful' representation is not a contestable one per se .. [and i am not only refering to the media] most understand and appreciate accuracy and correctness even in reporting .. also there is an objective notion of 'fact' or 'facts' .. that can be distinguished from fiction .. or fictions.

I also agree that the media cannot be relied upon to represent and report accurately where embelishing can win a wider audience.

However my criticism is levelled at the administration where the original report eminated from. I dont expect a great deal regrettably from the media but I do expect a great deal more from the/a responsible administration [oxymoron there ] ..

I believe that without principles people have nothing of substance .. and what is 'spirit' if not fundamentally balanced on principles?

Feelings of the people .. are subjective and unreliable .. if not themselves drawn from principles.

I guess what I am saying .. but not so clearly .. is that regard for credibility .. for correctness .. for honesty and integrity .. is not only imperative and important .. but demands accountability and responsibility for actions.

These things .. imo .. do matter .. and they need to matter .. cos when they fail to matter .. we lose the very essence of that which defines us ..

[[Syl]]

Thanks, Sky. I understand where you're coming from (and I understood the dig about being compared to a politician... it took a little bit of self-control not to rise to the incindiary level on that one), and I believe we agree in more ways than we disagree, though our differences are dramatic.

Hmm, maybe we should start a new thread on the nature of truth and get some others (who might shy away from political convos) to give some insight (the more viewpoints, the more measurements, the more accuracy).

[Skyweir]

an excellent idea!!

I think you are right .. there is more that unites our thinking than divides it .. and what divisiveness there may be I dare say imo .. rests in semantics .. but you may disagree

As far as our divergent philosophical view points are concerned .. it will be interesting to read more extensively about your take on the concept of 'truth' ..

my peculiar notion of humour ['politician'] was not intended to be dissentious ..

socks aside .. I wouldnt dream of hitting below the belt metaphorically speaking