Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The influence of media on politics
The influence of media on politics
The influence of media on politics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The influence of media on politics
The idea that the United Stated government creates false pretenses and manipulates the American people to engage in a war that is supported has been an ongoing debate for a long period of time. The most notable war, perhaps, is the war in Iraq led by the G. W. Bush administration. Another notable war would be the Vietnam war led by the L. B. Johnson administration. I have always found people’s complex theories and assumptions extremely interesting, so I chose to watch “The Lies That Lead to War” with Charles Lewis. In the Bill Moyers interview, Lewis discusses his discoveries and conclusions of his investigative research book 935 Lies. When asked how Washington goes to war, Lewis states, “What I learned is that it's orchestrated. They frame …show more content…
Not that I am deceitful or manipulative, but if every piece of information got to the American people I feel our country would be in disarray. We have National Security for a reason, I understand that people want to know what is going on and the reasoning behind it, but sometimes that is not a feasible desire. I also think that it is common knowledge that the President will be deceitful at some point in their time in office. In a CNN political article, it states “Historians say many of our greatest presidents were the biggest liars -- and duplicity was part of their greatness.” (Blake, "Of Course Presidents Lie.") The article goes in depth to talk about different presidents and lies that they made. Even the ones we consider the greatest presidents have lied. One notable president that vowed to “never lie to the American people” was Jimmy Carter. He also did not make it past one term. "The country fell apart," Mott says of this president's time in office. "He was too noble, too pure. He didn't know how to play people against one another. He should have read his Machiavelli." (Blake, "Of Course Presidents
In Kirby Dick’s influential documentary “The Invisible War,” filmmaker Kirby Dick uses pathos, ethos and logos to gain information and supplementary details to make his point that there is an epidemic of rape in throughout the DOD (Department of Defense) and the fact that military sexual trauma (MST) in the United States military goes unheard, mostly unpunished and needs to be addressed at a higher level.
Never before had such a broad range of Americans come to doubt their government. The faith most citizens had in their leaders coming out of WWII was so near complete that the realization that they had been lied to about Vietnam represents the most significant change in the relationship between a people and their leaders America, perhaps much of history, has ever seen.
September 11, 2001 marked a tragic day in the history of the United States; a terrorist attack had left the country shaken. It did not take long to determine those who were behind the attack and a call for retribution swept through the nation. Citizens in a wave of patriotism signed up for military service and the United States found resounding international support for their efforts in the war on terror. Little opposition was raised at the removal of the Taliban regime and there was much support for bringing Osama Bin Laden and the leaders of al-Qaeda to justice. Approval abroad diminished approximately a year and a half later when Afghanistan became a stepping stone to the administration’s larger ambition, the invasion of Iraq. The administration would invent several stories and in some cases remain silent of the truth where would prove positive for the Iraqi invasion. It seems they were willing to say anything to promote the largely unpopular and unnecessary war they were resolved on engaging in.
Susan Brewer brilliantly illustrates the historical facts of American government propagating violence. Scrutinizing the Philippine War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and the Iraq War the reader discovers an eerily Orwellian government manipulating her citizens instead of educating them. Brewer states, a "propaganda campaign seeks to disguise a paradoxical message: war is not a time for citizens to have an informed debate and make up their own minds even as they fight in the name of freedom to do just that." pg. 7 The Presidents of the United States and their administrations use propaganda, generation, after generation to enter into foreign wars for profit by manipulating the truth, which it is unnecessary for our government to do to her people.
After an analysis of the preliminary speeches Former Senator Robert C. Byrd gave in the early 2000s one may deduce that the senator had the welfare of his fellow Americans in mind as the copious amounts of people around the world might be effected by this war. These speeches are in regard to the grand dilemma that presented itself over a decade ago. This conflict happened to be whether or not we ought to go to war with Iraq. The vein of the initial speech, Rush to War Ignores U.S. Constitution, is cautionary. Byrd is attempting to emblematically pump the breaks on the notion that we have a duty to wage war. In the second speech A Preordained Course of Action on Iraq, Byrd continues to convey his disapprobation as well as recurrently referencing
Though out history, American has had its hand in conflict with other countries. Some of those conflicts have turned out into wars. Looking back at America’s “track record” with war, America has a worthy past of having its citizen’s support. Obviously the two World Wars we not controversial. The United States in the Korean War was criticized, fairly, for its strategy, but the need to defend South Korea was never questioned. In only the Vietnam War was the United States’ very participation criticized. This is such a gigantic change with prior wars that it bears study as to why it happened, and better yet, should have it happened. This paper will discuss the United States’ involvement in the Vietnam War, by asking the simple question, Should have the Untied States’ gotten involved into the first place. This paper will prove that in fact, America should have not gotten involved with the Vietnam War.
A Rumor of War gives a first hand account of what really happened during wartime in Vietnam. It is told in first person as the author Philip Caputo was a young marine serving during the time of war. This book describes the time from his ambitious young ego to later when he realizes the harshness of war. He describes the story from him sitting at a desk at training to exhilarating battles. He even goes into describing the aftermath that war can place on a person. He tells this story through his own eyes and thoughts.
In “How to Tell a True War Story” by Tim O’Brien, Orwell’s ideas are questioned and the competition between the truth and the underlying meaning of a story is discussed. O’Brien’s story depicts that the truth isn’t always a simple concept; and that not every piece of literature or story told can follow Orwell’s list of rules (Orwell 285). The story is told through an unnamed narrator as he re-encounters memories from his past as a soldier in the Vietnam War. With his recollection of past encounters, the narrator also offers us segments of didactic explanation about what a “true war story” is and the power it has on the human body (O’Brien 65). O’Brien uses fictional literature and the narration of past experiences to raise a question; to what extent should the lack of precision, under all circumstances, be allowed? In reality, no story is ever really truthful, and even if it is, we have no proof of it. The reader never feels secure in what they are being told. The reliability of the source, the author, and the narrator are always being questioned, but the importance of a story isn’t about the truth or the accuracy in which it is told, but about the “sunlight” it carries (O’Brien 81).
Released on July 31, 1992, the two-year film production was meticulously researched, yet laid out simply and forcefully the case against the US government story, and won the Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature as a result. Made all the more timely by the recent war on terrorism (or errorism, as I like to call it), the “Panama Deception” shows how the U.S. killed between 3,000 to 4,000 people over the course of an invasion that the rest of the world was against (a theme duplicated in the War on Iraq and others prior to then Panama invasion).
The purpose of this essay is to inform on the similarities and differences between systemic and domestic causes of war. According to World Politics by Jeffry Frieden, David Lake, and Kenneth Schultz, systemic causes deal with states that are unitary actors and their interactions with one another. It can deal with a state’s position within international organizations and also their relationships with other states. In contract, domestic causes of war pertain specifically to what goes on internally and factors within a state that may lead to war. Wars that occur between two or more states due to systemic and domestic causes are referred to as interstate wars.
... bring a bad reputation to a nation like the United States it tends to be forgotten or condense to a simplified version of the event in history. We need to be able to look at things critically and not based our opinions from secondary sources such as the media because secondary sources have bias ideas attached to it. Sontag states that certain history, “is a memory judged too dangerous to social stability to activate and to create” (Sontag 88). She emphasizes how American is reluctant to enhance the minds of their citizens in the cruel actions that this country has done, trying to gloss over the period with information that is suitable to not damage the reputation of American from the prospective of its own citizens. Staged events and manipulations helps keep the American public unaware of situations from afar due to a lack of consideration of the possible outcomes.
Everyday citizens often live unaware of their government’s inner workings. The knowing of political espionage is often too heavy of a subject to be inducted in conversation. True, prima facie, modest twists and turns of information may not be considered substantial, but this inconsideration leaves much to be uncontrolled. It is easy for political leaders to become power crazed, to not realize the massive implications that come of their actions. Only after all is said and done do the people actually realize their government is an opaque mask of deception. The Watergate Scandal substantially impacted Americans’ trust in their government.
In 1971, during the unpopular Vietnam War, Daniel Ellsberg released the Pentagon Papers to the press, influencing public opinion and ultimately ending the war. In 2009, during the unpopular Iraq and Afghanistan wars, Judith Ehrlich and Rick Goldsmith released a feature film telling Daniel Ellsberg’s dramatic tale. While no parallels are explicitly drawn in the film between the past and current presidential administrations, one can’t help but feel that the directors were attempting to awaken something in a contemporary audience.
What are lies? A lie is defined as follows: To make a statement that one knows to be false, especially with the intent to deceive. There are several ways that lies are told for instance, there are white lies, lies of omission, bold faced lies, and lies of exaggeration. No matter what type of lie that one chooses to tell many people believe that lies do more harm than good.
Zinn’s question was if the bloodshed and deceit were necessary in order for the human race to progress and one might argue that yes, to a certain extent. If the English did not colonize America, maybe America would not be what it is today. The Europeans came here with their tools and influence over the country. The colonist used the bloodshed in order to control the Native Americans, the Africans, and even their own people. They did not want them to rebel therefore, they devised systems in order to manipulate them. Even though they implemented this system the Native Americans and the Africans Indians rebelled against the Europeans. The Europeans would oppress the people, imprisoned and punish them in order to have control over the colonies