Recall, though, that the first casualty of war is the truth. In the fog of war, the most honest reporter must report fog. Other than that, remember the Biblical "Believe nothing until it is officially denied three times."
I totally abide by this dictum. No one can tell what's happening on the battlefield. There are no reliable sources, we just have to wait. There are people I respect who will say things like, I don't trust the Times on analysis, it's too ideological, but their raw reporting is very good... NO. Both the raw reporting (which is pretty cooked, really) and the analysis are thoroughly untrustworthy. We may be thirsting for information on what's happening on the battlefield, but it's impossible to tell.
The times is one of the most prolific propaganda rags out there...NO mainstream outlet tells the truth..everything is cleverly framed and skewed mind control..
Recall, though, that the first casualty of war is the truth. In the fog of war, the most honest reporter must report fog. Other than that, remember the Biblical "Believe nothing until it is officially denied three times."
I totally abide by this dictum. No one can tell what's happening on the battlefield. There are no reliable sources, we just have to wait. There are people I respect who will say things like, I don't trust the Times on analysis, it's too ideological, but their raw reporting is very good... NO. Both the raw reporting (which is pretty cooked, really) and the analysis are thoroughly untrustworthy. We may be thirsting for information on what's happening on the battlefield, but it's impossible to tell.
The times is one of the most prolific propaganda rags out there...NO mainstream outlet tells the truth..everything is cleverly framed and skewed mind control..
Exactly. Which is the great thing about Antiwar.com, because it is very aware of the fog of war.