Tim Robbins Movie:

		List Price: $14.95		Label: Cinema Libre Salesrank: 90263 Released: March 8, 2005
		Our Price: $4.21
		Used Price: $2.71
		MPAA Rating: NR (Not Rated) Media: DVD

Editorial Review:
Studio: Cinema Libre Studio Release Date: 09/26/2006 Run time: 98 minutes

WMD: Weapons of Mass Deception Reviews:
Depressing, but oh, so true
2008-01-14 - When the US's present "war" began, I was working out at a gym. On the gym's television, Wolfe Blitzkrieg sang the Bush administration's tune eagerly, he was such a cheerleader I expected him to slip on a short skirt. On another network, some "correspondent" claimed that the troops had found some chemical weapons, and implied that the UN inspectors had been looking for years and hadn't found them while the diligent and competent US troops found them in days. When it turned out later that they were going through a fertilizer factory, the "correspondent," who should have been locked up, never came out and said, "What I said was false, and stupid." So his bosses should be locked up too.

This "war" has now been going on for substantially longer than WWII, its support has dwindled to maybe 25 percent of the voters, yet we're still there. Americans and Iraqis are still being killed. Why is this true?

Danny Schecter really comes through with a well-produced indictment: the the US media aren't worth the paper or the air they use to spread their words.

I began taking notes on this DVD, but it was getting too depressing. I mean, the Pentagon has done a clever job of setting up the US media representatives. I think one of the critics called it the "Stockholm syndrome," i.e., the Pentagon put unarmed "journalists" with the armed troops. So the former began to identify with the latter. It's a classic propaganda technique that another American critic called "straight out of Stalin." Yep, the media are the commissar culture!

Danny divided the film up into sections, one of which was the "Fox News Effect." I've been following that to a degree. Fox is a right wing cheerleader with (at least formerly) decent ratings, so the other networks followed suit. One can't seem to be in line with the US unless he tows the Pentagon line. We've seen it all. "You don't support the troops? What are you, part of Al Qaeda??" Indeed, toward the beginning of the film, a peace activist was being threatened by people near "Ground Zero" in NYC, for suggesting that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Heaven forbid, she might have a divergent opinion.

I've read on the travesty that is "embedded" journalism since I read "Second Front" a long time ago. So that's nothing new. (It is, however, something that should have real journalists, not embedded cheerleaders furious!) But still much of the American public is in the dark. One portion of the film stated that even CNN has different stories for the US than for the rest of the world. There was, of course, a rationalization for that; the concept of "cognitive dissonance" comes to mind any time Danny talked with media representatives.

Then there's the Bush rationalizations: There were no WMDs, so the regime changed the subject. There was no media pressure to get the regime to face reality, so the war continues.

Then there's Schecter's suggestion--offered with some evidence--that the non-"embedded" journalists particularly were actually targetted by the military. Some were killed in "friendly fire" and some other "accidents" were just discounted as that, when they didn't happen arbitrarily, i.e., were probably not accidents. That needs to be investigated further!

I guess one of the bottom lines is that the US media are owned by a few very large corporations. NBC was claiming they had been reasonable journalists, while critics challenged that--with more-than adequate evidence--that NBC was just towing the line. But NBC is owned by General Electric which was given upwards of $600 billion in contracts to rebuild Iraq. Isn't that what they call a "conflict of interest?" ABC is owned by Disney, which would rather entertain than inform. That, in fact, was another section of the film, on entertainment--I think someone refered to it as militainment--and journalism. And all the mega-media want the federal FCC on their side, so they refrain from confronting federal government policy. And that's a disaster.

There's so much that could be said, but it gets pretty depressing. What I hope is that teachers and professors show this to their classes so that young people realize how they're being hoodwinked. We Yanks seem to think we're miles beyond the rest of the world. And many in the rest of the world, the ones who don't hate us anyway, think we're a bunch of ignorant buffoons.

Spread the word on this DVD and others like it. Wake up!

Embedded Deception
2006-08-28 - In the Weapons of Mass Deception, the producers show how this administration was determined to win media support and thus the country's support for their adventure into Iraq.

Mass media, now owned by large and conservative conglomerates avoided the anti-war stories, to the point of refusing to run commercials for people who were opposed to the war. Anti-war demonstrations received marginal coverage, at best. When Phil Donahue had opposed the war, and said so publicly on his show, the network cancelled his top-rated show. His replacement? Michael Savage who lasted less than four months with ratings in the cellar. Clearly, this "liberally-biased" media did not want to rock the conservative boat.

The administration's genius turned out to be first orienting and outfitting reporters with kevlar helmets and vests, and showing them how to use gas masks for chemical attacks that would never come. This gave the media the feeling that Iraq was an enemy.

The embedding process was sheer administration genius. By placing reporters with our soldiers and marines, they identified with them to the point that their stories had lost all objectivity, and they had been reduced to a micro view of the war.

While some may complain that this production is biased, that is what the producer's slant is. It is also what he is already describing. The bias was in the media being duped by the administration and losing their objectivity in reporting the war.

Any criticism this DVD may receive, the facts are irrefutable. All these things happened. Schecter simply compiles these facts and presents them in a logical and presentable fashion.

This is recommended viewing.

The two-hour "20/20" or "60 Minutes" exposé that never was
2006-07-18 - This professionally written and produced documentary is essential viewing for any American concerned about their free press. In this exposé, of the sort which would have been on 20/20 or 60 Minutes when I was kid, media veteran and critic Danny Schechter amasses evidence which shows how complicit the American media were in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Statistics are damning---of the roughly 800 experts on American TV in the build-up to war, only 4 provided anti-war perspectives. Most of the time anti-war and other positions critical of the government line were simply ignored; when they were shown, it was simply a quick shot of "those people protesting" or a soundbite about soldiers protecting protestors rights to free speech, instead of any serious analysis of the arguments made against the war.

And so a large percentage of the American people's voices were lost from the so-called debate, because of a priori prejudices and agendas shared by the media producers, military leaders, and politicians.

This film provides evidence in support of Noam Chomsky's propaganda model of the American news media. The viewer sees how career advancement, product marketing, market share, etc. trump good old truth telling and challenging power in the modern American mass media.

The end of the journalistic age...
2005-12-21 - I gave this DVD five stars because of the credentials of Danny Schechter and the way he delivered his argument. He is a well respected media critic well known throughout media circles for asking the toughest questions at media conferences and has appeared on just about every mainstream media outlet. He was a war correspondent in Vietnam and Cambodia, he was a producer for 20/20, worked for CNN and ABC, and has authored a couple of books. He successfully dissects the media with regards to the run-up to the war in Iraq, the embedded reporters, and the aftermath of the invasion.

You will see in this video clips and interviews with several well known media personalities along with Generals in the military, a retired Colonel who taught propaganda in the military War Colleges, authors, and some of the embeds themselves. You will see how the media was seduced by the government after 9-11 by means of access and cash. Journalism is most certainly dead with regards to mainstream media! You will even hear Kristiana Amanpour criticize her own network for crawling into the sack with the government.

The argument that was also well made was how the Neo-Con's believe that Vietnam was lost solely due to the media and not because of bad policy and how they are determined this time to `get it right'. You will also see how they `got it right' by the ingenious Pentagon embedded reporters program, they must have known of the effects of the Stockholm Syndrome, makes a lot of sense when you look at the big picture I think.

This documentary will show you how the death of responsible journalism has turned into `coverage' and the propaganda techniques that are used. Most interesting example I thought was the sports metaphor technique with the "dum-dum-dumm" football kick-off type music that the networks would use preceding a segment leading up to the war and all the `CNN Generals' that were used to draw lines on computerized maps of the battlefield, just like a football coach does on the field, and how they would promote, not report the war through all the flashy techniques describing new weaponry and the like and how they were told to "sex up the graphics". The fact that ALL of the networks hire psychologists to maximize the use of these graphics and music tells me that their intentions are not to inform us in the first place. You will see how the war was turned into a bloodless game through the use of video game like footage from `smart' bombs and the use of playing cards to show who was captured and was still out there. It's not supposed to be like Hollywood action oriented production but the government paid a million dollars to a Hollywood producer to set up the media center at CENTCOM!

You will be presented with the facts behind the Jessica Lynch propaganda scheme, the same with the toppling of the Saddam statue, the real reason why Peter Arnett was fired from CNN, how Ruppert Murdoch paid Saddam almost half a billion dollars just so that his reporters would be given access to enter Iraq during the time leading up to the war, and several other instances that will show you that what you are seeing is in fact NOT journalism, but "militainment".

Schechter definitely makes the argument that the more you watch TV, the less you know. If you want to be well informed you must not be a `consumer' of news but a critical thinker. I highly recommend this film as it is entertaining and very informative. WARNING: You should be ready for a big dose of reality as well as some people may be offended, especially Fox `news' viewers. Broaden your horizons and watch this film.


perhaps should have been longer or made into a series
2005-12-14 - This is an interesting and informative DVD to gain a broader view of how the media operates, especially during the runup to the Iraq war. However, it is so jam-packed with information that it occasionally seems to gloss over important points or scenarios. There are some segments that I would have liked Schechter to have elaborated on and a few which could have been presented more clearly. As a member of a younger generation this DVD is great because it provides an informed picture of just how much the media is in bed with government. For me, it tied a lot of loose ends together in my head and gave me a broader view of how mass media functions. I disagree with another reviewer that Schechter was in the movie too much. He was narrating his own point of view and he stayed out of the way when it was appropriate.