Critical review of three seminar readings Essay

Critical review of troika seminar readings - Essay ExampleHowever, propaganda warfare is not a new tactic. In fact, Sun Tzu in his graphics of War (6th Century BC) taught that an essential part of conducting warfare involves deceiving the enemy thus putting him into a disadvantage, ironically but logically, by making him believe that he is in a more advantageous roll or position. Critique Indeed, this has been an essential part in the conduct of the cold war wherein Two-time Pulitzer valuate awardee Walter Lippmann argued that their side dwell on what is true and morally upright whilst on the enemys was unpolluted propaganda. Well, though most conflicts are seen as a brutal show of force, an equal and sometimes large of this plays out using propagandas. As such, even wars are used by politicians and even terrorists to advance their experience agendas. Hence, whether willingly or unwillingly, the technical sophistication of mass media has made it probably the most effective cond uit for advancing these agendas and both Bush and Bin Laden has greatly capitalized on this. Thus, Kellners critique of US beam networks on his Media Propaganda and Spectacle in the War on Iraq a Critique of U.S. broadcasting network offers to expose the sins of bursting charge as well as the sins of omission committed by the various networks and taken advantaged of by prexy George W. Bush. As such, the author launched into an immense rhetoric of lashes against the administrations ploy to use the War on Iraq through the various US media outfits in an effort to cement itself as the ultimate harbinger of good. In effect, this has set the stage to launch various theatrics such as the coalition of the willing, preemptive strikes and functional bombings. The author painted a stark picture of a Bush Jr.-driven invasion that seem to be based on the desire to wrap up what his daddy had started and reinforce the United States position as the resident global watch dog (Kellner 2004, p. 3 30). Of course such an invasion cannot be crafted overnight and against the ground of the 9-11 terror attack in late 2001, the architects of war got busy in 2002 to drum up the charge on Iraqi soil. Indeed, war is an ugly business but unity cannot argue that though it brings frontwards economic damages, it can also be profitable for some. Back in the old days, it is the victor that obviously solely benefits as they thrive from the spoils of war. Nowadays, one does not impoverishment for a wars coda but from war itself comes the golden opportunity for media mileage and political leverage. Hence, the exploitation of these opportunities at the expense of Iraq and her population seem to be the center of the paper. Indeed, the facts were stated fully to support the allegations in this paper. However, it would seem that only one side of the story was covered. A quick review of the references used would indicate an inclination on the need to assert the wrongful acts committed durin g the incursion. There are indeed various areas of concern that may take over been committed in this discourse. In effect, the discourse has seemingly singled out President George W. Bush against Saddam ibn Talal Hussein hence bringing about Manicheanism, wherein Bush seems to have been demonized in the critique. The paper likewise went about to decontextualize effect putting heavy emphasis on the attacks made and painting it as irrational while at the same time neglecting the