Disturbing yet enthralling

One of those movie experiences that is so good it makes you realize you've been grading everything else on a curve.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

There is definitely an excellent idea hidden in the background of the film. Unfortunately, it's difficult to find it.

There are a few documentaries out there about the failure of the modern media however this particular one deals specifically with the lead up to the Iraq War. Personally, there is nothing really new here because we have seen the media being a mouth piece of governments for centuries. In fact, ever since people had begun writing, or speaking, governments have been looking for ways to control what is being said and what people actually hear. The difference between now and say, 18th century England, is that to be able to reach the millions of people with your message, vast amounts of capital are required to be able to launch a television station.This is changing by the way with the development of the internet and with websites such as Youtube. However, governments, and corporations, are still trying to control these sources of information. In China you have what is called The Great Firewall of China, where only government sanctioned information can appear on the internet. Even here, in the developed west, governments are trying to sanction the internet through putting restrictions on ISPs as to what can be accessed. However, it is a fine line, as it always is. While we may object to censorship of access to sites that criticise a government, we somehow feel that it is necessary to prevent access to websites that exploit children.Weapons of Mass Deception, though, deals explicitly with the standard media, both the newspapers and the television networks. While things are slowly changing, these two sources are still the main sources of information that we have, and while anybody with a little capital can set up and distribute a newspaper, vast amounts of capital are required to establish a television network, and even then, the barriers to entry, which include government licensing and access to bandwidth, are huge. More so, even if you want to get a piece shown on television, you need capital, as well as access to programming executives, to agree to actually show your piece. Even if you do manage to get it shown, people need to be able to have the television on to that specific channel at that specific time, to see it. With over two hundred channels to chose from, the chance of enough people actually seeing it is fairly slim.The problem is that when such a traumatic event as 9/11 happens to a country, the people of that country are going to be angered and offended. It does not matter whether the television networks do not band together calling for war, because the population are going to do that anyway. Has was shown when a couple of peaceniks turned up at Ground Zero arguing for make love, not war, the amount of anger and the desire for revenge, was immense. The television networks really had no choice but to fall in line, particularly since if they did not, it was not the government, but the people that were going to respond. At that time the government did not need to do anything, because the people where doing it for them.The Iraq War was different, and even then there was not much difference, because Sadam Hussein had always been demonised in the American Media since the Gulf War. He was public enemy number one (and in a way the American Government always needed a public enemy number one to distract the people from the corporate pillaging of the Earth) and it was almost expected that when such an event happened, people were going to point at one of the most hated people at the time, and that was Sadam. Let us ignore the fact that the government was looking for an excuse to go to war with him anyway (the war in Iraq was always on the agenda, it was simply that 9/11 gave them an excuse to go to war).Mind you, we are still in the midst of a changing time as I write this. Information is slowly going online, and the media moguls are now finding that their control of information is slowly eroding. Governments (even in the West) are looking for ways to control this access to information, but organisations are fighting this, and attempted to prevent this control. Youtube provides lots of different channels, from people who argue for an extreme right-wing view of society to an extreme left-wing view. However, we, those of us who value freedom of speech, and the freedom to put our own views and thoughts up in the public sphere, need to continue to be vigilant and be ready to challenge any attempt to censor the internet.

no matter what side of the political or social or economic spectrum you fall on, you need to watch this documentary. it should be required viewing for all Americans. so many people fail to realize the faults of today's modern media. too many people take what the TV news show tells them at face value, without realizing all the inner workings behind the camera. you probably really learn more nowadays from watching The Daily Show or The Colbert Report than from CBS, ABC, and most certainly FOX. at least the first two shows do journalism, even if it is mock journalism. most mainstream news outlets today simply do "coverage" and then get their people in studio to argue over talking points. if you are curious about how the news you get gets to you (how it is shaped, filtered, etc.) i would suggest viewing this. 10/10

"WMD: Weapons of Mass Deception" offers an intelligent and critical look the media and how it was more or less manipulated or controlled by interests other than journalism during its coverage of the run up to Operation Iraqi Freedom and beyond. Danny Schechter uses his experience in news broadcasting combined with original film, interviews, file footage, print, etc. to examine the role of news media in OIF and how the war was delivered to the public as a carefully package and planned media event not unlike the Superbowl. An insightful study of news which is much less agenda-driven propaganda than Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 911" and consequently less entertaining, "WMD..." will appeal most to those interested in major network news broadcasting. (B)

In his latest offering, newsroom veteran Danny Schechter takes a critical look at the media coverage of the war in Iraq and the lead-up to the war. Whether you are for or against the war itself, Schechter shows how the domestic media allowed itself to be seduced by the Bush administration into supporting the official government view of things.While Al-Jazeera was frequently criticized for showing too much gore, the US news consumer was shown, with the aid of high-quality graphics just how our forces would be able to attack with "surgical precision". I guess we all love cartoons.Danny Schechter is routinely compared to Michael Moore (of Fahrenheit 9/11 fame). Like Moore, Schechter is critical of the current administration and personally involves himself in the storytelling. Yet I found the narrative to be somewhat more coherent than the Michael Moore movies I've seen, and it didn't include the typical personal confrontation scenes for which Moore is famous.This is a very interesting movie. I recommend it.