The News Media's sickening bias in representing this War

[The Nature Boy]

Ok, not to sound like a right wing nut(I fancy myself a Libertarian with conservative leanings), but what the hell is going on with out media? I just heard a report on CBS News(and this is an example which is fairly reprensentitive of all but Fox News), but it opens with some bloody Iraqi family and the voice over "These people were gunned down by the United States Marines". And it recounts their injuries, and their remarkable courage and the irony in them going up to MORE U.S. Marines for help. Only about 2 minutes into the 3 minute piece was it revealed that this was an ACCIDENT, and occured because they were in region where Iraqi soldiers were dressing as children. What the hell is going on here? If I didn' t know better, I'd guess they were TRYING to make our armed forces look bad. This is why Fox News is number one, you idiots!!! I don't appreciate the clear bias in Fox News, but at least that bias is apparent, unlike the hidden one with every other news outlet. I"m not saying take out the pom-poms and say "aren't our boys great". But this is the opposite extreme in my book, aimed at undermining the U.S. war effort. At the end of day, our work is only improving their collective life in the long run, in removing Sadaam from power. They can look to Kuwait as a similar model as to what they can look forward to, given a socialist distribution of their oil revenue. It's a good thing going on in Iraq, and you'd think we were the only ones killing civilans in Iraq(not Hussein, who by low estimates ordered 40,000 killings in his tenure).

They wonder why Fox has started to dominate in such a short time, but maybe they really are "fair and balanced" after all. Because reporting like this is anything but.

Bon Jovi Fan Since Day ONE!

[HBox]

Come on. They reported that Iraqis were wounded. They reported that Marines killed them. They reported that it was an accident. What is biased about that? Are they under some commitment to say, as soon as possible, that it was an accident? No. They did report it, and by your description it wasn't a quick little sound bite stuck at the end.

The media should be objective. They should not be forced to be the military PR machine. That way, if the military every really does get out of line, we know about it.

EDIT - Again, choose your wording carefully. There are lots of sickening things in this world, and this story isn't even close.

This message was edited by HBox on 3-28-03 @ 7:03 PM

[DarkHippie]

I have a problem with both the liberal and conservative bias in the media. Why? because neither of them add up to the truth. CBS showed that pice because it's an "attention grabber." all they care about are ratings and viewers. Fox News does the same thing. every news station is a business, and they want to make the news as gripping and watchable as possible, to keep you coming back for more.

This is why I get my news from the BBC, Rueters, and NPR radio. I figure, the more boring, the more accurate.

<IMG SRC=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/darkhippie2.gif>
<i>LABELS ARE FOR PRODUCTS, NOT PEOPLE! DON'T HUG A TREE, PLANT ONE!
</i><a href=http://www.freeopendiary.com/entrylist.asp?authorcode=A537085>Gonads and Strife: a journal</a>

[TheMojoPin]

BBC all the way.

All this does, based on the way he told the story, is just demonstrate the "shock & awe" bias of the media, not a politcal bias. Get the people watching because they think they HAVE to...what, you think the media was going to develop scruples for this war or something?

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << FREE YERDADDY! >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Se7en]

I don't like the doom and gloom, because I think it's far too premature.

How many times have you heard this in the past couple days:

"Coalition forces faced FIERCE resistance today. It looks as if this is not the war that they were expecting."

And it makes me pull my hair out, because we've been at war for nine days.

If we're facing 'fierce resistance' and heavy fighting a YEAR from now, maybe the doom and gloom is warranted.

Knocking on Baghdad's door barely a week after the war has started kind of negates the negativity for me.

<img border="0" src="http://Se7enRFNet.homestead.com/files/se7en.jpg" width="300" height="100">

I'm not telling you anything that you don't already know.

"I was here before the oceans turned black with life, and when the deserts are white with death I will remain."
---Saint Iago

[TheMojoPin]

But on the flipside, is it NOT biased or skewed if the action of our troops is referred to as, "a heroic counter-attack," or, "bravely returning fire"? Or is this just an issue of overly "poetic" news reporters?

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << FREE YERDADDY! >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[The Blowhard]

FOX is awful. I try to get my news from a variety of sources but watching FOX and that Shepherd Smith douche is worse than root canal. And speaking of douches, I see that Peter Arnett is on MSNBC.
The internet is the best source for news, sites like this:


http://www.cdi.org/

http://www.janes.com/

Just a couple of my favorites.

<img src=http://www.richstillwell.com/Heck.gif>

[ChrisTheCop]

BBC is the place to be. I've noticed the American media leaning from conserative to liberal ever since the protests outside cnn. And hey--where can I get a copy of the Turkish Taffy???

<img src="http://store3.yimg.com/I/aftstore_1729_752978">

[TooCute]

Bias? Have you tried reading the New York Post lately? It is so editorialized it actually made me laugh out loud.

<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/toocute2.gif>
!! 2% !!

[fluffernutter]

Why? because neither of them add up to the truth.
That is all any of us want. TRUTH. If that is actually being found on our radios and tv's remains to be seen. The local Philly news station has their updates but does it really have to be laced with the explosions and breaking glass? It sounds like sound effects being thrown in. Ridiculous. But, I keep going back becasue it is my only news outlet on the radio except for the NPR. Which leads me to....

This is why I get my news from the BBC, Rueters, and NPR radio. I figure, the more boring, the more accurate.


Those are some excellent sources. If I only had BBC America here. ::sigh::

I went to see Strike Anywehre last night and they are quite politically/socially charged. I was asking the guitarist about my predicament on the media and who is right and who is wrong. Who spins and who doesn't. He told me (not like his word is gospel either mind you but they sing about it so I take them as being informed) that I fit in with a lot of people who just want the truth and not the entertainment factor of the war. He directed me to www.indymedia.com which I checked only for a miute but he told me there is some good hard facts on there and right now, I want the FACTS!

It is a shame on how the media just can't give it to you and they feel the need to "sell" what they are reporting.


<IMG SRC="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=fnutter">

2/5 OF THE MOUSTACHE LEAUGE

170 LBS is 90 KG, METRICS can even make you THIN

[high fly]

The BBC is money.
The irony of Fox having terrorist-enabler Oliver North as a correspondent is too ridiculous for words.

" and they ask me why I drink"

[LiquidCourage]

The medias coverage of this has been terrible.
You'd think we were getting chased out of the country the way it's being reported.

[FUNKMAN]

i kind of beat on this subject enough already...

so I'll just say "I agree"...



<img src="http://www.grandfunkrailroad.com/images/waab100.gif">

[Se7en]

But on the flipside, is it NOT biased or skewed if the action of our troops is referred to as, "a heroic counter-attack," or, "bravely returning fire"? Or is this just an issue of overly "poetic" news reporters?

Well, I can honestly say that unless our troops are busy cutting down civlians Animal-Mother-style, I have absolutely NO problem with reporters giving our soldiers verbal blowjobs.

The bottom line answer to this thread is that EVERYONE here in American media is biased. No one is purely objective. Not even the "esteemed" New York Times. How much of the biased crap you are willint to put up with just depends upon how skewed they are to your point of view.

<img border="0" src="http://Se7enRFNet.homestead.com/files/se7en.jpg" width="300" height="100">

I'm not telling you anything that you don't already know.

"I was here before the oceans turned black with life, and when the deserts are white with death I will remain."
---Saint Iago

[The Jays]

Bias? Have you tried reading the New York Post lately? It is so editorialized it actually made me laugh out loud.


Lately? They've always been like that.

<font color="blue" face="Trebuchet MS" size=-2> Fuck what you heard.</font>
<font color="blue" face="Trebuchet MS" size=-2> That cab has a dent in it.</font> [center]
[center]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/morecoolestgroup/files/house.gif

[Se7en]

Speaking of bias, Peter Arnett seems to have thrown down with the Iraqis.

<img border="0" src="http://Se7enRFNet.homestead.com/files/se7en.jpg" width="300" height="100">

I'm not telling you anything that you don't already know.

"I was here before the oceans turned black with life, and when the deserts are white with death I will remain."
---Saint Iago

[curtoid]

"Speaking of bias, Peter Arnett seems to have thrown down with the Iraqis."

Please.

Peter Arnett is one of the few American journalists who hasn't made this war all about
him. The rest of the lot have used a lot of "we" and "I" and "me" in their reports.

And as far as being with the Iraqis, he and everyone actually in Baghdad are under
strict review of all communications out of the city. He is not embedded with the military
for protection.

To the credit of the BBC they actually remind you of that before and after their reports,
something I wish Arnett and the guy from the NY Times would do.

[KOP

[HBox]

Well, I can honestly say that unless our troops are busy cutting down civlians Animal-Mother-style, I have absolutely NO problem with reporters giving our soldiers verbal blowjobs.


Well, if you ask me, we're shooting the wrong arabs.

[Death Metal Moe]

FOX news all the way.

BBC is biased too, whether or not people want to admit it, I've seen some things on there that make me sick of it too.

<IMG SRC="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=njdmmoe">
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
<b>DEATH FACTION 4 LIFE!</b>
666%

[Bergalad]

And as far as being with the Iraqis, he and everyone actually in Baghdad are under
strict review of all communications out of the city. He is not embedded with the military
for protection.

No, he is being protected by the Iraqi Ministry of Information because he is aiding their cause. I heard one report where he called the Iraqi resistance "valiant", and there are other incidents of his saying that showing civilian dead on TV is helpful for the anti-war crowd in the US. He basically implies that the more Iraqi civilian dead, the better the war would go for Iraq. Freedom of the press goes only so far in the middle of a war zone.

[TheMojoPin]

BBC is biased too, whether or not people want to admit it, I've seen some things on there that make me sick of it too.

Yeah, but it's the least biased of them all, so I can tolerate it. CNN is a joke. They're just trying to make this a repeat of the last war, yet have no access whatsoever, and their reports are just snippets of facts blanketed with conjecture and guesses. Pathetic. Fox is an awful, awful joke. They truly are the AIDS of the cable news field. And not even because of their blatant politcal agendas ("CNN is biased! So we'll be TWICE as biased! So THERE!"), but because it's clear they have no idea what the hell they're doing. Having nothing but news-related talk shows, editorializing and pundits for 22 hours a day has forced them to realize they have no idea how to actually REPORT the news. All they've been good at is blowing relatively minor pseudo-political issues for their talking heads to scream about, and now that they have to cover a REAL news story longterm, they're clueless. I try and watch the news networks somewhat easily, and the primetime focus on Fox today was really nothing in Iraq itself, but instead the douchebag college teacher who said he WANTED more troops to die. At least the other networks wasted their time talking about a boring, non-eventful fire in Baghdad instead of trying to incite people to care about some hateful schmuck. Wow, good thing this guy came along so soon after the idiot girl who wouldn't look at the flag...wouldn't want to worry about covering actual HISTORY IN THE MAKING here, Fox! Shepard Smith has all the skill and charisma of Todd fucking Newton on E!.

So, yeah, CNN and Fox can go to hell. BBC doesn't yell at me with people who don't have real jobs and have no idea what they're talking about, so it's kosher in my book. And I can tolerate MSNBC for at least half an hour a day because with Olberman I can at least pretend I'm watching the most fucked up episode of "Sports Center" EVER.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << FREE YERDADDY! >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Se7en]

Peter Arnett is one of the few American journalists who hasn't made this war all about
him. The rest of the lot have used a lot of "we" and "I" and "me" in their reports.

And as far as being with the Iraqis, he and everyone actually in Baghdad are under
strict review of all communications out of the city. He is not embedded with the military
for protection.

To the credit of the BBC they actually remind you of that before and after their reports,
something I wish Arnett and the guy from the NY Times would do

You obviously didn't see his little interview did you.

Even outside of the supposed rabble-rousing of FOX News, what he said can easily be construed as biased......against us.

<img border="0" src="http://Se7enRFNet.homestead.com/files/se7en.jpg" width="300" height="100">

I'm not telling you anything that you don't already know.

"I was here before the oceans turned black with life, and when the deserts are white with death I will remain."
---Saint Iago

[HBox]

Here's a link about Arnett's interview on CNN.com. There are some odd quotes in there.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/30/sprj.irq.arnett/index.html

Ouch. This guy seems so desperate to stay in Baghdad he'll do anything.

[CaptClown]

Didn't Arnett fabricate some stories about Vietnam War atrocities?

Director of the C.Y.A. Society.
Field Marshal of the K.I.S.S. Army

[CaptClown]

Check that he got reprimanded for his part in the flawed Tailwind story, although 2 producers got fired.http://www.newstribune.com/stories/042199/ent_0421990001.html

Director of the C.Y.A. Society.
Field Marshal of the K.I.S.S. Army

[TooCute]

Today: CNN talking to some senior military guy (forget who, it was early I was half asleep) to paraphrase: "The war is not over yet." blah blah lots to secure, we have penetrated baghdad etc etc.

FoxNews: "For all intents and purposes, the war is over. We control Baghdad. Troops are moving freely within the city" (and that is almost a direct quote of the reporter).


I love it!

<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/toocute2.gif>
!! 2% !!<font color=white>