Full Version: Biased coverage of the War
Well, here is a quote from the Toronto Star:
So my question is, are we only seeing a very basic representation of the war? Further in the article it mentions how CBC Newsworld (think BBC without the accents) had a NY City Counsellor as a guest and he noted that NY was the "140th American city to pass an anti-war resolution." This is NY we're talking about. There is little mention of that in the news. There is little discussion of the implications of this war (for good or ill) or the international response.
QUOTE
On Monday night, New York-based FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting) released a study that showed a majority of on-camera experts and sources — featured on U.S. networks over a recent two-week period — were not only American (267 out of 393), but 75 per cent of these American guests were either current or former government or military officials.
Overall, the study found that only 68 on-camera sources, or 17 per cent of the total, were skeptical or critical of U.S. policy.
And by 5 p.m. yesterday, most discussions, for or against, had been replaced with an almost fetishistic appraisal of the U.S. weapons — bombs, artillery, tanks, jets — to be used in the war theatre.
Overall, the study found that only 68 on-camera sources, or 17 per cent of the total, were skeptical or critical of U.S. policy.
And by 5 p.m. yesterday, most discussions, for or against, had been replaced with an almost fetishistic appraisal of the U.S. weapons — bombs, artillery, tanks, jets — to be used in the war theatre.
So my question is, are we only seeing a very basic representation of the war? Further in the article it mentions how CBC Newsworld (think BBC without the accents) had a NY City Counsellor as a guest and he noted that NY was the "140th American city to pass an anti-war resolution." This is NY we're talking about. There is little mention of that in the news. There is little discussion of the implications of this war (for good or ill) or the international response.
QUOTE
Are we only seeing a very basic representation of the war?
Yes, we are definitely only seeing the basics, and I think that the media is relatively limited as far as their current info goes, because they were taken off guard by the "Decapitation Strike" (New buzzword). There are a lot of unanswered questions about that, and the networks seem to be using a lot of filler right now. I was watching CNN all last night, and I had the distinct feeling that I was watching the home shopping network when they were flouting our weaponry.
Also, there seems to be a large amount of speculating and editorializing going on without many solid facts. I saw some liberal spin. I saw some conservative spin. In reality, I think we just have to wait for further developments. I also visited the Iranian news sites last night, and they were already talking about the oil wells in the south of Iraq being on fire. We didn't hear about that until this morning, as far as I know. They also, because of their own position, listed a lot of the dissenting views of countries that had made statements of condemnation against the war, but they declared their own neutrality. If you really want to get a semi-accurate depiction of the war, I would suggest visiting as many foreign news sites as possible, particularly from dissenting countries, and juxtaposing the data that you get there with the data we're getting here.
QUOTE(Ultimatejoe @ Mar 20 2003, 02:29 PM)
Well, here is a quote from the Toronto Star:
So my question is, are we only seeing a very basic representation of the war? Further in the article it mentions how CBC Newsworld (think BBC without the accents) had a NY City Counsellor as a guest and he noted that NY was the "140th American city to pass an anti-war resolution." This is NY we're talking about. There is little mention of that in the news. There is little discussion of the implications of this war (for good or ill) or the international response.
QUOTE
On Monday night, New York-based FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting) released a study that showed a majority of on-camera experts and sources — featured on U.S. networks over a recent two-week period — were not only American (267 out of 393), but 75 per cent of these American guests were either current or former government or military officials.
Overall, the study found that only 68 on-camera sources, or 17 per cent of the total, were skeptical or critical of U.S. policy.
And by 5 p.m. yesterday, most discussions, for or against, had been replaced with an almost fetishistic appraisal of the U.S. weapons — bombs, artillery, tanks, jets — to be used in the war theatre.
Overall, the study found that only 68 on-camera sources, or 17 per cent of the total, were skeptical or critical of U.S. policy.
And by 5 p.m. yesterday, most discussions, for or against, had been replaced with an almost fetishistic appraisal of the U.S. weapons — bombs, artillery, tanks, jets — to be used in the war theatre.
So my question is, are we only seeing a very basic representation of the war? Further in the article it mentions how CBC Newsworld (think BBC without the accents) had a NY City Counsellor as a guest and he noted that NY was the "140th American city to pass an anti-war resolution." This is NY we're talking about. There is little mention of that in the news. There is little discussion of the implications of this war (for good or ill) or the international response.
All you had to do was watch Peter Jennings on ABC for the past few months. Drop by the MRC for a re-cap of his decidedly biased reporting.
At one point I thought maybe ABC had been bought by al-Jazeera.
This is not to say the other networks don't report from the left, only that Jennings does it in a quite un-American way. Oh yeah, I forgot. He isn't an American. He's a native of that brave nation to our north.
First of all, I find that insulting as I am a "native" of the same country. Secondly, this thread has NOTHING to do with media's POLITICAL bias whatsoever and you have failed to contribute to the discussion at hand in your quest to slander anyone you perceive as liberal.
In case you missed it I will repeat: So my question is, are we only seeing a very basic representation of the war?
Politics isn't necessary in this discussion as some liberals are for the war and some conservatives are against it. I'm merely exploring the fact that the media is taking a very shallow approach to this conflict.
In case you missed it I will repeat: So my question is, are we only seeing a very basic representation of the war?
Politics isn't necessary in this discussion as some liberals are for the war and some conservatives are against it. I'm merely exploring the fact that the media is taking a very shallow approach to this conflict.
I cannot think of any war that was fully reported while it occurred. Even Vietnam's nitty gritty hasn't fully come out, although the remaining questions have to do with POW/MIA issues, what some individuals actually did in situations, and some of the detail that led up to the escalations under LBJ.
I'm okay with minimal news since there's nothing left to be done from the civilian viewpoint. We have no influence on command/control, nor will raising a stink about anything have any effect. If the war becomes elongated, then questions need to be asked and possibly demands made.
I do like the idea of checking foreign news outlets via Internet. This is something we haven't had before--at least to this scale. Gee, I can take just a thimble full of pride in helping build Internet backbones in the 90s!
I'm okay with minimal news since there's nothing left to be done from the civilian viewpoint. We have no influence on command/control, nor will raising a stink about anything have any effect. If the war becomes elongated, then questions need to be asked and possibly demands made.
I do like the idea of checking foreign news outlets via Internet. This is something we haven't had before--at least to this scale. Gee, I can take just a thimble full of pride in helping build Internet backbones in the 90s!
One source of Biasness (sorry for making it up)is obviously Iraqi STATE owned News & possibly Al-Jazeera
The only way you can get accurate news of battles & casualties & stuff is if you have a CNN, Fox News or whoever reporter on the scene
The only way you can get accurate news of battles & casualties & stuff is if you have a CNN, Fox News or whoever reporter on the scene
I really wish people would discuss what I outlined in the first post of this discussion.
QUOTE(Ultimatejoe @ Mar 20 2003, 03:04 PM)
First of all, I find that insulting as I am a "native" of the same country. Secondly, this thread has NOTHING to do with media's POLITICAL bias whatsoever and you have failed to contribute to the discussion at hand in your quest to slander anyone you perceive as liberal.
In case you missed it I will repeat: So my question is, are we only seeing a very basic representation of the war?
Politics isn't necessary in this discussion as some liberals are for the war and some conservatives are against it. I'm merely exploring the fact that the media is taking a very shallow approach to this conflict.
In case you missed it I will repeat: So my question is, are we only seeing a very basic representation of the war?
Politics isn't necessary in this discussion as some liberals are for the war and some conservatives are against it. I'm merely exploring the fact that the media is taking a very shallow approach to this conflict.
Excuse me, but you brought up the issue. FAIR is well known as a liberal leaning organization. The lack of reporting about the latest anti-war resolution was raised by you. My link to MRC, a well-known conservative organization was provided as evidence to counter the belief that the networks don't pursue that side of the issue. All discussions about war have political components, I don't think you can just throw a hissy-fit and eliminate them.
As a side note, I don't think of 'liberal' as some kind of slanderous term. But from your re-action I wonder if you do for some reason.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.