I would just like to hear the opinions on why you voted in whatever fashion.

I think the 'media' (the majority of popular news sources) was initially extremely biased in support of the war on terror, including the war on Iraq (which I don't consider part of the 'war on terror', but that's my opinion). However, since the failure of finding WMDs, I've noticed several sources becoming much more critical of the war.

CNN seems to try to remain as objective as possible, but was in on the Iraqi War bandwagon at the beginning. A few of the more opinionated journalists have made under-the-radar snipes at failure to find WMDs.

Chris Matthews of MSNBC's Hardball is one of the notables I've seen who was extremely gung-ho pro-war, and is now extremely critical of the failure to find WMDs.

CBS's 60 Minutes seems to have followed the same pro to anti strain.

Fox News is, well, biased. .


Note: This is from my personal eyewitness account. I don't have sources or any such. This is merely my (informed) opinion.

Which, of course, comes back to the question: was Iraq really part of the war on terrorism? Or was it just another war that has less-than-popular support?

I think on the "war on terrorism", the media still seems to be positive/neutral. But many in the media feel used about Iraq and they're showing it.

I think the media has been biased, but not necessarily politically. Rather, they have been biased towards their own self-interest..showing whatever they figure will make the most note-worthy news. Given a choice between a 'good-news' story and a calamity, the news stations will go for calamity every time...it's just a better draw. Kind of like the difference between watching a fiery multicar collision, and waves of cars going by at a safe and legal speed...that's just completely too boring to capture anyone's attention. So, body counts are in, and tales of reconstruction are out. I think it would be much the same (although not completely) if the other party were in power.

Excellent point and if I had read the poll question more closely I wouldn't have voted because the Iraq War has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism except to create a whole lot more of it.

For the record, I voted that the American media has portrayed the war favorably. In fact, the media's portrayal at the beginning of the war was so biased that it was closer to propaganda then actual news. As others have noted, however, this bias is changing as Iraq goes up in flames. Scared journalists are now beginning to report some truth in order to cover their behinds before this whole mess collapses on top of us and their earlier propaganda lies are exposed.

Heres a good question for ya.....

If the media simply stopped reporting terrorists attacks, what purpose would terrorists
gain by committing them?

Just a little thought experiment.

The media focus' on the bad, never the good. When it is repeatedly said by anyone on the ground in Iraq or that has been there that a vast majority of the country is pacified, that the problems are mostly confined to the Sunni triangle.

Yet, because of the medias focus on incidents that while big and explosive have little impact on the rest of the country, you have people like 1tinsoldier who believe the whole country is going down in flames when it is far from the truth.

Funny thing, if the American media was so pro-America at the beginning... why was CNN taking bribe money from Saddam in exchange for not reporting on his atrocities?

This is the best and most valid argument so far. The media is a huge business. I doubt they care much about political motivations--the owners are out for their bottom line. If it bleeds, it leads, the ever-repeated cliche which is truth.

Excellent comparison with the cars, Hobbes. That's about as perfect an example of our obsession with calamity. When things are going well, people focus on their own lives. When things are not going well, people pay attention.

I've always said, there is no media bias. There is only bias in those who partake of what the media offers. A recent "public forum" letter to a citywide newspaper here in Utah criticized the "liberal" slant of the media. She argued the story of an Israeli family shot and killed by Palestines. My question... how did she find out about this story? I'm presuming through the media. Nothing like biting the hand that feeds you, I suppose.

I voted yes, they have protrayed the War on Terrorism favourably, since there have been very few negative stories about the campaign in Afghanistan against al-Quaeda and the covert special forces and criminal investigations against terrorists. That's not to say there is nothing negative to say about these activities - there might well be.

It's just that any potential negative coverage of the War on Terrorism has been pushed off the media agenda by the actual negative coverage of the War in Iraq, which I don't believe anyone outside the USA or 10 Downing Street really thinks is at all related to the War on Terrorism.

Got news for you, Juelian... I know, from your leftist viewpoint, no-one can possible disagree with you on whether Iraq is part of the WoT...

In light of much evidence that the left blinds itself to as it does not fit their viewpoint, evidence that I and many many others believe points to that Iraq was part of the WoT.

Careful about trying to generalize everyone to be on your side of the argument, because it's not true.

There are many others who believe that Iraq played no significant role in anti-US terror attacks up to and including 9-11.

Perhaps the left are not blind to evidence pointing to Iraqi terror links, they just are not convinced by it? Perhaps they wonder why other, more convincing, evidence of links to US allies in the region has not provoked war there? That none of the 9-11 hijackers were Iraqi, but most were Saudi, perhaps?

You too should be careful not to generalise everyone to be on your side of the argument, as you have by assuming that everyone opposed to the conduct of Iraq war is a leftist, that everyone who does not see a link between Iraq and anti-Western terrorism is "blind", and that Lee wasn't making these same assumptions in setting his poll question.

For the record, I was not opposed to the invasion at the time, because I believed in the threat of WMD which my government used as the justification for invading. When these WMD failed to materialise, I thought, "oh well - at least the dictator has gone and life should improve for people there pretty quickly". I am increasingly opposed to the conduct of the occupation, which is not to say I think our troops should withdraw - quite the contrary, we should stay until we've cleared up our own mess. I just want to see our conduct change dramatically - no more torture and no imprisonment without trial or charges would be a good start.

You were right on one thing - I am what you would call a "leftist" - but even a broken clock is right twice a day.

I believe that the jouranlists and producers are biased towards the liberal side of things. The people who own the networks however, are biased the other way-which pretty much equals things out. Some stories have been cancelled because of fears of what it would do to the parent company's shares and the like. This doesn't get much attention as opposed to biased journalists, because it's less "out there" Found this interesting tidbit from the Media Research Center run by L. Brent Bozell:



On the face of it, he does make a very interesting point. At the same time, I could understand how and why Saddam's mass graves didn't get half the attention of the abuse at Abu Gahraib. For one, the fore-mentioned incident didn't include us. No one wakes up in the morning and wants to know about what happened in other countries. (Husband wakes up, "Honey, did you hear about the slaughter of people in Eritrea!?, how horrible!") The abuse scandal is more pressing and closer to us personally because Americans are involved. To me, a lot of folks on the right jump to conclusion too quickly on cases like this.

Is this just an assumption (ie..big corporation, therefore owned by right-wing?), or do you have something to support this? Goldberg, in his book Bias, indicated that, if anything, it tended to be somewhat the other way, with upper management and ownership being the ones who had the bias, and the journalists then falling in line.



Ahhh, but they did. One of the cited reasons for taking out Saddam was his mistreatment of his own citizens. This would make reporting such incidents extremely relevant....unless, of course, there is a hidden agenda of not trying to support the war effort. This also supports the reasoning behind the higher number of reportings on the events at Abu Ghirab. Now, I'm not saying that the more direct involvement of the US in these events isn't a part of the equation, but don't write off the bias aspect so easily--especially since it seems to have, just in this scenario alone, considerable merit.

Personally, I am constantly surprised that there is even a debate about this. To me, it seems pretty simple. What branch of education does journalism come from--liberal arts, for goodness' sake! Also, by their nature, I think journalists would tend to follow a more liberal idealogy--seeking to find better ways of doing things, to reach out to people emotionally, etc. As in the thread on intelligentsia, the more avant garde section of the population will tend to be liberal. What would be surprising and noteworthy is if, in fact, they were not. Then, given that they will tend to be more liberal, one should then also expect an inherent liberal bias in their writings--it is very difficult to separate one's personal bias' from one's writing. So, to not find such bias would be surprising--finding it should be expected.

While at the airport the other day I read an interesting article on the American media bias. I must confess that I am a media news junkie and read lots of sources besides the American ones. I completely agree with this article, especially the part about the BBC being the closest thing to unbiased, although the do cave into pressure from outside sources as reported in the Guardian. I found a link to the article on the NYTimes and here's a quote for those who don't like to read through all of it:

Maybe that was OBL's intent?

Ever think of that?

Thousands of recruits to choose from and he chooses Saudis. Maybe it has nothing to do with the close alliance the United States seems to have with the Saudis...

Maybe OBL is still abit peeved at the Saudis for expelling him and revoking his citizenship (amongst other things), and he just saw a good way to spite not only America but sow discontent between America and the Saudis...

But hey, use the Saudi line, to me, that is falling right into OBL's plans.

As for the WMD line for Iraq you spoke of; the debate's not over. Things are still occuring in regards to that question:

Tests Confirm Sarin Gas in Baghdad Bomb

As for:



Maybe because journalists (such as CNN) were bribed with money and expensive cars (or if not an influential well-known journalist, a Toyota) to not report on Saddam's atrocities? As detailed in CIA report on the use of media in ME propaghanda and reported in the New York Times.

I know that there are a lot of powerful groups that weigh in on how the news about the war is portrayed. The Sinclair Group comes to mind. They were so afraid that Ted Koppel's Nightline program was going to be anti-war propaganda that they forbade their networks from carrying it.

Then there is the photograph of the flag-draped American military coffins. Publishing that was construed as being anti-war, officially labeled as being "disrespectful" of the dead and their families. Our President has not gone to Dover AFB to witness the return of the fallen, ostensibly to protect the privacy of their families.

It appears to me that at least those non-liberal elements of the media are working extra hard to portray this war in a sanitized manner, minimizing the casualties as much as possible to make it more palatable for the public.

Well, i remember this thing with CNN and Saddam's atrocities. I believe they kept quiet because their staff in Baghdad were being threatened by Saddam's Elite (cough) Republican Guard


Paladin Elspeth

I still doubt that would hve been Anti-war. It would be anti-war if Ted Koppel had said "These men died because of Bush etc etc"

Oh, quite to the contrary, GoAmerica. I watched the Ted Koppel special, "The Fallen". It was done very respectfully, and without comment.

It's just that the Sinclair Group was so certain that this was going to be a propaganda piece, and it wasn't. Koppel said at the end that he is not against the war.

I figured Ted Koppel wouldn't turn it into a personal bash session. Now if it was someone like Michael Moore or Al Franken, then it's a whole different story

That certainly is an interesting theory, that OBL wanted to make the US THINK the Saudi government had a role in 9/11. I can understand why the right would propose that particular conspiracy theory, as it would deflect some of the very unpleasant questions about why the US has allied itself with one of the worst regimes in the Middle East and sells them weapons at a tremendous (though discounted) rate.

Did OBL also make up the saudi record on human rights? Did OBL also make up the fact that Saudi is the #1 funder of Palestinian suicide bombers and their families? Did OBL also make up the fact that most of the foreign fighters captured in Afghanistan were Saudi citizens? Did OBL make up the fact that most of his past AND CURRENT funding comes from members of the house of Saud?

Occam's razor my friend. Given the heavy and persistant involvement of saudi Arabia in all aspects of the war on terror... on the WRONG side, think it is wishful thinking on your part that this is all some big ploy of saudi born Osama Bin laden and his mostly Saudi lieutenants to secretly blame the completely innocent saudi Arabia.



Actually no, not really. Everyone from Coalition spokespeople to the UK government to Brig general Mark Kimmit himself have openly and publicly declared that the discovery of this lost, unmarked 20+ year old shell does NOT signify the discovery of any WMD in Iraq.



So now anyone who did not report on incidents around the world as if they were happening inside the US has been bribed? Can you provide any sources that state that every journalist or media outlet in the Us was bribed by Husssein? After all, NONE of them reported these mass graves openly or widely...

Occam's razor again. Allow me to suggest why I think the mass graves did not get the same attention as the US prisoner abuses:

1) Simple proximity to the problem- If someone kills three people in Philadelphia, and another man kills nine people in Calcutta, should the Calcutta muders get three times the coverage in a Philadelphia newspaper? Of course not. Coverage of the prison abuse scandal was super high in the US media because it directly involved US forces and troops.

2) Proxy complicity in the problem: The mass graves were not filled in the last couple years. Most of them are very old, or were filled over a long period of time, some dating back to Hussein,s consolidation of power and the Iran Iraq war. The kurds suffered their worst opressions during the Iran Iraq war because Hussein thought they might become an Iranian fifth column. Perhaps the reason the US media AND government did not make too much of a big deal over the Hussein mass graves is because MOST of those mass graves were filled with bodies WHILE IRAQ WAS A US ALLY. Apprently it was not enough of a big deal at the time to make the US change its policy, so perhaps the government AND the media downplayed it a bit because it serves as a demonstration of the administration's hypocracy regarding Iraq.

Thats just a theory of course, but a far more plausible one than 'the US media was all bribed'...

What's the point of argueing with you, Vermillion?

You cite Occam's Razor on everything that doesn't fit precisely in line with your views.

So many Saudi recruits, yet OBL's lieutenants by and large are foreign, from Yemeni, to Egyptian, to Jordanian. But hey, nothing to do with the US relationship to the Saudis in his reasoning at all, bah, believe what you will, I frankly don't care no more.

As for CNN being bribed:







http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...5fgcob.asp?pg=2

Now, go ahead and tell me, Vermillion, how you analyze intelligence the CIA does not get and somehow conclude that they are wrong on this as usual, as the media can not be above being bribed for favorable reviews by dictators and so on.

Oh ya, the Times article detailing fully, written by Eason Jordan of CNN, is called:

"The News We Kept to Ourselves"

If you got a subscription, you can read it.

One of the things that the group that has kidnapped the American in S.A. is that the Saudi Royals step down. Now, this group says it is connected to Al-Queda.

Think about that! Why would Al-Queda want it's supposed best friends to step down? And why would Al-Queda continue to cause destruction in Saudi Arabia if they love the Royals so much?

I wanted to give you a quick theoretical answer to your question.



Many Saudi's are sympathetic with the Al Queada cause. These Saudi's einevitably go and join the Royal Saudi guard as well as every other profession. It is quite possible that Al Queada has many friends in the Saudi Royal Guard, but understand that the Saudi Monarch still controls the guard. This is why they would say they have friends, but the want the royal guard to step down, because it is still an instrument of the Saudi Monarch.

To draw a loose parallel,

I know plenty of Marines that are against this war in Iraq. They hate or extremely dislike Bush. But if told to go over there they are more than likely going to go. Thier actions are not really a sign of support.

Same with "friends" to Al Queada. They may support one party but work for another.

Media Portrayal of the War on Terrorism, Is there any bias?
In one of Howard Kurtz's (WP) Media Notes column, he has tallied the numbers to demonstrate either a leftist bias or simply lousy and lazy journalism in the mainstream media, especially broadcast outlets:


That speaks a bookload to me. Oh that evil conservative media!

Vermillion, we're not claiming that Saudi is innocent, only that one should recognize that OBL is a very smart man, and that the real goal, for him, is to get the US presence out of Saudi Arabia, and to overthrow the Saudi government. Choosing Saudi's to perform the attacks helps to accomplish both goals. Arguments pointing out that all the attackers were Saudi, then, just goes to support his goal. Are there many other actions the Saudi government has taken, and continues to take, that we should be concerned with? Certainly. But we shouldn't place undue emphasis on the attacker's origins--that only aids the terrorists.



OBL and the Saudi Royal Family are certainly not friendly--just the opposite. I think OBL is as against them for letting the US in, as he is against the US for being there. In fact, probably moreso, since we're just heathens, while the Royal Family conducted acts that, in his mind, desecrated Islam. (Note--this just goes to show, again, why he would have an ulterior motive in choosing Saudi attackers).

To bring this argument back on topic, I would ask the following question--why has this issue not been discussed more within the media? I don't think there's really a bias here, just an indication of the decline of investigative journalism.

You hit the nail on the head Hobbes. There are many excellent conservatives in the journalism field, but by and large I think journalists tend to fall on the left side of the political equation.

When I was in the military I entered a liberal, but found my thinking becoming more and more conservative. The military mind-set tends to creep in and you as you learn to respect and obey authority, accept orders without question and subverting your individuality for the betterment of the group and accomplishment of the group mission, liberal thinking tends to slip away. At least that was what I believed was occurring within me.

Journalists have to question authority figures, research complicated subjects and become intimately familiar with the dark side of politics, religion, entertainment, sports and what have you. It tends to bring out the cynic in a person and to strongly believe in reform and activism.

In the war on terrorism, most of the media fell in lockstep with the national mood. There was no serious critique of the war in Afghanistan following 9/11 and only recently have the press begun to question how successful that war was prosecuted.
More common were the TV news anchor teams with an American flag superimposed in the background along with stirring theme music while the Ken and Barbie team sported flag pins in their lapels.

Fox News just took this to an ridiculous extreme, but the majority of the media weren't that far off in the partisan cheerleading of the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Criticism of the Bush Administration? Fuhgeddaboutit. We're in a war and any criticism would not be "supporting the troops." The media not only fell in line with this thinking, they parroted it.

Only since Bush declared "mission accomplished" and it became evident that the mission was not accomplished did the press shuck it's cheerleader drag to return to its historical role as watchdog.

All n' all, the media, especially the TV media, was supportive of the war in Iraq and largely unquestioning in how the war against terrorism has been waged.

Upon reading the posts in this thread I have to worry, what does this conclude. We know and expect a bias in our media, so what? Isn't the media's job to serve as an alternative to state propoghanda?

In regards to Hobbes and nighttimer, I think there are many kinds of journalist. Intellectuals in general tend to be liberal, after examination of the issues through applied reasoning. This doesn't say much about the media, just liberalism in general. The media has changed, especially TV media. Money is now involved in the equation. Money and ego. Both of which are flaunted mercilessly. If the primary goal is to attract viewers then the interest of the casual observer is not served. Think of broadcast superstars, the very idea. Katie Couric or Bill Orielly, both claim to be journalists, and both are celebrity personalities who are allowed to input their opinion alongside real news. This is their luxury given with stardom.

I am frightened. We live in a day when truth and entertainment dance along a thin line. We know that we can't completely trust the government, to do so is to accept the status quo, which is counter-productive and not the purpose of representative government. We also know that we can't trust the media because an entertainment/$$$$/ego factor is involved. Who do we trust?

I continue to remain convinced that the media's bias is towards the more upbeat messages about the war. Lately, the Washington Times printed a story that has been discredited by the L.A. Times. I have yet to read of a retraction or apology from the Washington Times in regard to this. Evidently, once you report something, you don't bother looking back.


(source in hyper-linked clip)

Even the Washington Post repeated the official version of the White House, while ignoring videotape that showed otherwise. Yep, that "liberal" Post didn't work too hard on that one.

Robert Novak also put out a fib that Zogby changed his mind as to who would win the election. The network has yet to have another word about it.