's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

I read a lot about frustration with slants on news ...(17 posts)

I read a lot about frustration with slants on news ...sacheson
Apr 4, 2003 9:08 AM
... on this site. We all know broadcasts on both sides of the political spectrum put their slant on what they deliver, it's a point that is not only debated on, but in most sub-groups I belong to. It seems there is a wide spectrum of posters (and other people I know) that watch news from many different sources and learn to weed out the crap.

Regardless of the liberal or conservative slant people delivering the news put on the "facts", I think the complaints about the news delivery are not only bogus (since we do have several broadcasts to choose from), but are an arrogant argument made by people that don't want appreciate what we have at our disposal.

I've been watching several news sources lately, and most of them have been re-broadcasting news from Iraq. While listening to it, I have gained a new appreciation the western world press. The government controlled television with government controlled reporters delivery an absurdly false message and poluting the minds of the Iraqi people with factless rhetoric shielding them from the outside world is a whole lot worse than anything CNN or Fox News have delivered.

Sure, we may have people that bash Bush. We may have others that call anyone that doesn't fully support the war a commie pig. But we have a choice, and can usually find a news cast that delivers enough fact, regardless of the sensationalistic delivery. I suggest we learn to appreciate what we have and not try and create some huge issue everytime the news isn't reported to our standards.
Here's a link to dozens of news sources....cory
Apr 4, 2003 9:22 AM
Check this out--it will link you to about 100 newspapers from all over the world. It's been pretty interesting following the coverage from other places. Generally, if what they're saying reflects how people feel, when this is all over, the United States is going to be wading in what W's daddy once called deep doo-doo.
This gets busy and takes a while to load sometimes...
Fishing for bad news Cory?Alpedhuez55
Apr 4, 2003 10:05 AM
It seems like you are fishing for bad news. THe news you hear in the US has been largely good because the war is progressing well. If you want to read what some state controlled press in a third hell hole is saying to support your beleifs, maybe we are not in as deep a doo-doo as you think.

I would not wory too much about the rest of the world. It is funny how the countries opposing the US like Germany, Russia & France have been trying to jump on the US Bandwagon. I am sure more will follow once the war is over.

Mike Y.
More people should get their news here:4bykn
Apr 4, 2003 10:29 AM
The Daily Show, with Jon Stewart.
Entertaining if it wasn't so terrible..Brooks
Apr 4, 2003 10:48 AM
I refer to the Iraqi (dis)Information Minister. I do get a kick out of his comments. It's "silly" that the Americans are near Baghdad. They are nowhere near Baghdad. No? But they are bombing the crap out of your government buildings, buddy, and your airport is ours now. It is sad to think that in a city of 5 million people, the only news you may get is from this clown. What will be the response of the people as the war is very quickly on their streets?

Good post sacheson. I agree with you.
Sacheson, excellent point!! nmJon Billheimer
Apr 4, 2003 11:46 AM
Apr 4, 2003 12:23 PM
THere are still 100,000 subscribers to Al Jeezera in the US, but Bahgdad took them off the air earlier in the week.
yesterday or the day before...rufus
Apr 4, 2003 1:19 PM
the word was how the coalition forces were nowhere near baghdad- they were trapped at basra, trapped at nasiriyah, trapped at every southern iraqi city fighting spot.

today, he issues the news bulletin that the saddam airport will be the gravesite of the coalition forces.

but that's right outside downtown baghdad! i thought coalition forces were nowhere near there?
"Embeds" = Government controlled reporters.czardonic
Apr 4, 2003 12:24 PM
Is the propganda level as high as in other parts of the world? No. Are Americans seeing objective coverage of the war? No.
"Embeds" = Government controlled reporters.purplepaul
Apr 4, 2003 4:44 PM
I really don't see how you can say that since the only thing reporters are not allowed to say relate to future troop movements and plans. Since reporters are traveling with the troops and reporting and showing via live video what they are experiencing, even getting wounded and killed in the process, I would say they're giving a very representative account of what is actually happening.

If this isn't objective enough for you, what would you change?
There are prohibitions beyond troop movements and plans.czardonic
Apr 4, 2003 5:41 PM (PDF). See section 4.G

There is a blanket prohibition of "Rules of Engagement", which seem pretty relevant as reports of women and children gunned down at checkpoints filter in. Also, the rules generally prohibit information that would draw a picture of how effective our tactics are, and how effective the enemies responses are, which might shed some light on questions about whether our troops were adequately prepared for the enemy they are fighting.

I'm not saying that there is a better, more objective way to report the war from as close a vantage point. However, the current vantage point necessarily provides a one-sided account of the war.

You also have to at least acknowledge the possibility that, under the circumstances, embeds will begin to identify with the troops they are covering. Again, good for providing a picture of the war through the eyes of the allied troops, but not necessarily objective.
There are prohibitions beyond troop movements and plans.purplepaul
Apr 4, 2003 6:02 PM
There was a story of a Newsweek reporter who went off with a photographer to get a story "untainted" by allied minders. Well, they had to be recued by the allies and the reporter said that now he didn't know if he could be objective and, what's more, he didn't know if he wanted to.

So, yes, identifying with the troops is not just a possibility. But as long as they are not omitting information critical of the troops, I don't know if their opinion really matters. If our troops go into a Mosque and just start shooting, we'll know about it. That we know about the checkpoint shootings shows me that the reporting is working quite well. By allowing reporters to document what the troops are doing, even if we don't get the reports until later, shows me that our leaders are not afraid of our knowing what they are doing. Rather, they welcome it.
Still, you can't discount perspective.czardonic
Apr 4, 2003 6:11 PM
We know about the checkpoint shootings, but they are generally portrayed as tragedies made necessary by the underhanded tactics employed by the Iraqi militias. Is that the always the case? Or are there cases of shell-shocked troops opening up on anything that moves in their direction (as has been reported in one story, but omitted from any broader coverage that I have seen)? Can shell-shocked reporters make that distinction?
Still, you can't discount perspective.purplepaul
Apr 4, 2003 6:39 PM
The article states that their orders were to shoot anything that moved and reveals a sorrow on the part of the soldiers who had to carry out the order that killed a young girl.

I would hope that if something truly heinous and contrary to the rules of engagement had been done that even a shell-shocked reporter would report it.

Perhaps the checkpoint shooting are being portrayed as tragedies because that's what they are. I believe to assert otherwise without any evidence is to reveal one's bias.
Of course they are tragedies. But are they <i>necessary</i>?czardonic
Apr 4, 2003 6:50 PM
I am sure that allied troops would not open fire on a person unless they believed that there was a justifiable threat present. But these decisions are made under extreme stress. The question that a reporter under identical duress can not answer is whether that judgement is reliable, or the product of poor leadership, poor preparation, poor intel, poor support etc.
Of course they are tragedies. But are they <i>necessary</i>?purplepaul
Apr 4, 2003 6:56 PM
The reporter's judgement may not be reliable under such circumstances. But, certainly, to the editors back in the newsroom a more "normal" perspective is used to evaluate. A hysterical reporter showing soldiers chopping up babies is still showing soldiers chopping up babies. As I said above, as long as they're not censoring all things critical to the troops, I'm not sure there's any more we can expect.
I think you mean "In Beds"Starliner
Apr 4, 2003 5:15 PM
The value of embedded reporters isn't with their ability to produce real-time reporting (still too limited). It's that their presence provides a credibility factor on the front lines. They're trained to be objective, and I have to presume their reporting to be up to their professional standards.

Their presence on the front lines serves to defuse rumors, hyperbole and propaganda emanating from either side, and decrease the likelihood of cover-ups occurring.

I look at them as a seeds that have been planted, with the fruits of their experiences to be revealed after the shooting stops and they return. There's going to be a lot of stories to be told and a lot of camera footage to be seen.