|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2005 1:15 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
From your source:
| Quote: |
| In April, Israeli cable TV companies decided to no longer carry BBC World, ostensibly due to a financial disagreement, although it was hinted that political considerations were behind the decision. The channel continued to be received in Israel on the Yes satellite network, and after a while, the cable broadcasts were renewed. |
So for less than a year, Israeli cable companies didn't carry BBC World. The gov't did not do anything, it was their decesion. The channel continued to be carried by satellite.
Wow, some powerful stuff there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Well i responded to all the claims made made by OTOH with the execption of one... the reporting of the Al-jazerra thing. So yes it was mentioned but I would be curious to see how that story is framed and covered in the coming days.
|
When comparing the American vs. the British coverage of the Al Jazeera controversy, I think it's important to remember that there are bascially two stories:
A. The allegation that Bush wanted to bomb Al-jazeera, and...
B. The Blair government's attack on the British press.
Now, as I've tried to show on this thread, the first story has in fact been covered by the American press. However, that story is essentially stalled right now, because Blair and Company are determined that we're never gonna find out what's in that memo. So there really isn't much to report at this point, beyond repeating the original, and as of yet unsubstantiated, allegations over and over again.
The second story is of far more interest to the British public(and especially British journalists) because it involves an attack on British press freedom. The repressive machinations of the Labour government are essentially a domestic story, until such time that the memo is actually published.
Now, IF the memo is finally published, and IF it shows that Bush seriously proposed bombing Al-jazeera, and IF American attention to the issue continues at its present level, then I will agree with My 2 Cents that the American media is remiss in its duties.
(By the way, I just checked out the BBC and MSNBC on-line. Both give about equally prominent coverage to the issue, the BBC under Middle East and MSNBC under Europe. Neither outlet has it as a top headline on the front page of the website).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/default.stm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10197204/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
My 2 Cent
Joined: 03 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2005 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
Well i responded to all the claims made made by OTOH with the execption of one... the reporting of the Al-jazerra thing. So yes it was mentioned but I would be curious to see how that story is framed and covered in the coming days.
|
When comparing the American vs. the British coverage of the Al Jazeera controversy, I think it's important to remember that there are bascially two stories:
A. The allegation that Bush wanted to bomb Al-jazeera, and...
B. The Blair government's attack on the British press.
Now, as I've tried to show on this thread, the first story has in fact been covered by the American press. However, that story is essentially stalled right now, because Blair and Company are determined that we're never gonna find out what's in that memo. So there really isn't much to report at this point, beyond repeating the original, and as of yet unsubstantiated, allegations over and over again.
The second story is of far more interest to the British public(and especially British journalists) because it involves an attack on British press freedom. The repressive machinations of the Labour government are essentially a domestic story, until such time that the memo is actually published.
Now, IF the memo is finally published, and IF it shows that Bush seriously proposed bombing Al-jazeera, and IF American attention to the issue continues at its present level, then I will agree with My 2 Cents that the American media is remiss in its duties.
|
Well I always said that time will tell as far as this story is concerned -- what was said, and the tone of these utterances. So we are agreed there. However, the fact that the Labour govt is prosecuting the leaker while the White House frames the charges as 'ridiculous' and 'not worthy of responding' suggests that the leak of this memo is quite embrassing, serious, and above all --true.
Regardless, we do know some facts with or without the memo:
1. Bush administaion has been obsessed with Al-Jazerra coverage of its actions and has bombed its station/journalist on 2 seperate occacions in 2 seperate countries -- iraq and afghanistan. The US also bombed Al-Arabia station during the Spring '03 offensive. The US admin also memorably bombed Serbian televison in 1999, and bombed Iraqi state tv in 2003 resulting in the deaths of innocent civilian journalists. None of these events are put in context to the quite serious allegations that arose this week. Why?
2. I already mentioned the Sinclair thing with ABC, and how journalists are scared to run stories about the death toll and get angles from it. How the injured rate of US soldiers is actually almost double the official rate given by the Pentagon (covered by British Ch 4 documentry last week). How when Terry Shievo took most of the main news bulitions, 100,000 anti-war demonstators in Washington got scant coverage. Again and again the US media have been branded as 'unpatriotic' if questions were raised about the basis of this war. Other journalists like Judy Miller and Bob Woodward are wholly dependent on access to top-sources and are afraid to ruffle feathers in Washington... woodwards books were eyeopeners as to how the misinformation to the press is used to set agendas and get policy moving, miller's articles were eyeopeners in the respect that she just repeated her pro-war sources as fact on the front page of the NYT in the lead up to the Iraq invasion.
To bring the discussion full circle -- Iraq, Fallujah and its coverage. Why are these areas not discussed and examined in depth by US media -- print and broadcasters:
Reality of troops morale on the ground, and groundswell of oppostion against the war at home (either not reported seriously or framed as radical leftist, and unpatriotic).
US strong arm tactics that have resulted in 30,000 civilian deaths (according to the recently released UN figure).
Iraq Human rights of current Shia led government (former Prez. Allawi said it worse than Saddam), and going beyond the sterotypes of who the insurgants are... when do we ever see or hear what their grievences are? We are lead to believe the well used charactures of baathists, terrorists, etc but no real insights behind this spin of 'terrorism' as opposed to Iraq's traditional tribalism and recent resentment against the occupation itself.
Besides the other issues of polemic punditry, political spin/debate framing, culture of corporate journalism and media monopolies, soft money/corruption political parties and media owners, embeded reporters, etc, it took foreign news reporters to dig and uncover the facts that the US was indeed using WP in Fallujah and depleted uranium shells in Kosovo. Regardless of the lastest White House crisis, I would assume that the US media is not doing its job. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2005 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
However, the fact that the Labour govt is prosecuting the leaker while the White House frames the charges as 'ridiculous' and 'not worthy of responding' suggests that the leak of this memo is quite embrassing, serious, and above all --true.
|
I agree. Whether the memo proves that Bush seiously wanted to bomb Al-Jazeera, or was just making extremely inappropriate jokes, the contents must be very damaging to warrant this kind of response. However:
| Quote: |
| 1. Bush administaion has been obsessed with Al-Jazerra coverage of its actions and has bombed its station/journalist on 2 seperate occacions in 2 seperate countries -- iraq and afghanistan. The US also bombed Al-Arabia station during the Spring '03 offensive. The US admin also memorably bombed Serbian televison in 1999, and bombed Iraqi state tv in 2003 resulting in the deaths of innocent civilian journalists. None of these events are put in context to the quite serious allegations that arose this week. |
I have to take some issue with your claim the media is failing to mention that context. From the Washinton Post:
| Quote: |
In 2003, during the invasion of Iraq, a U.S. missile hit the network's office in Baghdad, killing a correspondent. U.S. officials called the incident an accident. In 2001, American bombs exploded in its bureau in Kabul, Afghanistan. Washington said the targeting officers did not know that the site was an office of the television service, believing instead that it was used by al Qaeda.
|
From the New York Times:
| Quote: |
Al Jazeera also said that, if genuine, the memo would cast "serious doubts" on previous American insistence that the military had not intentionally made targets of the station's offices and staff in Iraq and Afghanistan.
|
From the Associated Press:
| Quote: |
The
network said that if true the report would cast serious doubts on the Bush administration's explanations of earlier incidents involving Al-Jazeera journalists and the American military.
|
And these are all from the links I posted on this thread a few days ago. Again, 2 Cents, I have to wonder if you're paying any attention at all to the US media, or just repeating conventional wisdom about its inadequacies.
| Quote: |
Reality of troops morale on the ground, and groundswell of oppostion against the war at home (either not reported seriously or framed as radical leftist, and unpatriotic).
|
Do you have specific examples of the US media framing the protests as "radical leftist and unpatriotic"? I realize that's how Bush and Company frame them, and if Bush and Company say that, the media is going to report it as something they said. But that's not neccessarily the same thing as saying that the media itself frames the issue that way.
And as for not reporting the groundswell of opposition, well, I've seen several articles in the last few months about polls which show a majority of Americans opposing the war. Here's one from CNN, dated June 2005:
| Quote: |
(CNN) -- Nearly six in 10 Americans oppose the war in Iraq and a growing number of them are dissatisfied with the war on terrorism, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Monday.
|
So if saying that 60% of Americans oppose the war in Iraq doesn't count as reporting on the groundswell of opposition, what does?
| Quote: |
US strong arm tactics that have resulted in 30,000 civilian deaths (according to the recently released UN figure).
|
Well, this is from the Associated Press, last year, when the death toll was obviously lower than in it is now:
| Quote: |
While the United States mourns the deaths of more than 1,000 of its troops in the Iraq campaign, the U.S. toll is far less than the Iraqi. No official, reliable figures exist for the whole country, but private estimates range from 10,000 to 30,000 killed since the United States invaded in March 2003.
The violent deaths recorded in the leather ledger at the Sheik Omar Clinic come from only one of Iraq's 18 provinces and do not cover people who died in such flashpoint cities as Najaf, Karbala, Fallujah, Tikrit and Ramadi.
Iraqi dead include not only insurgents, police and soldiers but also civilian men, women and children caught in crossfire, blown apart by explosives or shot by mistake. And they include the victims of crime that has surged in the instability that followed the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime.
|
So I'm not sure if we can really say that there's any sort of whitewash of civilian deaths going on, at least not in the print media.
| Quote: |
Iraq Human rights of current Shia led government (former Prez. Allawi said it worse than Saddam), and going beyond the sterotypes of who the insurgants are... when do we ever see or hear what their grievences are? We are lead to believe the well used charactures of baathists, terrorists, etc but no real insights behind this spin of 'terrorism' as opposed to Iraq's traditional tribalism and recent resentment against the occupation itself.
|
Well, what exactly do you want the media to report? "A group of insurgents blew up a US army convoy today because they resent the US occupation"? I think anyone with half a brain can figure out that the insurgents don't like the occupation. As for not telling us what the grievances are, here is your beloved BBC(on its "who are the insurgents" page) setting the standard for grievance-reporting:
| Quote: |
The incentives driving individual insurgents are equally disparate - from religious zeal to economic gain, nationalist fervour and anger at the loss of income or loved ones to the conflict.
|
Wow, the insurgents are religious zealots, fervent nationalists, and pissed off about income loss or dead relatives. Pretty in-depth stuff.
| Quote: |
| it took foreign news reporters to dig and uncover the facts that the US was indeed using WP in Fallujah and depleted uranium shells in Kosovo. |
Sure. And it was The New Yorker that broke the Abu Ghraib torture scandal, which has been one of the Bush admin's biggest embarrasments. Sorry, but you're cherry-picking your examples here, in order to make the foreign press look uniformly heroic and the US press uniformly complacent.
One last thing: you say there is this "groundswell" of opposition to the war among Americans(and the polls back you up on this, see the 60% number above), but that the media is actively pro-war. How can there be this groundswell if the media is only reporting good stuff about the war?
Last edited by On the other hand on Sun Nov 27, 2005 8:42 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 5:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, and one more thing. Here is something else you claimed isn't being discussed by the US media:
| Quote: |
| Iraq Human rights of current Shia led government (former Prez. Allawi said it worse than Saddam), |
From the MSNBC website:
| Quote: |
LONDON - Human rights abuses in Iraq are as bad now as they were under Saddam Hussein and could become even worse, the country��s former interim prime minister said in an interview published Sunday.
��People are doing the same as Saddam��s time and worse,�� Ayad Allawi told The Observer newspaper. ��It is an appropriate comparison.��
Allawi accused fellow Shiites in the government of being responsible for death squads and secret torture centers and said the brutality of elements in the new security forces rivals that of Saddam��s secret police.
|
It's also been picked up by ABC News.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1350134
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10222001/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
My 2 Cent
Joined: 03 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Again all your links directly relate to AP wire reports of the allegations. None of the above filed reports mentioned all the examples of the US attacks of media tv stations that I mentioned going back to 1999. Why?
| Quote: |
Do you have specific examples of the US media framing the protests as "radical leftist and unpatriotic"? I realize that's how Bush and Company frame them, and if Bush and Company say that, the media is going to report it as something they said. But that's not neccessarily the same thing as saying that the media itself frames the issue that way. |
The story comes out, and the story is framed and spun by political advocates, dismissing and creating doubt to unwanted 'facts'.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/21/international/21phosphorus.html
Every single official quote is one-sided officialdom double-speak and spin. The third sentence states the opinion that the documentry was 'riddled with errors and exharations', followed on interviews with various military brass. Notice that none of these errors and exharations are develped and presented to the reader. Just pouring scorn and adding doubt of the orginal claims made in the documentry. Classic spin control, showing media complecity with officials.
If I was to believe this account:
A. The world-wide media and bloggers were hoodwinking by lies due a botched US military PR job.
B. WP was not used againist civilians
C. WP is not a chemical weapon.
http://www.counterpunch.com/lindorff11262005.html proves otherwise -- especially the C claim.
Spin Doctor definitons
| Quote: |
And as for not reporting the groundswell of opposition, well, I've seen several articles in the last few months about polls which show a majority of Americans opposing the war. Here's one from CNN, dated June 2005:
(CNN) -- Nearly six in 10 Americans oppose the war in Iraq and a growing number of them are dissatisfied with the war on terrorism, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Monday.
So if saying that 60% of Americans oppose the war in Iraq doesn't count as reporting on the groundswell of opposition, what does? |
Hmmm, what about the grassroots activists who are against the war? If 60%+ of people are against the war -- how come we don't hear from the plenty of groups and individuals denoucning the lies that brought about this war, and keeps this war going? How come for every panel discussion on Meet the Press with Offical X or policitian B, the 60% we agree upon are not represented?
| Quote: |
So I'm not sure if we can really say that there's any sort of whitewash of civilian deaths going on, at least not in the print media. |
emmm...perhaps Falujah? The fact that the US military or media does not attempt to record and keep track of the Iraqi death toll, or makes any real attempts to show the human toll on the horrors and danger of Iraq. The use of the words freedom and liberty are bandied about when Iraq is a basketcase. The levels of violence are constant throughout the past year, but spun as winding down, peaked, or winning, etc.
| Quote: |
Wow, the insurgents are religious zealots, fervent nationalists, and pissed off about income loss or dead relatives. Pretty in-depth stuff. |
My point is Iraq before and during the war is rarely reported in its historical context. One of oldest civilisations in humanity, but drawn together by European colonists in the 1920's. There is also the opinion of the Iraqi people to consider... the Western powers that be don't and the media certainly don't either. When the US govt annoucned the power handover last year, the Bush Admin gleefully spun the ideas of freedom and liberty for the people of Iraq -- the media went on with the show. A great day to move forward.
Except nobody was informed as to the basic facts that all the officals and leaders and later candidates were handpicked, making a mockery of the idea of democracy. This was not made known and reinforeced in the mainstream media. Ditto elections earlier this year.
Basically the background to Iraq's tribal makeup is that the various tribes and sects hate and resent each other, but they are also unified in detesting the occupation, which we are told (without question) is part of 'democratisation'. Is 'democratisaton' making deals under the table giving power to fundamentalist clerics like Moktada al-Sadr? Oh if only those bad religious fanatics and former Baathist jerks would stop the killing, the poor Iraqi people would have their freedom and live happily ever after. Yeah right.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| it took foreign news reporters to dig and uncover the facts that the US was indeed using WP in Fallujah and depleted uranium shells in Kosovo. |
Sure. And it was The New Yorker that broke the Abu Ghraib torture scandal, which has been one of the Bush admin's biggest embarrasments. Sorry, but you're cherry-picking your examples here, in order to make the foreign press look uniformly heroic and the US press uniformly complacent. |
Yeah, being more accurate it was Seymour Hersh -- the man who also broke Mai Lai massacre -- however he is most certinally not considered mainstream but has been someone who has been consistantly doing this job properly, and getting the facts out over the past 40 years. I would say you the one who is cherry-picking if you think journalists like Hersh and his reports are the rule rather than the exception.
| Quote: |
One last thing: you say there is this "groundswell" of opposition to the war among Americans(and the polls back you up on this, see the 60% number above), but that the media is actively pro-war. How can there be this groundswell if the media is only reporting good stuff about the war? |
I didn't say they are only reporting good stuff about the war. I did say that the media has failed to inform why this war started and why it continues. The media played a major role in getting the public behind the war. There is a reason people like Karl Rove exist. There is an agenda setting in place to manipulate the public through the media. Stories get 'spun', and consent is manufactured by various means. Propaganda has and always will be one of the most important tools to win over peoples hearts and minds. This is nothing new -- however this article is new : http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/8798997
So how is the Al-Jazeera story being followed up?
Wanna do a news seach on the web?
I just did one on yahoo and google using the key worlds -- 'Al-jazeera and bomb and bush'
Yahoo: for the first 5 pages (50 sites), no US media outlet came up
Google: for the first 5 pages (50 sites), 1 US media outlet came up twice which was an AP report found on a Texan CBS site from a few days ago -- both of those reports called into question the accuracy of the leaked memo as they emenated from the Mirror UK.
All the other stories were from independent media, and foreign news outlets in various countries -- UK, Ireland, Italy, Canada, India, Yemen, Australia, etc.
Perhaps the consolidation of news in the States by various corporations is not a bother to you and what you deem a functioning democracy. Maybe I am the fool to think trying to have a free press is important.
Actually, the media is part of the status quo. It is not revolutionary in nature. It has no interest to see change; it is firmly part of the establishment. I won't be accused of trying to editoralise, so will just present facts which can be elaborated by anyone who wants to study the media -- books by Walt Lipman, Marshall McLuan, Noam Chomsky, Danny Schecter etc, are good place to start. There are plenty of academic journals and indeed university courses that study the issue in great depth.
Perhaps the media watchdog FAIR's study of the media during the Iraq war might shed some light on all of this? They claim throughout the war was that television news was 25 times more likely to show a pro-war source, than an anti-war source, and continues to monitor the media over every issue imaginable.
Earlier you said that the Al-Jazeera story has no new information to what we know already. It's a British story so why would the US cover it now? The same was said last Summer for the downing street memo here.
Earlier you asked me to find any information of the US media witholding reports because of a cosy relationship with their government --here.
You also wondered where are there example of the US media creating the impression of the anti-war activist as 'unpatriotic or radical'...what about "just one notch less despicable than the terrorists"?
Well, at least the media doesn't hide oppositon to the war, or god forbid -- downplay the 2000 US servicemen killed in Iraq.
The bias in US media is nothing new. Here is a report after the Iraq war about the pathetic standards of news reporting generally.
Wow -- admirable, honest, trustworthy, independent media wins out!
This could go on forever... What about the use of language in the Israel-Palestine conflict? 'A peroid of calm' is a time when only Palestanians get killed, while its always 'Israeli retalation' or 'pre-emptive strikes', or innocent civilians getting killed 'in crossfire'.
What is needed in American is a critical and independed press corps. Going further perhaps a daily newspaper or even a tv channel could watchdog and redress the followoing issues in media (below listed in the FAIR site):
* Corporate Ownership
* Advertiser Influence
* Official Agendas
* Telecommunications Policy
* The PR Industry
* Pressure Groups
* The Narrow Range of Debate
* Censorship
* Sensationalism
I havent even bothered to examine or cite the spin-zones of uninformed punditary, and FOX news. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 7:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
dude, get a grip on reality, seriously.
Where, oh where, is there such great media and journalism?
What country has better media than the United States?
I'm not saying it is good, but it certainly isn't bad. I'd wager hardly any other countries out there have substantially better media.
It is clear to me that you have spent little to no time in the States recently (if ever). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| My 2 Cent wrote: |
The levels of violence are constant throughout the past year, but spun as winding down, peaked, or winning, etc. |
Yes, that is what the executive branch says. The media reports it, but also quotes those who don't believe it. Murta ring a bell? And that's just the latest guy to do so.
| Quote: |
My point is Iraq before and during the war is rarely reported in its historical context. One of oldest civilisations in humanity, but drawn together by European colonists in the 1920's. There is also the opinion of the Iraqi people to consider...the Western powers that be don't and the media certainly don't either. |
I read an op-ed in Sunday's SF Chronicle saying the exact same thing. uh oh, that damn american media.
| Quote: |
When the US govt annoucned the power handover last year, the Bush Admin gleefully spun the ideas of freedom and liberty for the people of Iraq -- the media went on with the show. A great day to move forward.
Except nobody was informed as to the basic facts that all the officals and leaders and later candidates were handpicked, making a mockery of the idea of democracy. This was not made known and reinforeced in the mainstream media. Ditto elections earlier this year. |
Check out amazon.com and type in, "Iraq War" You will get loads of books that are on the topic. Watch the Daily Show.
| Quote: |
| Basically the background to Iraq's tribal makeup is that the various tribes and sects hate and resent each other, but they are also unified in detesting the occupation, which we are told (without question) is part of 'democratisation'. Is 'democratisaton' making deals under the table giving power to fundamentalist clerics like Moktada al-Sadr? Oh if only those bad religious fanatics and former Baathist jerks would stop the killing, the poor Iraqi people would have their freedom and live happily ever after. Yeah right. |
Thanks for that brilliant insight. Until you got your say in, I was not aware of this due to the lack of publicity in the US media.
| Quote: |
Yeah, being more accurate it was Seymour Hersh -- the man who also broke Mai Lai massacre -- however he is most certinally not considered mainstream but has been someone who has been consistantly doing this job properly, and getting the facts out over the past 40 years. I would say you the one who is cherry-picking if you think journalists like Hersh and his reports are the rule rather than the exception.
|
Not considered mainstream? So the New Yorker is some underground magazine? Interesting. HarperCollins Publishers isn't that big? News to me.
| Quote: |
| I didn't say they are only reporting good stuff about the war. I did say that the media has failed to inform why this war started and why it continues. The media played a major role in getting the public behind the war. There is a reason people like Karl Rove exist. There is an agenda setting in place to manipulate the public through the media. Stories get 'spun', and consent is manufactured by various means. Propaganda has and always will be one of the most important tools to win over peoples hearts and minds. This is nothing new -- however this article is new : http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/8798997 |
So what's your point? This isn't a uniquely American thing.
| Quote: |
| Perhaps the consolidation of news in the States by various corporations is not a bother to you and what you deem a functioning democracy. Maybe I am the fool to think trying to have a free press is important. |
Where there is a will, there is a way. Public radio still is around, and plenty of independant news sources out there.
| Quote: |
Earlier you asked me to find any information of the US media witholding reports because of a cosy relationship with their government --here. |
Oh please. That has nothing to do with a cosy relationship. It has to deal with national security, and not just for the United States either. Not very diplomatic to divulge that kind of information.
That is ONE columnist for the NY Times. It is his OPINION, which is very clear since it is in the OP-ED section of the NY Times.
That's a matter of opinion. He was putting it into historical perspective.
| Quote: |
| The bias in US media is nothing new. Here is a report after the Iraq war about the pathetic standards of news reporting generally. |
That was a vaild point. Congrats.
| Quote: |
| This could go on forever... What about the use of language in the Israel-Palestine conflict? 'A peroid of calm' is a time when only Palestanians get killed, while its always 'Israeli retalation' or 'pre-emptive strikes', or innocent civilians getting killed 'in crossfire'. |
Uh source? Yes, american media uses those phrases, but I doubt it says "A period of calm" when describing the latest Israeli offensive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gdimension
Joined: 05 Jul 2005
Location: Jeju
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| My 2 Cent wrote: |
So how is the Al-Jazeera story being followed up?
Wanna do a news seach on the web?
I just did one on yahoo and google using the key worlds -- 'Al-jazeera and bomb and bush'
Yahoo: for the first 5 pages (50 sites), no US media outlet came up
Google: for the first 5 pages (50 sites), 1 US media outlet came up twice which was an AP report found on a Texan CBS site from a few days ago -- both of those reports called into question the accuracy of the leaked memo as they emenated from the Mirror UK. |
I just did this and got different results than you did. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Well, at least the media doesn't hide oppositon to the war, or god forbid -- downplay the 2000 US servicemen killed in Iraq.
|
2 Cents, your second story refers to ONE commentator on the FOX Network. Are we to assume that the British wing of the Murdoch empire is splashing critical thinking about the war on its editorial page? Probably not on the third page, 'cuz that's reserved for the teats and ass.
The first link critiques the American media's coverage of the anti-war protests. The FAIR people might have a point. Now, here is the defense offered by CNN:
| Quote: |
"There was a huge 100,000 people in Washington protesting the war in Iraq today, and I sometimes today feel like I've heard from all 100,000 upset that they did not get any coverage, and it's true they didn't get any coverage. Many of them see conspiracy. I assure you there is none, but it's just the national story today and the national conversation today is the hurricane that put millions and millions of people at risk, and it's just kind of an accident of bad timing, and I know that won't satisfy anyone but that's the truth of it."
|
Okay, Maybe the guys explanation is bs, maybe its pure gold. But whatever, we're comparing the American media coverage to the British media here. The proper question then becomes: what sort of coverage would an anti-war protest in London get if the equivalent of Hurricane Katrina was hitting Liverpool at the same time? I don't know the answer to that question, and neither do you.
| Quote: |
| Earlier you asked me to find any information of the US media witholding reports because of a cosy relationship with their government --here. |
The Post may very well have made the wrong decison there. But again, we're comparing the American press with the foreign press. The comparison would be what a British newspaper would do if asked by the British government to withhold information on the basis of national security.
| Quote: |
| The use of the words freedom and liberty are bandied about when Iraq is a basketcase. |
Can you cite an example of an American reporter(not an editorialist) using words like "freedom" and "liberty" as factual descriptions of reality?
| Quote: |
| Hmmm, what about the grassroots activists who are against the war? If 60%+ of people are against the war -- how come we don't hear from the plenty of groups and individuals denoucning the lies that brought about this war, and keeps this war going? |
I think you're shifting the goal-posts here. First, you say that the media isn't reporting majority opposition to the war. Then, when it's pointed out that they are, you complain that they're not putting "grassroots activists" front and centre. If I were to mention Cindy Sheehan, you'd probably find some reason to dismiss the coverage she's getting.
I mean, think about it. If they're already reporting that 60% of the public is against the war, what pro-war agenda could they possibly be fulfilling by denying air time to a few activists? I'd say anti-war opinion is now pretty much respectable in its own right, with or without the input of the activists.
And anyway, am I to assume that "grassroots activists" are being given hours and hours of air time and gallons and gallons of ink in the British media?
| Quote: |
| Again all your links directly relate to AP wire reports of the allegations. None of the above filed reports mentioned all the examples of the US attacks of media tv stations that I mentioned going back to 1999. Why? |
Well, maybe they're taking their cue from the BBC, which didn't see fit to mention those other attacks in their on-line reporting either.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4459296.stm
| Quote: |
Except nobody was informed as to the basic facts that all the officals and leaders and later candidates were handpicked, making a mockery of the idea of democracy. This was not made known and reinforeced in the mainstream media. Ditto elections earlier this year.
|
Yeah, I hate it when those pro-war media types try to put a pollyanna spin on the occupation!
| Quote: |
World leaders praise Iraqi poll
The vote count is expected to take several days
World leaders have praised the conduct of Iraq's first multi-party elections for more than 50 years.
President Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair - the leaders of the two nations which led the invasion of Iraq - hailed them as a resounding success.
|
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4220551.stm
These hacks quote a bunch of world leaders as saying that the elections were a resounding success, without including one single quote from a grassroots activist saying that democratization is a sham!
And never mind the activists, what about OTHER world leaders, ones who might have been more critical of the "democratization" process. What about the Syrians? Why weren't they quoted in the article? How about the Arab League? I'm sure they might have had something to say. Pretty one-sided reporting, only quoting world leaders who made positive remarks on the election.
(I don't think the BBC article was THAT bad, I'm just trying to give you some idea of what your "logic" sounds like to the rest of us).
Bucheon Bum has beaten me to the punch on most of my other points. I will say, however, that I was particularly amused by your attmept to claim that a New Yorker article could somehow be considered outside the mainstream media.
Last edited by On the other hand on Tue Nov 29, 2005 5:45 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2005 5:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
I had a look at the Herald-Tribune over dinner.
| Quote: |
Saturday, November 26
Dishonest, Reprehensible, Corrupt ...
November 27, 2005
By FRANK RICH
NEW YORK TIMES
GEORGE W. BUSH is so desperate for allies that his hapless Asian tour took him to Ulan Bator, a first for an American president, so he could mingle with the yaks and give personal thanks for Mongolia's contribution of some 160 soldiers to "the coalition of the willing." Dick Cheney, whose honest-and-ethical poll number hit 29 percent in Newsweek's latest survey, is so radioactive that he vanished into his bunker for weeks at a time during the storms Katrina and Scootergate.
The whole world can see that both men are on the run. Just how much so became clear in the brace of nasty broadsides each delivered this month about Iraq. Neither man engaged the national debate ignited by John Murtha about how our troops might be best redeployed in a recalibrated battle against Islamic radicalism. Neither offered a plan for "victory." Instead, both impugned their critics' patriotism and retreated into the past to defend the origins of the war. In a seasonally appropriate impersonation of the misanthropic Mr. Potter from "It's a Wonderful Life," the vice president went so far as to label critics of the administration's prewar smoke screen both "dishonest and reprehensible" and "corrupt and shameless." He sounded but one epithet away from a defibrillator.
|
That's from the New York Times. Yeah, the mainstream media is really afraid to criticize Bush, eh?
(And yes, it's an Op-Ed, not straight reporting or editorial. But, unlike 2 Cents' citation of the Friedman piece, I'm not using the Rich column to argue that the US media is of one uniform mind on the Iraq war. I'm simply saying that if, as he suggests, the entire war coverage was being dictated by pro-Bush people, stuff like this wouldn't be getting published in the New York Times).
http://lettrist.blogspot.com/2005/11/dishonest-reprehensible-corrupt.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2005 9:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
RE: Fallujah.
I'm only about a third through No True Glory but I'm finding it a detailed and objected account of operations there. It is eerily reminiscent of Black Hawk Down, in that you have understrength troops trying to control (or even just navigate through) a city that is seemingly entirely against them. The Iraqi column which was to support Marines in late March 2004 never even made it out of the outskirts of Bagdad, much less to downtown Fallujah. The incidents are compelling reading and I keep wondering as I read whether or not these were ever reported in the news media at the time... I suspect some of them were but they just got lost in sea of reported incidents incidents coming out of Iraq.
I haven't reached the account of the battle where WP was used yet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2005 10:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
I had a look at the Herald-Tribune over dinner.
| Quote: |
Saturday, November 26
Dishonest, Reprehensible, Corrupt ...
November 27, 2005
By FRANK RICH
NEW YORK TIMES
GEORGE W. BUSH is so desperate for allies that his hapless Asian tour took him to Ulan Bator, a first for an American president, so he could mingle with the yaks and give personal thanks for Mongolia's contribution of some 160 soldiers to "the coalition of the willing." *beep* Cheney, whose honest-and-ethical poll number hit 29 percent in Newsweek's latest survey, is so radioactive that he vanished into his bunker for weeks at a time during the storms Katrina and Scootergate.
The whole world can see that both men are on the run. Just how much so became clear in the brace of nasty broadsides each delivered this month about Iraq. Neither man engaged the national debate ignited by John Murtha about how our troops might be best redeployed in a recalibrated battle against Islamic radicalism. Neither offered a plan for "victory." Instead, both impugned their critics' patriotism and retreated into the past to defend the origins of the war. In a seasonally appropriate impersonation of the misanthropic Mr. Potter from "It's a Wonderful Life," the vice president went so far as to label critics of the administration's prewar smoke screen both "dishonest and reprehensible" and "corrupt and shameless." He sounded but one epithet away from a defibrillator.
|
That's from the New York Times. Yeah, the mainstream media is really afraid to criticize Bush, eh?
(And yes, it's an Op-Ed, not straight reporting or editorial. But, unlike 2 Cents' citation of the Friedman piece, I'm not using the Rich column to argue that the US media is of one uniform mind on the Iraq war. I'm simply saying that if, as he suggests, the entire war coverage was being dictated by pro-Bush people, stuff like this wouldn't be getting published in the New York Times).
http://lettrist.blogspot.com/2005/11/dishonest-reprehensible-corrupt.html |
This has been a very recent shift. That is obvious. I accept no apologies for the way the US media has abdicated its responsibilities over the last five years. Deregulation killed true and ethical reporting in the US. What we are seeing is a politically motivated shift at the editorial level, which is where content is decided. Notice it didn't happen until the Republican Party itself started generally distancing itself from Bush. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2005 12:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Well then you haven't read many op-eds. Frank Rich has been bashing the war since the beginning. I've seen anti-war op-eds in the NY Times and SF Chron (hometown paper) since the invasion was being considered. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
