freeflir29 0 #1 November 25, 2002 www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=11/24/02&Cat=2&Num=004 A US Embassy is attacked and I didn't hear a thing about on any "regular" news. WTF over? www.washtimes.com/world/20021121-20663065.htm Flasback from Panama circa 1989. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JPA 0 #2 November 25, 2002 Because the embassy wasn't attacked, the mortars landed several blocks away. Plus, using the words "apparently targeting" is very subjective and gives no conclusive insight into the real nature or intention of the "attack". In all likely hood the US embassy was the target, but that still doesn't mean it was attacked. Just my opinion however. It is always healthy to question the media though. JP. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #3 November 25, 2002 I suppose....just seemed news worthy to me. Unfortunately, it's the second mortar attack in Bogata this year. That place is getting to be a mess.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #4 November 25, 2002 Quote That place is getting to be a mess.... It seems that lots of places are a mess right about now. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #5 November 25, 2002 Quote It seems that lots of places are a mess right about now True....but South and Central America was my AO for the last two years I was in the military. Bogota used to relatively safe from overt guerilla activity until a year or so ago. Ever since the US gave the govt money and equipment the war there has gotten a bit hotter. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hagar 0 #6 November 25, 2002 At the moment the Colombians looks like good guys and usefull allies in the fight against a common enemy, but so did the Mujahedeen, KLA/UCK/UCPMB etc... Don't they ever learn that arming and training one of the sides in unstable parts of the world often leads to the embarresing situation where US/allied forces fights US equiped and trained "freedom fighters"?--- PCSS #10 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ramon 0 #7 November 25, 2002 The Major media conglomerates are very dissapointing sometimes. "Revolution is an abrupt change in the form of misgovernment.", Ambrose Bierce. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #8 November 25, 2002 "CNN, more news from fewer sources!" More and more I'm reaffirming my hatred of the media.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ramon 0 #9 November 25, 2002 Good. Quick recap: Earlier this winter. President of CNN sends out memo telling CNN USA to stop mentioning anything having to do with civilian casualties in Afganistan. Being in Abu Dhabi at the time and getting BBC CNN international and CNN USA. I could see the difference in the coverage. it's propaganda. Also the CNN coverage of Israel and Palestine was different from BBC and of course differnet than the "Gulf News" (opposite extreme). Corporate media has no "reporting" ethics."Revolution is an abrupt change in the form of misgovernment.", Ambrose Bierce. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #10 November 25, 2002 Honestly, I haven't seen many (if any) reporting ethics from any sort of media house. Shit, even the school newspaper at A&M (The Battalion, which is published 5 days a week while school is in) is incredibly biased on some issues and misreports others, seemingly for fun.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ramon 0 #11 November 25, 2002 England trains and sells weapons to Pakistan and India. he he heh hahahahaha BWAHAHAHAHAHA.Where do you think Sadam Houssein got Sarin that was found to have been used on one Kurdish village... You don't just make Sarin (like you can phosgene) ... you need help and materials from the West. "Revolution is an abrupt change in the form of misgovernment.", Ambrose Bierce. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ramon 0 #12 November 25, 2002 I guess it all depends on if a single reporter has the balls to get a story and if the editor lets them run it. Anytime the US is involved in somehting major it is definitely good to read as many sources as possible from other parts of the world (especially neutral countries if you can find one ). "Revolution is an abrupt change in the form of misgovernment.", Ambrose Bierce. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #13 November 25, 2002 That's what I tend to do, all in all, both sides of the story have their problems and it tends to be frustrating, but hey, I guess that's a history scholar's life story... --"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #14 November 25, 2002 Dave, Try Fox News. Their motto is "Fair and Balanced" and "We report, you decide". The best part about them is they have the spinmeisters and left wing extremists all in a hissy fit because those folks had the corner on the media for too many years. Oh, the humanity. _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,396 #15 November 25, 2002 >Try Fox News. Their motto is "Fair and Balanced" and "We report, you decide". Fox? The same station that fires its own reporters who say bad things about large companies? The one that has a feature (PC patrol) on its website that regularly bashes the ACLU and other liberal organizations? They have never been reticent in showing their conservative slant. They regularly attack democrats, and indeed anyone who opposes the current administration. Some quotes below: "the Democratic lawyers have flooded Florida" . . .because. . . "they are afraid of George W. Bush becoming President and instituting tort reform and their gravy train will be over." (John Gibson, news anchor.) "Do you sense in some of the opposition to (Ashcroft) that his faith and his devotion to it is being held against him? And do you sense in that, perhaps, a kind of anti-Christian bigotry?" (Brit Hume) "Fair and balanced? Give me a break. During the Clinton impeachment--which they were just loving--it was OK to run a Newt Gingrich soundbite by itself. But if you ran a soundbite by a Democrat you also had to run a soundbite by a Republican." (former Fox producer) Fox is the mouthpiece of Rupert Murdock, a pretty conservative guy, so it's understandable. But to claim that they're fair and balanced is like saying that Earth First! is a moderate environmentalist group. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #16 November 25, 2002 QuoteThey have never been reticent in showing their conservative slant. Just as all the major networks and cable networks have never been reticent in showing their liberal side. Finally, a network that is more in touch with mainstream America! And check your facts: Bill O'Reilly has not been giving Ashcroft or the INS under George W. a free ride. _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gemini 0 #17 November 25, 2002 Hey that sounds "fair and balanced" to me based on the alternatives that are out there! Blue skies, Jim Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #18 November 25, 2002 Bill, I don't think that Fox news is "fair and balanced" but they're NOT left of center, and since I tend to lean right of center, I enjoy watching them when I get the chance. Yeah, its a double standard, but its MY double standard, so I'm ok with that. --"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,120 #19 November 25, 2002 ./rantfortheday I think the deal here is that reporting one disagrees with is "slanted" and reporting that one agrees with is "accurate." Works for me. My cousin is the editor in chief of a fairly significant (though definitely not large-city major) newspaper. He is also a fairly serious historian, especially of the Civil War era. He's come by most of his opinions through research and reading of a lot of actual source material. The same material that's turned into stories that are readable. I'm also part of mainstream America, and I find the slant at Fox to be ridiculous. Just because one reporter doesn't toady to Dubya on all counts doesn't mean that he's unbiased. It does mean that he can find his backbone sometimes. And the fact that he agrees with Dubya sometimes also doesn't mean he's lost his backbone. I find myself disagreeing with John McCain on issues regularly. But I cannot under any circumstances I've seen so far fault him on thinking about the consequences of actions. Not the personal ones necessarily (although he wouldn't be a senator if he gave NO thought to that), but the organizational ones. Funny how ALL people in the media have a liberal slant. Think it's a conspiracy? Many of them read a huge amount of material, from a lot of sources. As much play as they get out of conspiracies, don't you wonder who's in charge of this one? "The media" is simply too large and amorphous an entity to be in charge of everything. ./erantfortheday Wendy W. (note the lack of quoting means I'm replying to the thread...)There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,396 #20 November 25, 2002 >Just as all the major networks and cable networks have never been > reticent in showing their liberal side. I agree that there are a great many liberal news networks out there; they range from village voice and NPR types (very liberal) to the NY times (somewhat liberal.) There are also a great many right wing news organizations, like the Wall Street Journal, Newsmax, the Cato Institute etc. Leading them all is Fox. Funny how they all claim to be the one "balanced news source." >Finally, a network that is more in touch with mainstream America! Mainstream america is a little more centrist than the right wing organizations would have you believe, although that could be hard to see if you get most of your news from Fox. >And check your facts: Bill O'Reilly has not been giving Ashcroft or the > INS under George W. a free ride. Never claimed he did; nor has NPR been condemning Bush's actions in the UN. Not one of the organizations above tells outright lies generally, but most of them add their own tint. (I think the WSJ adds the least tint, though.) To get a true view of what's going on, you have to read both sides, and it's generally a good idea to get an outside view as well (i.e. the BBC or other foreign news agency.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,396 #21 November 25, 2002 >Bill, I don't think that Fox news is "fair and balanced" but they're >NOT left of center, and since I tend to lean right of center, I enjoy > watching them when I get the chance. >Yeah, its a double standard, but its MY double standard, so I'm ok > with that. Why is that a double standard? I don't think there's anything wrong with watching Fox, listening to NPR, even reading the Village Voice as long as you're aware of the slant each one has. It's the people who take what any news agency says as gospel (or even as unbiased) who worry me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #22 November 25, 2002 Interesting you bring up the BBC. In November of 2001, I was in London. The TV in the lobby was tuned to the BBC as the war in Afghanistan was really heating up at that point. This was a time when many of the Taliban bigshots were being rounded up. I kept hearing the BBC use the phrase "American Atrocities". Silly me, I thought they were referring to the events of Sept. 11th. Well, they weren't. The "American Atrocities" was the war on terror in Afghanistan. Needless to say, as an American, that terminology did not sit well with me. _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #23 November 25, 2002 QuoteIt's the people who take what any news agency says as gospel (or even as unbiased) who worry me. I totally agree. It's also the people who have an elitist attitude and actually believe they are smarter than everyone that worry me also. _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #24 November 25, 2002 Bill, my double standard comment was a joke, a very very very dry joke. It was referencing some of my earlier comments about how I really dislike the media and can't stand the slants & bs they report. --"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
konradptr 0 #25 November 25, 2002 The reason you didn't hear about it was because it didn't serve their purpose at the time... The news you are aware of is that which they are willing to report... ------------------------------------------ Getting banned isn't that bad...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
