SpeedRacer 1 #1 July 22, 2005 Many Americans, (and on this forum, for example) complain that the media (in America) has a "liberal bias", and is way too negative re. its coverage of the war in Iraq, or other areas of American foreign policy. Specifically in the Iraq war, you hear complaints of a "police blotter" mentality. But many people overseas seem to think that the American media is whitewashing everything. They seem compelled to tell us that our media is not showing the carnage and chaos going on in Iraq, etc. So which is it? Is American media excessively pro or anti American? (As an American I feel puzzled when Europeans tell me the US media isn't showing the bad shit going on in Iraq, because it definitely is. Anyway, with the Internet & cable TV, its pretty easy to access international news sources to compare, no matter where you are.) Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IanHarrop 37 #2 July 22, 2005 I have a hard time imagining any American media that would cover the war totally unbiased, showing both sides equally. They have to be on side with the war, that's just a reality. The wrath that would come down on them would be mind boggling and their stock value would plummet."Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #3 July 22, 2005 Honestly, I think it's a silly debate. With the internet I can get my news from anywhere in the world I want. Heck, my Dish TV gets both BBC and Canadian news broadcasts. As long as there is a bunch of different media available, I feel like I can survey a bunch of news sources, and decide for myself. If I read something on CNN, and think "hmmm, I wonder what the other side is?" I can always pop over to the Al-Jazeera site and read their take on it, and then find some third source that's from a relatively unrelated place (I've actually found that South African papers are good for this, since they're in English and tend to take a more distanced perspective) to cross check. In this day and age, I don't feel like being an American, or living in the US prevents me from getting my news from anywhere I want.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #4 July 22, 2005 QuoteI have a hard time imagining any American media that would cover the war totally unbiased, showing both sides equally. They have to be on side with the war, that's just a reality. The wrath that would come down on them would be mind boggling and their stock value would plummet OK, as an American, I can tell you that this is definitely not true. the media does NOT have to be on the side of the war or pro_bush or whatever. it wouldn't have much affect on their stock either way. edited to add: but it is interesting that you came to that conclusion, and maybe the non-American perception of American media is due largely because Europeans & others do not fully understand how the media works in America, rather than that they have carefully contrasted & compared American news stories with others. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AlexCrowley 0 #5 July 22, 2005 It's one fo those arguments that you cannot really do, its like asking about your own personal spoken dialect. I spent the first 25 years of my life in the UK and am used to UK journalism. I realize that most of the world sees UK journalism as The Sun, but outside of the tabloids there's a very busy investigative press that hasnt been seen in the US for several decades. US media generally suffers from over simplifying everything, not offering balanced coverage, sensationalizing coverage and pandering to easy titillation. In the first year of the Iraq war there was an average 5 week delay between a story breaking in Europe (ex, jessica lynch not really being rescued as stated on US tv). If the story gained serious traction it would be reported here. Sourcing: The US media is very bad with sourcing in general. "Karl Rove steals sweets from toddlers" as a story, a reporter calls Karl Rove and says 'did you steal sweets from toddlers?' Mr Rove says "of course not!!" and the headline becomes "Karl Rove did not steal sweets from Toddlers"* . Think it doesnt happen? It's that or 'unknown sources'. Followup questions: US media doesnt seem to like to do that very often, unless they're showboating. Take any major occurence recently involving terrorism, the patriot act, 9/11, WMDs, Iraq. Now, bear in mind i'mnot saying that anyone lied, im comparing journalism differences as the question asked. In the UK papers asked hard questions about all these things, that were never tackled seriously in the media or a public forum in the US. (US Tv newsmen have been quoted on UK Tv on NewsNight saying that they could not ask difficult questions because the US public would lynch them). Without exception every WMD story printed in the Times, sourced from Chalabi was debunked in the rest of the world press. Its why Spain and the UK had 80%+ of the population coming out against the war. In fact, the Chalabi/Miller connection was first publicised in Europe before Chalabi was ever considered a fraud here in the US. 9/11, Many journalists across the world have asked questions about the US response that have never been touched upon in the press here, and if they were they were never followed up with. 1 example: in an interview Cheney stated that jet fighters had to call in for orders on how to deal with the hijacked jet liner. As the pilots here will know, FAA regulations already had emergency procedures in place, in the aviation manuals (if you fly a commercial plane and a jet flanks you and wobbles his wings you follow him - actually if I have that wrong I would really like to know! there's a chance the original sources I used were incorrect). Anyway, my point is that these items were discussed in the rest of the worlds press. The patriot act. As a tool fo the people you think that some media group may have taken a long hard look at this and present the information in a fair and unbaised way and then discussed the issues. This is normal behavior for the free media in other countries when a potentially contentious law is being drafted. Arguments would be explored from both sides without judgement. As far as Iraq, US reporters have, for the most part, gotten all their intelligence from official high command. Other countries have journalists on the ground interviewing both sides of the war to get perspective. It's much like how the US press treats Israel and Palestine. In the UK you see a war occurring with both sides battling a bloody and at times unethical battle. In the US its all about how Israel are the victims of terrorism. The sad thing is that the US has a free press and the UK doesnt (they can use D notices to supress stories of national security impact), however, the US really doesnt seem to ever use its freedoms to uncover real stories. This isnt a left/right wing, investigate Bush thing, its an investigate anything! comment. Corporate polluting, Charity fraud and embezzelment, the real story behind the accounting frauds of the .com era. For the liberals: Bush could have been kicked out if the US media still had investigative journalism alive and well. For the conservatives: imagine Clinton's presidency if the media had really done some digging, seperated out the stupid conspiracy red herrings and hit him on the *real* stuff. so yes, US journalism is an absolute joke, I'm not saying that the press anywhere else doesnt have its problems, but it is far less insular, timid and demographics driven (popular stories rather than news). Tom Cruise, Michael Jackson, Jen and ben, Brad and whatserface are not news. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IanHarrop 37 #6 July 22, 2005 Quote maybe the non-American perception of American media is due largely because Europeans & others do not fully understand how the media works in America, rather than that they have carefully contrasted & compared American news stories with others. In Canada I am exposed to a variety of news organizations including the BBC and bunch of American sources and I do see a difference, just as others who have responded to this thread do. I understand that the people of the US perceive their media as unbiased and unrelenting in its search for the truth. On the other hand look what happens even in these forums when someone dares to suggest that the US is not on the side of righteousness in this war. They become the target of the most vitriolic dissertations on patriotism and it is often suggested that they might find somewhere else to live. Now imagine a media outlet that suggested there was another side to the story in this war. The outcry would be fantastic. Now I am sure that there are reporters that try to get stories with more of the truth past their editors but the editors know what side their bread is buttered on. Propaganda is not just for us foreigners anymore. "Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #7 July 22, 2005 QuoteI understand that the people of the US perceive their media as unbiased and unrelenting in its search for the truth. mmm, no. I personally believe there is media bias, but I meant to point out that there is room in America for bias to the left and to the right. There's a market for both kinds of bias. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ViperPilot 0 #8 July 22, 2005 American media is ridiculous for the most part. It's usually biased as hell, one way or the other. Why? Because each producer has their own take on things and thus puts their own spin on things. As a member of the military, I really do not like the media. Why? Well because they hardly ever show all the good we do or at least try to do. Some 1/2 hurricane hits texas and it's national news. Well how about Sgt Smith saving two small children from RPG attacks. No, you won't hear his story, but don't worry, you'll hear about how Mrs. Jones' cat got stuck in the tree. I believe some in the media hate Bush so much that they will do anything to destroy his reputation, which includes giving as much bad press as possible about the Iraq War. These guys could give a shit about us, they don't care about what we're doing, they just care about trying to ruin Bush's career. And then there are those on the other end who would defend any crazy, far-right idea, person, etc. It's always going to be biased. Best thing that can be done is get news from multiple sources, domestic and foreign, then decide for yourself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #9 July 22, 2005 Quote No, you won't hear his story, but don't worry, you'll hear about how Mrs. Jones' cat got stuck in the tree. Or about some dumbass that called 911 because a fast food place wouldn't make her burger the way she wanted... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,434 #10 July 22, 2005 >which includes giving as much bad press as possible about the Iraq War. So far we have had one major newspaper apologize for NOT questioning the war more. Every major US network reports US soldiers killed. Some report innocents killed. Very few report insurgents killed. There are lots of reports on how live is in the Green Zone and few reports on what goes on outside. The US media, as you would expect, presents news for consumption by the invading force, the US. Nothing suprising there. They are giving people news they want to hear, and that includes primarily good news about the war, along with news that americans very much want to hear (like US soldiers killed.) If you want to see this effect magnified, watch any newsreel from a US news source during World War II. If you want to see less-US-biased news, check out news from Australia, or Switzerland, or even (to a lesser extent) the BBC. Conservatives often prefer to believe in a liberal press that's skewing the facts because the facts are really pretty bad. Terrorism in the UK. Greater Al Qaeda recruiting activity. Almost 2000 US troops dead. Insurgency growing in response to US presence. An infrastructure that continues to crumble (and be destroyed) faster than we can repair it. US soldiers killing more innocent Iraqis than insurgents. Faced with this, conservatives can believe one of two things: We have serious problems The liberal press is causing the sheep to think we have serious problems Most believe the former; some prefer to believe the latter. The latter option allows them to not question their own support for policies they very strongly believe in. And belief can be a very powerful force. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ViperPilot 0 #11 July 22, 2005 QuoteThe US media, as you would expect, presents news for consumption by the invading force, the US. I agree with the US consumption part, no surprise. However, the colorful adjective is another question. QuoteIf you want to see less-US-biased news, check out news from Australia, or Switzerland, or even (to a lesser extent) the BBC. I already suggested that, but yes, I agree. QuoteConservatives often prefer to believe in a liberal press that's skewing the facts because the facts are really pretty bad. I argue that the majority of media chooses to leave out a lot of the good and only show the bad. Now, this has been standard news practice for decades. Becuause obviously no news sells like bad news. So, can't blame them for wanting good ratings. This practice is why I hate pretty much the ENTIRE media. I just wish they would have the moral stature to not screw us over by leaving good things out, thereby making people think everything is much worse than it is. Is Iraq shitty? Yeah. But, sometimes people thinks it's far worse than it is (not that I'm saying it's not bad, just that it's not AS BAD as some think). QuoteUS soldiers killing more innocent Iraqis than insurgents Compelete bullshit bill. But I've told you this a thousand times and you won't listen. So, go ahead and keep believing the bs press that can't find the tits on pamela anderson, but are self-prescribed experts on what's going on in battle. p.s. This is one of the biggest reasons I hate the media right now. QuoteFaced with this, conservatives can believe one of two things: We have serious problems The liberal press is causing the sheep to think we have serious problems We do have problems. Are they as serious as some people think, no. I think these numbers of misled people could do better to get the real facts, which means ALL the facts, not just the bad ones that sell. That's something the American media as a whole is terrible at. They pick and choose what they want. Go ahead and show all the bad stuff, but you need to show all the good stuff too. The media doesn't understand this moral obligation (or at least I think they are obligated). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,434 #12 July 22, 2005 >Compelete bullshit bill. This comes from the Iraqi government. You are always complaining that self-described experts sit in the US and claim they know better what's going on over there than the people there do. Do you now claim that you know more about what's happening to the Iraqi people than the Iraqi government? >This is one of the biggest reasons I hate the media right now. Your hatred would be better directed towards the new Iraqi government if information like that annoys you. They are the ones supplying it. > I think these numbers of misled people could do better to get the > real facts, which means ALL the facts, not just the bad ones that > sell. That's something the American media as a whole is terrible at. > They pick and choose what they want. Go ahead and show all the > bad stuff, but you need to show all the good stuff too. About six months ago I took a snapshot of CNN, a network many conservatives claim is liberal, only reports bad news, etc. I put in the search term "iraq" and search for recent news. Top 10 results: - Shot Iraq politician 'worsens' Negative story; assassination attempt - General: More reservists may be called for Iraq duty Negative story; hints at 'quagmire' - Democrats say Iraq timetable too vague Negative story - Bremer, Rumsfeld face senators on Iraq funds Neutral story; some oppose it, most think funding bill will pass with mods - Iraq says it will stay in OPEC Positive story; OPEC membership means improved economy for Iraqis. - Iraqi minister: Empowerment under way Positive story. - Bush, Schroeder mend fences Positive story; international help may be forthcoming - Chirac: Iraq war undermined U.N. Negative story. - World leaders speak out over Iraq Neutral story. Leaders condemn war but support aid to Iraq. - Ancient mask recovered in Iraq Positive story. Suggests looting problem is being 'fixed.' So four negative, two neutral and four positive. Let's take today. Ten top Iraq from CNN: -Pentagon wants to raise age limit for recruits. Positive story; will help war effort if passed. -Iraq's constitution-writing hits impasse. Negative story. -'Raging Grannies' want to enlist, go to Iraq. Neutral. Patriotic grannies (positive) make stink about their children being in Iraq (negative.) - Italy votes to keep troops in Iraq. Positive. - House votes to oppose early Iraq withdrawal. Positive. - Marines in Iraq ease tension with humor, pranks. Positive. - In video, Saddam slams Iraqi proceeding. Neutral. Crazy ex-dictator has something pointless to say. - Pentagon: Iraq moving forward, but insurgents adapting. Neutral. Article claims insurgents will fail, but US faces challenges. - Army: Mental health better for soldiers in Iraq. Positive. - Suicide bomber kills at least 8 in Baghdad. Negative. So today, 2 negative, 3 neutral, 5 positive. >Go ahead and show all the > bad stuff, but you need to show all the good stuff too. They are doing just that; indeed, more often than not, they show MORE good stuff than bad stuff. It's easy to miss the articles you agree with and focus on the ones you don't, but that's a perception issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeryde13 0 #13 July 23, 2005 we've got fair and balanced reporting over here you commie pinko terrorist supporters............ we got fox news._________________________________________ people see me as a challenge to their balance Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #14 July 23, 2005 Quote-Pentagon wants to raise age limit for recruits. Positive story; will help war effort if passed. I don't know that I'd agree with your assessment of this story as positive. I read it more as "negative: US is running out of troops and the pentagon is getting so desparate they'll throw old men into the fray."-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #15 July 23, 2005 Quote - Italy votes to keep troops in Iraq. Positive. - House votes to oppose early Iraq withdrawal. Positive. you are obviously pro war so you see these things as negative. others do not. all the money the u.s. has spent pretending to make another country a better place to live could have made the u.s. a safe place to live. imagine if those billions were spent on health and education. instead those billion have lined the pockets of a small few. to some the war is negative, to you it obviously positive so once again we have a situation where it depends on what an individual believes. the media has to determine who to cater for so thier main audience will determine what they say. just like the war it is all about money(ratings) not the truth. thats capitalism for you though eh"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zep 0 #16 July 23, 2005 I'll give you my view point from living in Spain. First I'll explain that in Spain their appears to be no censorship on images, Secondly, Since the change of goverment here the TV coveridge is blatently anti American. (TV stations proctecting thier licences) I have noticed that if allied soldiers shoot Iraq's it's big news, Front page an lead story one the international section of the tv news, with dramatic pictures if available. If an allied soldier/s get ambushed its' just afew lines.(except in the case of Spanish soldiers) If a Stupid Journalist dies while pointing a long lens at an allied tank it's a goverment enquiry. Suicide and car bomber get normal coverage, If you Americans have'nt yet realised that the Media is your worst enemy it's time to wake up, Civilian journalists do not belong in conflict zones, They cost lives, They ruin lives of innocent soldiers. Gone fishing Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AlexCrowley 0 #17 July 23, 2005 The bias here has gotten to the point where people feel they have to say something. This, http://swiftreport.blogs.com/news/2005/07/hurricane_cover.html talks about the issue in some detail. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #18 July 23, 2005 ----------------------------- Quote ---------------------------------------------------------- US soldiers killing more innocent Iraqis than insurgents ----------------------------------------------- Compelete bullshit bill. But I've told you this a thousand times and you won't listen. ------------------------------- OK, not to be pro or anti, just to present the facts: It is estimated that 25,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the invasion. 9,270 by coalition troops. That's about 37%. But of that 9,270 killed, 6,616 were killed during the "war" between March 20 to April 9, 2003. So that means 2654 were killed by coalition troops during the insurgency following the war. So billvons statement about coalition troops killing more than insurgents is technically true about TOTAL civilian killings (if you discount so-called "criminal murders" from the insurgency's civilian body counts) . However, the TREND since the end of the overthrow of Saddam Hussen on April 9, 2003 has been that on a month to month basis, the insurgents are killing far more civilians than the coalition troops: (sorry, I tried to paste the month-to-month chart in here but it just didn't align properly, so here's the link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4696875.stm) And if this trend continues, the insurgents' total civilian bodycount will surpass that of the coalition troops. what billvon should have said is that coalition troops "have killed" more civilians, not "are killing". edited to add: this shows both sides can take actual facts & figures & arrive at different appraisals by emphasizing some details and omitting others. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,434 #19 July 23, 2005 > I read it more as "negative: US is running out of troops and the >pentagon is getting so desparate they'll throw old men into the fray." Well, OK, but that's interpreting the story in a specific way. On an objective level, getting more troops is positive for the war effort. But even if you change that one to your interpretation, we're at 3 negative, 3 neutral, 4 positive. My point isn't that the news is great (it isn't) but that the people claiming "all they show is bad news!" simply isn't true. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ViperPilot 0 #20 July 23, 2005 Thanks for that one Zep. At least some people understand the dillema. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ViperPilot 0 #21 July 23, 2005 QuoteDo you now claim that you know more about what's happening to the Iraqi people than the Iraqi government? To tell you the truth, the Iraqi govt is obviously in it's infancy, and right along with that, they are not very good at tallying info like this. Much of it is based on hersey. I can safely say their numbers are incorrect, maybe not ludicrous, but definitely not ultra accurate, like everyone likes to think they are. I think Speedracer's post has some good info about this topic. But even the estimate of 25,000 is high. Not to mention the kid pointing an AK-47 at you is considered a civlian death and not an insurgent death. That type of situation helps a lot. So maybe it'd help to take a lot off that 25,000 number because several of those are really just people who tried to kill someone and got killed themselves. But then they are tallied as a civilian death. Not to mention it seems to be commonplace at times that we are just indiscriminately blamed for people's deaths that we did not cause. So yes, the numbers you read from the Iraqi govt are incorrect. I'm not saying it's an all-out lie, but they are incorrect. As far as the news thing. I never said CNN was some crazy, liberal propoganda. The point I was making about the news is that there is so much that is not shown. If they truly showed everything, then it'd be more like 200 positive articles, 20 negative articles. That's the point Bill. You can count 4 positive and 4 negative, but howbout CNN does us a favor and shows the entire truth, meaning 50 positive/10 negative for example. But of course they won't do that. That where I think the American media sucks. Not to mention other parts of the world are equally bad if not worse. See Zep's post for that one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #22 July 24, 2005 QuoteSo which is it? Is American media excessively pro or anti American? Neither. They are pro-negative in the shadow of a conservative governemt and actively conservative population. If Gore were running this show, the spin would be spun in directions unimaginable. Of course that wouldn't happen since Gore wouldn't have done much after 9/11 to begin with. But, let's say he did, the press coverage would be far kinder. The American Press (like very much of the European and Canadian media) are anti-Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and fairly anti-military, etc. They were kind to Powell.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
