Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 43
  1. #1
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,386
    Post Thanks / Like

    Liberal Media distorts Iraq War

    *note*
    The following contains Apok's rant, then portions of an article to support the rant, then a link to the full article. The article itself is very long...but for those who are interested in this topic (the war and how it is being reported), it is a very important article. The article includes DETAILED ans SPECIFIC instances and points that are necessary and often not heard enough...or rather...would NEVER be told by mainstream American "sell out" media.


    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Is it the case that we -- as a consumer audience and dependents of mainstream media -- are getting the "actual factuals" on the events in Iraq? Some believe not. In fact, some argue that the media purposefully distorts the events. Those who disagree with the mainstream media, are those who are actually there, on the ground, experiencing those events firsthand.

    Does the media have a responsibility to tell the complete story? Or since it is a consumer industry, is it acceptable to "tell what will sell"? It is my position that the media does have a responsibility to objectively and truthfully report the facts as they happen. And this includes telling the whole story, not choosing bits and pieces that further the budget or political agenda.

    The media has a nasty habit of primarily reporting the bad, which paints a distorted view of what is actually going on. We don't hear about the overwhelming successes. We don't hear about the dispicable acts that the insurgents are guilty of. However, we do hear about it when an American is guilty. In fact, we can't get enough of it apparently.

    One could also make the case that it is the media that bears some of the blame for the difficulties faced by the troops. If how they report can negatively impact the morale of American troops, and positively encourage the enemy, couldn't this be seen as criminal? Some of those being placed in harm's way believe so.

    The following is from an article written by LTC Tim Ryan is Commander, Task Force 2-12 Cavalry, First Cavalry Division in Iraq. He is serving in Iraq right now. He is experiencing the events in Iraq first hand. And he disagrees with mainstream media and how they are reporting how the events unfold in Iraq.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    "All right, I've had enough. I am tired of reading distorted and grossly exaggerated stories from major news organizations about the "failures" in the war in Iraq. "The most trusted name in news" and a long list of others continue to misrepresent the scale of events in Iraq. Print and video journalists are covering only a fraction of the events in Iraq and, more often than not, the events they cover are only negative.

    The inaccurate picture they paint has distorted the world view of the daily realities in Iraq. The result is a further erosion of international support for the United States' efforts there, and a strengthening of the insurgents' resolve and recruiting efforts while weakening our own. Through their incomplete, uninformed and unbalanced reporting, many members of the media covering the war in Iraq are aiding and abetting the enemy.

    The fact is the Coalition is making steady progress in Iraq, but not without ups and downs. So why is it that no matter what events unfold, good or bad, the media highlights mostly the negative aspects of the event? The journalistic adage, "If it bleeds, it leads," still applies in Iraq, but why only when it's American blood?

    As a recent example, the operation in Fallujah delivered an absolutely devastating blow to the insurgency. Though much smaller in scope, clearing Fallujah of insurgents arguably could equate to the Allies' breakout from the hedgerows in France during World War II. In both cases, our troops overcame a well-prepared and solidly entrenched enemy and began what could be the latter's last stand. In Fallujah, the enemy death toll has exceeded 1,500 and still is climbing. Put one in the win column for the good guys, right? Wrong. As soon as there was nothing negative to report about Fallujah, the media shifted its focus to other parts of the country.

    More recently, a major news agency's website lead read: "Suicide Bomber Kills Six in Baghdad" and "Seven Marines Die in Iraq Clashes." True, yes. Comprehensive, no. Did the author of this article bother to mention that Coalition troops killed 50 or so terrorists while incurring those seven losses? Of course not. Nor was there any mention about the substantial progress these offensive operations continue to achieve in defeating the insurgents. Unfortunately, this sort of incomplete reporting has become the norm for the media, whose poor job of presenting a complete picture of what is going on in Iraq borders on being criminal.

    Much of the problem is about perspective, putting things in scale and balance. What if domestic news outlets continually fed American readers headlines like: "Bloody Week on U.S. Highways: Some 700 Killed," or "More Than 900 Americans Die Weekly from Obesity-Related Diseases"? Both of these headlines might be true statistically, but do they really represent accurate pictures of the situations? What if you combined all of the negatives to be found in the state of Texas and used them as an indicator of the quality of life for all Texans? Imagine the headlines: "Anti-law Enforcement Elements Spread Robbery, Rape and Murder through Texas Cities." For all intents and purposes, this statement is true for any day of any year in any state. True — yes, accurate — yes, but in context with the greater good taking place — no! After a year or two of headlines like these, more than a few folks back in Texas and the rest of the U.S. probably would be ready to jump off of a building and end it all. So, imagine being an American in Iraq right now.

    From where I sit in Iraq, things are not all bad right now. In fact, they are going quite well. We are not under attack by the enemy; on the contrary, we are taking the fight to him daily and have him on the ropes.

    The number of attacks in the greater Al Anbar Province is down by at least 70-80 percent from late October — before Operation Al Fajar began. The enemy in this area is completely defeated, but not completely gone. Final eradication of the pockets of insurgents will take some time, as it always does, but the fact remains that the central geographic stronghold of the insurgents is now under friendly control. That sounds a lot like success to me. Given all of this, why don't the papers lead with "Coalition Crushes Remaining Pockets of Insurgents" or "Enemy Forces Resort to Suicide Bombings of Civilians"? This would paint a far more accurate picture of the enemy's predicament over here. Instead, headlines focus almost exclusively on our hardships.

    What about the media's portrayal of the enemy? Why do these ruthless murderers, kidnappers and thieves get a pass when it comes to their actions? What did the the media show or tell us about Margaret Hassoon, the director of C.A.R.E. in Iraq and an Iraqi citizen, who was kidnapped, brutally tortured and left disemboweled on a street in Fallujah? Did anyone in the press show these images over and over to emphasize the moral failings of the enemy as they did with the soldiers at Abu Ghuraib? Did anyone show the world how this enemy had huge stockpiles of weapons in schools and mosques, or how he used these protected places as sanctuaries for planning and fighting in Fallujah and the rest of Iraq? Are people of the world getting the complete story? The answer again is no! What the world got instead were repeated images of a battle-weary Marine who made a quick decision to use lethal force and who immediately was tried in the world press. Was this one act really illustrative of the overall action in Fallujah? No, but the Marine video clip was shown an average of four times each hour on just about every major TV news channel for a week. This is how the world views our efforts over here and stories like this without a counter continually serve as propaganda victories for the enemy. Al Jazeera isn't showing the film of the C.A.R.E. worker, but is showing the clip of the Marine. Earlier this year, the Iraqi government banned Al Jazeera from the country for its inaccurate reporting.

    The operation in Fallujah is only one of the recent examples of incomplete coverage of the events in Iraq. The battle in Najaf last August provides another. Television and newspapers spilled a continuous stream of images and stories about the destruction done to the sacred city, and of all the human suffering allegedly brought about by the hands of the big, bad Americans. These stories and the lack of anything to counter them gave more fuel to the fire of anti-Americanism that burns in this part of the world. Those on the outside saw the Coalition portrayed as invaders or oppressors, killing hapless Iraqis who, one was given to believe, simply were trying to defend their homes and their Muslim way of life.

    Such perceptions couldn't be farther from the truth. What noticeably was missing were accounts of the atrocities committed by the Mehdi Militia — Muqtada Al Sadr's band of henchmen. While the media was busy bashing the Coalition, Muqtada's boys were kidnapping policemen, city council members and anyone else accused of supporting the Coalition or the new government, trying them in a kangaroo court based on Islamic Shari'a law, then brutally torturing and executing them for their "crimes." What the media didn't show or write about were the two hundred-plus headless bodies found in the main mosque there, or the body that was put into a bread oven and baked. Nor did they show the world the hundreds of thousands of mortar, artillery and small arms rounds found within the "sacred" walls of the mosque. Also missing from the coverage was the huge cache of weapons found in Muqtada's "political" headquarters nearby. No, none of this made it to the screen or to print. All anyone showed were the few chipped tiles on the dome of the mosque and discussion centered on how we, the Coalition, had somehow done wrong. Score another one for the enemy's propaganda machine.

    Now, compare the Najaf example to the coverage and debate ad nauseam of the Abu Ghuraib Prison affair. There certainly is no justification for what a dozen or so soldiers did there, but unbalanced reporting led the world to believe that the actions of the dozen were representative of the entire military. This has had an incredibly negative effect on Middle Easterners' already sagging opinion of the U.S. and its military. Did anyone show the world images of the 200 who were beheaded and mutilated in Muqtada's Shari'a Law court, or spend the next six months talking about how horrible all of that was? No, of course not. Most people don't know that these atrocities even happened. It's little wonder that many people here want us out and would vote someone like Muqtada Al Sadr into office given the chance — they never see the whole truth. Strange, when the enemy is the instigator the media does not flash images across the screens of televisions in the Middle East as they did with Abu Ghuraib. Is it because the beheaded bodies might offend someone? If so, then why do we continue see photos of the naked human pyramid over and over?

    believe one of the reasons for this shallow and subjective reporting is that many reporters never actually cover the events they report on. This is a point of growing concern within the Coalition. It appears many members of the media are hesitant to venture beyond the relative safety of the so-called "International Zone" in downtown Baghdad, or similar "safe havens" in other large cities. Because terrorists and other thugs wisely target western media members and others for kidnappings or attacks, the westerners stay close to their quarters. This has the effect of holding the media captive in cities and keeps them away from the broader truth that lies outside their view. With the press thus cornered, the terrorists easily feed their unwitting captives a thin gruel of anarchy, one spoonful each day. A car bomb at the entry point to the International Zone one day, a few mortars the next, maybe a kidnapping or two thrown in. All delivered to the doorsteps of those who will gladly accept it without having to leave their hotel rooms — how convenient.

    Almost on a daily basis, newspapers, periodicals and airwaves give us negative views about the premises for this war and its progress. It seems that everyone from politicians to pop stars are voicing their unqualified opinions on how things are going. Recently, I saw a Rolling Stone magazine and in bold print on the cover was, "Iraq on Fire; Dispatches from the Lost War." Now, will someone please tell me who at Rolling Stone or just about any other "news" outlet is qualified to make a determination as to when all is lost and it's time to throw in the towel? In reality, such flawed reporting serves only to misshape world opinion and bolster the enemy's position. Each enemy success splashed across the front pages and TV screens of the world not only emboldens them, but increases their ability to recruit more money and followers.

    So what are the credentials of these self proclaimed "experts"? The fact is that most of those on whom we rely for complete and factual accounts have little or no experience or education in counter-insurgency operations or in nation-building to support their assessments. How would they really know if things are going well or not? War is an ugly thing with many unexpected twists and turns. Who among them is qualified to say if this one is worse than any other at this point? What would they have said in early 1942 about our chances of winning World War II? Was it a lost cause too? How much have these "experts" studied warfare and counter-insurgencies in particular? Have they ever read Roger Trinquier's treatise Modern Warfare: A French View on Counter-insurgency (1956)? He is one of the few French military guys who got it right. The Algerian insurgency of the 1950s and the Iraq insurgency have many similarities. What about Napoleon's campaigns in Sardinia in 1805-07? Again, there are a lot of similarities to this campaign. Have they studied that and contrasted the strategies? Or, have they even read Mao Zedung's theories on insurgencies, or Nygen Giap's, or maybe Che' Gueverra's? Have they seen any of Sun Tzu's work lately? Who are these guys? It's time to start studying, folks. If a journalist doesn't recognize the names on this list, he or she probably isn't qualified to assess the state of this or any other campaign's progress.

    This war is not without its tragedies; none ever are. The key to the enemy's success is use of his limited assets to gain the greatest influence over the masses. The media serves as the glass through which a relatively small event can be magnified to international proportions, and the enemy is exploiting this with incredible ease. There is no good news to counteract the bad, so the enemy scores a victory almost every day. In its zeal to get to the hot spots and report the latest bombing, the media is missing the reality of a greater good going on in Iraq. We seldom are seen doing anything right or positive in the news. People believe what they see, and what people of the world see almost on a daily basis is negative. How could they see it any other way? These images and stories, out of scale and context to the greater good going on over here, are just the sort of thing the terrorists are looking for. This focus on the enemy's successes strengthens his resolve and aids and abets his cause. It's the American image abroad that suffers in the end.

    Ironically, the press freedom that we have brought to this part of the world is providing support for the enemy we fight. I obviously think it's a disgrace when many on whom the world relies for news paint such an incomplete picture of what actually has happened. Much too much is ignored or omitted. I am confident that history will prove our cause right in this war, but by the time that happens, the world might be so steeped in the gloom of ignorance we won't recognize victory when we achieve it."

    Full Article Here : READ ME
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  2. #2
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    9,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Liberal Media distorts Iraq War

    People love to whine and naysay, even when we are clearly in no conceivable danger of losing. Afghanistan went very well, and now surprise, Iraq is coming along slowly but surely also. There is something about making one's own choices that people seem to like, once they have experienced it. Unless one is of the sensitive and cultured belief that those Arabs just do not want democracy forced upon them. Talk about an oxymoron.

  3. #3
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    2,974
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Liberal Media distorts Iraq War

    In a surprising turn of events, I happen to agree with this sentiment against privatized media. However, it unfortunately encompasses far more than just the media; political groups and propaganda machines for any side of a conflict are constantly churning away at "facts" and facts to present the desired image.

    The real problem is not the media that feeds the cattle population. The problem is that the population is cattle to be fed. The alternative to a privatized media is a government media. I think not! Restrictions on news to force neutrality can be exceedingly difficult. What defines neutrality?
    Fortunately, the darkest of darkness is not as terrible as we fear.
    Unfortunately, the lightest of light, all things good, are not so wonderful as we hope for them to be.
    What, then, is left, but various shades of grey neutrality? Where are the heroes and villains? All I see are people.

  4. #4
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,845
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Liberal Media distorts Iraq War

    The problem is that the population is cattle to be fed.
    Sure, blame the victim.

    Also, I have no problem with biased news reporting. The problem that I have with MSM is that they claim to be neutral and objective, while their actual reporting is skewed to the mid-to-far left.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  5. #5
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    813
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Liberal Media distorts Iraq War

    What exactly constitutes the "Liberal" media in question? Is there any one left wing equivalent of Fox News that is outstanding in it's bias?
    No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.
    - The Magna Carta, 1225

  6. #6
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,845
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Liberal Media distorts Iraq War

    Is there any one left wing equivalent of Fox News that is outstanding in it's bias?
    They wouldn't admit their bias, but here's a partial list: New York Times, Washington Post, CBS News, CNN, ABC news, NBC News, BBC News, and the L.A. Times, just off the top of my head.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  7. #7
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    813
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Liberal Media distorts Iraq War

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples
    They wouldn't admit their bias, but here's a partial list: New York Times, Washington Post, CBS News, CNN, ABC news, NBC News, BBC News, and the L.A. Times, just off the top of my head.
    The only one I am familiar with is the BBC. Do you have any examples of bias, or can you recall any incident you felt the BBC did not adequately cover?
    No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.
    - The Magna Carta, 1225

  8. #8
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,845
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Liberal Media distorts Iraq War

    The only one I am familiar with is the BBC. Do you have any examples of bias, or can you recall any incident you felt the BBC did not adequately cover?
    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/003982.php

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/004013.php

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/003699.php

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/003821.php

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/003497.php

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/002984.php

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/003268.php

    http://powerlineblog.com/archives/005853.php

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/003501.php



    Some of these are partially redundant. They're also all from the same blog, because I'm too lazy to track back all of the blog posts that I've ever read about BBC bias. Just type in "BBC bias site:www.instapundit.com", or "BBC bias site:www.littlegreenfootballs.com".
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  9. #9
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    2,974
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Liberal Media distorts Iraq War

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples
    Sure, blame the victim.
    Such a painful concept, but I have yet to hear a convincing argument why this is not the case (at least partially) for so many things. If the people did not eat this kind of stuff up, then politicians' and media's shenannigans would be nowhere as effective at distorting reality to get popularity.
    Fortunately, the darkest of darkness is not as terrible as we fear.
    Unfortunately, the lightest of light, all things good, are not so wonderful as we hope for them to be.
    What, then, is left, but various shades of grey neutrality? Where are the heroes and villains? All I see are people.

  10. #10
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Liberal Media distorts Iraq War

    From Foxnews.com (the most non-liberal news source there is...)

    Terrorists Claim Four Iraqi Hostages

    Investigator: $9B Missing in Iraq

    Crash Biggest U.K. Loss of War

    From cnn.com (often called the "Clinton News Network" back in the 90's for its alleged liberal slant)

    Jordan's Abdullah: Iraq election sets 'good tone'

    Iraq's mark of freedom: Ink stains

    Allawi urges unity after Iraq vote



    Another issue to consider, 'pok, is that when 30 American soldiers die in one day on Iraqi soil... that's newworthy. It's not good news, but it's news. If 30 people die in a helicopter crash in my city, it's going to make the local, if not national news.

    Methinks your attitude is a bit alarmist. Aren't you a bit guilty of the "knee-jerk" reaction that most liberals are usually accused of?

  11. #11
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Liberal Media distorts Iraq War

    What about the media's portrayal of the enemy? Why do these ruthless murderers, kidnappers and thieves get a pass when it comes to their actions? What did the the media show or tell us about Margaret Hassoon, the director of C.A.R.E. in Iraq and an Iraqi citizen, who was kidnapped, brutally tortured and left disemboweled on a street in Fallujah? Did anyone in the press show these images over and over to emphasize the moral failings of the enemy as they did with the soldiers at Abu Ghuraib? Did anyone show the world how this enemy had huge stockpiles of weapons in schools and mosques, or how he used these protected places as sanctuaries for planning and fighting in Fallujah and the rest of Iraq? Are people of the world getting the complete story? The answer again is no! What the world got instead were repeated images of a battle-weary Marine who made a quick decision to use lethal force and who immediately was tried in the world press. Was this one act really illustrative of the overall action in Fallujah? No, but the Marine video clip was shown an average of four times each hour on just about every major TV news channel for a week. This is how the world views our efforts over here and stories like this without a counter continually serve as propaganda victories for the enemy. Al Jazeera isn't showing the film of the C.A.R.E. worker, but is showing the clip of the Marine. Earlier this year, the Iraqi government banned Al Jazeera from the country for its inaccurate reporting.
    What about the media's portrayal of the enemy? Well, we already have el presidente to tell us how "evil" they are.

    I find the rest of this paragraph ironic. The fact that the author is writing about the C.A.R.E. victim is proof that it made the news. The author (not sure if it's Apok or from the article) makes it sound like some big secret or that an American marine shooting a man on the ground was the only news story from Iraq to get air time.

    You claim to want fair and impartial reporting... but at the same time, it sounds like you want the media to portray Americans as the "good guys" and inurgents as the "bad guys". How exactly is that fair and impartial?

  12. #12
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,845
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Liberal Media distorts Iraq War

    You claim to want fair and impartial reporting... but at the same time, it sounds like you want the media to portray Americans as the "good guys" and in[s]urgents as the "bad guys". How exactly is that fair and impartial?
    Calling them "insurgents" instead of "terrorists" is an interesting choice, don't you think? I'd settle for the media stopping their portrayal of "insurgents"/killers as "minute men", courageously fighting against the American tyran- wait, no, "occupying force". Do you actually think that the MSM is giving us the good news from Iraq? Do you actually think that their reports have the correct proportion to the actual good events vs. bad events in Iraq? I'm surprised that you read so few blogs.

    Oh, and your three stories from CNN: there are some things that can't be spun to the liberal view w/o being blatantly anti-American, such as the Iraq elections. Notice how the lefty bloggers are quieting down now, instead of joyously proclaiming the spead of democracy (they are DEMOCRATS, after all!)?
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  13. #13
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,845
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Liberal Media distorts Iraq War

    Here's some interesting tidbits:

    http://www.proudtobecanadian.ca/blog...including_cnn/

    " Fox News Channel ("FNC" in the stats) dominates massively. But what I find most amusing is that a joker, a comedian, a “pretend” news anchor, Jon Stewart of Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show”, beats all of CNN’s big-time-star ("serious") news anchors. That’s gotta hurt.

    CABLE NEWS RACE
    MON, JAN. 24, 2005

    FNC O’REILLY 2,643,000 [VIEWERS]
    CNN LARRY KING 2,474,000
    FNC HANNITY/COLMES 1,800,000
    FNC BRIT HUME 1,604,000
    FNC SHEP SMITH 1,446,000
    FNC GRETA 1,390,000
    COMEDY DAILY SHOW 1,341,000
    CNN AARON BROWN 1,058,000
    CNN ZAHN 837,000
    CNN COOPER 506,000
    MSNBC HARDBALL 454,000
    CNN DOBBS 451,000
    MSNBC OLBERMANN 340,000
    MNSBC SCARBOROUGH 335,000
    CNBC DENNIS MILLER 81,000

    ...And I almost forgot to mention that Fox News Channel is no longer banned by the state-censor and regulator in Canada (the CRTC division of the Liberal Party) and is available to Rogers Cable, Shaw Cable, and Star*Choice subscribers. Fox News Channels actually allows conservatives’ thoughts to leak out into society unmocked. Check it out! It’s really quite astonishing. "

    And from the same site:

    " Fox News Unbanned!

    Recently unbanned by Canada's state censor, the CRTC, Fox News Channel is now available even outside of Parliament Hill in Canada on Rogers Cable, Shaw Cable, Cogeco Cable, and Star*Choice. I highly recommend Fox News Channel to all Canadians. Fox News Channel allows conservatives to say things publicly! They often don’t even ridicule or mock conservatives or their ideas. And they sometimes present views that are critical of the liberal-left! It’s really quite astonishing, and it's a completely new thing for Canadians. Try it! "

    Is Fox all that conservative/"neo-con"/"Christian Extreme Right"/"gun-nut" (or whatever term is used to denote anything right-of-center), or is it moderate? It is right of CNN/CBS/NBC/ABC, for sure, but how far right is it of the center?
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  14. #14
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,845
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Liberal Media distorts Iraq War

    Such a painful concept, but I have yet to hear a convincing argument why this is not the case (at least partially) for so many things. If the people did not eat this kind of stuff up, then politicians' and media's shenannigans would be nowhere as effective at distorting reality to get popularity.
    Yeah, the masses are partly to blame. However, I place the overwhelming majority of the blame on the people intentionally decieving the masses and presenting half-truths and whole lies. The fact that people fall for CBS's schtick is bad, but the fact that CBS tries to push this junk, while claiming to be unbiased, is much worse.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  15. #15
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    813
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Liberal Media distorts Iraq War

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples
    Is Fox all that conservative/"neo-con"/"Christian Extreme Right"/"gun-nut" (or whatever term is used to denote anything right-of-center), or is it moderate? It is right of CNN/CBS/NBC/ABC, for sure, but how far right is it of the center?
    I think what Fox broadcasts is best described as pseudo-news. On FNC editorial and reporting blend together seamlessly. Instructions are sent down from above outlining what editorial lines are to be taken for the day, and even in one case exactly what parts of John Kerry's upcoming speech were to be shown and which were to be ignored. Fox reporters simply fill in pre-fabricated frameworks in a sort of unique faux journalism.

    I am so fascinated by the brilliance of it all that I watch far more FNC than any other TV news. Of all his empire, FNC is the pinnacle of Rupert Murdoch's diabolical genius.
    No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.
    - The Magna Carta, 1225

  16. #16
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,845
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Liberal Media distorts Iraq War

    It's things like this (http://www.balloon-juice.com/archives/004697.html) from the MSM that irk me.

    Onto mog's comments:


    I think what Fox broadcasts is best described as pseudo-news. On FNC editorial and reporting blend together seamlessly. Instructions are sent down from above outlining what editorial lines are to be taken for the day, and even in one case exactly what parts of John Kerry's upcoming speech were to be shown and which were to be ignored. Fox reporters simply fill in pre-fabricated frameworks in a sort of unique faux journalism.
    I don't see how Fox's reporting is any more slanted than the BBC's. Also, there ARE editorialists (e.g., Bill O'Reilly) on FNC, but are the actual news reports biased? And I suppose Dan Rather and Peter Jennings don't engage in editorializing, ever, right?
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  17. #17
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Liberal Media distorts Iraq War

    Ultimately, Clive, you just go on believing what you want to believe. CBS's story about Bush? Clearly a conspiracy drawn up to make the president look bad... but mismatched exit polls in a presidential election? That's just conspiracy theory (unless it's in Ukraine). It would be nice if the right could level skepticism evenly at itself.

  18. #18
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,845
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Liberal Media distorts Iraq War

    It would be nice if the right could level skepticism evenly at itself.
    You actually think that the exit polls were more accurate than the final count?

    Why don't you read up on some, you know, ACTUAL facts:

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...lls-usat_x.htm

    And that CBS story was exactly that: a story, a fiction. But I guess you're still waiting for Dan to break the story, right?
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  19. #19
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Liberal Media distorts Iraq War

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples
    You actually think that the exit polls were more accurate than the final count?

    Why don't you read up on some, you know, ACTUAL facts:

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...lls-usat_x.htm
    Exit poll discrepencies were the reason for the recent hoopla in the Ukraine. There's it's a victory for democracy. Here it's "conspiracy theory".

    And that CBS story was exactly that: a story, a fiction. But I guess you're still waiting for Dan to break the story, right?
    No. I'm waiting for you to point that skepticism at your own doctrines, at your own leaders, and at your own rhetoric. You follow the beat of your leaders without question or concern because they can do no wrong in your eyes and anyone who says otherwise is just a liberal with a conspiracy theory. Wake up and start taking a look at your own corner, Clive.

  20. #20
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,845
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Liberal Media distorts Iraq War

    Exit poll discrepencies were the reason for the recent hoopla in te Ukraine. There's it's a victory for democracy. Here it's "conspiracy theory".
    Well, people looked into the hoopla here and found that it was the exit polls that were wrong, not the actual outcome.

    No. I'm waiting for you to point that skepticism at your own doctrines, at your own leaders, and at your own rhetoric. You follow the beat of your leaders without question or concern because they can do no wrong in your eyes and anyone who says otherwise is just a liberal with a conspiracy theory. Wake up and start taking a look at your own corner, Clive.
    Okay, first: If I ever meet your parents, I won't do them the pleasure of introducing them to each other. I have plenty of criticisms of my leader and of the Republican party, Conservatism, and my church. I don't dismiss out of hand everybody who disagrees with me. I don't follow my leaders blindly, Zhavric. I make reasoned decisions. Just because I support President Bush and the war effort in Iraq doesn't mean that I'm some un-thinking sycophant of the Republican party.

    "Wake up and start taking a look at your own corner, Clive." Yes, the reason that I agree with the Republicans is because I haven't looked at their platform. It couldn't possibly be that I arrived at my position through reason! It couldn't possibly be that reasonably minds may differ!
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

 

 
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Bush: Uniter or Divider
    By Telex in forum Current Events
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: January 31st, 2005, 09:35 AM
  2. What would you do if a draft came along?
    By Iluvatar in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: January 6th, 2005, 01:47 PM
  3. How to end the Iraq War
    By Zenstone in forum Current Events
    Replies: 181
    Last Post: September 19th, 2004, 08:20 PM
  4. The Liberal Creed
    By Apokalupsis in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: August 18th, 2004, 10:05 PM
  5. Was Jesus a Pacifist?
    By 3rdPersonPlural in forum Religion
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: August 15th, 2004, 04:47 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •