01-04-2003 16:24									#1
	the way media reports the news Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Only a fool would say that ANY media organization is unbiased.

This is not an iraq thread. it just happens that my example of differences in the way media reports is an iraq news item.

recently, there was a bombing at one of the us military "checkpoints". some news agencies call it a "suicide bombing" which is what that act is USUALLY called. a person wearing bombs blows himself up, along with whatever is around him. however, since this happened, Fox News is calling it a "homicide bombing" . . . it's the first time i've ever heard it termed that.

what do you think their point is, in calling it something different? i've my own ideas, i just wanted to submit my observations for discussion.

	01-04-2003 16:35									#2
	Remove this text

Homicide bombing makes it more obvious that it was intended to kill others, whereas suicide bombing places the emphasis on the fact that the perpetrator takes their own life at the same time.

It sounds like a case of Fox playing to the audience, which is hardly suprising.

	01-04-2003 16:39									#3
	Inflate your Upload Space

has there ever been a suicide bomber that hasn't tried to kill others?

i think that fox uses the word "homicide" to make it sound more terrible, more illegal, more like terrorism, to give it a much more negative spin.

	01-04-2003 17:00									#4
	Inflate your Upload Space

I get Fox news and it really is bull. CNN and BBC are more middle-of the road, but I prefer ITN (to me it seems to be the most unbiased).

	01-04-2003 17:03									#5
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

this isnt new. "homicide bombing" has started being used by some media the last 1-2 years, usually in relation to incidents in Israel.

it's supposed to be a "more accurate" term.....

	01-04-2003 17:32									#6
	Inflate your Upload Space

We are essentially in a propaganda war. Each news source is trying to influence public perception. I guess that many fall for the subtle inferrences or they wouldn't do it. NPR (national public radio) for example after giving a so called ballanced view of an event ends almost every story with a negative comment about Bush or the current war effort. For example: "The American forces obtained a stunning victory today with very few casualities. Now the administration has to figure out what to do with the prisoners. This has been a continuing problem that apparently was not forseen bla bla bla..."

	01-04-2003 17:36									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Something funny and pathetic about cnn is what cnn en espaņol (cnn in Spanish) is doing.
When Saddam or Bush give a speech they translate it, What is funny is that the voice of the man who makes the dubbing for Bush sounds like a (good guy) but the voice of the man who makes the dubbing for Saddam sounds like an arab Satan...

	01-04-2003 17:56									#8
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

That is funny. I never thought of that but I guess it could be quite effective.

	01-04-2003 18:52									#9
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The guy who used to do the dubbing over Gerry Adams' voice on the BBC (when that stupid policy was still in force) sounded rather evil IIRC.

I always thought they should get a jolly Jamaican woman to do the dubbing or something, that would have been hilarious.

	01-04-2003 18:58									#10
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Most of the tv news coverage looks like an attempt to bore people to death (maybe it is intendet - psy ops )

Ok, to be fair, it is difficult to cover a war when there are not much info available, and when most of those available from official side are probably propaganda.

However, I still donīt understand why most tv stations concentrate so much on the Iraq war that they rather repeat the same stuff over and over again than bringing more other news. In extreme cases you see the very same report two or three times within only 20-30 minutes! I may be wrong, but I canīt imagine that this brings higher ratings.

It seems to have changed a little bit during the last days, esp. on CNN, where they had a complete 24h coverage of the war at the beginning. Meanwhile they also have other news more often....

The funnier things are those info from the Iraqi side. The rhetorics coming out of their Ministry of Information is always amusing

	01-04-2003 19:02									#11
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by MarkG this isnt new. "homicide bombing" has started being used by some media the last 1-2 years, usually in relation to incidents in Israel. it's supposed to be a "more accurate" term.....

Yes. I too remember this term being applied to bombings in Israel.

Fox is the most biased of the U.S. networks, a self-appointed ex-officio press office for the White House. But I tend to watch a lot of it because they have more stories and more in depth stories than the other networks.

	01-04-2003 19:02									#12
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

[QUOTE] Originally posted by FrustratedPoet
I always thought they should get a jolly Jamaican woman to do the dubbing or something, that would have been hilarious. [/QUOTE

	01-04-2003 20:21									#13
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

The "homicide bomber" term is remarkably stupid since its completely redundant and removed an important qualifier that lets us know if its a bomber like the Unabomber or some idiot with a bomb strapped to his chest.

	01-04-2003 20:29									#14
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Fox is shite. CNN is slightly better smelling shite. BBC is ok. I do like ITN, when I can find it.

Print media, IMO, is far superior in quality. The whole "24 hr news - all Iraq, all the time" style the TV news outfits have gone to is out of control.

-Arrian

	01-04-2003 20:32									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Every type of bomb is a "homicide bomb". That's what bombs are for.

Places like Fox have started to use that term because they think saying "suicide bombing" places too much emphasis on the subject (the bomber) and not the objects (the victims) of the act, and thus somehow distorts the morlity of the event. The problem is that what makes a suicide bombing notable is not that people are killed but that someone was willing to kill themselves; it is that feature of suicide atatcks that makes them more frightening in the first place.

As for why make a change in general..well, that is obvious: to shift the frame of reference and thus change the perception of an act. Coolateral damage sounds so nice and antiseptic: how could we doubt that in war, such techinical mistakes are bound to happen? The very name Terrorist is one of the most efefctive weapons any government has: name your opponetsn terrorists. Invariably that not only brings harsh condemnation of their tactics but is also designed to undermine support for whatever political cause the groups aims to achieve. After all, terrorist only exist to bring terror: they have no other aims.

	01-04-2003 20:33									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

A suicide bombing is one which a terrorist stands in the desert away from anyone else and blows himself up.

A homicide bombing is one in which he seeks 'enemy company' in the same basic enterprise.