 |
|
uh Clem
|
 |
Born in the US; damned if I know where I live now
Nov 1999
time: 23:28
|
|
quote:
All this goes to show is that we tend to believe people who report the news that is consistent with our own belief system.
Which is why the Arab street truly believed the story that 4,000 Jews stayed home the morning the WTC was attacked. |
What accounts for the fact that most Americans now believe that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11?
Oh wait, you just told me...
Last edited by uh Clem on 10-05-2003 at 22:34
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DanS
|
 |
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:28
|
|
quote:
What he said is that this was not uniform, that he AP had some very fine reporters that told the truth. But some of them, he said, truly had it in for Bush and were spinning the stories. He also said that there was a "herd" mentality in the press where everyone reported the same stories in essentially the same way. |
All of these things are part of what a discerning reader would consider possibilites when reading every story:
1) A reporter or group of reporters with an agenda;
2) A reporter who has been bought and inserts stories at the behest of others;
3) A reporter who makes up stories because good reporting is a tougher job;
4) A reporter who only goes with the herd in either subject or content;
5) A reporter who out-and-out plagiarizes; and
6) A reporter or news organization spins stories to continue access.
All of these things have happened in Gulf War II. #2 seems to happen a lot more than people realize, but spotting it is difficult. A NY Times reporter got caught with #3 and #5. Baghdad Bob got caught with #1 and #6. CNN got caught with #6. #4 happens all the time--why do we all of the sudden hear so many "chaos" and "lawlessness" stories on Thursday this week?
Last edited by DanS on 10-05-2003 at 22:48
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
Ok, so now that there is not only CNN, pussyfooting and arselicking the Bushies, but also Fox that has gone to enthusiastic arsecrawling, the extreme right takes this as proof that CNN is another part of the vast leftwing conspiracy. Quite funny, just that I'd love to see a news network that really mirrors Fox's blatant bias on the other side.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DanS
Rather, that was CNN pussyfooting and arselicking Saddam Hussein.
|
Yeah, especially Walter Rogers.
"In this case, it was al Jazeera."
Did it cover the war under "Imperialist war of aggression against the people of Iraq" and start reports with pictures of mutilated Iraqi children? If so, it would come close, yes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
Good. Now we'd need a US network doing that.
"The whole Arab world watched that one in prime time."
With or without US flag?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gatekeeper
No, what you need are *apolitical* sources. As you stated further down in your post (but I clipped for space), the Associated Press is a fine resource for stories like this, along with most of the other wires services and/or in-house news providers (Reuters, KRT, Gannett, et al.).
Gatekeeper |
Gatekeeper, trying to keep politics out of reporter's stories is like trying to keep politics out of reporters. One cannot change human nature.
We should simply accept the fact of political bias in the press. No one here denies that Fox is biased on the right. The problem I have is that the left refuses to knowledge any "leftist" bias by any reporters whatsoever. Apparently, in their view, if a reporter is right-wing, he is biased. If he is not right-wing, the reporter is "objective."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
"Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage said Iran was different from the others because it was democratic"
Brit gov sources were talking about Iran as a nascant or developping democracy. Maybe Armitage had to admit that at some point.
"A group of conservatives close to the Bush administration has started to advocate "regime change" in Iran, with the son of the late Shah as their candidate as ruler.
US policy would never be to have the Shah redux."
Very weak. It says "a group", you say "US policy". You can bet there are some whacky flies circling the shitpile who want the Pahlevis back.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gatekeeper
|
 |
United States of America
Feb 2000
time: 23:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Gatekeeper, trying to keep politics out of reporter's stories is like trying to keep politics out of reporters. One cannot change human nature.
We should simply accept the fact of political bias in the press. No one here denies that Fox is biased on the right. The problem I have is that the left refuses to knowledge any "leftist" bias by any reporters whatsoever. Apparently, in their view, if a reporter is right-wing, he is biased. If he is not right-wing, the reporter is "objective." |
Perhaps, but I write based only on *my* experience in the world of journalism, of which I've been a part of to one degree or another since 1989. And in my experience, my fellows are, if anything, hard-bitten and jaded toward those with blatant political leanings, one-issue candidates and so on.
Maybe things are different in the "big cities," than they are in the more rural part of the nation where I earn a living. If so ... well, too bad. I'm not going to let the rotten apples ruin the barrel, so to speak.
Gatekeeper
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
"but I doubt that he would go quite that far."
If he agreed with Tony at some point, it just takes dropping a "nascent".
"Well, the group they are discussing is the neo-cons in the Defense Department."
"In"? Didn't the article say "close to"?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gatekeeper
|
|
United States of America
Feb 2000
time: 23:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
A good news organization should promote and advance reporters who have an extablished record for truth and objectivity. Unfortunately, I suspect this is not the case with many reporters who are always trying to get the sensational story that gets them a Pulitzer. Shading a mundane story into a sensational story is therefor pandemic, I suggest. |
For every "hotshot" television reporter you see giving you a 30-second blurb, there are 5,000 "trench" journalists working their butts off (and giving their lives, in some cases) for peanuts so you can get the news and proceed to question its integrity.
**sigh** I don't mean to come across as ornery, but over the years I've found out that journalists simply cannot win. We're liberals. We're corporate slaves. We're used for target practice. We're denigrated. Well, it's just tiresome.
Every profession has its rotten apples, and journalism isn't excluded from that. But, by gosh, we're hardly all money-grubbing publicists for pet causes. If I proceeded to stereotype *groups* or *professions* based on experiences I've had with *individuals,* I'd absolutely HATE:
1. Veterans.
2. Lawyers.
3. Politicians.
4. CEOs.
5. Environmentalists.
6. Parents.
7. Grandparents.
8. Religion.
9. Bosses.
My motto is simple: Take everything on a case-by-case basis. Starry-eyed and naive? Perhaps. But it's better that than turning into a jaded journalist with an ax to grind.
Gatekeeper
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:28
|
|
Everyone here is trying to spin things: without spin, ones opinions suddenly become unjustifiable, just, well, OPINION. lets look at the Museum piece: now, from what I have been told by Oerdin alone, about 34 ancient artifacts that were catalogued were stolen, plus regular stuff from the museum, such as furniture and equipment. From MtG I learn that many lesser artifacts that werew not catalogued also went.
So what does this mean? supporters of the war claim that this proves the rpess was lying and making things worse than they were, since it was not hundreads of pricelss artifcats taken. If only 34 catalogued pieces were stolen, then this is true.
But there is also the other truth: The Museum was looted, and 34 priceless pieces of art were taken, as well as lots of other stuff. Was it the disaster made out to be early on? Perhaps not. But it does show the US failed (and continues to have porblems with) enforcing law and order in the country.
I am fine with admitting that the museum looting was not the great cultural disaster I may have believed earlier..but it was still and obvious case of lack of law and order, and of the US being able to keep things safe. It may not have been a great disaster, but it is nothing to scoff at, it was still a crime the US failed utterly to stop, as it has failed to stop other instances of looting and mayhem. And none of the posters here saying the press is biased can refute, or ignore that (well, maybe they will, but if they are honest, they shouldn't).
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-05-2003 22:14
|