 |
| |
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DanS
This is the Richard Perle brigade--the neocons. |
What makes you so sure it's Perle's clowns? And what are their views on Iran - maybe the Shah fans bribed him with a Souflet.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LoneWolf
|
|
Hey, a Frog has a critical view of us. Stop the presses!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gatekeeper
|
 |
United States of America
Feb 2000
time: 23:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
But the bias of the press, from Baghdad Bob to Al Jazeera to Fox News to CNN to the AP has become itself a story. Just a few minutes ago I saw a debate on Fox between a commentator that insisted that the story that the French Embassy in Syria was giving passports to Saddam's régime was well documented and another commentator who was equally adamant that this was just an unconfirmed report by one reporter. He relied on Donald Rumsfeld for his authority -- because Rumsfell was not ready to confirm the report. |
How does your example show bias in the media? Just from reading what you related, I got the impression that there were two commentators — who are often *mistaken* as journalists, BTW, when they're really just highly-paid opinionated people — debating the merits of a story filed by some reporter. And who was relying on Rumsfeld? The reporter or one of the feuding commentators?
Generally, journalists do their darndest to get all the viewpoints necessary for a balanced story. If I read your example correctly, the reporter in question probably had sources alleging that the French Embassy in Syria was giving passports to Iraqi government officials. S/he sought to confirm this with Rumsfeld, who had nothing to say, but the story went forward anyway w/all this included because it sounded newsworthy. There should be follow-up stories to the first coming on down the pike to either firmly deny the allegations against the French Embassy, or to confirm them. More than likely, the former.
Gatekeeper
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
"but the story went forward anyway w/all this included because it sounded newsworthy."
In other words, the most unfounded rumours, as planted by "sources alleging", get printed as long as they're "newsworthy"?
And then the follow up is in the small-print.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
You know, if the media really was liberal, you'd think we'd have heard a few more stories about GWB's abandonment of his National Guard Post when he made his oh-so-dramatic-and-stirring speech on the aircraft carrier.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
Did anybody here defend that Al-Jazeera was the keeper of truth ?
Militaries infiltrate the media, because they have much to win with a good propaganda machine. The US army influences the media with more subtelty, but with no less efficiency |
To most Europeans and Americans, al Jazeera was so biased against America that virtually no one in Europe or America would trust their reporting. However, Arabs did, thinking that American and European media were the one's who were reporting, in your words Spiffor, US Army lies.
But, the more we learn about what really goes on, the more we find out how a lot of the Arab and leftist press is pure propaganda. Some truth mixed with a lot of spin and some outright lies.
During the initial stages of the war, I was banned when I reported that a Pakistani paper was running a story that the US had used nuclear weapons in Baghdad. I did not have a link, but I did report that I actually saw the headline on TV. Still I got banned.
The level of lies coming from anti-Bush camp is staggering. Baghdad Bob lives. His new identity is Peter Jennings.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:28
|
|
quote:
The level of lies coming from anti-Bush camp is staggering. Baghdad Bob lives. His new identity is Peter Jennings. |
Ned, there was a time I found you to be an able debater, but lately, with comments like these, I have to deeply wonder. You keep harping about hos the "media is lying" and how the surces of info you follow are unbiased and showing how everyone else lies: and yet, you know what, you can provide us with NOTHING WHATSOEVER that actually piants a very different picture from what the "lairs" are saying about Iraq. Please, present some sort of link showing, for example, that Iraqis are happy at the pace of the US reconstruction effort, or that full services have been brought back on line in Baghdad..anything. The most you have done is bring up a report about the Museum, one that DanS had rbought up earlier, and in a far less inflammatory source.
You talk about SPIN, well, noone here is spinning faster than you.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:28
|
|
Why do you listen simply to Forman? Becuase you like what he says? You claim embedded reporters are more trustworthy..why? Becuase they are embedded with the military? I mean, just the term causes issue. Were in Baghdad is Mr. froman? what kind of access does he have to the city?
This is the crux of the problem your argument has: you claim that others are spinning because ONE SINGLE SOURCE has told you so, even though, realistically, you can no more know what he is saying is true than what anyone else is saying is true form baghdad, not being there. Objectively, you can no more believe Forman than any other reporter, becuase your ability to check up on what he says is the same as your ability to check what anyone else says. And still you somehow want to claim that Forman must be telling the truth and the dozens of other lying, even , as I pointed out, you have no basis whatsoever to make the judgement.
Which leads me to believe that the only reason that you believe Forman and not anyone else is that you like what he is saying, that it backs up your ideas, and thus it must be true, while those reports that challenge your preset notions of what is going on in Iraq must be false. Unless you can show me a reason why Forman is more believable than the WP reporters, you have NO CASE.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
quote:
The level of lies coming from anti-Bush camp is staggering. Baghdad Bob lives. His new identity is Peter Jennings. |
Ned, there was a time I found you to be an able debater, but lately, with comments like these, I have to deeply wonder. You keep harping about hos the "media is lying" and how the surces of info you follow are unbiased and showing how everyone else lies: and yet, you know what, you can provide us with NOTHING WHATSOEVER that actually piants a very different picture from what the "lairs" are saying about Iraq. Please, present some sort of link showing, for example, that Iraqis are happy at the pace of the US reconstruction effort, or that full services have been brought back on line in Baghdad..anything. The most you have done is bring up a report about the Museum, one that DanS had rbought up earlier, and in a far less inflammatory source.
You talk about SPIN, well, noone here is spinning faster than you. |
GePap, I have cited numbers of examples from memory after watching reports on MSNBC and FOX. CNN is not carrying the story of bias, AFAIK.
As I noted, the left is also criticizing a report carried on FOX concerning the French giving the Iraqi regime's senior member passports. The leftist commentator said that the report was unconfirmed and attacked FOX for reporting it. So criticism is of bad reporting is a two-way street.
With respect to one example, the Museum. Of course Dan's story was that their were only 28 items missing, not 170,000 missing as initially reported. But what Forman said is that the reporters knew the truth when they initially reported the looting of the Museum.
It is clear that the world relied on the initial bad reports. Members of Bush's antiquities staff resigned, UN resolutions were introduced, and worldwide condemnation of the US military ensued. The misreporting was very, very effective in inflaming anti-American and anti-Bush feelings.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
ePap, the Sandanista's are not communists? This is an outrageous statement.
Here is a link to an apologist for the Sandanistas. There is no word that can descibe them but communism. Also, remember, they were flooded with Fidel's people after the revolution. Next you will tell me that Fidel Castro is not a communist.
Finally, I suggest that you will tell us that you yourself are not a communist.
|
Catro is a communist, but the sandinistas were not. There are plenty of words to describe them besided communits, like I said, there is socialists. Not all leftist are communist, and I feel no need to argue with you on this.
And I am not a communits: since I do not for a second believe that class is the determining factor in the creation of identity, nor that man is essentialy an economic creature, nor do I believe in a Hegelian sense of history with it thesis and antithesis leading to synthesis, nor do i believe you could ever make a study that shows where hisotry will lead, I could not be a communist, but I could be a socialist. That you fail, or do not want, to make the distinction is your problem, not mine.
As for the "sandinista apologist": he is a Marxist, and of course he will write a Marxist annalysis of the situation. He is aso one poerson, so i could care less what he says.
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-05-2003 03:08
|