• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

More R-wing Bias In The News (Bought & Paid For)

Originally posted by oldreliable67:
Your pick as to most credible?
Why pick? There are more choices than this. And what would it prove? Why can't they both be credible and taken with a grain of salt?

The fact is Fallujah is the size of Long Beach. I was born in Long Beach. When I think of a city this size being evacuated, I can't imagine why! For what possible reason could it be, to make Long Beach a ghost town? The fact is we captured about 1200 people. Of that 1200, only 10-12% were foreign insurgents. The rest were Iraqis. That's 100-200 people! For that, we evacuted a city of 300,000 residents! C'mon...
 
cnredd said:
If you're going that route, then I tend to agree...

But I am referring to one aspect of propaganda, which was referred to in post #1...

If you reread my comments, NOT ONCE did I mention anything on the homestead...that is a totally different situation, and I don't condone it whatsoever...

But in reference to the articles being placed in Iraqi newspapers, I stand by my words...

I was listening to coverage of this story on NPR on the way home and they brought up the point, which I think is valid, that stories published in Iraqi newspapers have some likelihood of influencing American new stories, due to the fluid nature and varied means of news gathering these days.

I don't hesitate to think that those who are planting these stories haven't taken that potential side benefit into consideration.

But regardless, propaganda is no longer viable once its has been named propaganda, right? Which leads me to wonder what this revelation has done for the credibility of the Iraqi press. Will the Iraqis now question every positive story their media outlets report?

I don't think anyone responds positively to being lied to.
 
As long as the stories are accurate, no problem whether they are in Iraqi newspapers or US newspapers - we already have 'one-sided' viewpoints being published here (of which the New York Times is by far the best example), so whats a few more? :confused:
 
oldreliable67 said:
As long as the stories are accurate, no problem whether they are in Iraqi newspapers or US newspapers - we already have 'one-sided' viewpoints being published here (of which the New York Times is by far the best example), so whats a few more? :confused:

NY Times is a better example than FOX? Oh, come on.

I read the New York Times and it is not as biased as the right wants everyone to believe. Why would they have written such flattering coverage of Samuel Alito in the days following the announcement of his nomination if they were so slanted? Would William Safire and David Brooks write for a newspaper that was totally slanted to the left? I will admit that there is some bias in their coverage, but no more than the Washington Times' or the Wall Street Journal's is to the right.
 
billo_really said:
Why pick? There are more choices than this. And what would it prove? Why can't they both be credible and taken with a grain of salt?

> Actually - God, I hate to admit this! - you're right. But only partly! Whew! A pragmatic, rational person, would do exactly that, except for unfortunate fact that some key assertions are diametrically opposed, such as first, on the need for the offensive:

Clark: "Fallujah could not continue to be a base for those waging war on the Iraqi government and a no-go place for those organizing elections."

Fallows: "the offensive in Fallujah is at best a shot in the dark"

And second, on the regard for human life:

Clark:"starting with precision strikes against identified targets, and followed by a careful assault directed at taking out the opposition and reoccupying the city, while minimizing civilian and friendly casualties. "

Fallows: "it will be hard to distinguish innocent civilians from insurgent fighters; and, given the warnings and the waiting and the declared urgency of the mission, there will be little incentive to try."

> IMO, such a person would conclude that one article is designed to appeal to a particular 'persuasion' while the other writer would kinda like to but clearly lets his professional training steer him to a more objective (dis)course. Therefore, unless one is predisposed to similar 'leanings' as Fallows, such a person would be more likely to give more crediblity to the writer demonstrating greater objectivity.

There is simply no denying that there is a certain 'beauty in the eye of the beholder' aspect to so much of this stuff!
 
mixedmedia said:
NY Times is a better example than FOX? Oh, come on.
A man was just convicted for an assasination attempt on GWB...convicted on multiple counts of terrorism...

Washington Post - Front page
NY Times - A20
 
cnredd said:
A man was just convicted for an assasination attempt on GWB...convicted on multiple counts of terrorism...

Washington Post - Front page
NY Times - A20

And this is supposed to be a sign of bias? I have not heard this story from any news outlet, and while I don't watch television news, I read a lot of news off the web, including AP feeds. Is the AP also biased?

Plus the Post is another one of the papers that gets a lot of grief for having a "liberal slant." How do you explain that?

And why would the NY Times not take every opportunity available to them to smear Samuel Alito or play to their "liberal base" when reporting on his judicial history? Certainly many other news outlets have. The Times' coverage of his nomination was fair and balanced and overall painted a very positive picture of his judicial honesty and non-biased interpretation of the law. Do you suppose FOX would have shown the same objectivity if the tables were turned?
 
cnredd said:
A man was just convicted for an assasination attempt on GWB...convicted on multiple counts of terrorism...

Washington Post - Front page
NY Times - A20

I know that the NYT and other major publications takes the position that they don't want to glorify people who attempt to do heinous crimes i.e. attempted assassination, by giving them front page headlines. They don't want to openly publicize actions such as these, so as to not give these cretins their 15 minutes of fame.

There was an intersting forum on this very subject on C-Span last year.

The government does the same thing, and I think rightly so, by NOT telling the general populous every thwarted terrorist or assassination threat.
 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051202/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_news_stories

Pentagon Describes Iraq Propaganda Plan

WASHINGTON - Military officials in Baghdad for the first time Friday described a Pentagon program that pays to plant stories in the Iraqi media, an effort the top U.S. military commander said was part of an effort to "get the truth out" there.

The U.S. officials in Iraq said articles had been offered and published in Iraqi newspapers "as a function of buying advertising and opinion/editorial space, as is customary in Iraq."

The idea has been criticized in the United States, and John Warner, the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, went to the Pentagon Friday for an explanation. President Bush's spokesman said the White House was "very concerned."

Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, a military spokesman in Iraq, said that third parties — which would include the Washington-based Lincoln Group — were used to market the stories to reduce the risk to the publishers.

"If any part of our process does not have our full confidence, we will examine that activity and take appropriate action," he said in a statement. "If any contractor is failing to perform as we have intended, we will take appropriate action.

He also defended the program as critical to the war effort.

"The information battlespace in Iraq is contested at all times and is filled with misinformation and propaganda by an enemy intent on discrediting the Iraqi government and the coalition, and who are taking every opportunity to instill fear and intimidate the Iraqi people," his statement said.

Leaving a Pentagon meeting with Defense Department officials in Washington, Warner, R-Va., said the program was a serious problem.

But Warner told The Associated Press that, "Things like this happen. It's a war. The disinformation that's going on in that country is really affecting the effectiveness of what we're achieving, and we have no recourse but to try and do some rebuttal information."

And Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, added that, "We want to get the facts out. We want to get the truth out."

Warner met with chief Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita and members of Pace's staff, but only bumped into Pace on his way out of the building.

Meanwhile, a Pentagon spokesman said Friday it was not clear whether the program violated the law or Pentagon policy, a Defense Department spokesman said Friday.

"You can do something perfectly legal, but that is inconsistent with the policy or procedures of the department. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's the right thing to do," said spokesman Bryan Whitman.

He said the department is still gathering information on the matter.

Warner initially requested a Capitol Hill briefing for the committee, but committee spokesman John Ullyot said those plans were changed "at the Pentagon's request."

Whitman said the department was still gathering information about the program and the multimillion-dollar contracts that included paying Iraqi newspapers and journalists to plant favorable stories about the war and the rebuilding effort.

"We don't have all the facts," he said, including whether or not defense officials in Iraq knew exactly what was happening or whether they believed any of it was improper.

Military officials in Iraq say the program is a critical tool on the Iraq battleground.

"The purpose of this program is to ensure factual information is provided to the Iraqi public," Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, a U.S. military spokesman, said in Iraq.

But Congress members and the White House have expressed concern.

"A free and independent press is critical to the functioning of a democracy, and I am concerned about any actions which may erode the independence of the Iraqi media," Warner said earlier.

One of the companies involved — the Washington-based Lincoln Group — has at least two contracts with the military to provide media and public relations services. One contract, for $6 million, was for public relations and advertising work in Iraq and involved planting favorable stories in the Iraqi media, Defense Department records show.

The other Lincoln contract, which is with the Special Operations Command, is worth up to $100 million over five years for media operations with video, print and Web-based products. That contract is not related to the dispute over propaganda and was not for services in Iraq, according to command spokesman Ken McGraw.

The Lincoln Group shares that Special Operations contract with SYColeman, a division of L-3 Communications, and Science Applications International Corp., a San Diego-based defense contractor.

The program came to light just as President Bush released his strategy for victory in Iraq. It includes the need to support a "free, independent and responsible Iraqi media."

"We're very concerned," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan. "We are seeking more information from the Pentagon."

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., characterized the program as a scheme that "speaks volumes about the president's credibility gap. If Americans were truly welcomed in Iraq as liberators, we wouldn't have to doctor the news for the Iraqi people."
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom