• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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.

Should there be an American bias to the news?

walrus

Member
Joined
May 10, 2005
Messages
191
Reaction score
15
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Watching Democracy Now! the other day, two journalists were being interviewed about the coverage of the war in Iraq. One said that when the "mainstream media" report a roadside bomb they only report that it killed so many soldiers and civilians. He said that they do not report the motivations or stories of those that plant the bombs.

This is a question which has come up often since 9/11. Should American reporters "check their citizenship at the door" when reporting the news? Do journalists have any obligation to protect America's policies or influence? This particular journalist even complained about restrictions on reporting troop movements, locations, etc... Do you think journalists have any duty to censor their reports in order to safeguard American troops? If a journalist happened to unearth a terrorist cell, would they have any obligation to report this to the military?

What if previous wars had been reported the way this (and to a lesser extent Vietnam) has been. The American public was essentially decieved for several weeks about the outcome of the Battle of the Coral Sea during WWII, and it was mostly the American perception of victory that made it a morale victory. Casualties during the Normandy invasion were closely guraded for many weeks, for fear that American support would ebb if they knew the fearful price they were paying. During the Civil War newspapers North and South minimized deaths (if they were pro-war) or exxagerated them (if they were pro-peace).
 

Arthur Fonzarelli

Active member
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
446
Reaction score
0
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
walrus said:
Watching Democracy Now! the other day, two journalists were being interviewed about the coverage of the war in Iraq. One said that when the "mainstream media" report a roadside bomb they only report that it killed so many soldiers and civilians. He said that they do not report the motivations or stories of those that plant the bombs.

This is a question which has come up often since 9/11. Should American reporters "check their citizenship at the door" when reporting the news? Do journalists have any obligation to protect America's policies or influence? This particular journalist even complained about restrictions on reporting troop movements, locations, etc... Do you think journalists have any duty to censor their reports in order to safeguard American troops? If a journalist happened to unearth a terrorist cell, would they have any obligation to report this to the military?

What if previous wars had been reported the way this (and to a lesser extent Vietnam) has been. The American public was essentially decieved for several weeks about the outcome of the Battle of the Coral Sea during WWII, and it was mostly the American perception of victory that made it a morale victory. Casualties during the Normandy invasion were closely guraded for many weeks, for fear that American support would ebb if they knew the fearful price they were paying. During the Civil War newspapers North and South minimized deaths (if they were pro-war) or exxagerated them (if they were pro-peace).
Interesting that you use an example from the last war in which we were truly a super power. In WW2 we had 12 million soldiers in our armed forces. Today we barely have 2 million. Between that & a handful of other issues including our reporting & the fact that the war is in our living rooms constantly may be contributing to our decline in this area. In all times in history we've had war protestors & supporters...we just havent' always had a media with the ability to do real time reports & influence the public the way it does today.
 

Redcommie

New member
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Location
The Belly of the BEast
Media will always have a bias in America because the FCC regulates everything they say on air. This is obvious because stations are liberal or conservative, but never on the Left, just always variations on the right wing.
 

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Redcommie!

Media will always have a bias in America because the FCC regulates everything they say on air. This is obvious because stations are liberal or conservative, but never on the Left, just always variations on the right wing.
The FCC only regulates profanity and perhaps hate speach. Our televised media for the most part is on the left and the radio media is on the right.
Walrus said:
This is a question which has come up often since 9/11. Should American reporters "check their citizenship at the door" when reporting the news? Do journalists have any obligation to protect America's policies or influence? This particular journalist even complained about restrictions on reporting troop movements, locations, etc... Do you think journalists have any duty to censor their reports in order to safeguard American troops? If a journalist happened to unearth a terrorist cell, would they have any obligation to report this to the military?
They have a moral obligation to protect our troops, no matter what they have to do. CNN didn't report the mass graves, rape rooms, or torture that Saddam did on a regular basis, so they could stay in the country and continue reporting. They have blood on their hand IMO. Does the same CNN network protect our leaders and military in the same fashion? I think not.
 

Arthur Fonzarelli

Active member
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
446
Reaction score
0
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Squawker said:
Redcommie!


The FCC only regulates profanity and perhaps hate speach. Our televised media for the most part is on the left and the radio media is on the right.
Walrus said:
They have a moral obligation to protect our troops, no matter what they have to do. CNN didn't report the mass graves, rape rooms, or torture that Saddam did on a regular basis, so they could stay in the country and continue reporting. They have blood on their hand IMO. Does the same CNN network protect our leaders and military in the same fashion? I think not.
First...I have an obligation to my Lord & Savior

Second...I have an obligation to my family

Third...I have an obligation to my country

Fourth...I have an obligation to my employer

& yes...those obligations are in the order of importance
 

Redcommie

New member
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Location
The Belly of the BEast
You are really niave to think that the FCC is just regulating hate speech and cursing. The FCC can do WHATEVER THE **** IT WANTS. No questions asked. You can't have anything on air that they don't want to be on air.

And the televised media is liberal, not left. There is a big difference.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
Redcommie said:
You are really niave to think that the FCC is just regulating hate speech and cursing. The FCC can do WHATEVER THE **** IT WANTS. No questions asked. You can't have anything on air that they don't want to be on air.

And the televised media is liberal, not left. There is a big difference.
Welcome to Debate Politics.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
walrus said:
Watching Democracy Now! the other day, two journalists were being interviewed about the coverage of the war in Iraq. One said that when the "mainstream media" report a roadside bomb they only report that it killed so many soldiers and civilians. He said that they do not report the motivations or stories of those that plant the bombs.
I think we know those motivations, they want to kill us and the Iraqi's who support freedom for the country.

This is a question which has come up often since 9/11. Should American reporters "check their citizenship at the door" when reporting the news?
Not if they want to continue to live in a free society and enjoy the liberties this country guaranties them.

Do journalists have any obligation to protect America's policies or influence?
No, but there is an implied duty as a citizen to support your country.
This particular journalist even complained about restrictions on reporting troop movements, locations, etc...
If he was actively seeking out classified information and then providing it to our enemies either discretely or publicially he should be arrested for treason. That includes such information as troop movements, deployments, strengths, etc.

Do you think journalists have any duty to censor their reports in order to safeguard American troops?
Yes. Do they not censor the names of rape victims and children who commit crimes?

If a journalist happened to unearth a terrorist cell, would they have any obligation to report this to the military?
A duty. I you unearth anything about a crime you have a duty to report it.

What if previous wars had been reported the way this (and to a lesser extent Vietnam) has been. The American public was essentially decieved for several weeks about the outcome of the Battle of the Coral Sea during WWII, and it was mostly the American perception of victory that made it a morale victory.
Actually it was a fact that we turned back the Japanese from Port Morsby and it was both an operational and startegic victory for the US, we only lost in points.

Casualties during the Normandy invasion were closely guraded for many weeks, for fear that American support would ebb if they knew the fearful price they were paying.
Questionable but if we assume it to be, also to keep that information for the German high command.

During the Civil War newspapers North and South minimized deaths (if they were pro-war) or exxagerated them (if they were pro-peace).
Again that is strategic information. Now if we all take an oath and promise not to tell our enemies what losses we are suffering then I guess the TV/Radio/Print media should tell all of us, just as long as don't let our enemies know.

You don't wage war by democracy.
 

quarterback7

New member
Joined
Jun 28, 2005
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
To be honest, these very issues are why I enjoy watching the BBC on local public TV. I do not agree with reporters being traitors, but journalists need to be unbiased, honest, and thourough. Sometimes, the best way to be a citizen is to tell the truth about your nation, for better or worse, and inspire positive change. By fudging stories, you don't get real journalism, or patriotism for that matter. Watch the movie the Killing Fields. It's an example of what I'm talking about.
 

matay_brit

Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2005
Messages
82
Reaction score
2
Location
England, Britain, European Union
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
quarterback7 spot on. Tell the truth for better or for worse, even if it is what could be considered unpatriotic.

oh yeh n i watched fox news the other day HA yeah that was about the opposite of unbiased
 

Connecticutter

Active member
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
432
Reaction score
0
Location
New Haven, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Redcommie said:
You are really niave to think that the FCC is just regulating hate speech and cursing. The FCC can do WHATEVER THE **** IT WANTS. No questions asked. You can't have anything on air that they don't want to be on air.

And the televised media is liberal, not left. There is a big difference.
First of all, the FCC cannot do whatever it wants. I have some personal experience working under FCC regulations, and we're allowed to make any political statement we want, even if its anti-government or hate-speech. I have a strong dislike for the FCC because of their regulations. Their treatment of Howard Stern is a threat to free-speech. However, if they want to get you they have to bring you to court and cite a specific law that you broke. So there goes your "no questions asked" theory.

There are no real instances of political censorship. A few months back, air America got in trouble for running a spot where they shoot the president. They were investigated, but NO ACTION was taken.

As for not having leftist/socialist media, I think you assume that if only the American people were exposed to it, they'd like it. There are plenty of alternative sources in newspapers and on the internet that take a far left point of view. But to most Americans, you guys have been discredited just like the Fascists, so we just don't want to hear it. That's why it doesn't make it big time. You guys have your chance to compete in the market of ideas just like everyone else.
 

Dezaad

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
5,058
Reaction score
2,424
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Arthur Fonzarelli said:
First...I have an obligation to my Lord & Savior

<snip>

yes...those obligations are in the order of importance

So, what is your opinion about what your Lord & Savior wants you to know. The truth, or deception?
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
matay_brit said:
quarterback7 spot on. Tell the truth for better or for worse, even if it is what could be considered unpatriotic.
How about if you consider it patriotic?

matay_brit said:
oh yeh n i watched fox news the other day HA yeah that was about the opposite of unbiased
What program and exactly what did you find unbias'd about it?
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
quarterback7 said:
To be honest, these very issues are why I enjoy watching the BBC on local public TV.
The BBC has been caught in outright fabrication and some of it's top executives have had to resign why would you use them as your news source?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3441181.stm




I do not agree with reporters being traitors, but journalists need to be unbiased, honest, and thourough.
If somehow secret information concerning our military is leaked to them, information that could help our enemies, and they report it they are most certainly traitors,

Sometimes, the best way to be a citizen is to tell the truth about your nation,
OK a reporter during WW2 finds out that it is Normandy and not the Pas de Calais. That Pattons army in the North of Britian is a fake. He reports it because it is "the truth". Traitor?

Or he finds out that the 3rd has been ordered North to defend against the German offensive in the Ardennes, better known as the Battle of the Bulge and he reports it. Because it is the truth. Traitor?


By fudging stories, you don't get real journalism, or patriotism for that matter. Watch the movie the Killing Fields. It's an example of what I'm talking about.
How on earth is that an example of what you are talking about? Are you comparing our military with Pol Pots and maintaining that reporters are not reporting that we are engaged in genocide?
 

TJS0110

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
327
Reaction score
0
Location
Missouri
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
No, the news should not have bias because then its not news its just a pointless stream of babble that isn't based in fact but in opinion. There should definately be a place for opinionated talk but news channels and newspapers are there to educate not indocternate. If people first hear news with a slant they cant ever truely go into a discussion with there own opinion its just the opinion of someone else comeing out of there mouth. We have to let people make there own decision and then they can disscus there decisions with other people on the opinionated shows or websites.

P.S. No i cant spell very well and i dont want to download that spellcheck thing.
 

AliG

Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
50
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The Media will in general be bias

When there is War the mainstream Media supports the troops
This is natural and pretty obvious...

You don't want the media criticising the troops on their operations and there behaviour in Guantanamo and Abu-Ghraib...
But it should report these terrible acts also...it happens that the Left is alot more critical
Why is everyone so scared of this criticism??
Get behind the troops but be reaqdy to accept their are not perfect and some actually torture 'possible suspects'

You're the most powerful nation in the world you should expect and accept criticism...
 
Last edited:

TJS0110

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
327
Reaction score
0
Location
Missouri
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
AliG said:
The Media will in general be bias

When there is War the mainstream Media supports the troops
This is natural and pretty obvious...

You don't want the media criticising the troops on their operations and there behaviour in Guantanamo and Abu-Ghraib...
But it should report these terrible acts also...it happens that the Left is alot more critical
Why is everyone so scared of this criticism??
Get behind the troops but be reaqdy to accept their are not perfect and some actually torture 'possible suspects'

You're the most powerful nation in the world you should expect and accept criticism...

criticism isnt a problem it makes us look at ourselves and judge if we are doing the right thing or not. Its one thing to critisize to show people the error of there way and its another to critsize to further a political agenda. So realy I agree with u.
 

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
The title of this thread is a little moot. The media is a little more than just Americanly biased. It is current American Administration bias. How do I know this? By the news you don't see on American TV. But you do throughout the rest of the world. Case in point, I don't remember anything being said in the media about the 8 million people around the world protesting Americas intention to attack Iraq just before we invaded. All our news talked about, was a coalition. When in reallity, the whole world was against it!

Well, here's some things the Fox Phuckers (as well as ALL the rest) do not show you. This is what we are actually doing over there. And in the interests of being balanced and un-biased, I will show that it is not hard to do!

First, destruction in the name of democracy.

Second, the more human side of our troops.

Third, our not so human side as we raided a hospital
the picture shows the aftermath. This is personnally
disturbing to me because I was raised that we were
better than this.


And fourth, more of our human side giving kids
some candy.

 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
Billo_Really said:
The title of this thread is a little moot. The media is a little more than just Americanly biased. It is current American Administration bias. How do I know this? By the news you don't see on American TV. But you do throughout the rest of the world. Case in point, I don't remember anything being said in the media about the 8 million people around the world protesting Americas intention to attack Iraq just before we invaded. All our news talked about, was a coalition. When in reallity, the whole world was against it!

Well, here's some things the Fox Phuckers (as well as ALL the rest) do not show you. This is what we are actually doing over there. And in the interests of being balanced and un-biased, I will show that it is not hard to do!

First, destruction in the name of democracy.

Second, the more human side of our troops.

Third, our not so human side as we raided a hospital
the picture shows the aftermath. This is personnally
disturbing to me because I was raised that we were
better than this.


And fourth, more of our human side giving kids
some candy.

Really I saw the massive protest covered by the US media. I'm prety sure I even saw some footage on Fox...you know those ph...
 

Rhadamanthus

Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
186
Reaction score
2
Location
Alaska
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You are certainly correct in saying that the main stream media seems to be portraying only a verry narrow view of current events. But this wouldn't really be such a problem if it wasn't for the fact that most people never look past the evening news. So...is the ignorance of the American people the fault of the mainstream media or their own laziness? Personaly I feel that if someone goes out of their way in search of the truth then they will be able to uncover it.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Rhadamanthus said:
You are certainly correct in saying that the main stream media seems to be portraying only a verry narrow view of current events. But this wouldn't really be such a problem if it wasn't for the fact that most people never look past the evening news. So...is the ignorance of the American people the fault of the mainstream media or their own laziness? Personaly I feel that if someone goes out of their way in search of the truth then they will be able to uncover it.
Bingo!....

I could come up with dozens of sources on both sides of the fence.
The bigger question is "Do the American people believe the mainstream media is trustful to report all sides?"...and that number has been declining for years...

BTW - Here is a perfect example of how Billo misleads or misinforms this forum.
Notice the third picture of WHAT WE ARE TO ASSUME is a hospital...it sure
looks like one...But he provides nothing but his opinion...

Third, our not so human side as we raided a hospital
the picture shows the aftermath. This is personnally
disturbing to me because I was raised that we were
better than this.


I don't see any raid...could it possibly be from this story?

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/11/303871.shtml

Troops storm Mosul hospital
On Thursday, commandos with the Ministry of Interior's Special Police Force cordoned off the al-Zaharawi Hospital in Mosul after getting information that insurgents were using it to treat their wounded, said Lt. Col. Paul Hastings with Task Force Olympia.

U.S. forces from the 1st Battalion, 24th Infantry Regiment secured the outer area around the hospital, while Iraqi troops stormed the inside, detaining three individuals suspected of being participants in terrorist activities, he said.


So, as this post states, the IRAQIS went into the hospital while the US stayed outside...That a big f'in difference from a US raid, isn't it?

Maybe it's not from this story...Maybe the pic IS from a US raid...But it could also be from a multitude of other places...maybe it's from Mexico....
Either way, Billo doesn't provide any info besides a picture...He wants us to ASSUME that its from what he said...a US raid...

It's a lack of information like that that distorts perception or an overall picture. Look no further than one Billo Really.
 

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by Pacridge:
Really I saw the massive protest covered by the US media. I'm prety sure I even saw some footage on Fox...you know those ph...
Was it something like this.

 

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by cnredd:
Bingo!....

I could come up with dozens of sources on both sides of the fence.
The bigger question is "Do the American people believe the mainstream media is trustful to report all sides?"...and that number has been declining for years...

BTW - Here is a perfect example of how Billo misleads or misinforms this forum.
Notice the third picture of WHAT WE ARE TO ASSUME is a hospital...it sure
looks like one...But he provides nothing but his opinion...

Third, our not so human side as we raided a hospital
the picture shows the aftermath. This is personnally
disturbing to me because I was raised that we were
better than this.

I don't see any raid...could it possibly be from this story?

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/11/303871.shtml

Troops storm Mosul hospital
On Thursday, commandos with the Ministry of Interior's Special Police Force cordoned off the al-Zaharawi Hospital in Mosul after getting information that insurgents were using it to treat their wounded, said Lt. Col. Paul Hastings with Task Force Olympia.

U.S. forces from the 1st Battalion, 24th Infantry Regiment secured the outer area around the hospital, while Iraqi troops stormed the inside, detaining three individuals suspected of being participants in terrorist activities, he said.

So, as this post states, the IRAQIS went into the hospital while the US stayed outside...That a big f'in difference from a US raid, isn't it?

Maybe it's not from this story...Maybe the pic IS from a US raid...But it could also be from a multitude of other places...maybe it's from Mexico....
Either way, Billo doesn't provide any info besides a picture...He wants us to ASSUME that its from what he said...a US raid...

It's a lack of information like that that distorts perception or an overall picture. Look no further than one Billo Really.
You got a lot of nerve suggesting that I would deliberately lie and deceive in order push my own agenda without a shred of evidence to prove this. You just throw out innuendo. But allow me to feed your own words back down your filthy mouth. Even if US troops waited outside, in your story, it is International Law that requires the OCCUPYING FORCE to take responsability and the necessary measures to ensure the safety of the innocent civilians of that country. Which, by waiting outside, they obviously didn't do!

One last thing, its no secret that we dropped a 500 pounder on a hospital in Falluja. We practically leveled that entire city to the ground. There isn't a single structure there that doesn't have some evidence of a battle. So why would it be so outragous for us to mess up a hospital during a search?

One other thing, I think its pretty disgusting for someone to put their trust in proven liars rather than believe the rest of the entire world.
 

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Here you go cnredd. Here's your truth!

 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Billo_Really said:
You got a lot of nerve suggesting that I would deliberately lie and deceive in order push my own agenda without a shred of evidence to prove this. You just throw out innuendo. But allow me to feed your own words back down your filthy mouth. Even if US troops waited outside, in your story, it is International Law that requires the OCCUPYING FORCE to take responsability and the necessary measures to ensure the safety of the innocent civilians of that country. Which, by waiting outside, they obviously didn't do!

One last thing, its no secret that we dropped a 500 pounder on a hospital in Falluja.
We practically leveled that entire city to the ground. There isn't a single structure there that doesn't have some evidence of a battle. So why would it be so outragous for us to mess up a hospital during a search?

One other thing, I think its pretty disgusting for someone to put their trust in proven liars rather than believe the rest of the entire world.
Look at the bold statement...then check out what I wrote in my previous post...

cnredd said:
Maybe it's not from this story...Maybe the pic IS from a US raid...But it could also be from a multitude of other places...maybe it's from Mexico....
Either way, Billo doesn't provide any info besides a picture...He wants us to ASSUME that its from what he said...a US raid...
I an NOT disputing that we have had US raids on hospitals...I AM questioning whether or not your picture is proof of it...Why am I questioning it?

1)You didn't provide any corresponding information connected to the picture other than your own personal headline for it.
2)You have mislead & misinformed in the past and have been called on it, so your level of trust in this forum is so low a cockroach couldn't limbo under it.

The story I provided specifically started with...
I don't see any raid...could it possibly be from this story?

That doesn't mean "yes" and it doesn't mean "no"...that's why I used the word "could"...so explaining the story with International law and 500 pound bombs is a straw man...It takes away from the original questions..."Where did the picture come from? And why didn't you provide any information?"
 
Top Bottom