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).
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.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.
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.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?
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.
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.
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).
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.
Arthur Fonzarelli said:First...I have an obligation to my Lord & Savior
<snip>
yes...those obligations are in the order of importance
matay_brit said:quarterback7 spot on. Tell the truth for better or for worse, even if it is what could be considered unpatriotic.
matay_brit said:oh yeh n i watched fox news the other day HA yeah that was about the opposite of unbiased
quarterback7 said: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,
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.
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...
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.
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.
Was it something like this.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...
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!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.
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.
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...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?