US media

[Oliver]

Farenheit 9/11 was a big hit, if you're looking for a documentary per se - surely you've heard of it? Though I was refering more to news stories and editorials. The New York Times, for example, is almost reflexively critical of anything Bush does in regards to Iraq.

Yes, that's actually true - even if he didn't really portrayed the war in F 9/11. The NYTimes is pretty critical, too - but I doubt that they actually show Iraqi citizens, talk to them, show their view, show the refugees or tell what did change in their point of view in Iraq since the invasion - and if it was better when Saddam was in Office. You know, this kind of neutral, 2-sided coverage - did they?

 

[Oliver]

*lol* Okay, who was the Jester who claims that the Media is generally neutral?

 

[steverino]

How can you be so pathetically biased? In actuality: The U.S. mainstream press began timidly questioning - just a bit, mind - the validity of the Iraq War and its continuance only in very late 2006. AFTER we normal-thinking Americans (read: Democrats) threw a large number of Republican bums out of office. Then the media felt "safer" to maybe start doing their jobs as a true fourth estate in this country. But in 2004? HAHAHAHAHA!

Conspi- Putting aside our political differences, let's agree that media criticism on the Iraqi War predated your above timetable. Here is one such article:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0630selling.htm JUNE 30, 2003

Yet there was no consensus within the American intelligence community that Saddam represented such a grave and imminent threat. Rather, interviews with current and former intelligence officials and other experts reveal that the Bush administration culled from U.S. intelligence those assessments that supported its position and omitted those that did not. The administration ignored, and even suppressed, disagreement within the intelligence agencies and pressured the CIA to reaffirm its preferred version of the Iraqi threat. Similarly, it stonewalled, and sought to discredit, international weapons inspectors when their findings threatened to undermine the case for war.

Conspi- Remember that sand storm in March, 2003? In Chicago we had Nate Clay on WLS radio. At that point in the war he said it was a disaster and a deception. While he is quite a bit left of me, he is a highly respected, and sought after speaker.

http://www.wlsam.com/showdj.asp?DJID=1623

 

[ConspiRaider]

Conspi- Putting aside our political differences, let's agree that media criticism on the Iraqi War predated your above timetable.

Steve -

You are inferring from my post that I was denying any media criticism of the Iraq War. No. I was responding to this particular sentence of Zig's:

It wasn't until the 2004 campaign that opposition to the Iraq war became almost universal among democrats, and the press too.

That is a falsehood. "Almost universal" implies that one would have to search very far and very wide throughout the U.S. mainstream press to discover support for the Iraq War.

At that time, 2004, I was still having the TeeVee on in the background, and I'd scroll through the "News" channels at times. It had to have been Fox "News" that had an image of an aircraft carrier in the red sunset, with guys in silhouette, while an uplifting tune was dubbed over the piece during breaks on war discussion.

At that time, 2004, I believe the figure was close to 60% across numerous polls, showing the percentage of Americans who believed Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks. You tell me, Steve. How did so many Americans get that distortion pounded into their brains, if in fact the press was screaming "almost universal" opposition to said war?

Remember the right-wing mantras. Clinton was responsible for 9/11. Clinton was responsible for regime change in Iraq. Clinton did Katrina just to make FEMA look bad for Bush. Clinton tortured, renditioned, water-boarded, denied global warming, suppressed scientific reports, increased our foreign debt, wiretapped Americans with no warrant and no FISA authorization, interfered in the Terri Schiavo case and shot lawyers in the face. It was Clinton, it was ALWAYS Clinton. The only person responsible for everything bad that happened and is still going to happen in the Bush Administration is Bill Clinton. Who else? Darned guy. Iffn he'd have kept his friggin' fly buttoned none of this woulda happened...

 

[steverino]

At that time, 2004, I was still having the TeeVee on in the background, and I'd scroll through the "News" channels at times. It had to have been Fox "News" that had an image of an aircraft carrier in the red sunset, with guys in silhouette, while an uplifting tune was dubbed over the piece during breaks on war discussion.

One sparrow does not a spring make.

You tell me, Steve. How did so many Americans get that distortion pounded into their brains, if in fact the press was screaming "almost universal" opposition to said war?.

Wishful thinking, and preoccupation with Paris Hilton-type stories.

Remember the right-wing mantras. Clinton was responsible for 9/11.

Not sure where you are going with this. I, and others of my ilk here on the forum, have been shushed for saying, "Clinton did it, too." I don't recall a lot of Clinton blaming in the media in connection to the Iraqi war, other than mild criticism for not going after Osama more aggresively.

 

[RandFan]

The U.S. mainstream press began timidly questioning - just a bit, mind - the validity of the Iraq War and its continuance only in very late 2006.

This is what you said! This is a falsehood.

 

[gtc]

Remember the right-wing mantras. Clinton was responsible for 9/11. Clinton was responsible for regime change in Iraq. Clinton did Katrina just to make FEMA look bad for Bush. Clinton tortured, renditioned, water-boarded, denied global warming, suppressed scientific reports, increased our foreign debt, wiretapped Americans with no warrant and no FISA authorization, interfered in the Terri Schiavo case and shot lawyers in the face. It was Clinton, it was ALWAYS Clinton. The only person responsible for everything bad that happened and is still going to happen in the Bush Administration is Bill Clinton. Who else? Darned guy. Iffn he'd have kept his friggin' fly buttoned none of this woulda happened...

You seem to be implying that these views are held by the majority of right wing Americans. Do you have any evidence?

 

[RandFan]

You seem to be implying that these views are held by the majority of right wing Americans. Do you have any evidence?

He knows better. They're a bunch of strawmen.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Regarding the US media in general, it does seem incredibly sensationalistic and sound-byte fixated. The only US TV news "show" I've seen with any depth at all is "60-minutes", which I think is wonderful, BTW.

Try the video from Democracy Now or read the transcripts for decent investigative news. And Bill Moyer's Journal, Now with David Brancaccio, Independent Lens, and Frontline are all excellent programs on our Public Broadcasting Service.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, yes.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp
Journalists have long been overwhelmingly democrats, and vote overwhelmingly for democratic candidates. Here's a nice quote on the issue from one of their own:

“Let’s talk a little media bias here. The media, I think, wants Kerry to win. And I think they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards – I’m talking about the establishment media, not Fox – but they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and all. There’s going to be this glow about them that some, is going to be worth, collectively, the two of them, that’s going to be worth maybe 15 points.”
– Newsweek Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas on the July 10 Inside Washington.

I think he overestimated the effect of media bias, but it was quite clearly there.



In the leadup to the Iraq war, many democrats supported Bush. After all, regime change was a policy first signed into law by Clinton. It wasn't until the 2004 campaign that opposition to the Iraq war became almost universal among democrats, and the press too.

The news casters are Democrats is a red herring and it is simple BS I'm not wasting more time on, but I did address it in another post.

Accuracy is less biased than the false news for example that Fox News puts out. Yes, story choice can be biased but right now we have outright false propaganda so on a relative scale, decent investigative reporting is less biased.

And investigative reporting means less news as a product which gives you soundbites of politicians without fact checking, video news releases as fake news without fact checking and so on. If no reporters are investigating, you get manipulated news, manipulated by the people in power regardless of which party that is, and by corporate power as well.

Media literacy teaches people to recognize editorial bias and breaking up monopolies increases the chance for multiple viewpoints.

As for the media wanting Kerry to win, that's absurd. The media put on then and still does it today, the talking points of the Republican politicians over and over ad nauseum. How many speeches of Bush saying the same thing over and over do you need to see? It ain't news and it's on all the time.

 

[WildCat]

Accuracy is less biased than the false news for example that Fox News puts out.

You keep mentioning Fox News. But to support your contention that there is widespread shilling for Bushco in the news media you can surely find other examples, yes? CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC - are these all right-wing outlets as well?

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes, that's actually true - even if he didn't really portrayed the war in F 9/11.

Uh, yes. It did.

The NYTimes is pretty critical, too - but I doubt that they actually show Iraqi citizens, talk to them,

And this doubt is based on what, exactly? Your bias is showing...

show their view, show the refugees or tell what did change in their point of view in Iraq since the invasion - and if it was better when Saddam was in Office.

It's easy to find Iraqis who say this in US news stories.

You know, this kind of neutral, 2-sided coverage - did they?

You're right, NYT coverage isn't neutral or balanced. It's decidedly anti-war, and doesn't give much coverage at all to our accomplishments.

 

[Ziggurat]

The news casters are Democrats is a red herring and it is simple BS I'm not wasting more time on,

Of course not, because you can't refute it.

Accuracy is less biased than the false news for example that Fox News puts out.

Yeah, like that crudely forged Texas Air National Guard memo that Fox put on the air just before an election. Oh, wait, that wasn't Fox...

Media literacy teaches people to recognize editorial bias

I'm not sure your point. It's not like I don't think a media-savy public is important. Quite the reverse: since government intervention is NOT the solution, it must be up to the consumer to evaluate their sources.

and breaking up monopolies increases the chance for multiple viewpoints.

There is no media monopoly, and there are lots of viewpoints.

As for the media wanting Kerry to win, that's absurd.

Dan Rather *cough*....

The media put on then and still does it today, the talking points of the Republican politicians over and over ad nauseum.

And Democratic politicians, over and over ad nauseum. That's what political reporting largely consists of, for better or worse.

How many speeches of Bush saying the same thing over and over do you need to see? It ain't news and it's on all the time.

So what? He's president. They always show lots of speeches by whoever's president. As for how many you need to see, well honestly, how many do you think most people watch?

 

[Ziggurat]

At that time, 2004, I believe the figure was close to 60% across numerous polls, showing the percentage of Americans who believed Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks. You tell me, Steve. How did so many Americans get that distortion pounded into their brains, if in fact the press was screaming "almost universal" opposition to said war?

See, this is interesting, because you're actually working with incomplete and wrong facts and don't even know it. First off, the figure you quote is for people who thought it at least likely that Saddam had a role in the attacks, not for the number who thought he definitely was (which would be smaller). Secondly, well, we actually know how most of them probably got that idea: they came to that conclusion themselves. HOW do we know that? Because polls taken about two days after 9/11 showed that something like 78% of people were of this opinion, and nobody was telling them this. That figure declined over time, but it started out high, and people came to this conclusion on their own. But you weren't aware of this, because it's dropped down the memory hole - thanks to that supposedly pro-Bush media you despise.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Well, it starts with licensing rules. And since the Telecommunications Act of 1996 allowed those licenses to be consolidated into the hands of "the big 6" of which there is a definite conservative, pro war bias:I'd say the chances of al Jazeera coming to a station near you soon may be technically legal but regulations and the system make it virtually impossible.

You tell me which of those corporations above are likely to broadcast al Jazeera or through which back door you think al Jazeera could slip in through?

I think you are right, but will ask if you think Al Jazeera is objective, or neutral?

The other thought: Ted Turner seems to have fallen off the screen. Has he been co opted, or just lost the will to tangle? His CNN and Turner Broadcasting broke the stranglehold the big 3 had ont news as a product, but I guess the big financial interests found a way to get a toehold via shares.

DR

 

[Pope130]

On the original topic, I voted the Planet X option. The other three were obviously wrong as "The Media" are never always one thing or the other or exactly halfway inbetween.
Had there been a "Some biased one way, some the other, some apparently not biased." I would have voted for that.
To the general question Oliver seems to be asking, concerning access to other points of view in the US. I would point out that I am allowed to read his point of view in the US without censorship.

Robert Klaus

 

[Darth Rotor]

On the original topic, I voted the Planet X option. The other three were obviously wrong as "The Media" are never always one thing or the other or exactly halfway inbetween.
Had there been a "Some biased one way, some the other, some apparently not biased." I would have voted for that.
To the general question Oliver seems to be asking, concerning access to other points of view in the US. I would point out that I am allowed to read his point of view in the US without censorship.

Robert Klaus

All Oliver has to do is read The Boston Globe for the past 4 years, if he wants to see a major media organ whose editorial slant is significantly anti war. The difficult thing for an outsider is to filter through the immense volume of stuff, in terms of "what is America Media saying."

Mostly, it is making a great deal of noise, and with the continued cosolidation and shrinkage of the newspaper business, perhaps it is tending to converge.



DR

 

[Fnord]

[OPINION]

I voted 50/50, because I believe that each journalist has a "hidden agenda" -- that is, he or she is looking more for "face time" and "name recognition" than the whole story.

To this end, a journalist will emphasize certain aspects of the story to appeal to the broadest demographic of their home audience.

Hmm ... I wonder where else this would apply ...

To this end, a politician or religionist will emphasize certain aspects of the story to appeal to the broadest demographic of their constituency/congregation.

Welcome to the modern media culture.

[/OPINION]

 

[Oliver]

Uh, yes. It did.

And this doubt is based on what, exactly? Your bias is showing...

It's easy to find Iraqis who say this in US news stories.

You're right, NYT coverage isn't neutral or balanced. It's decidedly anti-war, and doesn't give much coverage at all to our accomplishments.

Actually you're beating me there because I'm not very familiar with Newspapers. But was my impression also wrong concerning the TV-Media I use to watch from time to time?

And even if Polls are not very accurate at all, what do you think about this one? I mean most people in here have at least some political understanding.

 

[Ziggurat]

Actually you're beating me there because I'm not very familiar with Newspapers. But was my impression also wrong concerning the TV-Media I use to watch from time to time?

That woulde depend quite a bit on what television you were watching. But it's not hard to find network news TV showing bad news about Iraq.

And even if Polls are not very accurate at all, what do you think about this one? I mean most people in here have at least some political understanding.

I've never taken any poll as indicative of reality, only of people's perceptions. And the people who frequent this board are a self-selected group - there's quite a variety of people here, but we're not exactly a representative sampling.

Plus, of course, none of your poll options lined up with my opinion.