BBC chief lambastes US War coverage (Seattle P-I) I'm one of those. I generally read through all news media. I haven't found one in history that accomplishes utter objectivity. But the BBC did well; I treated it in the sense that if any of the rumormongering made the BBC, it was probably a story worth paying attention to, though I trust no details hitting the major wires anymore. Something of an analogy, though. Clinton faced a tough decision in executing Juan Raul Garza. The media avidly took part, and also did Clinton and McCaffrey the courtesy of framing the debate for Americans. The big issue that everyone bit on was not the death penalty in general; that's a debate that Clinton wanted desperately to avoid. But in this case, the vital debate was on whether or not drug kingpins should be executed. Juan Raul Garza, drug kingpin, sentenced to death. There was all sorts of debate like we hear about the war on terror, the "with us or against us" attitude that if you don't support the execution of Juan Raul Garza you must obviously support the dealing pimps who will steal your daughter and why don't you care about your own children? Er .... At any rate, what was so hard to get across to people was that Garza was being executed for murder under a federal law that makes the inclusion of drugs as a factor in a crime a federal issue. It was, in fact, a drug-legalization advocate that pointed out on one of the newstalk networks at the time that Garza was being sentenced for murder; he was also the only person I saw responsibly invoke the general death penalty debate. He said something to the effect of, "If we set aside the general debate about the propriety of the death penalty ever, and accept that the death penalty is appropriate, what about this murder is so mild that drugs make a difference? If he'd killed a guy in cold blood over some other dispute, would it really make a difference to you or me about how we feel about executing him in general?" The point is that the news media do an awful lot of framing for you. Don't let them think for you. When an important story breaks, try going to Google news, entering the "important" story of the day, and then following as many of those links as possible until you realize that what you're seeing is fifty-two rehashes of the same two wire (AP & Reuters) stories. It's amazing: newspapers have writers and editors whose job it is to take the wire stories and turn them into "staff reports" without ever leaving the office. Why was it so important to the Clinton administration to execute a "drug dealer"? Why were the news organizations so willing to play it out that way? And that's what the US media has done in the Iraqi Bush War. Journalistic integrity can exist in abundance in the field, but it can be edited out easily. The "dangerous" Iraqis didn't put up much of a fight. The WMD never came during the fighting. And once again our target is on the run. (I wonder if he and bin Laden will get along when they realize they're sharing neighboring caves? Or when they each need the last room at a hostel outside Krishnapur?) Something that occurred to me as I listened to an attempt to have an unframed debate on Lehrer tonight: As we now discuss the culpability of one Tariq Aziz, "what he knew", how and when he knew it, and whether he actively took part or merely did not interfere ... well, I noticed that the question of American material supporters of the regime and its crimes went without mention. As they spoke of the culpability of leaders who failed to control the actions of their subordinates--e.g. maybe this or that dude didn't actually order an atrocity, but merely failed to prevent his soldiers from carrying it out--the question of Americans in a similar position went without mention. Now, I'm all for keeping the debate relevant about the war criminals we're bringing in, but I'm not about to sit by and pretend that I don't notice that we're refusing to bring in some of the war criminals. Bring me Donald Rumsfeld. I want him to rot in prison for his material assistance to Iraq's crimes against humanity. And for every battlefield-civilian violation of the Geneva Convention (in cases of doubt, do not start shooting) I want Bush himself held accountable since the policy of "when in doubt, shoot" quite obviously had his approval. General Franks and anyone who ordered him to not play policeman in those days of swine and looting ought to be held accountable for at least two deaths and four rapes at a mental hospital, and heaven knows what miseries I haven't picked off the vine yet. Liberators? Heroes? Does that excuse a conscious failure to perform duty? There's no question that we've accomplished a positive thing in the end of Hussein's regime, but we will have integrity about this or we will not be having these little PR-excursions. There is no doubt that the guilty among Iraq's deposed regime will be held accountable if caught. However, there is much doubt that the American guilty will. It's a war. Please explain to me what makes it any more right than me killing you because your dog might possibly at some future date piss in my garden; or, in the case of pit-bulls, kill my children. And to throw the actual war crime, why don't I cap your wife just for good measure? What? I won. I'm forgiven my crimes, right? The chick was just in the way, man. One of the reasons Americans are so fucking stupid is because nearly three-quarters of them believe that the world really is as simple as the TV tells them it is. If the financially-dependent, ratings-minded news editors don't see fit to have their photogenic, ambient-voiced anchors read a gramatically bogus story from a teleprompter, it must not be anything worthy of attention by your average American. It's amazing. It really, really is. A note to Mr. Dyke of the BBC: "Don't actually puff your chest at those times. The 800-pound gorilla line was a little much. But otherwise, thank you, sir. Somebody had to say it." :m:, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
One thing I noticed was the obvious use of "the enemy" for Iraq and "us" and "our forces" etc. for the US. Plenty of people from all over the world consume US media. The media is supposed to inform us, not be our voice or speak to us as one of us. Now, consider the following news article. Baghdad (Neuters)-- The 500 Millionth Infrantry Division was ambushed by six hundred trillion enemy troops in a fiery display of loyalty to the former dictator of Iraq. The enemy used chemical weapons, ray guns, and phasers. Nearly all of the fifteen nonillion men were killed, and half of their families at home mysteriously died somehow. The governor of Antarctica is pushing the mayor of Topeka, Kansas to rename the Ross Ice Shelf after the first Martian-American fallen soldier in this war. At the same time Saddam fell. In a manner of speaking. The former Iraqi dictator's likeness exploded and then mysteriously reassembled on Thursday and all bystanders were immediately cast into the fiery depths of the Buddhist vision of Hell. Now... hmm... I would change here "enemy troops", and I would change "former dictator of Iraq". The first Martian-American fallen in this war should be changed to the first Martian-American war casualty in Iraq. At the same time Saddam fell should be removed.
Rabibly Jingoist for me please. There would be the reporting of the facts.....then some video....then reporting of facts that would rouse the nationalist in anyone.....then some military planning and a map of Iraq right before your eyes....then an analysis which would most commonly be summed up with "the Americans are crushing the elite Iraqi army, no surprise, Saddam is gone...where? Justification for something horrible as war? Ahh, who cares it's done with...let's role the video of the what operation Iraqi FREEDOM has LIBERATED the REPRESSED Iraqi people." ....the news media quickly and flawlessly transitioned from objectivity before the war to, F@%K the original reason for WAR, lets report the humanitarian goals accomplished by this war. What war meant before Vietnam: Losing your loved one, fighting for your country, keeping the world stable What it mean after Vietnam: Blood-shed, death, a political tool, "baby-killers" What has the word war become?....a prerequisite for happy lives and world security The government has successfully made a 180 from their biggest forgein policy mistake. The future runs parallel to the past....history repeats, just wait.
America's coverage was remarkably out of step with the coverage of all other nations. They gave far less time to civil unrest stories, humanitarian problems and less analysis of the political situation afterward. I wouldn't call it jingoistic, just rather biased. I don't think any network wants to be seen to undermine the war effort with flagrant references to reality.
There is a theory that the USA is run by the rich for the rich. Everybody else is just a drone. Maybe the rich owners of the media share common interests with the rich in goverment. What a remarkable idea. God damn independent state funded BBC. Dee Cee
I'm more inclinced to believe Voodoo - that there was a sense of not wanting to demoralize the public while our loved ones were fighting overseas, killing and nessassarily dying. To be fair as well, the media particularly in Western Europe is rather anti-American.
Not sure I understand the complaint. I thought the Iraqi forces were the 'obvious' enemy, and I don't really see a problem with American media referring to US forces as 'us' and 'our forces'. It seems obvious who they are referring to. And just because US media is broadcasting worldwide seems irrelevant. If someone watching FOX news in Trinidad-Tobago doesn't have the sense to realize that when a talking head refers to 'our forces' he is not talking about the Trinidad-Tobago military forces, then he/she is probably not really that sharp on current affairs anyway. At any rate, I think the media obviously is concerned about ratings, as FOX constantly reminds viewers they are the numero uno cable network channel, and is constantly taking their jabs at CNN and MSNBC. Like Voodoo said, there is a definite bias, and I would think there is a reluctance to undermine the war effort, but I think much of that reluctance is based on the ratings game. If the American public doesn't like what you have to say, they are going to flip the channel. *On a side note, whatever news channel he happens to be working for on any given day, you can always expect to be nauseated by Geraldo.
It's not that, but .... It's not that, Coldrake, but the idea that if the American media is to have any journalistic credibility, we can expect a certain amount of journalistic removal. We don't seem to actually want real journalists on television in the US, but rather a blend of a proper evening news and "Regis & Kelly". Remember, on a night that Dan Rather scored an interview with Hussein, only my local CBS affiliate cared. The lead story on FOX, where the TV happened to be situated when the news came on, was a review of the American Idol episode that took place earlier in the evening. I quickly flipped over to the local NBC affiliate, and they were blathering about some local story that, in the end, never materialized. Don't ask about the ABC affiliate. I just have a thing against ABC; it's been six years since their news division surprised me. But in terms of journalistic credibility, there needs to be a degree of removal. It's not quite a Marty Stouffer debate--the closest we've come is CBS wagging the dog in the 1980s with staged footage of civil unrest in Ethiopia--there is no pretending that these the American media was journalistic. Ted Koppel and others have the perfect right to say "we" in the case of, "We rode for six hours in peace today, so my ass was saved by smooth desert sands, which beats riding across rocks in a tank!" But the "Us and Them" problem of the American media extends all the way down to the local affiliates and small-town Bee and Herald and Banner and Tribune. It's one of the things I liked about BBC's coverage, their tendency to use "The Coalition" instead of "We" or "Us" or "Our", except in editorials and blogs. The journalistic institutions are properly expected to reserve a collective first person (e.g. We, Us, Our) 1) To the people, the readers, the citizens whom they serve; this is the idea that makes journalism allegedly noble 2) To the journalistic institution at times when such identification is rendered necessary. Writers of all forms have the right to speak of "We" when a Salman Rushdie is threatened, or a Ken Saro Wiwa is executed, or a Daniel Pearl murdered. Journalists may respond as "we" in terms of "our expectations" (e.g. journalists' expectations) if they feel their institution is compromised by government or other sinister influence. In the United States, our media have added a third condition, which they regularly apply: 3) To make people think our anchors and editors and staff writers are more folksy and "like them" in order to increase ratings and therefore profits. And in the United States, that's pretty much the primary concern. To me, the matter of the "Us and Them" of the American media is a matter of vital credibility. Obviously, I reject condition 3, but most folks think me anti-American, anyway. :m:, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Note: Tiassa best repects government-subsidized news reporting -- as long as it's not his own government doing the subsidizing.
WITNESS TO WAR by Sarah Meyer For those who have been a Witness to War, please don't show us any more red hoovered carpets, pictures of presidents or prime ministers or politicians or military experts talking about 'moral high ground,' 'victory' and 'democracy.' Don't show us press conferences, diplomats behind microphones, reporters in flak jackets, Hollywood stars, soldiers in clean uniforms and expensive goggles, cleaning planes leaving ships costing more than a meal that would feed a country. Show us children hanging from trees, a mother wailing for her dead, dust tears, shelled houses, empty towns. Show us raped women, burning men; soldiers riddled with shrapnel, or twisted dead, shoes with only bones, mass funerals, mass graves. Show us body parts, legs, arms, head flung ripped apart. Show us the blood; Show us refugees in dirt and despair. Show us the ravaged earth In silence. Let us hear the nightmares of soldiers, Show us reality unedited. Let us hear and see the truth. Listen to the people of peace. Hear our rage. Show tears.
Get a better horse, G Good one, G. Now that you've gotten sentences down, perhaps you'd like to try something more relevant to the topic. Why is it that whenever you sound off you have so little to say? Could you at least try addressing the issues instead of seeking some personal vengeance against me? Or is that too much to ask? Here's one for you: BBC vs. General Concept: Embedded Reporting. Hmmm ... I'll stick with the "government-subsidized" reporting that actually seeks the appearance of journalism. Unlike their American counterparts, at least they're trying. Compared for what passes as "news-reporting" in the US, I'll take the BBC any day. :m:, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Government subsidized news panders to what those truely in power want you to believe. Free media panders on ratings. "Polls" and "Statistics" from special interest groups are meant to persuade your opinion. There is no such thing as news not meant to influence your thinking. Everyone has an angle somewhere.
What a crappy poem. Those things mentioned only serve as sensationalizing propaganda. What America NEEDS is EDUCATION!!! The media should report facts, statistics and present all interpretations of histories. The media should disconnect itself from the Jerry Springers. But the key question is how can we successfully disconnect the media from both Big Business and Government influence?
Two points Two points: (1) Thank you for pointing out the educational need of this nation. I agree wholeheartedly. What the whole world needs ... but smarter Americans equals less wars around the world, period. (2) Those things mentioned, whcih only serve as sensationalizing propaganda, are the very things missing from the "balance". What about ... seven "executed" US soldiers now brought home? What about ... Jessica Lynch "going down shooting despite several gunshot wounds"? What about A-10 pilots chasing down British troops? ("He killed my buddy. The thing is that he got him on the second pass ....") What about war crimes? Sensational? Propaganda? Why aren't we talking about American war crimes? Three off the top of my head: When in doubt, don't shoot. In principle a soldier is expected to hold fire when in doubt about the military status of a target. Americans chose to fire through Iraqi civilians; the famous line out of that story is, "The chick was just in the way." Nonetheless, I do understand that in practice, amid a desert with all sorts of shit exploding around you, it might be a little tougher to do what's expected. However, I also well understand that in practice, amid your own bedroom with your best fried fucking your wife in your bed, it's a little tougher to not kill someone; it doesn't change the fact that it's a crime. What about Franks' failure to maintain law and order? What about Bush's complicity in that? Who will spend prison time for giving Colin Powell falsified information to take to the UN? Or is the black man to be the fall guy? When will Rumsfeld be tried for his material support of Hussein and the Ba'ath regime? Sensationalizing propaganda? Or the part of the story being sensationalized out of the news? Polls suggested that American support for the war increased by a whole one percent (from 72% to 73%) after the war started. All in all it's not bad, only one in a hundred who will roll over and join the murderous bandwagon after the killing starts. Of course, it's the other 72 bloodlusting maniacs that I distrust almost as much as the bandit regimes we threaten and menace. But with the only opinion changes really involving duration and American human costs, one does wonder about the desperate attempts by the US government to control the flow of information coming out of Iraq not only for the natural purpose of protecting soldiers, but also for the sinister purpose of coloring American perceptions of the situation inaccurately. I think of a white, female NBC anchor speaking of the blurred-out pictures of dead Iraqi children: "Remember, these pictures come from Al-Jazeera, so we must doubt their objectivity." Um, honey? You're in the studio reading that line because everbody else before you is over in Iraq sacrificing their objectivity to the Ratings Gods. We know that Al-Jazeera made huge practical mistakes, but an American mainline news media outlet doubting Al-Jazeera's objectivity is a little like Pol Pot doubting Hitler's ability to be a nice guy. Seriously, the kind of pandering I witnessed in the American media was so distorted on behalf of a war whose necessity is in severe doubt that I would like to see a few of our so-called journalists prosecuted for war crimes. And don't give me "free speech". Free speech doesn't exist during wartime. Whether you fight for it or profit by its lack is up to you, and a good many former journalists are hoping that God and people will forgive them when their books come out and dish the dirt they agreed not to say while in Iraq. :m:, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Tiassa, would you rather have the media turned out like Jane Fonda? There are a lot of Vietnam vets who want to kill her for what she did.
Clarify That is such an insanely useless point that I am, without sarcasm, quite sure I'm missing something. Could you please connect the dots and tell me how that becomes the second side of the coin? :m:, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
This is an exerpt from a website. URL included. References to newspaper articles are included in the bibliography of the write-up. http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.htm
I have to admit I was shocked when I first heard what Fonda had done. My unit had stood down and left Vietnam about 6 weeks before she visited and I was doing a short stint in Korea before returning to the States when I heard about it. I was hurt more than anything else at first, because I had thought she was such a doll after Barbarella, and it was hard for me to associate the vacuous sexpot I had seen in that movie with a North Vietnamese sympathizer. I confess that the more she said later the more I began to feel really outraged at her. Call me petty, but being called a war criminal was a bit more than I could stomach. I have no problem with protesting, but to make a trip to the enemy and glorify them while we were at war was hard for me to understand as a 21 year old. I don't really care anymore. People do what they feel is right at the time I suppose.
Thank you, Xevious, but .... Well, thank you for the details of history. But could you tell me how that becomes the second side of the coin? I just don't see it as an either/or proposition. Dualisms are an excellent propaganda tool, but don't often recognize reality. :m:, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
