Buddrow_Wilson

I don't expect our media sources to be completely unbiased, but some of the things they do are quite disturbing to me.

The news networks not showing the footage from Iraqi TV that the rest of the world has already seen, basically at the request of our government: Gee, journalists and government officials can view this, but the general public is too sensitive. Thanks for the protection! There is lip service given to not wanting to release the footage until the family's have been informed, but in reality the main concern is these scenes could negatively impact US public opinion.

GOD BLESSERIZE AMERICA: MSNBC is the worst that I've noticed, but others have similar practices. MSNBC has spots showing America's troops in various scenes, saying things such as"god bless america", "we love our troops", etc. Also MSNBC has an ongoing "wall of heroes" bit wherein people send in picture of family members who are in the gulf region, and MSNBC places them on the wall and reads a message by the reader who sent it in (always positive and supportive messages of course). These practices are NOT news related. They smell of propaganda.

The top networks greatly emphasize the positive, and downplay the unpleasant. They give very little airtime to opposition views and events. What happened to journalistic integrity? I find myself wondering if I am watching a state-run network.

Where can I find real news?

AzJeff

If you have broadband internet, right here:

Live newsfeeds

I'm listening to the BBC right now.
I've also scanned ABC (Aussie) and CBC (Canuck).
Good stuff.

I also watch C-SPAN - they broadcast portions of international news - I've seen BBC, CBC, Deutsche Welle (german), Bahrain, UAE, and French newscasts.

beyelzu

It's called supporting your nation in a time of war. At the very least you must support the troops. I have been at most lukewarm about this conflict, largely because of a belief that there are places that pose a more immediate danger than Iraq, but now I plan to support the nation and the troops.

As far as real news, perhaps you could find a feed from a middle eastern country????

Kim o' the Concrete Jungle

The Australian current affairs program Four Corners ran a report about the media and the war. It's the first major piece of journalism I've seen that's actually looked critically at what's been going on.

There's a transcript of the program here.

Buddrow_Wilson

I don't think its the place of a news organization to make such judgements. Commentators, and other individuals I can understand, but these decisions are done to reflect the entire organization. Are we to believe that every single member of their medium is completely supportive of this conflict? Personally, I look to the news for facts, not opinions. Journalists have a responsibility to aid the populace in developing their own opinions.

Unfortunately, my connection is quite slow (26k-28.5k)

Thank you for that article Kim. I guess it boils down to the networks being in bed with the military. They don't want to be cut off, so they play by their rules. I believe I would prefer to not have this embedded journalists situation, however much it may make for less "exciting" news coverage.

Happy Wonderer

Oddly enough (for an infidel to be promoting) the Christian Science Monitor has fairly good coverage. They make a real effort, and are fairly independent of the church.

Christian Science Monitor

HW

Buddrow_Wilson

Wow, you are right. This OP expresses my thoughts more eloquently than I could have.

beyelzu

I think the imbedded journalist idea is a good one for precisely the reasons that you dont like it. I do question the reporting of american casualties however.

While I am saddened by the death of any american, at the same time I wonder if reporting each death will turn many americans away from supporting the war. I also worry about how people will treat soldiers coming home from what can become an incredibly unpopular war.
I would rather see the war spoken about in broad terms. I also wouldnt mind rational discourse on the war in broad terms. Much like what takes place here on IIDB. To me that is what is most missing in the news. It is so incredibly dumb downed.

Liquidrage

You know on and shortly after 9-11, CNN and MSNBC refused to show anything that was rather graphic on the air.

I wouldn't say it was hypocritical nor done because of propaganda. Also, todays military really is very soilder oriented. I have no doubt they are more concerned with the respect of the soilder then to the potential propaganda. The White House might be a different story.

However, I think they they should show these pictures because if people are willing to send troops off to war they should have to deal with the grotesque aspects as well as the "rah-rah" aspect.

Buddrow_Wilson

Yes, I believe the military is honestly concerned with individual soldiers. I don't really trust our administration this far however. I have much respect for our armed forces, regardless of my beliefs/opinions on current policies.

Do you agree that US networks reporting is overly one-sided? I doubt that we are fed outright lies, but in other ways our news is similar to Iraqi TV. Our country good. Your country bad. Our leader good. Your leader evil. Seriously, I'm much happier to be an American than I would Iraqi, but this rhetoric concerns me. /sigh I guess I'm in the minority here.