pug846

The claim that the US news media is nothing more than a propaganda machine for the government has been repeated quite a few times in this forum. For those of you who hold this view, not merely that the US news media is bias, because every news media to some degree is, but that the US news media is doing a horrible job reporting objectively on the news at all�could you please explain why the following stories all appear on the front page of cnn.com:

Why did the government �allow� this story to get out?

Why are they reporting on what the Arabs think?

News Media Painting itself in a bad light?

(edited to add: they also have viewers comments, both for and against the war, linked on the front page, but i can't link that here.)

Now, none of these, besides the first, is particularly damning to the government, but if the media is under such a tight leash, explain these stories, particularly the first two. I�m generally curious.

Zadok001

They aren't under a particularly tight leash, but you'll agree they ARE leased. CNN is fairly good about it. Faux News (as some enterprising poster refers to them) is not.

yaktldg

The corporate, mass media are not a "propaganda machine for the government". They are not in any way controlled by the government.

For a general overview, see FAIR's excellent, succinct institutional analysis: What's Wrong With the News?. Or read the much drier, longer Manufacturing Consent by Chomsky/Herman. Or see the film.

For specifics, see FAIR's Analysis of Iraq & the Media.

Go to NewsNow.co.uk's Iraq listing to get access to some news not fit for US corporate media.

For example, I haven't seen these pictures. I haven't heard of these estimates. I haven't seen this, this, this, this, this, this, this, or this.

I extremely enjoyed watching William Kristol, one of the long-time proponents of this war, get schooled by Daniel Ellsberg on C-SPAN.

All the CNN war coverage I've seen makes war look like a video game.

--

You can't not report that 10 women/children were killed by US soldiers. The story is not particularly damning to begin with; probably most people would agree it had to be done.

Your second example could be an example of the "narrow range of debate". Why watch al Jazeera if CNN is broadcasting their live bombing videos and summarizing their coverage of the war? Well, they're not really, given the above pictures, infamous POW videos and very critical war coverage.

Your third example is just covering potentially damning news of a competitor.

Ronin

I am pleased to announce that the list of 'most people' does not include me...go figure.

a8o

These stories are possibly only the tip of the iceberg. By repoting them, CNN is giving itself an air of credibility and the impression of being a balanced station.

We will only truely know what has happened in this war in accounts to be released in the future, after the fall. World War II soldiers discovering concentration camps, for example. We knew they were there, but to what extent?

Clutch

Maybe this claim has been made. I don't recall seeing it anywhere.

I mean, the whole Whitewater media feeding frenzy would be hard to explain, if this claim were correct. So I don't know why anyone would say it.

Are you confusing it, perhaps, with the claim that the US news media is systematically biased? That its ownership by a handful of massive multinationals tends to skew content and editorializing in favour of stories and spin that will redound to the greater advantage of corporate/Republican America? That the substantial wealth of the reporters and talking heads themselves contributes to a rightist tone? That the practice of "embedding" journalists in this invasion ensures not just control over actual information released, but moreover a "Stockholm syndrome" sympathetic spin on that information as reported back to the nation? That major news networks saw themselves as reaping a viewership windfall from the onset of this war, and thus had a vested interest in its occurrence?

Or what?

Of course, at the end of the day these huge corporations are still competing with one another for ad revenues and viewership. And there are people with sincere intentions scattered throughout. So even on the corporate theme, your "nothing but" characterization fails. But why would anyone choose, or need, so strong a characterization, just to point out the systematic biases of the media?

Kinross

The media isn't biased to the left nor the right. There many examples of the media biasing towards both sides of the political spectrum.

The only bias the media has is to get you to watch so they can sell your eyes to commercial sponsors. They do this by spreading fear and doubt, and manufacturing a crisis.

You will not see the brutality of war, not due to some government conspiracy, but because it turns the general popultion off and they quit watching because they can't stomach it.

Clutch

There is something to what you say, inasmuch as the networks don't want to sell pictures of dead Iraqi kids to an American population who would rather see computer graphics of how an F-15 works.

But in the first instance, you won't see the brutality of war because the information reported back through the American military pool is all carefully screened. That's not so much a conspiracy as a simple policy.

Jacey

The final solution was widely reported in the jewish press. Accounts also made the NY Times, but buried in the front section. The Times didn't want to seem too pro-jewish (ironically it was a jewish editor who made that decision) so it didn't widely publish.

But when you read/hear that people in this country didn't know what was happening, it's bs.

Monkeybot

I am automatically wary of anything that comes from an embedded journalist.