Joe6Pack

Seems that some people see "Bias" as it relates to thier way of thinking. As stated before Fox news is very conservative and NBC seems to be somewhat liberal. CNN falls somewhere between.
I enjoy the National News network on Directv channel 366. They are out of Canada and have reports from all over the world. The reports are not that different than anyone elses,except that there are no flashy banners and they show more of the battlefield instead of commentary. They also show some offbeat stuff like a pro American rally in Canada as well as demonstrations.

DarkBronzePlant

I'm one of the people who is disgusted by the U.S. news media's coverage of the news in general. And I was personally amazed to find the story on the killing of the Iraqi citizens in the van reported on CNN. Maybe it's such a huge story that CNN would look completely inept not reporting on it; who knows? It still doesn't change the fact that every time I turn on the TV, our news sounds as though it's reporting on a football game. And it also doesn't change the fact that the American media does have an agreement with the U.S. military; they can be "embedded" with the troops, as long as the military decides what information can go out.

99Percent

Besides, one has to take into account the fact that people don't like to watch things they don't like.

Most americans don't like to see dead Iraqi children. If CNN for example showed those brutal gruesome pictures, they will lose millions of viewers in the snap second they switch channels with the remote control.

Americans don't like news about the posibility of losing the war, or that the Iraqis are putting more resistance, or that the military made mistakes, etc. and the network news broadcasters know that reporting such bad news risks losing millions of viewers and its corresponding advertising sponsors. So bad news is released in a dosaged, minimalist fashion.

In short, its the news networks that censor themselves, there is no government or corporate involvment. Of course the military censors the reporters at the field for military reasons but thats understandable and even the networks admit to that.

emphryio

Gosh Pug, I thought you said you read Manufacturing Consent? So you already know what's going on. Right? I mean you're objections were pretty well covered in MC of course.

Here's yet another article.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...15&ItemID=3272

Psychic

[COLOR=red] I can't believe your argument! it's totally unbelievable!
First of all I'd like to mention that I am from palastine (and that is very very close to Iraqi borders) and alot of news come to us through the telephone line through our friends, our relatives etc. an I have watched many of your CNN crab, it is totally biased. now I don't have to prove this (I assume) and I think I am unable to do that cause there will always be a conflict of resources (I mean whom should you believe anyway).
BUT I think you guys had your experience with your news agencies.
now what I want to say is: you can't be fooled by a couple of "anti-war" articles! how can you trust a media that broadcast continuous fony news anyway! they have to give you some real shit so that you buy the rest of the bull shit

your arguement is totally unacceptable to me. and even if more serious news than the ones you are talking about were broadcasted on CNN or anywhere, I still think that this doesn't prove anything at all[/color=red]

Psychic

arguement out of absurdity:
let's take the opposite of what you are saying:

the government is not practicing any pressure on the news agencies in the US.
well, If you were GW Bush (not trying to insult you here) wouldn't you make every effort to ensure that your actions are supported by your people?
and isn't the media the right place to adress your citezins?
I think it's truely absurd to even ASSUME that the government has no influence on news agencies.

yaktldg

There is no need for government to exert any influence on the media. The elites own the media, and they're in the white house.

It would absurd to think that Bush would have to tell other elites (just like him) how to cover the news. They already know how; they have the same interests.

Kinross

Do you have any proof that the government has influence over the media in the US?

Cretinist

As I said to you in the last thread this was brought up in, Chomsky's model doesn't imply the sort of collusion you're looking for. The media isn't controlled by the government. The media and the government are controlled by the interests of Big Business.

I asked my librarian to get Manufacturing Consent on inter-library loan a few weeks ago, but I never checked back up on it. Perhaps I should.

Actually, I think I'll just buy it off amazon.com.

pug846

emphiryo said:

No, I thought you already demonstrated quite well that I hadn�t read the holy book that is Manufacturing consent when you said:

When I pointed out an excerpt in MC that specifically stated political and culture bias that is found in advertising, which skews what is shown on TV you simply ignored it. Clearly, you know the book incredibly well and I�m the one who needs to go back and re-read it. (Or, apparently, I was mistaken when I read it the first time and need to go back and re-read it.)

Cretinist said:

I�m nearly certain you are wrong about your understanding of Chomsky�s model, but as I stated last time, I haven�t read MC in a while and I�m willing to concede that my memory is fuzzy. I�m going to re-read it when I have some free time. Chomsky discusses several examples of the government controlling the media apart from his discussion of big business. Although I don�t necessarily think Chomsky would have much of a problem dealing with above examples (after all, he has, in his mind, no problem explaining Watergate � as I recall, I felt like he completely sidestepped the issue and pointed out more important things the media didn�t report on, which still ignores the fact that Watergate reporting did occur). I wasn�t really questioning people who have his (Chomsky�s) view in this thread.

I think if I were to have posted a poll in here last week that said, �If the US shoots and kills 7 women and children at a military check point, will the US news media report about it?�, I�m nearly certain that a large number of people would have said, no, they won�t report it and they would have been fairly adamant about the strength of that conviction. Agree, disagree? I�m not as confident, but still fairly confident that a poll that asked about the second story being reported would have similar results.