Truth in News - Progress in Iraq?

[genebujold]

The idea of "truth in new" might be an oxymoron, especially since the news has often been used to provide a particular editorial slant. Nevertheless, I believe that while some news agencies (CNN) have their own agenda, other news agencies (FoxNews) do their best to accurately and objectively report what's really happening, letting the readers make up their own minds.

I'd like to present a couple US sources, then ask you how your own country's news coverage, whether BBC or another (Germany, Netherlands, etc.) is portraying the war.

My chief complaint is that CNN, who's objective coverage of the Gulf War in 1990-1991, is perhaps the worst abuser, followed closely by The Associated Press, of the "truth in news" concept throughout Operation Iraqi Freedom.

If you read a lot of CNN news (I do), then compare it to news from other sources, like FoxNews (I follow that too, though not as much), you will find a very different perspective. CNN's coverage gives the quite distinct impression that coalition forces are barely holding their own, rapidly trading lives for few gains, if any. FoxNew's coverage, on the other hand, paints a distinctly different picture, one of moderate and steady progress of whittling down the insurgents (like 1 coalition force being killed for every 10 to 20 insurgents, out of a total of less than 15,000 insurgents), the rebuilding of infrastructure (security, justice, power, water, transportation, food, oil, etc.) that lead to the recent return of control to Iraqi interim President and Prime Ministers.

Here's a more specific example. Compare the following stories about the release of the Turkish captives:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/07/02/turkey.more.hostages.ap/index.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124545,00.html

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&ncid=736&e=5&u=/ap/20040703/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_hostages

You see the difference between CNN's pessimism, FoxNew's objectivity, and AP's (Yahoo story) being suckered into reporting the terrorist's position, that of "if you don't work for coalition, we will let you go, and all that crap about in honor of muslim, etc." The last is the worst, as it almost makes the terrorists look "honorable," as if savages who kidnap and behead innocent people could ever regain any semblance of "honor."

If you read some of the letters that have been written by the soldiers, you get an even brighter picture, one of widespread Iraqi civilian welcoming of, and cooperation with troops, where poor Iraqis are giving aid to the troops and are often risking their own lives to help the troops route the insurgents from their country, in the hope that once their numbers have dwindled, the job of policing the country can gradually revert to the newly formed Iraqi security forces.

Back to you - how're BBC and other country-specific news agencies portraying this conflict where you live?

[mk4625]

Whether a particular news service has an anti-administration bias depends upon who is currently in office. President Clinton's sexual misadventures were hardly worth 2 lines, but to the right-wing commentators it was a godsend. Don't read too much in these stories. They all reported the event clinically and made no value judgments. The AP story which you singled out as the worst has more of a human interest angle than the others. However it can scarcely be said to support the terrorists' viewpoint or hold them up as exemplary human beings. It merely quotes the terrorists and the victims' families and doesn't say whether they are right or wrong.

[NikkiHH]

The most complete analysis about reconstruction projects/progress in Iraq is at

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3846831.stm

There doesn't appear to be any bias in the report just a lot of details on all the essentials (water, health, education etc) from various Iraqi ministry officials, Worldbank, USAID, CPA). In short things seem to be getting better for the ordinary Iraqis, just that they are taking time and insurgents seem to be doing their best to disrupt the rebuilding efforts, including now the British controlled south which has been relatively quiet until recently.

[Trolldeg]

..other news agencies (FoxNews) do their best to accurately and objectively report what's really happening, letting the readers make up their own minds.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Of course Fox News tries to play up the positive side of the things happening in IRAQ, their agenda is to justify the war.

[Firefox]

I saw a discussion on this board about a Fox News video which was very pro the Iraq War. I get the impression that Fox News is actually very biased in favour of the issue. So, naturally if you support the concept of the war, you will have the notion Fox is very unbiased and truthful because its telling you what you want to hear. There's nothing so easy as preaching to the converted.

[Dr. Shoe]

When news is being reprted, there are four filters that it goes through: What the reporters want to say, what the editor wants to say, what the news agency's owner wants to say and what the government wants you to hear. Each have their own agendas. We saw the results in another thread "Conning Us With Science" about a golf course that apparently required 100 metres of rainfall to keep it green. Probably the journalist reported figures that were more accurate but by the time it was edited to fit it became distorted.

[Bubba136]

TD: They broadcast Fox News in Sweden?

Firefox wrote:

There's nothing so easy as preaching to the converted.

And, for those on the opposite side there's no amount of evidence to great to be ignored.

[Dr. Shoe]

TD: They broadcast Fox News in Sweden?

Firefox wrote:

And, for those on the opposite side there's no amount of evidence to great to be ignored.

Indeed!

[shrimper]

Fox News is NOT :Fair and balanced"!! I watched it a little as the war was coming on and I got sick to my stomach. I really had my fill of watching convicted felons from prior administrations shouting down anybody who disagreed with them, calling them unpatriotic if they questioned any of the developments. Every news organization has a slant. Ifg you find yourself happy with one that just means it has the same slant as you.

[Trolldeg]

I have access to 4 different news sources where I live. 2 swedish sources (one public service, and one commercial channel), BBC world, and Fox News (broadcast about 12h a day on channel 8 ). I don't know about the other newschannels in America, but the problem I have with Fox News is that their presenters openly state their own oppinions in most matters (Neil Cavuoto, Bill "no-spin" O'Reilly) and clearly have an agenta. And Fox News is a conservative network, so it's clear to see where they are coming from. For news to be as balances as possible, the newscasters should only report the undisputed 'facts', and not try to push their own oppinions, as is the case with BBC world and swedish news, as far as I can see.

[NikkiHH]

I was in the US when the first cruise missile strike occurred - shock and awe - and was in a bar with Fox news on, but the sound muted. The thing that shocked the substantial british and european bar crowd was the presentational style used: Iraq: HARDBALL flying around the screen more like a sports event (or 'militainment' as some commentator called it). They failed (in my opinion and those whom I was with) to put accross the gravity of the situation - armed forces were going into combat and real people were going to get killed by cruise missiles. Whatever the political bias associated with respective news agencies they should report news with the sense of severity and importance it deserves and put across the undisputed facts (as Trolldeg aptly put it). Especially war.

[j-turbo2002]

I don't watch a whole lot of television (I work for a living and I have a life!) and therefore I really cannot give a detailed analysis on which news organization is too liberal or too conservative, etc.

I do know one issue.... ALL NEWS MEDIA IS BIASED!

What I cannot help is that from reading these last few posts that are attacking Fox News as being NOT fair and balanced I get the impression that some people view this channel as a threat.

I wonder why?

[virginie]

Wasn't it fox who first declared Bush to have won the 2004 elections before all the votes were counted? (remember the images of Gore celebrating his victory minutes before Fox declared the Bush victory) Isn't one of the big chiefs of Fox W's cousin?

[Bubba136]

Virginie wrote:

Wasn't it fox who first declared Bush to have won the 2004 elections

I don't think they've called that election yet, Virginie.

TD: American journalistic ethics divide reporters into several different categories. The two main elements are news reporters and news commentators (columnists). Reporters are supposed to report the facts of a story without letting their personal feelings/ideology/politics influence their reporting. Commentators/columnists, on the other hand, are broadcasters/writers that analyze the news from their prospective. Traditionally, newspapers reserve their front pages for news stories and factual reporting and their editorial pages for opinion pieces.

Reporters on Fox -- the men and women that report news stories like Laurie Dhue or Lauren Green -- report factually as the details become known. Commentators like Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes, Neil Cavuto and John Gibson are known for their personal preference and slant (spin) news from their points of view. Fox says they're fair and balanced because they supposedly have an equal number of commentators and guests for all sides of an issue.

Bill O'Reilly, on the other hand, is a highly opinionated commentator who supposidly doesn't let his guests "propagandize" issues. His objective (self-stated) is to only discuss facts of issues.....without the "spin". Some of the time he succeeds.

[virginie]

I meant the 2000 elections, excuse me.

[Dr. Shoe]

I don't watch a whole lot of television (I work for a living and I have a life!) and therefore I really cannot give a detailed analysis on which news organization is too liberal or too conservative, etc.

I do know one issue.... ALL NEWS MEDIA IS BIASED!

What I cannot help is that from reading these last few posts that are attacking Fox News as being NOT fair and balanced I get the impression that some people view this channel as a threat.

I wonder why?

Isn't the entire media a threat?

The reason I ask is that in the wrong hands we can be told to believe absolutely anything. Take the first broadcast of "War Of The Worlds", it was meant as a radio play but as it was reported in news style everyone thought it was actually happening!

During WWII both sides made extensive use of propaganda. Of course that isn't so prevalent these days, only in a minority of countries is the media still run by the state. However, most of the media is owned by large multinationals: News International is owned by Rupert Murdoch who also has extensive interests in satelite broadcasting and owns BskyB. Mirror Group Newspapers was owned by Robert Maxwell, a Jew who once worked for British Intelligence (If that isn't an oxymoron ) but is said to have had doubtful connections in pre-war Germany and later, the Soviet Union.

Suppose these powerful media moguls decided that a certain individual was going to become president or prime minister do you think the media would not be slanted toward promoting their favourite and rubbishing their rivals? Even the governor general of the BBC is a mate of Tony Blair, and doesn't it show! There is a connection between the fact that the media were unanimously behind TB and his election victory in 1997. How does he reward the press? Who knows? Didn't Mr. Murdoch get an honourary knighthood?

No, I don't think the media as a threat because they quickly get tired of their toys and latch on to someone else.

[Bubba136]

Damn! Don't you just love conspiracies?

[Firefox]

I agree with J Turbo that all news coverage is biased. It's not so much what you say, but what you leave out, and since constraints of time force you to leave out 95% of the material, opportunities abound for putting a slant on coverage while at the same time apparently being objective and telling the truth. That goes for Fox, The BBC, CNN, Al-Jasira or anyone else. It was stated that Fox was ubiased and objective. All I was doing, was contesting that premise due to the above reasons.

[virginie]

What do American people think of Fahrenheit 9/11. It is also a bit biased and exagerated perhaps, but at least it shows the story from a totally different perspective.

[Trolldeg]

I meant the 2000 elections, excuse me.

Fox was the first network to call Florida for Bush. Before that, some other networks had called Florida for Gore, and they changed after Fox called it for Bush.

“With information provided from the Voter News Service, NBC was the first network to project Gore the winner in Florida at 7:48 pm. At 7:50 pm ,CNN and CBS project Gore the winner in Florida as well.” By 8:02 pm , all five networks and the Associated Press had called Gore the winner in Florida. Even the VNS called Gore the winner at 7:52 pm. At 2:16 am, Fox calls Florida for Bush, NBC follows at 2:16 am. ABC is the last network to call the Florida for Bush, at 2:20 am, while AP and VNS never call Florida for Bush. CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/02/02/cnn.report/cnn.pdf

Ten minutes after the top of the hour, network excitement was again beginning to build. At 2:16 a.m., the call was made: Fox News Channel, with Bush's first cousin John Ellis running its election desk, was the first to project Florida -- and the presidency -- for the Texas governor. Within minutes, the other networks followed suit. "George Bush, Governor of Texas will become the 43rd President of the United States," CNN's Bernard Shaw announced atop a graphic montage of a smiling Bush. "At 18 minutes past two o'clock Eastern time, CNN declares that George Walker Bush has won Florida's 25 electoral votes and this should put him over the top."PBS:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/election2000/election_night.html

[j-turbo2002]

but the problem I have with Fox News is that their presenters openly state their own oppinions in most matters and clearly have an agenta

All television news channels do what you have just described now-and-days. ALL OF THEM!

What I don't understand why you are specifically attacking Fox News.

Fox was the first network to call Florida for Bush. Before that, some other networks had called Florida for Gore, and they changed after Fox called it for Bush.

This is all nice to read. However, WHO CARES?

Why have you focused on this issue?

[Bubba136]

And your point, TD, is?

[j-turbo2002]

Exactly Bubba!

Trolldeg, what exactly is the point behind all of this rhetoric?

[Trolldeg]

All television news channels do what you have just described now-and-days. ALL OF THEM!

Perhaps in america...

What I don't understand why you are specifically attacking Fox News.

I don't have access to other american news channels.

This is all nice to read. However, WHO CARES?

Why have you focused on this issue?

If you read the thread carefully, you'll see that Virgine asked a question, wich I answered.

[Bubba136]

Question!!!! In what countries is the news more truthful, In countries where the news organizations are managed and controlled by the government or in the countries that practice "Freedom of Speech"?

[JeffM]

Very good question Bubba When I was in the Australian Airforce staioned in Darwin at the top end of Oz I some times listened to Radio America coming out of Guam. Various news items were of interest and the way they were presented made them perfectly plausible. However with in a few days The Peoples Republic of China Radio would present their view, a view that was just as plausible as the American one especially if I hadnt heard any other version before hand. So who does one believe in? It was certainly interesting to hear both sides. This doesnt answer your question I know. It is easy to say that in a dictatorship the news is tainted in favour of the governing party. The good thing about freedom of speech is that while it gives the news agencies freedom to say it as they want, it also gives us the freedom to believe it or not. Jeff

[genebujold]

Question!!!! In what countries is the news more truthful, In countries where the news organizations are managed and controlled by the government or in the countries that practice "Freedom of Speech"?

I'd have to say "Freedom of Speech."

You'll still get one publisher slanting this way, and another slanting that way, while The Economist slants yet a third...

All in all, however, they do a marvelous job keepign checks and balances on one another so that those of us who sample from many sources usually get a pretty good idea of what's really happening!

[Dr. Shoe]

This is so true. However. We are supposed to live in a country with freedom of speech and yet when someone expresses an opinion that the muslim faith is wicked and violent he is pilloried yet a muslim cleric that advocates beating women, throwing homosexuals from a clifftop and openly supports the use of suicide bombers is welcomed to London with a gala dinner!

[j-turbo2002]

Perhaps in america...

When I said that all news media outlets do this I was referring to media outlets all over the world. Not just America.

Unless you expect all of us to believe that this only happens in America?

Remember what I said: ALL NEWS MEDIA IS BIASED!

ALL: as in the entire world, not just America!

I don't have access to other american news channels.

So what? Why not a Swedish news media outlet. A British outlet? Etc.....

Why just the American news channel?

If you read the thread carefully, you'll see that Virgine asked a question, wich I answered.

I very well know that you were answering Virgine's question. However you missed the point of my question.

Sit back, relax, and pretend that the rest of us do not know anything about the world news media.

Why is it important for all of us to know that Fow News (in specific) was the first network to call Florida for Bush?

Once again - Why did you specifically focus on this issue?

What historical significance did Fox News being the first network to call Florida for Bush have?

How is this all of this relevant? What is the point here exactly?

Why should we care?

I should not do this but:

Hint: The answer to my question (something of which is still in debate) is hidden in one of the links that you posted earlier.

[PJ]

The other day, I was listening to talk radio. They were discussing the problems with news media coverage of world events. They mentioned that supposedly, more and more of the media is being controlled by fewer and fewer people as the result of business merges and buyouts. One example they gave was that Australian Rupert Murdoch owns or controls about 40% of the television signals broadcast in the USA. I was able to confirm this at http://www.communication.indstate.edu/transnational_media.html.

I also am very disappointed with lack of fair and unbiased news coverage of major news events such as the war. I used to work in the news media until I finally had enough and retired early. I have no regrets.