quote:
Here, we watch Fox, CNN, MSNBC, BBC, and Al Jazeera.
There are no codes flashing on the bottom telling us to prepare ourselves to hear views expressed that may be critical of the US actions in Iraq because CNN broadcasts a wide variety of viewponts.
We simply watch the news.
—tal
Seriously, you're not suggesting that there are no differences between these organisations in terms of how they cover world events, are you?
Do Al-Jazeera broadcast positive stories about the upcoming elections?
Do Fox broadcast the pictures of dead and maimed Iraqis following US bombings?
One of the things I always bear in mind when watching the news or reading a newspaper, is that there is *always* an agenda. No-one is ever completely impartial. Which stories will be on the front page? If you're discussing particular events, who do you ask for comment? These choices can materially alter how any particular story is perceived by the reader or viewer.
To take a (hopefully) non-contentious example: The recent expansion of the EU. In the liberal press over here, a lot of reporting focussed on how far Eastern European countries had come since the fall of Communism. In constrast, the Daily Mail, a somewhat right-wing newspaper, spent most of it's time talking about the potentially negative consequences of unrestricted labour migration. same event, completely different spin.
I emphasise this is true of all media organisations to some degree - although perhaps Fox is more forthright that most in nailing its colours to the mast! It is only by getting news from a number of sources that we can get the full picture. We may not agree with the bias of a particular network, but that bias may lead them to report and highlight things we would not otherwise hear about.
Certain facts have been discussed so far in this thread:
(1)There was significant corruption going on under the auspices of the UN Oil For Food Scheme (which the UN admits).
(2)Intelligence behind the assertions that the Iraqi regime possessed significant stockpiles of WMD and represented a clear danger to Western interests, requiring that we invade, have proven to be false (confirmed by government-intiated inquiries on both sides of the Atlantic).
(3)There was a distinct lack of planning for the occupation phase of operations in Iraq (admitted by those doing the planning).
Particular news outlets may place more emphasis one set of facts over the other, but you can't escape the reality that *all* of the above are true. You can use them to construct any number of arguments about how the current mess in the Middle East came about - but denying them is counterproductive.
This message has been edited by gengar, 01-11-2005 13:11 AM
™ Version 4.2
