The UN, US and Iraq IV

the difficulty with e-Journals has always been twofold. Firstly, many of the older academics are afraid to use the net (one of teh members of my comittee had the division secretary answer his email for him. He refused to learn how to use e-mail.). The other difficulty has been verifcation of accuracy..peer review. Everyone can count on a paper journal having proper peer review procedure. It is very easy for someone to set up an e-journal and claim to be someone they are not, with articles that claim to be peer reviewed. Saxon Shores had that same problem, but found a home at the University of Wisconsin's English Department, and has been chugging along since. This Middle East Review seems legit, and a quick shufti at these guys' CVs should tell if this is a legit source, since their publications will be attributed.

hobitbob

It's the opinion of the NY Post[, which is known to support heavily Socialists (here: Labour) :wink: ] .

I always thought the BBC was a highly principled organization. c.i.

Danke, Walter. Posting without attribution makes me exceptionally suspicious. I tend to think of the NY Post the same way I do FOX.

C.I wrote:

I always thought the BBC was a highly principled organization. c.i.

The BBC "World news Service" was at one time the very best unbiased news source in the world. That was before the current management team came to power.

now its sunk down to being just the best news source in the world.

The New York Post is biased toward the right but does not use ad hominem satire to bludgeon the reader as do many of the leftist garbage cans such as Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd of the NYTimes

Ah. The New York Post. Always thoughtful. Always wide-ranging. Never gets personal.

Yup.

Murdoch vs. the people's news in Britain. Completely unbiased, of course.

Next?

The New York Post, Fox, London Times, Melbourne Morning Herald - more - all owned by Rupert Murdoch, and run to formula. If the proposal by Michael Powell (head of FCC and son of Colin) goes through, Murdoch will be able to own a lot more media outlets in given territories. However, many legislators on both sides of the fence are opposing this. Interesting - the connection with Colin Powell.

The New York Post is a daily, in constant competition with The Daily News, and it is always behind in circulation and ad revenues figures. Except as a source for the racing results and scandal, it is not considered as anything but a tabloid. They've done some fancy hiring (the paper is run by Murdoch's son), and have had to print the occasional retraction. They are not considered a prime news source anywhere.

It's interesting that Alistair Campbell, Tony Blair's Karl Rove, who just resigned, came from a tabloid background. I haven't looked it up, but I wonder if it was one of Murdoch's, which would explain the nastiness abaout the BBC. The New York Times today, in one of its articles, says Campbell had a contempt for reporters, and would sit on the news unless it benefitted Tony Blair. Could be the BBC just got tired of it.

Over here there seems to be some sort of change, too. Following is an article Dana Milbank of the Washington Post wrote about attending a cook-out at Bush's ranch last Wednesday. While courteous, it fair drips with sarcasm. Although, considering the thickness of the WH skins, I wonder how they see it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61966-2003Aug28.html

Kind of frigid hospitality, not like real Texas, seems to me! Nice article, Mamaj, but depressing. Like eating a TCBY frozen yogurt knowing there's no yogurt in it, it's all corporate chemicals.

The New York Post wouldn't have any idea of the technique or power of satire -- they just publish journalism that is yellow enough to put a daisy to shame.

Who is more insulting to your intelligence---the journalist who is biased and admits it openly or the journalist who righteously spouts a biased line and then denies the bias?

Examples here are CBS, NBC, ABC ------- In England the BBC

FOX-----delights in showing it's bias and the people delight in eating it up mainly because they are sick of having garbage shoved down their throats under the quise of "factual" news reporting

But... Fox calls itself "fair and balanced" and even trademarked it. Aren't they doing the same?

I'd think it funny to see them lead with "Welcome to the right leaning Fox hardhitting news.."

Perception with your career in the military I am sure you are familiar with "thinking red" which is certainly an interesting exercise, but within its hubris lies its faults. Westmoreland tried thinking red in VietNam and lost his ass, Rumsfeld again tried thinking red with the invasion of Iraq and misjudged. In current political terms, thinking red provides for the same critical errors of supposing that you are thinking red (liberal) and therefor comprehend your enemy. You consistently define vaguely what appears to you as far lefty's (your terms) when there is in essence no such thing in the US. By annointing such media as CNN, NYT, etc as far left in order to justify placing Fox News as slightly right is indicative of serious misjudgement, indeed placing what you have consistently posted as also being slightly right again appears to me as extremely narrow sighted.

Craven

Good point about the fair and balanced thing----they don't really announce it but make it very obvious by always presenting the "right" side of the story first. I guess what I'm trying to say is that they announce the bias by being obvious----what's wrong with that?

Isn't that more honest than manipulating the slant by not asking certain questions and by having patsies who will give the left side of the story without being obvious----it is very easy to do---just listen to the BBC world news hour on NPR at nine in the morning.

Nope not familiar with "thinking red"----does it have something to do with playing roulette?

sorry perception I assumed you had enough military training to know what thinking red was all about. my mistake.

Gosh ---that's probably your first mistake this year.