It's enough to make you sick. . .

We're off subject once again. It seems to me that we go off on a tangent on a subject about going off on tangents just as we would yawn on a subject about yawns. Either that or digressions are a natural tendency.

Well my fault when my computer burped.

fox

But it is not as if that writer you quote at the head doesn't have an observable bias himself, yes?

You continually accuse folks of avoiding your questions or the issues, as you do on the last page. But you seem to behave as if only one answer is possible to your question, or only one viewpoint appropriate for an issue.

Now the piece seems to make the claim that whomever called in and said "they bombed to interrupt CNN" was correct. I think the probability of that is next to zero.

And, a thread such as this ought to note (and the fellow writing the piece ought to have noted) that the news operation coming out of the green zone in Bagdhad possibly ain't gonna hand out the 'real' story and the 'unvarnished' facts because...
"Senor, a former press secretary for Spencer Abraham, the Michigan Republican who's now Energy Secretary, heads the office packed with former Bush campaign workers, political appointees and ex-Capitol Hill staffers."
http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0404/137152.html

Now, we'll agree that modern news (and the commentary that passes for news such as Limbaugh or Drudge) is tragically lousy, and lack of verification is a BIG problem. But if you are going to extend that argument, and you might be, to another claim that 'left' media is at fault, or mainly at fault, then you simply do not know of what you speak.

For what its worth, I'm in regular contact with folks who happen to be in various places in Iraq and elsewhere nearby. None of them are "Whitehouse Insider" types, or "Administration Figures" of any sort. They ain't real happy about the tone and focus of "The News", either. There is among them a general consensus that achievements and successes are overlooked in favor of sensationalism, politicism, and negativity. But then, what do they know ... they're not journalists or politicians, they're just folks doing the best they can to do the job they've been handed.

timber

I'm actually sure you are correct. We both know that the "if it bleeds, it leads" motto of yellow journalism has now moved up to become a fairly good general motto for the major news media. That's not a consequence of journalism schools altering curricula, but of the altered demands placed upon news rooms as media outlets become merely, or mostly, income generators for large conglomerates. Conrad Black, for example, brags that he got the newspaper business figured right with two people in sales, and only one on news.

I think this is not just unfortunate, but dangerous to democracy. If one holds that an independent and hard-working press is advantageous to democracy (a further check on power, along with the educational function) then reducing the function to self-interest isn't a good thing, in the same way that privatizing courts wouldn't be a good idea.

But this isn't related to political bias. Blood and drama trumps regardless of which party is in power.

You seem to know those tactics better than anyone.

Hey guys take a breath, will you all. Now in every argument there seems to be two wrong views with the truth lost somewhere in between.

1. All wars are by their very nature wars of perception. The side percieved as winning will tend to at least be able to keep the fighting going, if not attain victory. The media is the key in forming those perceptions. That is why time and time again the insurgency in iraq is played down. So that the american people percieve the insurgents to be a bunch of rag tag, confused idiots. I am sure it is not a popular movement in the sense of what was going on in afghanistan, but also it aint just a few hundred on their own. Therefore any journalists who happen to cover wars will ultimately start to side with those that are getting shot at him at the same time, you almost always are against those who shoot at you.

2. Yes conservatives in any country or culture tend to be the ones who cacoon themselves in communities of similar people and bask in the self righteusness of their way of life. In my view and experience conservative=bigot. We are not here to confirm just how right our way of thought is, or to try and impose it on others. The whole reason why forums have existed, all the way from ancient greek society, was so that there could be informed debate. Where people had at least a rudimentary knowledge of what they were talking about. Never used the justification its so cause I think/believe it to be so, and through meaningful dialogue people could form better informed viewpoints.

3. Going back to the media and war(s) well if you are the big guys, with the big guns, all you have to do is set up a press conference and every camera in country will bbe there, all you have to do is say what you gotta say, answer a few questions that you like, and when you have unpleasant questions just go with the official propaganda "we don't target civilians" "we respect places of worship" or my favorite "our forces were fired upon first and they returned fire in self defense" and when you can no longer hide the truth that the building that was just demolished housed 50 civilians, and now they are all dead add a "we regret the loss of civilian life" tag. You don't see the opposers calling up press conferences do you, of course the only way that they can counter that propaganda is either by disrupting the coverage by commiting these staged bombings, or by the way of maybe al-jazeera and al-arabiya, who more or less are the only journalists with the decency to show more than just gen. sanchez and his news briefings.

One thing that pisses me off is most of the pictures we see are the american soldiers neatly tucked behind cover firing at god knows where, all the footage is one sided, comments biased, and we hardly ever see the aftermaths of those day long gun battles. It may as wall be the army's journalists themselves covering the war.

yilmaz is quickly becoming one of my favourite political posters.

Foxfyre and McGentrix,

Could you please provide your definitions for terrorist and assassination.

Your use of each of these words seems to contradict the standard English definitions.

Foxfyre wrote:
"I think the point of the story, more than the actual examples, is the ability of the press to deflect an issue or the real point of the story to something more consistent with their own agenda. Sort of like Hobitbob did with his post."

"You seem to know those tactics better than anyone." wilso

LOL!!! She's a master at the propaganda spin for the far right. :wink: