1
   

News Coverage of Iraq. How Fair Is Your Deal?

 
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Mar, 2003 06:56 pm
Now for the real comparison: what do US media report?

USA Today: "TROOPS 50 MILES FROM BAGDAD" (picture of soldiers lying in sand and aiming guns)
Fox News: "BEARING DOWN ON BAGHDAD" (pictures of burning oil pipeline break, U.S. pilot flashing victory sign, Marines in desert)
CNN: "ADVANCING ON BAGHDAD" (picture of British tank tearing into Saddam mural)
MSNBC: "NEARING BAGDAD" (picture of US soldiers brandishing guns)
And the odd exception:
Washington Times: "12 U.S. soldiers killed or captured" (picture of army tents)

Definite difference with Mexican and European media, I'd say.
0 Replies
 
fbaezer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Mar, 2003 07:54 pm
Now the headlines (useful too)

Newspaper 1 (El Universal). "Iraq resists attacks; intense fighting"
Newspaper 2 (Excelsior). "China demands to stop the war against Iraq; 10 US soldiers die"
Newspaper 3 (La Jornada): "Dead, wounded and prisoners in the invading force"
Newspaper 4 (Reforma): "Iraqi resistance complicates advance"
Newspaper 5 (El Heraldo): "The allies are slowed down"
Newspaper 6 (Cronica): "US-GB stumble in Nasiriyah"
Newspaper 7 (El Economista): "US invasion gets complicated"
Newspaper 8 (Milenio): "Black sunday. US dead and prisoners"
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Mar, 2003 08:54 pm
Australian journalists make a stand on censorship - Australian Broadcasting Commission article:

Journalists' union condemns ADF censorship request

The union representing journalists has condemned the Defence Department's attempt to censor the Australian media over images from the war in Iraq.

The Defence Force has asked Australian media organisations to obscure the faces of allied and Iraqi prisoners of war (POWs).

The move follows US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld asking US media organisations not to broadcast the pictures American POWs in a request most US media appeared to comply with.

Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance federal secretary Christopher Warren says media organisations are not respondents to the Geneva Convention and requests to censor material is a denial of press freedom.

"There's no doubt it's curtailing the story in war," Mr Warren said.

"Awful things happen, awful things happen to individual men and women, but you don't prevent that awfulness by preventing it being reported and preventing those countries participating in that war from finding out what's going on."

~~~
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Mar, 2003 11:11 pm
Their propaganda machine has a screw loose.
0 Replies
 
frolic
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Mar, 2003 08:39 am
I saw the press conference a few minutes ago. More and more journalists are getting suspicious. They complain they only hear and see the succesfull bombings and campaigns.

The US general also aired some unconfirmed stories. Stories about Iraqi soldiers dressed in US uniforms or the Basra uprise. I find this a very worrying situation. Those press conferences are meant to be to give confirmation, not for more rumouring.

He also suggested in a way the bombing of the market place was the work of the Iraqi. He didn't say it that way but that was what me meant.
0 Replies
 
frolic
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Mar, 2003 10:14 am
Al-Jazeera is really worried after the bombing of Iraqi TV.

In Afganistan their HQ was already bombed(by accident, but we know better) They even gave their coördinates to the US/UK army so any bombing "by accident" could be avoided.
0 Replies
 
fbaezer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Mar, 2003 11:54 am
A cousin of mine, a Cuban who recently was granted asyllum in the USA, recalled, many years ago, the way the Communist Party newspaper handled the news in Vietnam.

One day, it would say: "Heroic members of the Vietminh [the Vietcong, in US terms) liberated yesterday the town of Phang [Invented name]".

Three weeks later, it would say: "Heroic members of the Vietminh, liberated yesterday the town of Phang, which was briefly recaptured by the imperialists and their lackeys".

No news were given when "imperialists and their lackeys" recaptured the town.

In this aspect, I fail to find any significant difference between the handling of the news by the Cuban Communist Party newspaper in the Vietnam era, the Centcom and the Iraqi regime [except for the asceptic video games Centcom has to offer, maybe]
0 Replies
 
Diane
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Mar, 2003 12:52 pm
US television news lost me many days ago. At first, when the war had just begun, I watched all the time in a sort of fascinated horror. Since then, I listen to NPR and read various sources online.

In fbaezer's opening post, he mentioned a round table of representatives from around the world discussing the war. That is what I would love to see. How can we possibly understand the impact of this war if we only see what our government wants us to see?

Frolic, the congressman from Florida.....nothing more need be said. I would hesitate to trust anything from Florida. Remember the last presidential election? I live more than half the year in northern Florida; one of the most consevative areas in the US.

I don't bother getting the local paper, just an alternative paper that lists entertainment in the region. The only US paper I bother with is the New York Times.
0 Replies
 
frolic
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Mar, 2003 05:26 am
I wonder if anyone saw the food delivery of the coalition forces in a little town,Safwan, just across the border.

It was astonishing. UK troops handing out food while the crowd was yelling "Down with Bush" and singing "Bush listen very carefully, Saddam is the man we love"

The reaction of the soldier they interviewed was a bit sarcastic: "They will stop singing this song, when there is no Saddam to love" But you saw on their faces this was not what they had expected.

But i bet this wasn't showed on national TV in the US?
0 Replies
 
satt fs
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Mar, 2003 05:33 am
frolic..
Are you seeing real images?
0 Replies
 
frolic
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Mar, 2003 05:42 am
I know what you'r suggesting. That the Saddam Militia and the Ba'ath party still controll the cities and that they are afraid to protest against Saddam. Thats 100% true.

But you have to admit that the coalition forces don't get a warm welcome. We'll see in few weeks, When the 'liberator' becomes the occupier.

But my point was that the americans dont get the entire picture.
0 Replies
 
fbaezer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Mar, 2003 10:41 am
Frolic's version is part of what was reported here.

It was also reported that a group of civilian Iraqi men took control of a big load of packages, ripped a few of them, tossed bags and took the bulk to an unknown place.
Many people were left with a one-day bag, when they were supposed to have a one-week package.

A British officer was interviewed and said that people were chanting pro-Saddam phrases probably did it because there may have been members of the Iraqi secret police, or regime loyalists among the crowd, and were still afraid.

Reporters speculated two things: that the regime loyalists were the ones who took control of the many packages; and that the people of Safwan are still unsure of the final outcome of the war, so they still fear the representatives of the Iraqi police State. The speculations seemed credible to me.
0 Replies
 
frolic
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Mar, 2003 11:14 am
The language used in the media is extremly dangerous. The resistance of the Iraqi fighters is called "against the rules of engangement" and the fighters are called "terrorist-like cells". The press just takes over every rumour that comes out of the mouth of an Army official. The Truth was the first victim in this war. But this is not new.

An example:
A Nexis database search showed that between 1990 and 1999 the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, Washington Post, Newsweek and Time used the word "genocide" 132 times to describe the actions of Iraq against the Kurds. Over the same period, the word was used 14 times to describe the actions of Turkey against the Kurds. We all know what Iraq did to the Kurds at Halabja and elsewhere, but how many people know about the 50,000 Kurdish dead and the three million Kurdish refugees, victims of Turkish military assault? Who knows that 80 per cent of the arms were supplied by the US, including M-60 tanks, F-16 fighter-bombers, Cobra gunships and Blackhawk "slick" helicopters?
0 Replies
 
Diane
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Mar, 2003 05:08 pm
The US media are trying to put a little more reality into their broadcasts by reporting on US losses more than usual; some of them actually aren't perfectly coiffed in an effort to look as if they are really in the midst of battle. The entire effort is transparent PR work.
The following is from alternet--a good site for reading about what the rest of the world is reporting. The link is below with a short passage from the article.

http://truthout.org/docs_03/032803F.shtml
The Arab world sees pictures of bloodied bodies of young children. They watch scenes crowded with corpses, including gruesome images of dead American soldiers.
Americans see almost none of that. Their view of the war in Iraq, through television and print, is dominated by long-distance photos of bombs going off in Baghdad and intimate battlefield scenes conveyed by reporters who are traveling with US and British soldiers.
The two contrasting visions of this war, one seen by Americans and the other seen in the Middle East, help to sharpen differences over the conflict, say analysts and diplomats.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Mar, 2003 06:30 am
The BBC every day has a report on "what the Arab media tell", with an overview of TV and newspaper reports from Saudi-A., Kuwait, Lebanon, Yemen, Jordan, etc, and it repeats it several times. Do the American stations have that too? I havent yet seen anything like that on CNN.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Mar, 2003 01:44 pm
Items from the 8 o'clock news here:

Mass demonstration in Amman, Jordan, chants are: "Saddam, Bush and Blair are criminals"

Interview with doctor in Umm Qasr, where people now speak freely: "In this hospital, things were better until two weeks ago. Things were in order. Now there is no water, no electricity. It is war. [..] In general, people feel better now [out of Saddam's reach]. But they don't want Americans to stay. I am telling the Americans: if you don't leave after the war, there will be trouble. Iraq must be for Iraqis."

Report on recruiters in the US. "On TV in America, the recruits do not see any dead soldiers. Only rolling tanks, territorial advances, and smart bombs, the same as in the recruitment films. Most Americans still think the war isn't going so bad."

Progress report, anchorman asks correspondent: "So the Pentagon is still maintaining that things are going according to plan?" Correspondent reports Pentagon view. Military analyst points out what was left unmentioned, point by point: the weakness in the supply lines, the almost intact Republican Guards, the fact that hardly any city has been taken yet, the expected house-by-house struggle in Baghdad. "You can expect up to 100% losses in helicopters and up to 30% losses in men when that city war starts".

With satellite pictures from yesterday of Bagdad and Basra, the success of the bombing is evaluated. Many presidential palaces and ministries are shown to be still wholly intact. Military analyst adds that one explanation might be, though, that they've been hit by bombs so smart, that they exploded only in the basements, and so you can't see the damage from outside. Other pictures are used to show the extent to which smart bombs do work: individual buildings are hit, not, like in the old days, entire neighbourhoods.

Report from Dutch mosque. Dutch Muslims don't like Saddam, but they oppose this war, and distrust the Americans.

And how was your country's news today?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Mar, 2003 01:53 pm
British reporter [in Safran]: "Are you happy now that you have been liberated?"
Iraqi: "No - not happy. More food - in Safran - no food, family. Water. Need drink water, washing water."
British reporter [tries again]: "Are - you - happy - Saddam - Hussein - is - no - longer - ruler - here?"
Iraqi: "No - I think Saddam good man."
British reporter [sounding quite sharp]: "Why?!"
Iraqi: [shrugs, smiles] "Point of view." [goes on to explain why he doesnt like it now].

Well - you don't have to teach them about the right to and the relativity of one's individual opinion <giggles>.
0 Replies
 
fbaezer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Mar, 2003 02:05 pm
Top news here, now have to do more with internal consequences of the war.

*President Fox's preoccupation with the economic impact of war, as the US heads to deeper recession.
*The government saying vehemently "NO", to US pressure to change our UN ambassador, Adolfo Aguilar Zinser, who is considered "antiAmerican" by the Bush administration, as Mexico proceeds to head the Security Council on April.
*Aguilar Zinser's declaration in NY, that the Iraqis have the rights for their oil.
*The US pushing for "fast track" legalization of illegal Mexican immigrants in the US who are willing to enlist in the armed forces.

As the offensive loses momentum, the media have started to focus on Mexican-born US soldiers killed in action (3, so far), missing in action (1) or held POW (such as the soldier with wounds in his face, shown first by Al-Jazeera, and then elsewhere). Stories of hope for a better life shredded into pieces.
The main television network claims that a larger than average proportion of Mexican-born Americans and Mexican-Americans is sent to the Iraqi front, in comparison with other "races".
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Mar, 2003 05:01 pm
Frolic
Quote:
But i bet this wasn't showed on national TV in the US?


Wrong as usual!
0 Replies
 
frolic
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Mar, 2003 09:55 am
History of embedded journalism
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/25/2022 at 07:55:45