Is This Hussein's Counterattack?

[jimnyc]

Yes, surprise, suprise, all news media is biased. The main difference I find between domestic and foreign sources is that foreign ones are usually much more open and honest about their biases, and such leanings are better known to their readers / viewers, whereas here most news media maintain a myth of objectivity and a huge number of their readers / viewers believe that this is possible.

Agreed

Just what "sources abroad" were you referring to when you suggest that the inconsistencies I point out are unfounded? I find stuff regularly reported in foreign sources all the time that does not make most US news sources reporting on the same topics.

My point was that if the 50,000 was credible and verifiable, it would be reported immediately by any news sources that lean towards the side against war. The foreign agencies reporting these numbers are citing sources that can't be confirmed at this time. The "unfounded" part is coming to the conclusion that it *may* be true since they reported it and mainstream US media has not - that would be *assuming* that the media here would be hiding something as part of an agenda. I doub't the liberals would try to hide this from the public if it were in any way confirmed.

Oh, and on this note - I haven't read _Arrogance: Rescuing America from the Media Elite_, and I don't know if I want to because I gather that he talks mostly about domestic social issues that I'm less interested in. Since you've presumably read it, could you tell me whether he discusses biases in reporting foreign policy and if he discusses other countries' presses? If so, what does he have to say about them?

I haven't read it. I caught a few TV and radio interviews with him where he gave a nice overview. I don't recall any mention of foreign press, although there apparently is much discussed about foreign policy and how certain media report what is in their political interest and suppress anything that is not.

From what I've heard of him I'd be inclined to agree that American media does have to a large extent an intrinsic bias when it comes to reporting on abortion, gay rights, and minority rights. Yet, when it comes to questioning the political and economic structure of our society, I find the mainstream media very conventional and ignorant of things outside our boarders.

I think almost all media outlets are biased in some fashion, some just more than others. This is why the arguments exist amongst parties over credible news sources, each clamoring that the other is biased.

 

[dijetlo]

jimnyc
This is why the arguments exist amongst parties over credible news sources, each clamoring that the other is biased.

A good excersize is to read your least favorite source and criticaly try to discern what is opinion(spin), what is rumor (unverified facts) and what is fact (backed with evidence/multiple sources). Go to your favorite source for news and do the same thing.
I don't think the rest of the world realizes how hard it is to keep your "eye on the ball" in america as facts (what the news is supposed to be comprised of) get burried in partisan spin and political rumor.
This begs the question, were we led down the path to war in Iraq for the selfish interests of multi-national corporations and media moguls? They are the ones who unquestioningly brought us all of the rumours that were reported as fact and then turned out to be fiction. It appeared for several months that anybody with an official sounding tittle who had a damning or incriminating thing to say got his mug on the TV across america, aren't the media supposed to vet their sources? Is ratings really the reason for our current predicament in Iraq as the news outlets vied to be the "most american" news channel on your cable. I'm a little stumped here guys, any suggestions on how to fix this little anomaly of capitolism or should news be an entirely consumer driven affair with the inherent oppurtunities for fraud and abuse?

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Agreed



My point was that if the 50,000 was credible and verifiable, it would be reported immediately by any news sources that lean towards the side against war.

And just what sources are these? Apart from a few Indy news sources (who I believe have reported this) I can't think of any off hand.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by SLClemens
And just what sources are these? Apart from a few Indy news sources (who I believe have reported this) I can't think of any off hand.

Take your pick, there are plenty to choose from.

The bottom line is that the minimum guess is 5,000 and the higher end is 50,000. Which again leads us back to the beginning, and we still have the same level of circumstances. A top ranking general stating 5,000 and a leaked document that can't be in any way confirmed. The number is likely to be more than 5,000 but I doubt it's anywhere even near 50k.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Take your pick, there are plenty to choose from.

I'd disagree. I don't think there are many mainstream new sources that "that lean towards the side against war." If you think there are, I'd be interested to know which one you think do.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by jimnyc
The bottom line is that the minimum guess is 5,000 and the higher end is 50,000. Which again leads us back to the beginning, and we still have the same level of circumstances. A top ranking general stating 5,000 and a leaked document that can't be in any way confirmed. The number is likely to be more than 5,000 but I doubt it's anywhere even near 50k.

I have no idea whether the CIA knows what it's talking about. If, as some news sources suggest, the CIA thinks there are about 50,000 somehow involved in the insurgency but, as others have suggested, only about 5,000 active fighters, this would seem quite plausible. But there are many other possibilities. The real issue, as I see it, is what we're going to do to try to reduce the number of Iraqis drawn toward insurgency in the future.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by SLClemens
I'd disagree. I don't think there are many mainstream new sources that "that lean towards the side against war." If you think there are, I'd be interested to know which one you think do.

A couple of quotes from people more in the know than us about whether the media is biased:

""The societal purpose of the media is to inculcate and defend the economic, social, and political agenda of privileged groups that dominate the domestic society and the state. The media serve this purpose in many ways: through the selection of topics, distribution of concerns, framing of issues, filtering of information, emphasis and tone, and by keeping debate within the bounds of acceptable premises."
Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (1988), Pantheon Books, NY

"The old argument that the networks and other 'media elites' have a liberal bias is so blatantly true that it's hardly worth discussing anymore. No, we don't sit around in dark corners and plan how we will slant the news. It comes naturally to most reporters"
CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg

Also, a gallup poll released just last week states that 45% of Americans believe the media is too liberal compared to 14% that think they are too conservative. I guess I'm not alone.

http://www.gallup.com/subscription/?m=f&c_id=13968

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by jimnyc
A couple of quotes from people more in the know than us about whether the media is biased:

""The societal purpose of the media is to inculcate and defend the economic, social, and political agenda of privileged groups that dominate the domestic society and the state. The media serve this purpose in many ways: through the selection of topics, distribution of concerns, framing of issues, filtering of information, emphasis and tone, and by keeping debate within the bounds of acceptable premises."
Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (1988), Pantheon Books, NY

"The old argument that the networks and other 'media elites' have a liberal bias is so blatantly true that it's hardly worth discussing anymore. No, we don't sit around in dark corners and plan how we will slant the news. It comes naturally to most reporters"
CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg

Also, a gallup poll released just last week states that 45% of Americans believe the media is too liberal compared to 14% that think they are too conservative. I guess I'm not alone.

http://www.gallup.com/subscription/?m=f&c_id=13968

What on earth does this have to do with the question I asked? I'm interested in what mainstream sources "lean towards the side against war". Many big-state "liberals" supported the war and many on the libertarian right opposed it.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by SLClemens
What on earth does this have to do with the question I asked? I'm interested in what mainstream sources "lean towards the side against war". Many big-state "liberals" supported the war and many on the libertarian right opposed it.

I figured you were intelligent enough to figure it out, my apologies.

CBS
ABC
Washington Post
CNBC
Washington Herald
New York Times
Wall Street Journal
US News

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by jimnyc
I figured you were intelligent enough to figure it out, my apologies.

CBS
ABC
Washington Post
CNBC
Washington Herald
New York Times
Wall Street Journal
US News

I believe taht the editorial committee of hte Washington Post opposed the war as it was set out, but indicated that they may have supported it under other circumstances. I'm sure that Thomas Friedman and others from the NYT would be surprised to find their puplication making your list. CBS and ABC I'm less familiar with as I generally don't watch network news. I read a lot of NBC stuff, and I don't see where you're coming from - this is the network that fired Peter Arnett for giving his honest opinion on the invasion's failures. I hardly ever read Us News and have never read hte Washington herald, so I can't comment on these. As for the WSJ, I've heard they've criticized Bush for declaring the war over but where did they ever lean against the invasion officially.

 

[jimnyc]

A media organization doesn't necessarily have to point blank state their views to lean towards a specific affiliation. It's the reporting all together and printed articles.

These are all views from my perspective, that liberal bias exists, and views shared by 45% of Americans.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by jimnyc
A media organization doesn't necessarily have to point blank state their views to lean towards a specific affiliation. It's the reporting all together and printed articles.

These are all views from my perspective, that liberal bias exists, and views shared by 45% of Americans.

If most of the above-mentioned sources present to you an anti-war affiliation and to me a pro-war one then I suppose they must be doing something right.

 

[Bry]

And many of those sources actually supported the war: if they are criticising it now, one might conclude it's not for their "bias".

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by SLClemens
If most of the above-mentioned sources present to you an anti-war affiliation and to me a pro-war one then I suppose they must be doing something right.

Yes, and I along with the majority of Americans must be "suckers" for seeing it differently.

And many of those sources actually supported the war: if they are criticising it now, one might conclude it's not for their "bias".

Can you present quotes from the owners and editors? Read Goldberg's book, or get an overview, the journalists have plenty of articles rejected and plent more censored.

We're talking about a slant here, not total support. The slant allows them to still sell their news, and yet provide it in an inconsistent manner.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Yes, and I along with the majority of Americans must be "suckers" for seeing it differently.

If you're middle-class or relatively wealthy, and especially if you're a driver, you're not a sucker; you're a net beneficiary, unless the war goes so badly in the long-term that the costs completely negate the gains made by controling Iraqi oil, in which case you merely lack foresight. Soldiers and sychophantic Brits who think they're fighting for freedom and against terrorism are absolute suckers, however.

 

[Bry]

This quote you posted, jim, is arguing that the media has an inherent RIGHT bias, and more than bias, that it is in the service of the right.

""The societal purpose of the media is to inculcate and defend the economic, social, and political agenda of privileged groups that dominate the domestic society and the state. The media serve this purpose in many ways: through the selection of topics, distribution of concerns, framing of issues, filtering of information, emphasis and tone, and by keeping debate within the bounds of acceptable premises."
Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (1988), Pantheon Books, NY

I've read the book, and it's not something I thought I'd live to see you quote. Chomsky is one of my favorite political critics. And he's an Anarcho-Communist. Where did you find this quote?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bry
I've read the book, and it's not something I thought I'd live to see you quote. Chomsky is one of my favorite political critics. And he's an Anarcho-Communist. Where did you find this quote?

http://www.gargaro.com/bias.html

 

[NightTrain]

Soldiers and sychophantic Brits who think they're fighting for freedom and against terrorism are absolute suckers, however.

I will tolerate many things.

Insulting our Armed Forces will not ride.

Insult our men and women fighting again, and you will find yourself banned.

This is your one and only warning.

Got it?

 

[jimnyc]

Thanks, NT, I agree. I was going to say that earlier but I didn't want to be accused of being a dictator again. There is really no need to insult those that don't make the decisions that are being debated, they are there merely serving their country. There are plenty of other people to insult. There a several veterans on this board as well and these comments then become personal.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by NightTrain
I will tolerate many things.

Insulting our Armed Forces will not ride.

Insult our men and women fighting again, and you will find yourself banned.

This is your one and only warning.

Got it?

Mornin', NightTrain,

I find it quite interesting what does and doesn't insult warmongers and nationalists. For instance, at the peak of the fighting, Congress passed $14.6bn in cuts to veterans' benefits. I found this a profound insult to our fighting men and women, but very few others did. In the thread http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1014 you expressed ignorance of this and then didn't seem to have interest and / or time to discuss it further. But apparently it's not a great insult to do anything less than ensure that our soldiers have the best possible health care and educational benefits after they've endured the horrors of war. Why is this, I wonder? I think it's because doing so would highlight just how horrific war is on those doing the fighting ... and how expensive it is to us taxpayers ... that might take some wind out of the flag-wavers' sails and put a damper on the drums of war. It might make war seem like more of an absolute last resort.

What does seem deeply insulting to those who love a good war, however, is the notion that our men are fighting in vain, for causes other than they've come to believe, and for profits that they'll see little of and people who sat out the war in comfort will see much of. I'll refrain from trying to come up with a descriptive noun to characterize such people if it bothers you that much. Here, once again, I see some interesting parallels to Vietnam. It disturbed proponents of that war to no end that opponents called it a useless fight. Nixen's strategy for gaining continuing support was to praise the bravery of our troops (who in many cases proved incredibly brave) and condemn the atrocities of the North and Viet Cong, and also blame the media for informing us graphically (I wasn't around at the time but I've read a lot about it) how many of our young men were dying. This helped a critical majority take a very long time to realize that if we thought we were effectively fighting a communist threat rather than a vain ideological struggle, we were fighting for nothing. We're not unique in such hopeless endeavors. It certainly took the French a long time to realize that their men, conscripts, and les bonnes poires who volunteered because they were told they were glorifying their empire and effectively repressing terrorism, were doing nothing of the sort in North Africa.

Thankfully, I get the impression that many of our soldiers in Iraq do not match such a characterization. Many of them, I think, see that far from preventing terrorism they are bringing it on. Many of them, regardless of what they think about terrorism or oil, are trying their best to make a Iraq a better, safer, more dignified place, and this is to be commended. But sadly, I do hear the odd one say "this is for 911." If they really think that all their hard work and bravery is to make our lives safer rather than ensuring that the thirsty American economy has an increasing supply of cheap oil, they're sadly mistaken, and have bought into a terrible myth. What insults people about framing the argument that way, I think, is that it implicates the war's proponents in their needless deaths and injuries, to say nothing of Iraqis. It suggests that people - in this case our fellow citizens - have to die to support our affluence.

If we really want to dignify our fighting men and women we should stop trying to delude them about what they've been fighting for (and stop changing the reasons for war), pay up the necessary money for shorter rotations, give them straight answers about how long they'll have to serve, employ tactics that give Iraqis less cause to hate them, and make sure there's health care, educational and retraining opportunities, and psychological support for them when they leave the military and find themselves faced with the numerous problems that veterans of wars always face.

It might also be nice if some of our leaders actually visit the wounded and go to some of their funerals.