News Fox News: Who Used Journalists as Human Shields in Libya?

[dacruick]

American news is a write off with respect to a reliable source of information. Media across the country can't deliver information without a political bias. Watching fox news make me cringe actually. I feel like I'm being given a right wing opinion not actual news.

 

[nismaratwork]

American news is a write off with respect to a reliable source of information. Media across the country can't deliver information without a political bias. Watching fox news make me cringe actually. I feel like I'm being given a right wing opinion not actual news.

News is generally unreliable, but as you note, unrealiable is different from propoganda. MSNBC and Fox News are shills for their respective "bases", not really news outlets at all. CNN goes for "human interest" and "drama" at the expense of news, with a liberal slant, but it's not subtle enough to fool anyone who isn't truly gullible.

As always, it's best to find a number of sources, and in the case of a story such as this it's important to remember the two "agreeing" sources are... both Newscorp owned.

 

[WhoWee]

Again, this has no bearing on a fabricated story, although you seem to have material for a different and entirely speculative thread.

The story is not "fabricated" if the British pulled the plug on the mission because of the presence of the news crews - is it? Label it speculation if you like, but until the British military clarifies - we just don't know for certain - do we?

This report doesn't convince me either way.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/queensland/a/-/mp/9050306/west-strikes-libya-gaddafi-forces-choke-misrata/

 

[nismaratwork]

The story is not "fabricated" if the British pulled the plug on the mission because of the presence of the news crews - is it? Label it speculation if you like, but until the British military clarifies - we just don't know for certain - do we?

This report doesn't convince me either way.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/queensland/a/-/mp/9050306/west-strikes-libya-gaddafi-forces-choke-misrata/

I'm a skeptic, when someone makes a claim I need more than one compromised course to make it something to speculate about. There needs to be a valid claim to examine, not an endless hypothetical. Once again, if you want to discuss the what-ifs of military strikes where journalists are present, then by all means start the thread and I PROMISE I will fully participate.

In this case however, we have an invention of one person backed by Newscorp, and discredited by CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC. There is nothing to examine re: the OP's post, and I should know.

Don't let yourself go down this road, you have too much respect for facts (I've seen it) to play this game. We don't know ANYTHING for certain in the fog of war, much less the motivations of ongoing operations beyond conflicting reports. Beyond that general and obvious statement which in no way gives Fox leave to invent stories, no, there is nothing in what you're saying that is relevant to a manufactured tale by a putz who spent most of his time in a tent.

edit: Again, this was not an airstrike either, but a cruise missile launch that HIT before reporters were on the scene. Logic should play a role here too.

 

[turbo]

The story is not "fabricated" if the British pulled the plug on the mission because of the presence of the news crews - is it? Label it speculation if you like, but until the British military clarifies - we just don't know for certain - do we?

This report doesn't convince me either way.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/queensland/a/-/mp/9050306/west-strikes-libya-gaddafi-forces-choke-misrata/

I read that report. Lots of contributors, but at no time did anybody make the statement that a planned bombing of Gaddhafi's compound was called off because American reporters were there. One mission was called off due to the presence of civilians, apparently, with NO connection made to the bombing of the previously-bombed compound. I have been following the coverage of the Libya campaign pretty closely, and the only media that are pumping this non-story are owned by Rupert Murdoch. Red meat for the faithful, but no real story.

 

[Dembadon]

I find this all so trivial. BOTH Fox and CNN (and affiliates) put forth misleading and highly opinionated stories.

In the end, all this does it starts a war between the left and right-each supporting a Republican or Democratic agenda. Then getting to the truth behind the story goes to the back burner.

I didn't realize this until I witnessed first hand the chaos of hurricane Katrina on New Orleans. I witnessed both news channels put forth faulty news that was politically motivated and eyewitness accounts that were completely wrong for the sole purpose of ratings.

No one even realizes what hurricane Katrina entailed.

I don't trust either of these channels.

I agree. There are much better sources for news than either FNC or CNN. The high doses of sensationalism are a huge turn-off for me.

 

[nismaratwork]

I agree. There are much better sources for news than either FNC or CNN. The high doses of sensationalism are a huge turn-off for me.

I think as Pythagorean has pointed out, there may also be some unfortunate effects for overall thinking, or perhaps the risk leads one to sensationalism. IMO, it's a bit of both.

@turbo-1: Rupert Murdoch, CNN (for their own ratings at this point), Nic Robertson, and our very own Russ Waters.

 

[nismaratwork]

As for wartime journalists, I just saw a rather engaging interview with Michael Holmes. As he put it, journalists in a warzone know what they're getting into, and gave the example of his cameraman being shot in the head in Iraq, who is now back there doing what he did previously.

If there was any aborted strike on a primary target for the sake of journalists, I'm sure that everyone from Edward R. Murrough to Michael Homes, Ben Wedemen, Nic Robertson, Christiane Amanpour and many others would be apalled. After all, it's not precision munitions they're most worried about, but kidnapping and sudden death.

Frankly, there is a profound cowardice to the fiction by that hack of a reporter for Fox, and more in their attempt to justify it.

 

[WhoWee]

If there was any aborted strike on a primary target for the sake of journalists, I'm sure that everyone from Edward R. Murrough to Michael Homes, Ben Wedemen, Nic Robertson, Christiane Amanpour and many others would be apalled. After all, it's not precision munitions they're most worried about, but kidnapping and sudden death.

I suppose this explains why Nic Robertson is so angry (?)-label this IMO.

 

[nismaratwork]

I suppose this explains why Nic Robertson is so angry (?)-label this IMO.

That, or he just abhors lies in the skin of journalism.

 

[WhoWee]

That, or he just abhors lies in the skin of journalism.

Or maybe he feels used and angry that he was stood up by the "Libyan Strongman"?

 

[nismaratwork]

Or maybe he feels used and angry that he was stood up by the "Libyan Strongman"?

That is a distinct possiblity... I know I would be. That's an interview with a shelf-life right there... the next cruise missile could land on his Hershy's Kiss hat.

 

[Gokul43201]

1. What lies are you referring to? Robertson's highly emotional retort refers to "lies" in generic terms, but does not actually cite any that I can see. Could you please be specific about what in the Fox report you think is a lie?

Fox said the CNN and Reuters sent their people but Fox didn't. This is a lie.

2. By definition, the thesis/primary point of a report is the most important point of the report.
2a. When challenging a report in general terms, as CNN did, they imply - without evidence - that the primary point is wrong.

Where do you get this characterization that the report is being challenged in general terms? I heard a lot of specifics. Among those specifics, CNN pointed out the lie that Fox didn't send any of their people. CNN also went on to whine (my characterization) about how Fox was being hypocritical, and that it was extremely unlikely that they were being used as shield for <blah blah blah> reasons.

The upshot: CNN whines; Fox lies.

There's a secondary point that I'm not supporting yet: CNN goes where there is a possibility to investigate something potentially newsworthy; Fox, by their own implication, decides that aiding in the war effort is their primary responsibility, not providing news.

Of course, while CNN could have pointed that out, they chose to whine instead.

 

[nismaratwork]

Fox said the CNN and Reuters sent their people but Fox didn't. This is a lie.

Where do you get this characterization that the report is being challenged in general terms? I heard a lot of specifics. Among those specifics, CNN pointed out the lie that Fox didn't send any of their people. CNN also went on to whine (my characterization) about how Fox was being hypocritical, and that it was extremely unlikely that they were being used as shield for <blah blah blah> reasons.

The upshot: CNN whines; Fox lies.
There's a secondary point that I'm not supporting yet: CNN goes where there is a possibility to investigate something potentially newsworthy; Fox, by their own implication, decides that aiding in the war effort is their primary responsibility, not providing news.

Of course, while CNN could have pointed that out, they chose to whine instead.

re: bold: That actually seems to be their respective global MO's. I will never understand why CNN decided to become "CNN-Lifetime"

 

[Evo]

Locked pending moderation.