News What's On the News? US Administration Perception & Global News Coverage

[Adam]

From what people say here and elsewhere, it seems to me that in the USA, the news does not show anything which might reflect badly upon the US administration. It seems the news companies here and there are very selective in what they show people. So I am curious, what are they showing you in your country?

Oops, I had intended to make that multiple choice. Perhaps some kind moderator might fix that, please?

 

[Mulder]

The BBC is probably the most reliable unbiased-as-you're-gonna-get news source, though I've watched sky news and CNN occasionally. They generally seemed to report fairly, most if not all of the facts, civilian casualties, and friendly fire incidents. Anyone who takes Iraqi figures of casualties etc. to be reliable though is a fool.

 

[Adam]

I watch mostly SBS news here. It runs war news almost constantly. SBS is Australia's foreign language channel, and so gets news reports from just about every news service there is - Greece, Italy, Zimbabwe, Japan, Bosnia, you name it, they get it. But the Australian government-paid channel, ABC, has been running mostly BBC, which is also quite good.

Why would Iraqi news be any less reliable than US news?

 

[Alias]

Originally posted by Adam
Why would Iraqi news be any less reliable than US news?

Because Iraqi news is controlled by the Iraqi government, and the Iraqi government is controlled by Saddam Hussein who is the dictatorial leader of Iraq. It's probably safe to say that Iraqi TV is biased in Saddam's favor.

 

[russ_watters]

It's probably safe to say that Iraqi TV is biased in Saddam's favor.

And the understatement of the week award goes to...

Anyone who takes Iraqi figures of casualties etc. to be reliable though is a fool.

When those are the only stats available, it is ok to cite them, but with a disclaimer. This is what is being done today with that (unconfirmed) report of a tomahawk hitting a residential area.

To me, freely reporting a failure by our military using Iraqi information is about as UNbiased as news can get.

 

[Alias]

Gimme a break Russ.

I was trying to be kind. Believe me, it went against every fiber of my being on that one.

 

[FZ+]

But funnily enough, it's wednesday and we are still 60 miles from Baghdad. On Sunday we were 60 miles from Baghdad. The war is supposed to be on track.
Both sides are clearly biased. But that does not mean everything either side says is untrue.

Oh and the BBC is concentrating on friendly fire incidents. Kinda to be expected, really.

 

[Nicool003]

From what people say here and elsewhere, it seems to me that in the USA, the news does not show anything which might reflect badly upon the US administration.

Oh shut up. Like Australia ever shows anything to denounce itself? Believe me you can get a lot about australia if you tried. And By the way if you knew ANYTHING about America (which you DONT) you would know that ABC and NBC are run by Democrats who do try to denounce the government yet magically when the idiot that used to be president (clinton) was off having affairs, lying to the country, getting impeached, selling secrets to the enemies of the U.S, you know his everyday schedule (he did those things in between running to Mc.Donalds) the democrats said NOTHING about him.

 

[russ_watters]

But funnily enough, it's wednesday and we are still 60 miles from Baghdad. On Sunday we were 60 miles from Baghdad. The war is supposed to be on track.

Why does that indicate to you that the war is NOT on track? This isn't a weekend trip to Atlantic City where you go a constant speed on the interstate the whole time. We're expecting resistance in Bagdhad. So we're stopping until we can position and prepare an attack force and soften the defenses. That shouldn't sound at all funny.

 

[Mulder]

We can't go anywhere in this massive sandstorm anyway. I'd say its pretty much going to plan although the next 3-4 days are crucial.

 

[Nicool003]

We can't go anywhere in this massive sandstorm anyway. I'd say its pretty much going to plan although the next 3-4 days are crucial.

I agree. We were ahead of schedule but if this storm lasts as long as they say it will they we will not be ahead anymore. We will likely be behind.

 

[Mulder]

1000 US troops just parachuted into Northern Iraq. Probably trying to regain some of the initiative they had a couple of days ago.

 

[Nicool003]

Really? was that on a website or a news station? If it was on the news which station? (for the off chance that I have it) I haven't watched the news since this morning.

 

[damgo]

It's IMHO a bit early to be pointing out problems and/or setbacks in the war progress. It's been, what, 6 days? I know of only one war that ended in six days, and it sure didn't involve a 300km advance into enemy territory.

The rumors I'm reading say US forces plan to rest and repair until the weekend... they've been using up crazy amounts of fuel and supplies, and are exhausted.

 

[Nicool003]

Wait. The rumors your reading? Where are you getting it? Online or t.v? Or both? Yeah I highly doubt the war will last 6 or 7 days (well actually I know it won't because it's impossible) How long do you think it will take? I think perhaps a month but it all depends on weather, POW we have to get back, etc...

 

[climbhi]

Originally posted by Mulder
The BBC is probably the most reliable unbiased-as-you're-gonna-get news source, though I've watched sky news and CNN occasionally. They generally seemed to report fairly, most if not all of the facts, civilian casualties, and friendly fire incidents. Anyone who takes Iraqi figures of casualties etc. to be reliable though is a fool.

I'd believe you on the BBC thing if it weren't for the fact its coming from a brit...

though i think everyone would agree that the american fox news channel might be the most biased news network out there.

 

[kyleb]

sadly, i know a few that swear by it as a beacon of truth.

 

[Alias]

Originally posted by climbhi

though i think everyone would agree that the american fox news channel might be the most biased news network out there.

Maybe from the point of view of someone on the extreme left.

 

[russ_watters]

though i think everyone would agree that the american fox news channel might be the most biased news network out there.

Though this may not be the thread for this discussion, the general liberal bias of the media is really not open for discussion. Fox may have a slight lean to the right, but the vast majority of media in the US leans HEAVILY to the left. They do not try to hide this fact. Many, probably most notably Dan Rather, are outspoken about their political affiliation.

I think by far the best example of the liberal bias in the media was election night 2000. I was watching tv at 8:00 pm and the media (virtually every major outlet) declared Gore the winner. In many cases, he was declared the winner in states he was LOSING in. In others it was states with only a tiny percentage of votes counted or even polling places still open.

And why do you think Rush Limbaugh is so hated (feared?) by mainstream media and even democrats in Congress (he has been attacked from the House floor on several occasions)? He's one guy going against the grain.

 

[climbhi]

Originally posted by Alias
Maybe from the point of view of someone on the extreme left.

To Alias and Russ Waters, it appears that you have interpretted my comments on fox news's terrible reporting and incredibility as a news organization, to mean that I'm a member of the "extreme left." You're dead wrong! If you wanted to classify me into an extreme I'm much much much closer to the far right then I am to the far left. In fact I've worked for a republican congressman, donated to the republican party, attended republican banquets, campaigned for republicans, and am your all around typical Idaho conservative. Now I'm not on the extreme right, I'm more like center leaning right, and in fact do support a few democrats (however keep in mind these are idaho democrats who would probably pass as far right in california...)

Anyway now having cleared that up, onto the facts. Fox news sucks. Period. Facts are facts, and that's just one you'll have to learn to live with. They are the most inflamatory, sensationalistic, slanted, terrible news network on air. I mean come one Shep Smith as the lead anchor. Have you ever listened to him? He sounds like a 13 year old valley girl! Everytime I hear him say "like" I want to throw something through the tv screen. And when UN inspectors were in Iraq, and he'd comment on how innefective and stupid the inspectors were becuase they couldn't quote: "find the liters and liters and liters and liters of anthrax. And the nuclear weapons their hiding." I wasn't sure whether to laugh hysterically or shoot the tv screen out. Yes that's right he actually said "liters" four times in a row. This is not news, its crap.

 

[kyleb]

thank you climbhi, i wanted to point that out myself but i knew they would not buy it from me. heck i doubt they would even believe that i am on the fence with politics, it seems that it all looks like extreme left when you are way out in right field.

 

[damgo]

<agrees with climbhi>

It's funny how conservatives always complain about liberal media bias, and liberals always complain about conservative media bias. Since Russ covered one side, here's the other: :)

Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Anne Coulter, Matt Drudge... all these people make a damn good living by mocking and ripping on the liberal worldview and all liberals stand for. How do they get away with it in the supposedly liberal media? Where are the liberals brutally tearing into conservative beliefs and all they hold dear? I certainly can't find any... but it's hard to avoid Rush and O'Reilly.

 

[Alias]

Originally posted by climbhi
To Alias and Russ Waters, it appears that you have interpretted my comments on fox news's terrible reporting and incredibility as a news organization, to mean that I'm a member of the "extreme left."

Your perception was incorrect. My comment was that I agreed with you but with slightly different conditions on the argument. It wasn't personal.

Here are your own words with some slight modification by me in parenthesis and deletions of your text indicated with three dots like this ...

Now (Fox News is not)... on the extreme right, (Fox News is)... more like center leaning right, and in fact do(es) support a few democrats (however keep in mind these are (moderate)... democrats who would probably pass as far right in california)

Eerie, isn't it.

Just because Shephard Smith is a dork and voices his opinion at times doesn't invalidate the entire network. Anyway, the only place in media where you can find an unbiased, non-polically motivated report of the facts is in scientific papers, which are generally very boring as entertainment. Show me a news broadcast whose real mission is not to entertain you and keep you glued to their channel so they can sell laundry detergent, and I'll show you a person that is imagining things.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Mulder
The BBC is probably the most reliable unbiased-as-you're-gonna-get news source, though I've watched sky news and CNN occasionally. They generally seemed to report fairly, most if not all of the facts, civilian casualties, and friendly fire incidents. Anyone who takes Iraqi figures of casualties etc. to be reliable though is a fool.

Lol, is that the same BBC that won the dishonest reporting award in 2001 and honorable mention in 2002?

 

[climbhi]

Originally posted by Alias
Just because Shephard Smith is a dork and voices his opinion at times doesn't invalidate the entire network.

You're right Shepard Smith making an idiot out of himself occosionally doesn't invalidate the entire network. The fact that the network consistently allows Shepard Smith to stay on the air and make an idiot out of himself everytime he opens his mouth does.

Can you even imagine what would happen to ABC if Peter Jennings came on air called UN inspectors stupid and innefective becuase they couldn't find nuclear weapons and then began repeating "liters and liters and liters and liters ..." until he nearly ran out of breath and finishes with "anthrax" Jennings would be fired in a heartbeat and ABC would never live it down. Yet somehow fox news shamefully tredges on.

Granted most all news networks have some slant, ABC for instance has George Stefanapolis, obviously there's a slant that comes with having him on staff, but for the most part they do a very good job at just reporting facts and not opinion.

Fox on the other hand, does there best to report crap. If you've been watching the war updates you'd notice (at least at the beginning of the war) that Fox often came out with incredible developments when no other news station was carrying them. They touted themselves as geniuses for a while and flashed it all over the tv, and then all the sudden they stopped reporting it, and it was never mentioned anywhere else. Hmmmm, you think they were just hopping on the sensationalism bandwagon?! You betcha!

And just because I can't get over this I'll leave it with you one more time in context. Fox news shows a press conference at the UN where Hans Blix reports that Iraq is beginning to show increased compliance and is begginning to dissasemble Al Samoud 2 missiles. Footage cuts from the UN tape to Shep Smith sitting at his desk, and he begins talking "Oh yeah, well that doesn't mean anything." He kinda jibes his head up and forward as if to taunt Dr. Blix. He opens his mouth again and shows of his valley girl vocabulary "I mean, like..." as he now spreads his arms out at his side and pushes his chest forward like he's getting ready to brawl with Blix, "...what about the liters and liters and liters and liters of anthrax. And the nuclear weapons their hiding." Pauses for dramatic effect and juts his chin forward "huh, what about that?"

Now, if you had seen this on tv and could afterwards look at me with a straight face and say that it is still a valid news network, you should really become a lawyer, becuase if you can really believe that I'm sure you'd have no problem believing criminals fakery and defending them in court.

 

[Alias]

Dude, chill out. Didn't you read the last part of my post about how they are all soap salesmen anyway?

Besides, I can't watch ABC. I swear to God, everytime I see Peter Jennings, it looks and sounds like he's getting ready to break down and cry about the inhumanity of it all. Jeez, Peter, see a shrink!

You're not the guy that hates it when people tell him to "chill out" are you??

 

[russ_watters]

To Alias and Russ Waters

climbhi, I made no speculation regarding your political afiliation (sorry alias).

How do they get away with it in the supposedly liberal media?

Huh, damgo? Maybe I need to clarify. When people say liberals "dominate" (I didn't use that word) the media, they don't mean they control all sources of media, just that the majority of the media is liberal. There is still a free press so there is nothing to "get away with." Its just that the ideology of being a liberal fits well with the profession of reporter or newscaster. All professions have a lean to some degree or another - wall street bankers are more likely to be republican than democrat for example.

Also, it should be noted that the people you mentioned do not report the news, they only comment on it. There is no need for or question of objectivity in a show like Rush Limbaugh's. Its obvious to anyone who listens what the point is (commentary and opinion, not facts) and what his bias is (conservative). What I have a problem with is people who report news - the facts - in a way that reflects their bias while feigning objectivity. Thats Peter Jennings and Dan Rather. Though to his credit, Dan Rather makes no attempt to hide his bias.

Also, I DID state in my post that I don't watch Fox because of their sensationalism. And that's a separate issue from their bias.

 

[kat]

Article is about 3/4's way down the page.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2003140559,00.html
his bosses over 'bias'

By TREVOR KAVANAGH
Political Editor

THE BBC was last night sensationally condemned for “one-sided” war coverage — by its own front line defence correspondent.

Paul Adams attacks the Beeb for misreporting the Allied advance in a blistering memo leaked to The Sun.

 

[Mulder]

The Sun by the way is the tabloid with the least credibility in the Country also, so i'll not take anything I read in it with much less than a bucket of salt.

However I've been following the BBC coverage for a few hours a day, and if anything they do seem to have an anti-war bias, for whatever reason. I believe they are a lot less biased either way than most other news sources, but this leak doesn't surprise me particularly.

 

[kyleb]

Originally posted by Mulder

However I've been following the BBC coverage for a few hours a day, and if anything they do seem to have an anti-war bias, for whatever reason.

how about the obvious reason; most of the people who work there do not think this war is a good idea. as for The Sun, besides being a tabloid it is run by one of the biggest media tycoons around; here is his view on this war from a while back:

http://media.guardian.co.uk/city/story/0,7497,893365,00.html

it seems blatantly obvious as to what his motivations are, and an interesting bit about how his editors are unanimously behind him:

http://media.guardian.co.uk/rupertmurdoch/story/0,11136,897314,00.html

 

[kat]

I actually didn't put any personal opinion comments on my post because the the article is in the Sun. I don't normally read it but came across the link in a blog and thought it interesting. Please let me know if you see it any where else.
I'm not kidding about the BBC winning the dishonest reporting award in 2001, however.

 

[Mulder]

The BBC generally report with a lot less political bias than FOX news for example. The BBC couldn't get away with the levels of bias of some US news channels I've seen.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Mulder
The BBC generally report with a lot less political bias than FOX news for example. The BBC couldn't get away with the levels of bias of some US news channels I've seen.

Sorry, maybe you thought I was suggesting it was a competition[?] I haven't watched FOX since the first year it was launched and realized rather quickly that although it was wholly sold as being "bigger", "brighter, and more "provocative" then it's predescessors it consisted of little more then shallow and mindless fluff and a seemingly inexhaustible platoon of shouting heads spewing little more then mindless, canned propaganda. To me this has nothing to do with left or right, after all when it comes to conglomerate owned media, doesn't all the left, and all the right in the end eminate from the same hegemony? only to meet somewhere, inconspicuously behind all of our backs?