Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News What's on the news?

  1. ... the dead and wounded civilians of Baghdad?

    0 vote(s)
  2. ... the citizens of Baghdad being very angry at the USA and Britain?

    1 vote(s)
  3. ... US soldiers executed by the Iraqi military?

    0 vote(s)
  4. ... "friendly fire" incidents, such as the US Patriot missile shooting down a British Tornado?

    1 vote(s)
  5. ... occasional clear attacks against civilians, such as the bus full of refugees that the USA bombed

    0 vote(s)
  6. ... interviews with members of the Iraqi administration?

    0 vote(s)
  7. ... interviews with members of the Red Cross and Amnesty International?

    0 vote(s)
  1. Mar 26, 2003 #1
    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?
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2003
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 26, 2003 #2
    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.
  4. Mar 26, 2003 #3
    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?
  5. Mar 26, 2003 #4
    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.
  6. Mar 26, 2003 #5


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    And the understatement of the week award goes to.....
    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.
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2003
  7. Mar 26, 2003 #6
    Gimme a break Russ.

    I was trying to be kind. Believe me, it went against every fiber of my being on that one.:wink:
  8. Mar 26, 2003 #7


    User Avatar

    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.
  9. Mar 26, 2003 #8
    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.
  10. Mar 26, 2003 #9


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
  11. Mar 26, 2003 #10
    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.
  12. Mar 26, 2003 #11
    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.
  13. Mar 26, 2003 #12
    1000 US troops just parachuted into Northern Iraq. Probably trying to regain some of the initiative they had a couple of days ago.
  14. Mar 26, 2003 #13
    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.
  15. Mar 26, 2003 #14
    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.
  16. Mar 26, 2003 #15
    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 wont 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...
  17. Mar 26, 2003 #16
    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.
  18. Mar 26, 2003 #17
    sadly, i know a few that swear by it as a beacon of truth.
  19. Mar 26, 2003 #18
    Maybe from the point of view of someone on the extreme left.
  20. Mar 27, 2003 #19


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2003
  21. Mar 27, 2003 #20
    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.
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 27, 2003
  22. Mar 27, 2003 #21
    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 belive 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. :wink:
  23. Mar 27, 2003 #22
    <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.
  24. Mar 27, 2003 #23

    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.
  25. Mar 27, 2003 #24


    User Avatar

    Lol, is that the same BBC that won the dishonest reporting award in 2001 and honorable mention in 2002?
  26. Mar 27, 2003 #25
    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 ..." untill 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.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook