Media Bias

[CoolHand]

Interesting article about the western media's refusal to cover the war in Iraq in an unbiased manner.

Good read.

Link ------> http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/05/breaking2453389.0680555557.html

I found it at the Tinker's Guild, so credit for the find goes to a sneaky fellow over there.

Enjoy.

[teufelhunden]

Twas on Drudge, read it yesterday. Quality read.

Of course, don't expect to hear about it on your usual news sources.

[personman]

Probably one of the best articles I've ever read http://www.automags.org/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif

[HoppysMag]

yup, thats the gross nature of the human mind, if there isnt failure, death or puppys people dont wanna hear about it, news wont cover it because they get ratings from ignorance and hype.

[drg]

The media has just learned that ramifications are far, far more important than the kill count. They learned that back in Vietnam. You win every battle on the battlefield and still lose the war. That's why they report the way they do. The very fact that we win battles so lopsidedly and incidents like Margaret HASSAN still occur IS the point.

It's also a byproduct of the way we think and the realities of this conflict. Our soldiers are volunteers fighting a war of choice. They are highly trained and field very expensive equipment. Each represents a significant investment and a loving family in Anytown, USA. They didn't HAVE to die, that's what makes it so tragic. 50 US soldiers killed in a single incident would be tragedy beyond the pale.

Iraqis on the other hand have had war thrust upon them. They may have little training and certainly little equipment of value. Most of their families have already been decimated by the war (often that's why they join the resistance). They are going to die whether they like it or not, we're going to guarantee that. So 50 of them killed is a drop in the bucket.

We EXPECT lopsided kill counts. In fact, current Pentagon policy relies on it.

Right now the media in Iraq relies almost exclusively on embedding to gather news. It is far too dangerous to go out and gather news on their own. That automatically gives a western slant to the coverage and amplifies the pain of losing western soldiers. But it also tells a story of how much success we really have. A free press is integral to a free society. The story of Iraq is, as it stands now, impossible to report freely.

Bias in news media is almost entirely corporate. And it tends to skew the other direction. So maybe, just maybe, there is something "to" this story. The fact that the media reports the majority of Iraqis hate being occupied despite all the "good" things we are doing (which often is rebuilding stuff we blew up in the first place) just might be because ... the majority of Iraqis hate being occupied despite all the "good" things we are doing.

In the end, sugarcoating and propagandizing do no good. The resistance will fight to the last man, win or lose. If we lose even a quarter of our troops in Iraq it will be a huge loss and will cause major, major policy shift. This is not a war of attrition, it's a war for hearts and minds.

A final note, would you rather the US news media reported every Iraqi killed as they do Americans? That's what al-Jazeera does -- about CIVILIANS, no less -- and we have the nerve to be up in arms about it.

[CrimsonTurkey]

The again that could just be planted propaganda.

You cant know anything but the bloody cogito. You can just guess at the realiability of all other information.