Iraq's Media Distortion

[Rave]

Galant, I can't really put it any other way: you're talking crap. Read this book:

http://book.democracynow.org/

then come back here and tell me how exactly the US media are on the side of terrorists. As has already been stated, if you want to complain about something, complain about how the images of the civilians torn apart by Allied weapons don't make it onto the news. Ask how the US military managed to shell a hotel which they knew was solely occupied by the independent (I.E. non-embedded) media, killing several journalists in the process, or ask how they managed to kill with an air-launched missile an Al-Jazeera reporter who'd told them exactly where he would be filming.

For goodness sake man, wake up.

Rich :¬)

[Zathras]

Nice bit of media distortion highlighted in the thread here: http://www.prwatch.org/forum/showthr...9&page=1&pp=15
Is there nothing these sorts of people won't stoop to?

[nichomach]

Three words: Swift Boat Vets. One word: No. Sorry, Zathras, it appears not.

[RVF500]

There are 2 sides to any story and people will take and forward what they want to. Which is why the piece about the 'symphony of war was faithfully reproduced on this thread but something like:

What the media didn't show or write about were the two hundred-plus headless bodies found in the main mosque there, or the body that was put into a bread oven and baked. Nor did they show the world the hundreds of thousands of mortar, artillery and small arms rounds found within the "sacred" walls of the mosque.

Wasn't.

In short we all have agendas and will report/repeat, or not as the case may be, what we want others to see.

Similarly we have had threads about trials of alleged abuses here with the argument that soldiers should know better (simplified I know but you get the gist). Refering to the above quote I would have thought a holy man would also have known better.

The simple fact is that the terrorists are manipulating the press and the press are jumping to their tune. All the guy is asking for is some balance. Most of us would like the same. Some, I'm sure from reading some of the comments, are quite happy with the status quo that shows coalition troops in as bad a light as possible.

I looked at that Linda Eddy thread. The original photo was far more poignant imho and need not have been doctored. Just goes to show, you can't trust journalists whichever side they support. Because of that very fact. They are biased and interested only in selling copy.

[Zak33]

dont give up Galant. Fight your side fella. Don't take it from Rave and Dabeen sitting down. 'Ave a go back.

Me? I give up. They always win cos I dont read enough before I get shot down in flames.

[RVF500]

As for the Al Jazeera man who got killed. So what if he told people where he would be filming? Does that mean no one would move him out and take his place?

I can see it now ' hey you lot with the anti tank weapons, I'm Al Jazeera I am. If you don't go I'll get my editor to say not very nice things about you' Then again, if it was Al Jazeera he'd more likely ask for an exclusive and get them to set up so he could get a good piece of footage.

Sarcasm aside. The tank crew may have been told, or may not. But the fact remains that they probably didn't know for certain and to be wrong is to be dead. Observers may be happy to be cavalier with the lives of others. In fact they frequently are. If it was me, my life was on the line and I wasn't sure? I'd pull the trigger. Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

Pointing out the work of a single book doesn't make Galant's line crap. Rave you often ask people not to be abusive to you. You have had a pop at me for being flippant in the past. How about you practice your own preachings and take a more circumspect line in your rebuttal to Galant's line?

[Galant]

Well, thanks for the support Zak, but I find that you can only post your view so many times with people who disagree and it's obvious will continue to do so. It has stop some time. I just find it curious how people who are equally distant rom the issue take their own opinions, find the sources that support those opinions, and then claim as though it's obvious that everything is happening the way they see it. Neither one is anywhere near the event.

In the end, Saddam was scum, Iraq was a bomb waiting to happen, the Iraqis now get to vote, and perhaps most importantly, it's our military personnel that's out there, our friends, our family, and if we all agree the media isn't going to be bias-free, then I think I'd like to see a bias which best serves our troops, encourages them, and helps friends and family get through the events.

Oops, there goes my disgusting, unenlightened and heartless view again. Time to don the flame-retardant underwear.

[RVF500]

Thing is, if the Iraqis want the western troops out then there is a very easy way. Stop blowing the crap out of everything. Play possum. Do the democracy thing. Hey presto, the troops will leave. Ok, not overnight but if there is no hint of danger then the pressure will be put on worldwide for the western allies to leave. Pressure that they will have to bow to. Especially if an elected govt demands they leave.

Of course the militants then have no struggle to fight for and an entrenched moderate regime with a people who happen to enjoy being able to go about their daily business and not want the oppressive regime preferred by said militants. On the other hand. If they do happen to want what the militants offer then they can vote it in and there is nothing Bush and co could do about it.

Not as much fun as sawing the head off of some aid worker though is it?

[Rave]

Well, thanks for the support Zak, but I find that you can only post your view so many times with people who disagree and it's obvious will continue to do so. It has stop some time.

I'm not disagreeing with you just for the hell of it. I'm disagreeing with you because I think you're making it up. If you think that the media contantly publishes or broadcasts stories which paint an unduly negative picture of the troops in Iraq, be they British or American, then fine, show me some then. Really, if the entire media is against the war then it should be a piece of cake to find lots and lots of examples shouldn't it?

I look forward to seeing them.

[Galant]

Take a look at any of the major news sites - particularly US, be they newspaper or TV - the vast majority of coverage focuses on increasing insurgent attacks, coalition casualties, and whenever the terrorists capture someone new and release a tape they cover it. Even looking at the coverage of the elections in Iraq, you find they focus on the problems of under-representation or whatever other issues they find or predict.

[Rave]

Take a look at any of the major news sites - particularly US, be they newspaper or TV - the vast majority of coverage focuses on increasing insurgent attacks, coalition casualties, and whenever the terrorists capture someone new and release a tape they cover it.

Yes, because that's what's happening in Iraq right now. Would you rather they just didn't report what was happening? I personally can't see how reporting the fact that Coalition troops were attacked is in any way anti-war or against the troops.

Shall I tell you what I think is hugely disrespectful to the troops fighting in Iraq? The attempt by the US armed forces to cover up the pictures of the planes full of flag draped coffins coming back from Iraq. Those troops fought and died for their country and the government would rather cover up the fact that they're dead than acknowledge the ultimate sacrifice that they made. THAT is an example of disgusting media manipulation.

Even looking at the coverage of the elections in Iraq, you find they focus on the problems of under-representation or whatever other issues they find or predict.

This is just nonsense. The vast majority of the coverage I have seen has emphasised the success of the elctions, the higher than expected turnout, and the lower than expected number of insurgent attacks.

Please don't tell me to go and look at news sites, you're the one trying to make a point, you find the evidence to back it up.

[Galant]

I'm not saying they shouldn't cover some of these things, I'm saying these things are the majority of their coverage. It seems to me that you lookk at the stories to find out what's going on, then tell me that the coverage is accurate because when looking at the media you don't see anything else is going on. Not to mention you want to highlight the deaths and casualities because you don't like the war and would hate to have an overly positive view of what's going on.

Regarding the elections they did have to report the success of of the elections since the elections were in fact successful - they could hardly outright lie, but a few days past and they're already finding the negative side of things.

The things they cover do happen, but there is also a lot more happening but they wont cover that. The majority of media coverage focuses on the minority events, and as for predictions - they're almost always negative. What happened to all the bloodbaths etc. expected in the elections?

[Rave]

I'm not saying they shouldn't cover some of these things, I'm saying these things are the majority of their coverage.

Well they cover newsworthy stories. What else is going on in Iraq that you know about but that the media are not covering?

It seems to me that you lookk at the stories to find out what's going on, then tell me that the coverage is accurate because when looking at the media you don't see anything else is going on.

When you say 'you' do you mean me personally? If so, not at all- in fact I make a point of not blindly trusting media reports from Iraq, because as I've already stated I think they sanitise the news and advance an overly favourable version of events.

Not to mention you want to highlight the deaths and casualities because you don't like the war and would hate to have an overly positive view of what's going on.

Again, are you referring to me personally here? If so please don't put words into my mouth. In fact I've never been totally against a war on Iraq, I've just been against a war on the grounds that Iraq posed a threat to us. Unsurprisingly, no WMDs were found, and so I've been proven right.

Had the plan simply been to oust Saddam and restore democracy to Iraq all along, then I wouldn't have objected. That clearly was not the main reason given for going to war; instead, it's now used as a retrospective excuse. Of course, pro-war spinners now accuse those who objected to the war before it happened (on the entirely correct grounds that they were no threat to us) of being Saddam supporters and opponents of democracy- which is a pathetic lie.

The things they cover do happen, but there is also a lot more happening but they wont cover that.

How do you know?

The majority of media coverage focuses on the minority events, and as for predictions - they're almost always negative. What happened to all the bloodbaths etc. expected in the elections?

Dunno- where are your examples of stories saying that? You can sit here and tell me what the media is reporting all you like. Until you actually provide a link to a story to back up your claims, it looks as if you're simply making it up as you go along.

[Galant]

Sorry, I haven't taped the news reports on TV, and the stories over the radio. So I might not be able just the pull the story up for you.

When I get some free time I'll take a look though.

How do I know there's more going on - because in listening to talk radio and other sources I hear interviews and reports from individuals, military personnel etc. who says so.

Why do you say media coverage is favourable?

[RVF500]

So why don't the media devote more time to reporting gains that are made? Why don't they focus on hospitals returning to service, power and water plants being set up and returned to service. A piece on how schools have been since the end of 'official' hostilities? I for one knew that 7 marines had been killed but I didn't know until I read that report that it had cost the terrorists 50 dead. Did anyone else? Why wasn't it reported? Why not call the terrorists what they are. Not sanitise them by calling them insurgents. It's as if the media is afraid of hurting their feelings. They don't carry out executions they murder people. Significant numbers are not even Iraqi.

Media can influence things by what they don't say every bit as much as by what they do say. They can sway the balance of things by leaving out balancing information. By doing that they can, and do, sensationalise things. The media can influence public opinion and does so. Often to it's own ends. Let's face it. The political party that can get The Sun in it's corner can pretty much bank on winning a general election. As for leaping on a good story regardless of potential cost. How about the BBC broadcasting the attack on Goose Green BEFORE it took place. The Argentines actually thought it was a hoax and did nothing about it. But what the hell. It was only a battalion of paratroops and they're sub-human anyway like most squaddies. Not real people. Not worth holding back on a scoop for.

[Rave]

Sorry, I haven't taped the news reports on TV, and the stories over the radio. So I might not be able just the pull the story up for you.

Yeah, but this is the internet, in case you hadn't noticed. All the major news networks have websites.

How do I know there's more going on - because in listening to talk radio and other sources I hear interviews and reports from individuals, military personnel etc. who says so.

Look at who owns the talk radio networks- in general they're owned by the same people who run the television and print media. Why would there be any discrepancy in their coverage? Seriously, you should read the book I linked to before:

http://book.democracynow.org/

and also 'Lies (and the Lying Liars who tell them)' by Al Franken. You may not agree with the conclusions they draw, but they will at least give you some well researched facts on the state of the US media (facts that you will like as not be able to verify with google).

Why do you say media coverage is favourable?

Well, right now I don't really know either way. During the war, the US pretty much banned independent journalists from being at large in Iraq; there are frequent stories of them being arrested, or even being killed by the Americans as I said before. The vast majority of the coverage therefore came from reporters who were 'embedded' with American units. For a variety of reasons it's hard if not impossible for reporters to provide objective coverage in that situation.

More coalition troops have died since hostilities ceased than died during the war itself. Hardly a day goes by without dozens of people being killed in terrorist attacks. Those are the facts- simply reporting them does not make you anti-war, or anti-US, or anti-democracy.