Iraq's Media Distortion

[Galant]

Unfortunately I don't remember the date and time of every report I hear, and even though the the corresponding websites cover a lot of the out put they don't cover everything. That and I dont have time to trawl the net looking for specific stories. Having said that, I don't think it's that hard to see the focus of the media on the negative aspects of the war.

Whoever owns the networks, I listen to the content of News, TV, online, radio, etc. I'm judging by output, not looking at owners and then assuming that everything must follow suit.

I find it hard to believe that the casualty focused reporting comes down to 'the reporters were overwhelmed' or 'the military wont let them see any good stuff'. I think the fact remains that most of the mass media unfairly represent the 'bad news' and neglect the other things going on.

[Rave]

Unfortunately I don't remember the date and time of every report I hear, and even though the the corresponding websites cover a lot of the out put they don't cover everything. That and I dont have time to trawl the net looking for specific stories. Having said that, I don't think it's that hard to see the focus of the media on the negative aspects of the war.

So basically your argument is based entirely on your own perceptions of the reporting rather than on any solid evidence about the number of stories devoted to particular topics or the opinions expressed therein. Without solid evidence to back your argument up, I suggest that you're going to have difficulty convincing people.

[Galant]

What are you talking about?

Take a look at any of the sites and you'll see the kind of stories I'm talking about. My referencing one or two specific stories hardly proves the point of a general media bias. Casualty focused, negative future predictions, next to no focus on good things happening. Consider the progress of the military during the war and after. I couldn't tell you which cities they took and when. No victory reports of battles won, or ground taken. Exactly how the military has won, or where they moved is very difficult to say. Why? Because the media focused on our losses, how hard it is, what is going wrong, etc.

You simply say that that is all there is. I posted an article from someone on the ground there who says differently. I hear of other things going on a few times a week over the radio, in talk radio land. Am I there? No. Can I prove it no. I just know there are individuals out there saying the media is getting it wrong.

Where's your proof of the media being overly positive towards the war?

[Rave]

What are you talking about?

Take a look at any of the sites and you'll see the kind of stories I'm talking about.

If it's that easy, why are you not linking them for me?

My referencing one or two specific stories hardly proves the point of a general media bias.

No, but some evidence is better than no evidence.

Casualty focused, negative future predictions, next to no focus on good things happening. Consider the progress of the military during the war and after. I couldn't tell you which cities they took and when. No victory reports of battles won, or ground taken.

This is total and utter bullsh1t. During the war the coverage was almost overwhelmingly positive and specifics of troop advances and territories occupied were given on a daily basis. If you didn't see it then you can't have been watching the coverage.

Exactly how the military has won, or where they moved is very difficult to say. Why? Because the media focused on our losses, how hard it is, what is going wrong, etc.

What, during the actual war? You're completely making this up mate. In the U.K. the coverage was upbeat, in the U.S. it was rootin' tootin' flag waving almost from start to finish.

You simply say that that is all there is.

No, you're completely missing the point. I'm saying that right now in Iraq the most newsworthy occurances are the bombings, kidnappings etc.; when the most newsworthy happening was the (very succesful) election, it was reported as such. If you're saying the media were negative during the actual war, then I have no choice but to conclude that you're smoking too much crack. It's utter lunacy to suggest that the media reports coming out of Iraq during the war were unrepresentatively negative.

I posted an article from someone on the ground there who says differently.

Right, so as well as fighting the war, he's also monitoring every news station to make sure the coverage matches up with his experience of the war? Whatever. The guy's a knob anyway, here's a quote:

"What if domestic news outlets continually fed American readers headlines like: "Bloody Week on U.S. Highways: Some 700 Killed," or "More Than 900 Americans Die Weekly from Obesity-Related Diseases"? Both of these headlines might be true statistically, but do they really represent accurate pictures of the situations?"

Well, um, yes, actually, perfectly accurate for an average week in the US Also-

"What did the the media show or tell us about Margaret Hassoon, the director of C.A.R.E. in Iraq and an Iraqi citizen, who was kidnapped, brutally tortured and left disemboweled on a street in Fallujah? Did anyone in the press show these images over and over to emphasize the moral failings of the enemy as they did with the soldiers at Abu Ghuraib?"

Also yes. She was the lead story from the time she was kidnapped until she was killed. So thanks for that. Edit: pretty sure her name was Hassan

I hear of other things going on a few times a week over the radio, in talk radio land. Am I there? No. Can I prove it no. I just know there are individuals out there saying the media is getting it wrong.

Where's your proof of the media being overly positive towards the war?

Here's a story from in the thick of the war about an explosion in a market in Baghdad:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2897117.stm

A couple of days later Robert Fisk found shrapnel carrying the serial number of a US missile at the scene. As far as I know nobody now doubts that the explosion that killed all those civilians was caused by a missile fired from a US warplane. Can you find me some coverage of this incident from one of the major US networks?

[DaBeeeenster]

Galant I really do think it would help if you actually provided links to some news stories that you are talking about. It's kind of impossible to discuss anything if you make references to "news stories" without pointing out some examples.

[coco]

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.

The Iraqis have the right to blow the crap outta US and UK troops , just as if anybody invaded my country i'd try and kill them . Do you honestly think it matters to the US or UK governments what the rest of the world thinks , after all they invaded Iraq against the majority of the UN. The US and UK will never leave Iraq , as both countrys have set up large bases and intend to keep these
even after the majority of US and UK forces go home after being replaced with Iraqi surragates.
The first casualty in all wars is TRUTH

[GreenPiggy]

To add to Rave's 'you're talking crap' line,
Galant has a habit of always doing this, his posts always start with a link to a far-right news website followed by a pathetic little indignant paragraph about how the 'liberal elite' or 'media bias' is ruining both our way of life and that the truth is never portrayed but than you simply refuse to quote anything outside your mad little nutcase newspaper world, it's pathetic.
The case in point was the John Kerry thread where he linked to a Bush campaign commercial and attempted to use it as proof that Kerry was rubbish, he then claimed that it was "all the stations in the US are talking about it so obviously must be correct"
If all these things he says are such widespread 'facts' and so 'obviously in the mainstream' then why would he have to go to the lengths of seeking out an extreme right wing newspaper from which to make his original point?

[Galant]

Well, regarding that Kerry commerical, I posted it because I thought it was amusing. A cleverly put together commercial. Sorry.

I posted the article from the soldier in the 'right wing paper' because I thought it an interesting piece from someone whose viewpoint I do not have, he's on the ground there. I posted it because he makes points about things going on in Iraq that ARE NOT in the mainstream. If they were in the mainstream then there wouldn't be an issue.

The problem with the mainstream, I have been saying, is that it tends to give a negative view of the war, and unrepresentedly so. In pursuing their task of giving the news and letting people know what's going on, they are not doing an accurate job.

Now, you wanted some links:

First of all let's not wander too far off and go to the BBC - http://news.bbc.co.uk/

Before going to the middle east section let's look at the main news headlines relating to Iraq and the war there. First up we have "Italian reporter seized in Iraq" - someone else has been captured.

Further down on the left we see, 'US to Pull 15,000 from Iraq' a story about how the US has been suffering set backs in training Iraqi troops and how things there are so difficult that plans can't be made - things going wrong.

On the right we have 'Germany to Help Iraq Government' - pro-euro anyone. I particularly enjoy the line "Germany, a vocal opponents[sic] of the Iraq war, is already helping train Iraqi police."

Finally, we have the Iraq Election Log featuring some actually interesting words from Iraqi's own mouths. However, of all the stories, we find that the summary is, "In the last instalment of the current log, we hear that the glow of the election is still being felt, but it is fading." In other words, it was nice to have the election, but was it really that consequential? Things are still dark and hard in Iraq.

Now let's head into the Middle East section. Here we have quite a few stories beyond those already seen in the main headlines. First up the story of one US general and his silly comments on the war - 'US 'war is fun' general rebuked' - 'stupid yanks, we all know they're all like this'.

Then there's Iraqi Soldiers Killed in Ambush.

There's a straight story on the election results First partial result in Iraq vote, and then a story on the transfer of security control which ends with, "BBC correspondent in Baghdad Roger Hearing says interim ministers like Mr Naqib may actually have no control over Iraq's future, as they are due to lose their posts when the new government is selected in the coming weeks and months."

Grey Day Dawns for Iraqi Voters Dated Jan 18th. Finally, Iraq's tourism chief eyes the future a strange piece, and you have to wonder what it's trying to accomplish. On the one hand it talks about an aspect of a positive future for Iraq - tourism. On the other, the usual conjecture found in articles seems to be absent here. 'Good future, bad future? Who knows, but things right are aren't very good.'

Now let's hop on board the media express and fly across the pond to the land of CNN.

Front page, headlines: Familiar territory, 'Italian journalist snatched', and 'Marine General and his silly comments'.

Onwards to the 'World' section. '15,000 troops leaving' again and then the piece, 'A Difficult Road Ahead', more attacks, casualities, set backs, and then criticism about 'shifting focus'.

At the bottom is the promising 'Other Developments' - ooh - developments, I wonder how things are developing? Apparently the main and most important developments are, 'abusive British soldiers going to court', all seven of them; 'attorneys looking at ballot irregularities', nevermind that the nation has been under tyranny and terrorism, and under threat of death and torture, bravely pursued an election, many walking for miles to vote, and finally, 'Bush wont produce a timetable'.

Now time for MSNBC...headlines - US Pull out 15,000, and then this Shiites Take the lead in Iraq Vote. A story about the Iraqi vote right? Well, sort of. At the top a lovely picture of a blown-up building. The story generally talks about how things look to be setting themselves up for an awful Iraq - scewed because of lobsided results, and then generally talking about how things are still pretty awful. I found the second paragraph striking,

"Meanwhile, a U.S. soldier was killed in Iraq’s turbulent northern city of Mosul, and an Iraqi contractor working with the American military was gunned down in a drive-by shooting Friday west of the Iraqi capital, U.S. and Iraqi reports said."

What? For a story headlining with "Al-Sistani-backed alliance leads in Iraq vote
United Iraqi Alliance outpolls Allawi group; no Sunni area tally yet", what is that doing in the second paragraph? "Meanwhile"? ???

Roll down a little further and after all the news on the 'complaints' there's a section entitled, 'Fresh Attacks' - which has nothing to do with how our attacks are doing.

Following a few other links we have - Rumsfeld defends Iraqi forces’ performance Of course that's Rumsfeld doing the defending, as for MSNBC, "New security forces have performed unevenly so far, sometimes faring well in battle but sometimes running away. In a few cases, spies have infiltrated the new units. Public trust has also been eroded by a reputation for heavy-handed tactics." 'But what would Rumsfeld know anyway?'

Good question actually. Maybe he does know something, or maybe not, but whatever the case, someone in the US is screwing up since he tried to resign twice over Abu Ghraib. The incident where the US government failed to control that handful of stupid soldiers who were found "abusing and sexually humiliating Iraqi detainees".

'Marines miss recuiting schedule', and then if you'd like another cheery summary of it all, go here.

Newspapers now - Washington Post - headlines - 15,000 troops, again, and then nothing else. If we move from the reporting and take a look at opinions then in the editorials section there is a staunchly positive piece by Charles Krauthammer. He's right wing though isn't he? So does that count?

In the 'World' section we find Insurgent Intimidation Weakens Iraq Forces, Two Marines Among 28 Killed in Iraq As Lull Ends, and finally a summary piece In Arab Media, a Mostly Upbeat Response to Iraqi Elections.

If you want some more try searching for 'Iraq'.

And now, The New York Times, just about the only thing on there is Shiite Alliance Adds to Lead as More Votes Are Counted in Iraq

Unbalanced future for Iraq...uncertain where things might go, etc. etc., and then................... The story goes from, "An official tally of the 265,000 overseas votes was expected to be available late this afternoon", and then out of nowhere to, "Meanwhile, the Iraqi police said that an Italian journalist, Giulina Sgrena, a reporter for Il Manifesto newspaper in Rome, had been kidnapped... Ms. Sgrena is the second European journalist now missing after being kidnapped."

It then picks up the story again with, "The scale of the lead held by the Shiites and the possibility of their coalition with the Kurds seemed certain to cause anxiety among Sunnis, who..."

???

The story continues on for quite a while tossing a few attacks here, and setback there, and a few casualities tossed in for good measure.

Look below and you'll see a few 'Related Articles': Iraqis Who Died While Daring to Vote Are Mourned as Martyrs - okay; U.S. Shouldn't Cut Force Soon, Iraqi Leaders Say; Iraqis Report a Variety of Complaints About Irregularities on Election Day.

[RVF500]

The Iraqis have the right to blow the crap outta US and UK troops , just as if anybody invaded my country i'd try and kill them . Do you honestly think it matters to the US or UK governments what the rest of the world thinks , after all they invaded Iraq against the majority of the UN. The US and UK will never leave Iraq , as both countrys have set up large bases and intend to keep these
even after the majority of US and UK forces go home after being replaced with Iraqi surragates.
The first casualty in all wars is TRUTH

Ok, not necessarily in order. The majority of insurgents are just that insurgents, not Iraqis. The Iraqis that are involved are largely from the Sunni minority who held power before and would like that power back. Surely even you are aware what they did with that power before. Others around Majar (sp) are largely bandits that even Saddam didn't try and pacify as it was too tough a job for him. They didn't like their criminal activities being curbed. Most Iraqis seem more content with the situation as was shown by the huge turnout across the country at the recent election.

Yes the UK and US do care about world opinion as it affects how they do business with other countries. It is not just a UK/US presence either. There are other nations involved including the UN. As far as I am aware Blair is pushing for an exit policy and it will come about. I can't stand Blair but at least he wants us out of there now. We won't maintain a presence because we can't afford to indefinitely. Britain has no huge bases overseas now. Even in Germany the presence has wound down to virtually nothing the army today is stretched to the limits with it's commitments. Besides it would become an election issue here and we know how sensetive Blair is to that. Even the Americans can't afford to remain indefinitely.

So we hand over to the Iraqis. Whom you dismiss as surrogates. No pleasing you is there? Perhaps you'd prefer the Ba'athists to resume the running of things. I think you'll find that organisation is responsible for vastly more Iraqi deaths than the US/UK military. I think you'll also find that the largest group of people being killed by the terrorists are Iraqi police, soldiers and civilians. Of course we can go now and leave them without the infrastructure to defend their nation against the current threat. Or now that we have gone in there we can at least try and leave it able to look after itself and run itself.

I was against the war, still am in principle but now it has taken place then supporting those who are attempting to fix things is more important than banging the drum about why it shouldn't have happened in the first place. I will always support our troops anyway. They shouldn't be there. But they are and no amount of whining will change that.

Even the Palastinians are coming around to the idea that the intifada isn't working. Nor will it ever. The terrorists will lose because they have nothing to offer except violence and oppression. They would stand a much better chance if they formed a political group and entered the process peacefully. But they won't do that. Why? Because they have nothing to offer the ordinary people that those people want. Because if they did then they would have had a presence at the elections and be offering it.

[cyzmyass]

The media has always been bias, just some more than others.

[Rave]

When I have time I might attempt a large scale rebuttal of Galant's final post. In the meantime, here's a story that known bunch of commie pinkoes MSNBC ran about Iraq:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6947745/

Un-American b*stards

Edit: from the second page of that report, the contractor justifies their method of clearing Iraqi private vehicles from the roads:

"Usually, you know, we give them a tap at about 20 miles an hour or so," he says.

Yeah, a minor little tap, when it's a Ford F350 Vs a little Iraqi car then

[Asghar]

I am amazed that for such a so called great democracy, the media in the US are so biased and toe the line of the Bush regime. It's just full of propaganda that even the Nazi's would have been proud of. They seem to be too scared of upsetting the goverment. We still do not have any figures for the civilian casualites, even from the UK media.

During the first year of the invasion there was a well known radio presenter who cast doubts on the US policy. He was promptly sacked.
Foreign journalists have been targeted and killed by the US in Iraq and even the UK's Kate Adie was threatened.

I have to say that the US has handled the horror of 9/11 without any dignity whatsoever and are now close to overtaking China as the county with the worst human wrights record in the world.

Plus there appear to still be thousands of Iraqi's fighting against the US occupation. They are not all from outside Iraq as the US and UK media would have us believe.

P.S. Those Iraqi's who attack US troops are not terrorists, they are fighting against occupation of their country by whatever means necessary. Some people (with the help of the media) have lost the idea of what a terrorist actually is. It seems to me that if you do not have cruise missiles or smart bombs, then your're a terrorist.

Targetting and killing civilians, now that is terrorism.