Iraq's Media Distortion

[Galant]

Anyone else sick of hearing from actors and singers about the finer points of how to conduct a war or even just foreign policy?

You have to wonder about the kind of media culture we're creating which really doesn't seem to be thinking about what it's doing or how things actually are. I've heard all the post-modernist talk that everything is subjective but I didn't expect to be seeing as much of that to such a great extent so soon. I really do think that most major media agencies are more concerned with their political stances, and making money than they are in just telling people what's going on.

I imagine it must be a hard life for media people. Just plain reporting with no slant or sensationalism isn't as glamorous as some may want. I imagine it's actually a pretty humbling position, because you'd have to just speak clearly and plainly and recognise that your opinion isn't the issue, nor does it fit in.

Still, that's no excuse, and I'd still like to hear something which didn't stink of bias or opinion. Maybe though I never will. Perhaps the truth, especially in wars, is that no-one can ever accurately describe what's going on and how it is. Not very satisfying for me, and it must be a bit of a blow to the ego of the all-knowing, all-seeing, have-all-the-answers, have-all-the-experts media.

Here's a soldier's take on the issue:

http://worldtribune.com/worldtribune...680555557.html

[Jonny M]

Interesting read, thanks.

[Lee H]

Great perspective from the side thats never shown on channels like SKY news and other news agencies.

[Gunbuster]

Hinteresting, certainly makes a nice change to hear what is actually our side. I generally disregard what the newspapers say at all and take what Sky/ITN/BBC say with a pinch of salt anyway. However salt or no its hard to hear anything if it isn't reported.

[Zathras]

Gist of the story is the guy's peeved because the media aren't reporting what the US military want them to, they're not helping with winning the war. Well sheesh, we have an independent media thank god, and not one that bows down to whatever propaganda or BS the military wants to feed them. This isn't some great fight for the survival of the UK where maintaining public spirit is absolutely essential. What would you rather? The wool be pulled over our eyes, us only see a very distorted idealistic picture of what's going on in Iraq? Well, you've got Fox News if you want that. I'll stick to less biased news outlets and look at things from all perspectives, UK, US, foreign press.

[DaBeeeenster]

From where I sit in Iraq, things are not all bad right now. In fact, they are going quite well. We are not under attack by the enemy; on the contrary, we are taking the fight to him daily and have him on the ropes. In the distance, I can hear the repeated impacts of heavy artillery and five-hundred-pound bombs hitting their targets. The occasional tank main gun report and the staccato rhythm of a Marine Corps LAV or Army Bradley Fighting Vehicle's 25-millimeter cannon provide the bass line for a symphony of destruction.

He sounds like a really great bloke...

[Galant]

Oh he's evil because he talks about efficient destruction? I know it's not nice but that what the military does, it destroys things, kills people and blows things up. Now I'm sure it would be nice to re-educate everybody so that problems would be solved, people would get on and evil would be eradicated.

Whatever your viewpoint on the war, it's going on, and what would be nice would be to be able to have the media tell you what's going on, all of it, or at least as much as possible, and not just pick the bits that best support their view of the war. I don't want to be told whether the war is right or wrong, I want to be told what's going on there and then decide for myself.

Independent media? - It think you'll find that what he's saying is that we do not have an independent media, but we have a media in favour of the enemy he's been sent to fight.

[joshwa]

Do you find that the media is worse in the US than in the UK? How does news.bbc.co.uk compare to what you are seeing on your TV over there?

[Zathras]

It think you'll find that what he's saying is that we do not have an independent media, but we have a media in favour of the enemy he's been sent to fight.

Oh yeah, that's right, because the papers and TV channels are full of commentators celebrating carbombings and US troops being killed
This idea that the media are biased towards the militants is ridiculous. One can raise concerns about the way operations are carried out without being on the side of the enemy.

[Galant]

In reverse:

If you read what the Marine says he points out that even though the media isn't celebrating the terrorists, they are still supporting them. Evidenced by the fact that the terrorists are playing to the presence and habits of the media. They are a tool that the terrorists are making use of.

Re. comparing the media it would be hard to do I think. For one, there are so many media outlets here from Fox to CNN, to C-Span, CBS et al. I think I do find that whilst the BBC do show a left-sided slant, particularly in their opinions, there does tend to be a more balanced approach to any one other US media source. The US media sources do tend to give a lot of opinion, and really, they thrive and succeed on opinion. Personalities play a part, and I think style is often significant some times maybe more than substance. They do of course offer straight news but often it's hard to separate opinion from reporting.

I think part of the whole thing is that TV culture is very different over here. To be honest you could easily toss out TV and not miss much at all. Quality is much less than the UK I find, and I think that's saying something.

[DaBeeeenster]

In reverse:

If you read what the Marine says he points out that even though the media isn't celebrating the terrorists, they are still supporting them. Evidenced by the fact that the terrorists are playing to the presence and habits of the media. They are a tool that the terrorists are making use of.

Right. Regarding the multi-million pound "press center" the Americans built before the invasion. What was that for, precisely?

[mark22]

I gotta agree with Galant on this. The media slant on this situation is (and I hope this doesn't sound bad) the same as the reporting of the tsunami. It's about making headlines and not reporting whats going on, I have friends in Basra and seeing pictures in our papers of 1 or 2 people doing something wrong compared to whatever else goes on out there annoys me. Our media brings danger to our troops, they are scum.

And as much as I now... diasagree with the original invasion, new people are trying to take control in Iraq and that really cant be allowed so the fight for this election is right.

[Galant]

Right. Regarding the multi-million pound "press center" the Americans built before the invasion. What was that for, precisely?

Oh I don't know. Maybe some of the selfish soldiers fighting out there thought it would be nice to be able to keep in touch with home. To let loved ones know what was going on, and to have the support of their own nation?

Perhaps some of the roles of the war-time media might be to provide coverage of what is going on with the battles and campaigns. Perhaps also to give the soldiers a voice and let the people back home know what's going on, how they feel. Perhaps the job of the media is to go where most people can't and give people at home as clear a view of things and as a wide a picture as possible?

And you know what? Whilst men and women are out there fighting, bleeding and dying, maybe trying to garner support for the troops and help boost their morale isn't a bad thing.

Leaving the politicking to the politicians. The media aren't governors, they aren't politicians, they are the lens of a camera, a sketch pad and pencil. They have an opportunity unparalleled in a hard time and a painful time, and I'm sick of seeing that abused so they can round up cheap support for their political bandwagon.

[DaBeeeenster]

Oh I don't know. Maybe some of the selfish soldiers fighting out there thought it would be nice to be able to keep in touch with home. To let loved ones know what was going on, and to have the support of their own nation?

Perhaps some of the roles of the war-time media might be to provide coverage of what is going on with the battles and campaigns. Perhaps also to give the soldiers a voice and let the people back home know what's going on, how they feel. Perhaps the job of the media is to go where most people can't and give people at home as clear a view of things and as a wide a picture as possible?

And you know what? Whilst men and women are out there fighting, bleeding and dying, maybe trying to garner support for the troops and help boost their morale isn't a bad thing.

Leaving the politicking to the politicians. The media aren't governors, they aren't politicians, they are the lens of a camera, a sketch pad and pencil. They have an opportunity unparalleled in a hard time and a painful time, and I'm sick of seeing that abused so they can round up cheap support for their political bandwagon.

To let loved ones know what was going on? What? This was a press centre. It was a pure propaganda machine. It had nothing to do with letting soldiers communicate with their families (ever heard of email?) and everything to do with distorting what was going on in Iraq.

I'm not sure what all this emotional baggage is about soldiers "bleeding and dying" - if you are in an army, that's what happens.

How many soldiers have died? Around 1500.
How many civilians have died? Around 15,000.

And you talk of media bias?

[GreenPiggy]

The only distortion i can determine in the coverage of the war is the ridiculous amount of sanitation we are subjected to to cover up the true horrors of it - 'surgical strikes, collateral damage, liberation=violence, security=repression pacification etc instead of '19 civilians had amputations, ten were ripped apart horribly by shrapnel, 50 civilians were blown apart by a badly directed missile, 3 children had their legs blown off by cluster remnants etc.'

[DaBeeeenster]

The only distortion i can determine in the coverage of the war is the ridiculous amount of sanitation we are subjected to to cover up the true horrors of it - 'surgical strikes, collateral damage, liberation=violence, security=repression pacification etc instead of '19 civilians had amputations, ten were ripped apart horribly by shrapnel, 50 civilians were blown apart by a badly directed missile, 3 children had their legs blown off by cluster remnants etc.'

I did see a couple of reports (from the BBC) of the aftermath of a JDAM that landed off target in Baghdad. They had to heavily censor the report on account of the bodyparts of small children strewn around the area.

What I find somewhat incredible is the way westerners are happy watching the instruments of war being made, travelling to their destination, being revved up, we get to see the plane letting the bomb go, the spotter plane focusing on the target, sometimes even the eye view of the missile. We see the explosion, and then that's it. The one thing that we sanitise ourselves to is the actual effect of the weapon. Because, you know, looking at a kid with their head missing ruins dinner in front of the TV.

Is it just me that finds this somewhat appauling?