Media Coverage

I'm interested to hear what people think of the mass-media coverage of the war so far. Have the networks been unbiased (at least as unbiased as they've ever been), or are they cheerleading. Are we getting a realistic view of the battlefield from embedded journalists? Do you feel like you're being given a realistic vision of the war, or propaganda? What responsibilities should the media have during a war, is there a reasonable expectation that they take a patriotic view? Where do you get your news?

Just a few questions to spark discussion.

One of the major criticisms of the embedding regime in the military is that it clouds the perspective of the reporter; the reporter would naturally look upon the soldiers he/she is with in a favorable light since they protect the news crews from danger. Naturally, according to the criticism, the news reports would look favorably upon the Coalition troops and look unfavorably on the Iraqi troops, since the ""enemy"" is trying to kill the soldiers around the reporter and even the journalists themselves. This, according to the criticism, gives readers a colored picture of the war and glosses over the losses on the Iraqi side. Now, my response to this criticism is, who the Hell really wants to hang out with Iraqi troops just to be blow to pieces by bombs, artillery, or watch the unit you''ve trained with for months surrender on Day 2 of the war?

Working for a newspaper I see the news come in from most of the networks (BBC, ITN, MSNBC, SKY, FOX, CNN, CBS etc.) and I think that for the most part the news coverage has been pretty unbiased. I think that most of the networks are getting their news pretty quickly and are keen to get it out there for the public (and ratings) and have little time to edit it for their own purpose.

EDIT: Mind you the stoies from correspondents inside Baghdad and other Iraqi cities, is puerly what the Iraqi''s wat us to see nad the reporters are constantly monitored by Iraqi censors.

Military briefings, I believe, are designed to be used as another phsycological weapon in the aresenal and therefore will sometimes be misleading or biased but most of the time are surprisingly frank.

Newspapers however are a different matter. Many newspapers are very biased in their coverage of the war. A large part of this is to do (in the UK anyway, I can''t really speak for the U.S. press) with the opinion of the Editor-in-Chief of the newspaper in Question. The paper I work for is run by a headstrong opinionated individual (I''ve worked for quite a few newspapers and this seems to be the case in almost all of them) who while not outrightly lying to people can pick and choose what stories to print and what not to print, or to ""spin"" a certain story a certain way.

EDIT: Pity you Guys had to do a CoC but cheers for explaining why.

I actually wanted to make up a topic on that myself, but hey, here we go.

I think - to quote a nice ''review'' - never have the media been better prepared ... to report about nothing. No, of course, there''s still a certain amount of information, but overall it''s a big pile of ""we need to fill the time"". I''m not blaming them, they''re only trying to provide something that''s demanded.

Some journalists downright hurt. At the US Army press conference one of those guys noted that ""Secretary Rumsfeld told us yesterday that the Iraqis place military equipment in civilian regions to use them as shield."" and wanted to know if they can ""confirm that"". Did he really expect that person now to say that there''s no proof of that so far? (He answered that there are ""indications"" that this might be the case, but that''s it.)

Also, sometimes when they switch to live cams in Baghdad and everything''s quiet you''d think the anchor(wo)man is almost disappointed that there''s no ''action'' to be shown.

Certain news channels should be avoided.

I found it inappropriate that they had to interview the hell out of the relatives of the captured soldiers.

Press conferences with Said Al-Sahhaf are highly entertaining. Sorry, but I can''t help but find Mr. ""We have inflicted heavy damage on the stupid Americans"" entertaining. His briefings have about the same amount of information the briefings of Hoon or General Franks have though.

Obviously journalists were surprised that the US army didn''t fully unveil all their plans months ahead. At the briefings there were complaints why they haven''t been told this or that, in many cases, however, I do understand why certain information wasn''t shared for the sake of not risking the lives of anyone.

Im a little miffed at the news.

This goes for all channels but one of the anchors from fox seems like hes turning it into a 24 hour long worst case scenario or fear factor.

Other channels biggest crime is that I dont need to see a running total of the coalition body count like your calling a NCAA march madness game.

Does anybody find it odd the pictures of the ""shot down"" apache? They must have gotten a lucky shot or some sort of electrical malfunction cuz that bird looks relatively pristine. im not making any assumptions, it just struck me as odd.

The only thing that has really, really pissed me off so far is that some of these network ""military analysts"" have like zero credibility or pretty tenuous credentials. I can''t remember what network I saw it on but there was some Specialist (E-4) talking out of his ass. Big deal, so he''s prior service. There''s a lot of prior service people out there but does that make them any more qualified to talk about the unique geo-political situation in the Iraq theater? Hell, no.

I am pretty satisfied with the coverage so far. I have the german language sites (esp. www.spiegel.de - these guys are up 24 hrs it seems :), also www.telepolis.de for their controversial essays. Really have a good time with those) and channels (national tv really is a boon in this case. They don''t try commenting the explosions on Iraq, but instead try to give more insight to the whole issue, unlike the private channels we have here :\\).
Then there is the english language media. I personally think there is a slight bias, but who would not expect that. Still I think their coverage is great and since I get several sources at the same time I get a decent oversight of what is happening in my opinion, and that is what counts.
Additionally there is Al Dscharisa. These are obviously biased. It is interesting to see the other propaganda machinery at work, but then I personally find it disgusting how much they feed from showing pictures of dead soldiers/civilians. I hate it when viewers and reporters get too enthusiastic about a battle, but at the same time I find it disgusting how this channel always trys to play with the emotions of the viewers by showing bombing victims.
Lastly there are the bloggers. You can''t really take them seriously, as most are anonymous and could as well be fakes, but it sure is a good read if you are really bored with the main channels. Take it with a big grain of salt though ;).

I feel fortunate that I''ve not spent any time watching TV coverage of this new war. I spend my time listening to the excellent coverage from National Public Radio and the BBC World Service.

I enjoy both of these sources because they don''t give into sensationalism as their TV counterparts are so prone to doing. They also take the time to explain things, and to put things into some context.

I feel almost the same Veloxi. I have been very grateful that my local NPR station (and I assume many others) has been broadcasting BBC Worldservice reports along with the NPR gang. I''ve no doubt that there is a bias among these two sources, but I appreciate the wide range of coverage and discussion I get here. I never feel like they are cheerleading.

"Elysium" wrote:

I feel almost the same Veloxi. I have been very grateful that my local NPR station (and I assume many others) has been broadcasting BBC Worldservice reports along with the NPR gang. I''ve no doubt that there is a bias among these two sources, but I appreciate the wide range of coverage and discussion I get here. I never feel like they are cheerleading.

I''ve been watching the BBC, Sky, Fox, and MSNBC. I refuse to watch CNN. I have no problem with the UK and American media cheerleading for our side.

Perosnally I also watch Fox/Sky, BBC worldnews(that I can get),MSNBC, and CNN news. But also have been following United Press International, upi.com, The Newspaper Today, what of it I can, The Hindananstu Times(sp I know is wrong here), Al-Arabia, and Al-Jazeera(which is so massively biased its not funny). The Wall Street Journel, New York Times, as well as a few others.

Of all of them I like the United Press International the best, they;re the least biased I''ve noticed one way or the other. All of the others are biased and are cheerleading for oneside or another, mainly by what they print/don''t print. However I figure that if I read enough I''ll come off with a more rounded view of what is actually happening.

I have no problem with the UK and American media cheerleading for our side.

Really? Doesn''t that pose the problem of the media possibly acting a tool for the military? Shouldn''t there be a separation there, one where civilians should be able to trust our news outlets to strive at least to provide unbiased coverage?

In other words, if the war turned bad, would you rather be getting facts, or be getting propaganda to make you think it was all wine and roses. It''s happened before.

"Elysium" wrote:

Really? Doesn''t that pose the problem of the media possibly acting a tool for the military? Shouldn''t there be a separation there, one where civilians should be able to trust our news outlets to strive at least to provide unbiased coverage?

In other words, if the war turned bad, would you rather be getting facts, or be getting propaganda to make you think it was all wine and roses. It''s happened before.

It''ll be quite interesting to see how the embeds react and report when the troops hit Baghdad.

I am at the same time disgusted by all the coverage on this war and yet find myself glued to the TV for at least part of the day watching it.

I am now making a concerted effort to not watch more than like 10-15 minutes two times a day. I think all the american channels are biased towards this war and that is to be expected, not only that but pretty much every station I have watched has sensationalized this war in some way or another. CNN being the worst!

"Elysium" wrote:
I have no problem with the UK and American media cheerleading for our side.

Really? Doesn''t that pose the problem of the media possibly acting a tool for the military? Shouldn''t there be a separation there, one where civilians should be able to trust our news outlets to strive at least to provide unbiased coverage?

In other words, if the war turned bad, would you rather be getting facts, or be getting propaganda to make you think it was all wine and roses. It''s happened before.

Rooting for American and telling the truth can be done at the sametime. If the war starts going badly I want to know but what I don''t want is the Arab/European reports which are very biased. They seek out reporting that supports their preconcived claims. They want the United States to lose and that''s what they seek out and it''s false reporting.

"Ulairi" wrote:

but what I don''t want is the Arab/European reports which are very biased.

If I were still in college, my professors would tell me (and you) to cite the bias. Pick a so-called legit news organization and demonstrate that it is biased against America. Not that I''m arguing against you, I''d just like to see the proof of this claim outside of the ultra-radical newspapers (ever see the one with Bush as a vampire?).

"Rat Boy" wrote:
"Ulairi" wrote:

but what I don''t want is the Arab/European reports which are very biased.

If I were still in college, my professors would tell me (and you) to cite the bias. Pick a so-called legit news organization and demonstrate that it is biased against America. Not that I''m arguing against you, I''d just like to see the proof of this claim outside of the ultra-radical newspapers (ever see the one with Bush as a vampire?).

I''m talking about the cable Arabic channel, I can''t spell it. It''s out of Qatar and The Guardian from London.

Al Jazeera is state-run; the Guardian is a tabloid. I''m talking about a Washington Post or a New York Times exhibiting a clear and unmistakeable bias.

"Rat Boy" wrote:

Al Jazeera is state-run; the Guardian is a tabloid. I''m talking about a Washington Post or a New York Times exhibiting a clear and unmistakeable bias.

The New York Times is. Give me a few minutes and I''ll get you some links.

"Ulairi" wrote:

The New York Times is. Give me a few minutes and I''ll get you some links.

Beyond the Op Ed pieces I hope. Everything else doesn''t seem biased to me.

I have no problem with the UK and American media cheerleading for our side.

I dont have a problem with this either, I just dont want to watch it. I want facts. Now I dont know if the media is doing this or not, frankly I cant watch any of that sh*t. I just check in here and google news to see if the war is over yet. Basically because I feel like the review JD quoted, theyre reporting about nothing. Like after the WTC stuff, they reported about nothing for weeks. The only thing I find interesting (i.e. not predetermined) would be when they get to the urban warfare in Baghdad. The rest of it is so lopsided as to almost be certain.

"Ulairi" wrote:

Rooting for American and telling the truth can be done at the sametime. If the war starts going badly I want to know but what I don''t want is the Arab/European reports which are very biased. They seek out reporting that supports their preconcived claims. They want the United States to lose and that''s what they seek out and it''s false reporting.

Mmh I don''t see where the german media is biased. And the least anyone here wants is seeing your troops fail. And I know that firsthand ;).

Basically German TV channels like ARD and ZDF are great for some in-depth coverage, newspapers like the FAZ or the Süddeutsche are also pretty cool. Same goes for most of the Dutch media, French I don''t know and anything else is beyond my reach. Little bias all in all.

"chrisg" wrote:
"Ulairi" wrote:

Rooting for American and telling the truth can be done at the sametime. If the war starts going badly I want to know but what I don''t want is the Arab/European reports which are very biased. They seek out reporting that supports their preconcived claims. They want the United States to lose and that''s what they seek out and it''s false reporting.

Mmh I don''t see where the german media is biased. And the least anyone here wants is seeing your troops fail. And I know that firsthand ;).

I was talking about the French.

I dont have a problem with this either, I just dont want to watch it. I want facts. Now I dont know if the media is doing this or not, frankly I cant watch any of that sh*t. I just check in here and google news to see if the war is over yet. Basically because I feel like the review JD quoted, theyre reporting about nothing. Like after the WTC stuff, they reported about nothing for weeks. The only thing I find interesting (i.e. not predetermined) would be when they get to the urban warfare in Baghdad. The rest of it is so lopsided as to almost be certain.

Cheerleading to me is that the news media remembers that we''re the good guys. I don''t want lies or half-truths. I just don''t have a problem with a reporter saying that it''s tragic when some Allied soldiers are killed.

Another problem with the media that they have no historical reference when it comes to warfare.

"Ulairi" wrote:

I was talking about the French.

Ok then you may continue in your bashing ;), I can''t speak french much really. But I''d say they are pretty pissed at your media, too and how it portrayed Chirac :).

But I''d say they are pretty pissed at your media, too and how it portrayed Chirac

Chirac isn''t helping himself by trying to delay the food aid to Iraq until who runs Iraq after the war is settled (nevermind all the prewar UN Veto shenanigans!) and trying to ""rebuild"" relations with the US and UK. (probably so they can try and get a sizeable piece of the oil contracts in postwar Iraq.)

hey I wasn''t excusing their bias here. Just showing possible reasons for it.