More Evidence President Bush was 'Right' about the Iraqis.

#1
#2
I'm confused? I thought that Al Jazeera were no more biased than Fox. Let face it Fox (UK) - BskyB, The Times and The Sun; each have very clear editorial lines, as does Al Jazeera. I.e. Difference is nil.

Stop knocking Al Jazeera, it is one of one media outlets in ME that broadcasts in Arabic and is not state controlled.....yes I know it is owned by the government but it has its own editorial line. The reason why Al Jazeera was so effective in Iraq was that it had Arab reporters who were seen by all Iraqi's as being neutral. Sadly its coverage during Fulluja I cost many Iraqi and US lives, because the Poli’s bottled it. Lesson learned, if the media don’t toe the line **** em off, oh that is how dictatorships work. Somehow we need to find a balance; neither system is perfect.

The UK media (well some elms) are becoming very effective at using Iraqi reporters to go where the western media cannot go. Have you seen any footage from Fulluja after Fulluja II; that was not from embeds, if not why not? It is around and does raise a few questions, it is not radical, it was balanced, which is what proper journalism is about.

Just like the pictures from Walter Reed, first aired on UK TV, long before anyone in the US saw them and then it was only seen when they were 'used' by Michael Moore' with his very own political spin. It was really sad, the unedited version looked very carefully at the VA sp (very impressive) and cost to the US DoD (very disturbing) of the wounded soldiers. My wife was crying after watching it and promptly phoned her brother stateside to find out if any of the networks had shown it. None had. I enjoyed F9/11 but was pissed when MM used the footage out of context, he could easily humiliated the media by saying this what the Brits saw….I wonder why none the networks picked it up?

Changing the subject: Oh if the Iranians are that bad why did they facilitate the Iraqi exiles vote? I noticed that Turkey did not come out to play on the 30th.

The election is a step in the right direction, but it is not a victory.
 
#3
Jailorinummqasr...
Don't have a 'tantrum' just because I said 'tirade'. :)

I respect and apperciate your 'local enlightenments'.

However... I beleive Aljazzera does infact often 'censure' (not censor)
any pro U.S. news.

But I'm not 'dissin'em'...hey they are what I look to inorder to
learn Arab perspective on recent events in the sandbox.

I think that he Iranians WANT the Iraqis to vote into office an Islamic theocracy.

(and nuts to michael moore's BS) :x
 
#7
WEATHERMAN1956 said:
Oh Gawd...if the 'Spelling Police' get to this first...

OK should be 'believe'


(My lisdexia again)

:oops:
Hurrah....Corporal..take note.. :lol:
 
#8
I try not to throw teddies, if I do it is cos I'm scared.....I fear that sooner or later probably about Oct 2007, when my missus has been naturalized in the UK and I'm out of the mob. I will end up moving to the good ol' US of A. Sadly (at least from your perspective) i'm likely to end up Mass or Conn. And I don't really know whether I can handle it....Being married to an American gives me I believe a feel of both sides of the Pond. So I just try and highlight aspects of the special relationship.

I believe in democracy and freedom speech so I tend to jump to Al Jazeera's defence, also as you might have guessed I don't buy into the Bush view of the world.

I have to tread very carefully with the In-Laws one is a Democrat, one is a Republican and the other is Libertarian! My first chat with my father-in-law started with 'why are our guys getting killed in Baghdad whilst the Brits are not down south'? (Three weeks before I went out to IZ)

I'll be Stateside finger crossed for the 4th July to wet Jailor Jnr's head. If I am too lazy to remember to say it tomorrow....have a great superbowl party, where ever you are. I'll find somewhere to watch it.

p.s. weatherman, you'll never get a spelling correction from me!
 
#9
Corporal said:
Is Jailorinummqasr a new version of Crackedskulls/Tofu???
I think hes looking at it from both sides, rather than the 'we are right, you are wrong' attitude.
During the early days of the invasion of Iraq, you couldnt believe half of what the Brit and particularly US media/govts were saying, like the US saying no Apaches had been brought down, no US soldiers were missing while at the same time Al Jazeera were showing the footage of downed apaches and of captured US troops.
Al Jazeera show the footage that western media wont, and they know where to draw the line (if somewhat further than the norm), ie not showing the execution vids all the way. Pity our news agencies couldnt be a bit more 'truthful'.
6 million Iraqis voted, out of a country of how many? pity more didnt turn out.
 
#10
Jailorinummqasr's bias against the US is quite evident. Anyone who feels that Al Jazeera is fair and balanced is definitely not someone I want watching my back. The arab news media were pretty much embed's with the terrorists.

What is clear is that the Bush administration isnt going to accept the word of states like Iran and Syria but rather will see what their actions are. If they say they arent helping the terrorists but we see they are they will get called on it. Anyone watching the State of the Union address had to note Bush's comments regarding Iran and Syria.
 
#11
Tomahawk6.

Why have Haliburton (Bermuda) only just pulled out Iran??

What is clear is that the Bush administration isnt going to accept the word of states like Iran and Syria but rather will see what their actions are. If they say they arent helping the terrorists but we see they are they will get called on it. Anyone watching the State of the Union address had to note Bush's comments regarding Iran and Syria.
What about Suadi Arabia and Pakistan or for that matter Bangladesh.

Jailorinummqasr's bias against the US is quite evident
Bais against the US, negative over, I just question what the leaders of the free world tell us, do not tell me you believe politician never liar or massage the truth.

Anyone who feels that Al Jazeera is fair and balanced is definitely
Not even implied, but they are only as bad as US Networks.

The arab news media were pretty much embed's with the terrorists.
Go back and watch Fox[/quote]
 
#13
Your political belief's prevent you from being objective. The arab networks are great if you want anti-US news. Ditto for the UK news outlet's - except Sky. I watch Fox because I find them to be the most balanced. CNN, MSNBC,CBS, NBC and ABC are pretty much anti-administration. The media used to just report events factually without adding commentary. We have a disturbing pattern in the uS where the news media seeks to make news. They will commission a poll and then report it as a story. We found during the last election cycle that the polls released by the major news outlets were actually wrong. It seemed to come as a particular shock to the Kerry campaign.
 
#15
Fox has a definate right slant to it, just like ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, etc. have a left slant to them.

T6 does bring up a valid point. Media in general seems to be more interested in ratings and making news than just reporting news.

So, who do you trust for your news?
 
#16
Fox is alot more fair and balanced. If you watched election news for example you got the impression that Bush was losing when you watched CNN and the rest. They always had more democrat talking heads than republican. If you watched their coverage of Iraq you would think it was all doom and gloom. During the invasion it seemed we were lost in the desert, thank god for the embed's. The embed's showed it like it was. It was all doom and gloom for elections in Afghanistan and Iraq. When both had successful elections the media was in shock.

A smart person gets their news from a variety of places. I watch Fox for news. I read summaries from the print media and of course the bloggers are a great source of info. The military bloggers have been instrumental in showing Iraq the way it is.
 
#17
tomahawk6 said:
Your political belief's prevent you from being objective. [SNIP]
Pot, kettle over ....

Or is it one of those irregular verbs, you know:

I see the world objectively,
You are a liberal US-hating commie;
We are God's own people,
They are all fundamentalist bigots etc etc
 
#18
tomahawk6 said:
Fox is alot more fair and balanced.
I think this is true od Fox NEWS broadcast in the US.
Is Fox different elsewhere?
 
#19
The Fox news served up on satelite in Australia is a direct rebro of the US program. For me it is not so much the leaning of the news which is clearly to the right but it is the shallowness of analysing their reporting. Mind you that is pretty standard across the board. Sky News (UK) and BBC World News are probably the best available but still regularly let themselves down by confusing News with entertainment, such as "If you think Prince William is unfit to be King press your red button and vote..." etc.
 
#20
T6

What great statement.... this tops everything else:

The arab networks are great if you want anti-US news. Ditto for the UK news outlet's - except Sky
T6, I accept that the media has a bias, the difference is that the Print Media is open about it, you could argue too that the BBC were more left of centre than ITV. But then if you compare C4 news (ITN) vs Newsnight (BBC) the roles are reversed. The 3 Flagship Radio 4 programmes (Today, PM, The Worlds Tonight) each have their own editorial lines and seem happy to rip into the establishment (both left/right and centre) if they have the bottle to be interviewed. Mainstream TV also have a free editorial line BBC news vs ITN and then there is C4. Trust me the media in the UK is not all left, Times, Telegraph, Mail, Express, Sun are all right of centre. Most of the BBC and ITN output is very neutral and it is only the special programmes, which have a bias.

You are right to visit a variety of news sources. Mind you all your points of reference seem right of centre/fit your vision of the world??? Suggest a read of Commondreams... the bottom line is you don't have to agree with them but at least you get to see their viewpoint, rather than dismissing it as not relevant.

Whilst we in West have and cherish Freedom of Speech and access to a free media, how many people actively pursue different angles and other sources of media away from their radio or the evening news or the local paper? Not enough. Too many sit and listen to Howard Stern or others like him and it just reinforces their own views of the world. A free media is as good as no media if people fail to exploit/explore the information available.

Another issue is Blogging, I check several bloggers including at least one mil bloggers site. The real question is how easy is it check the validity of information and or static’s and this goes for bloggers both to the left or right of the argument.

I highlighted yesterday, MM spinning on an objective news report in F9/11. Well today I will highlight spinning by GWB: He stated that Blacks would be better off under his Soc Sec reforms because they have a lower life expectancy; therefore they get less money back from the fund over the long run. Whilst the actual static was correct its application was incorrect since the life expectancy is skewed due to the high morbidity rates of young black men. Blacks who make it to retirement age outlive their white counterparts and therefore they in fact get more from the existing system.

To remain unbiased and objective I will trawl a few progressive sites to find a counter example of twisting facts by the left.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top