Grading Iraq war coverage

[CADsortaGUY]

See for yourself

Jennings gets an 'F'

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
See for yourself

Jennings gets an 'F'

CkG

Wow, there's a surprise. An organization that bills itself as "The Leader in Documenting, Exposing and Neutralizing Liberal Media Bias" finds that Fox News provided the best coverage. That's right up there with the Death Row Wives Association publishing an analysis of capital punishment.

Their agenda is blatantly obvious right from the first paragraph:

While it only lasted about three weeks, the second Gulf War was an unqualified success. But what about TV coverage of the war? While the media covered many aspects of the war fairly well -- reports from embedded journalists were refreshingly factual and were mostly devoid of commentary -- television's war news was plagued by the same problems detected during previous conflicts: too little skepticism of enemy propaganda, too much mindless negativism about America's military prospects, and a reluctance on the part of most networks to challenge the premises of the anti-war movement or expose its radical agenda.

Yeah, whatever. I especially like the "too little skepticism of enemy propaganda" bit. None of the networks I watched reported Baghdad Bob's ravings as if they bore any relation to reality.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
See for yourself

Jennings gets an 'F'

CkG

Wow, there's a surprise. An organization that bills itself as "The Leader in Documenting, Exposing and Neutralizing Liberal Media Bias" finds that Fox News provided the best coverage. That's right up there with the Death Row Wives Association publishing an analysis of capital punishment.

Their agenda is blatantly obvious right from the first paragraph:

While it only lasted about three weeks, the second Gulf War was an unqualified success. But what about TV coverage of the war? While the media covered many aspects of the war fairly well -- reports from embedded journalists were refreshingly factual and were mostly devoid of commentary -- television's war news was plagued by the same problems detected during previous conflicts: too little skepticism of enemy propaganda, too much mindless negativism about America's military prospects, and a reluctance on the part of most networks to challenge the premises of the anti-war movement or expose its radical agenda.

Yeah, whatever. I especially like the "too little skepticism of enemy propaganda" bit. None of the networks I watched reported Baghdad Bob's ravings as if they bore any relation to reality.

I would have to agree on Brit Hume getting an A. His news show really is quite good and quite "fair and balanced".

 

[Vadatajs]

FNC aided viewers by rejecting the standard liberal idea that objective war news requires an indifference to whether America succeeds or fails.

This is called bias, and has no place in journalism.

 

[Sternfan]

The Fox news channel was the only one that got it right, but you left wing anti American pinko's can't stand it. Hurry for FOX the only fair and balanced news out there.

 

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: Sternfan
The Fox news channel was the only one that got it right, but you left wing anti American pinko's can't stand it. Hurry for FOX the only fair and balanced news out there.

I'm not going to dignify that dumbass statement with a response.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: Sternfan
The Fox news channel was the only one that got it right, but you left wing anti American pinko's can't stand it. Hurry for FOX the only fair and balanced news out there.

I'm not going to dignify that dumbass statement with a response.

Then why did you? You stated it was "a dumbass statement" there by judging it and posting your opinion.

CkG

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: Sternfan
The Fox news channel was the only one that got it right, but you left wing anti American pinko's can't stand it. Hurry for FOX the only fair and balanced news out there.

I'm not going to dignify that dumbass statement with a response.

Then why did you? You stated it was "a dumbass statement" there by judging it and posting your opinion.

CkG

hehe, your post is also meaningless. I'm not even going to repon.......DOH!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: Sternfan
The Fox news channel was the only one that got it right, but you left wing anti American pinko's can't stand it. Hurry for FOX the only fair and balanced news out there.

I'm not going to dignify that dumbass statement with a response.

Then why did you? You stated it was "a dumbass statement" there by judging it and posting your opinion.

CkG

hehe, your post is also meaningless. I'm not even going to repon.......DOH!

me t... oops



CkG

 

[IamDavid]

I couldn't stand watching the news coverage after the first week. EVERY channel tried to put there spin on it. FNC was probably the closest one to show un-bias reporting but they hyped it way to much.. But thats was way better then the other channels hoping and praying to find something wrong with the administrations choices. I think some of the anchors on CNN would have busted out into a song and dance if we had bombed a hospital or something..

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: IamDavid
I couldn't stand watching the news coverage after the first week. EVERY channel tried to put there spin on it. FNC was probably the closest one to show un-bias reporting but they hyped it way to much.. But thats was way better then the other channels hoping and praying to find something wrong with the administrations choices. I think some of the anchors on CNN would have busted out into a song and dance if we had bombed a hospital or something..

Oh yeah, Fox was so unbiased - so unbiased that it became the poster boy for unrestrained war cheerleading and unquestioning support of Bush & Co. Here are a couple of looks at Fox's great accuracy and integrity. They are reposts from another thread about Fox war coverage:
----------
Here's an Op-Ed from the New York Times. I thought it was relevant since it discusses both the BBC and Fox News. It also discusses how media companies may bias their coverage to please the administration -- Michael Powell, Colin Powell's son, is chairman of the FCC -- and how the administration can apply pressure through the FCC. Here are a couple of excerpts with a link to the whole article if you're interested:

The China Syndrome
A funny thing happened during the Iraq war: many Americans turned to the BBC for their TV news. They were looking for an alternative point of view -- something they couldn't find on domestic networks, which, in the words of the BBC's director general, "wrapped themselves in the American flag and substituted patriotism for impartiality."

Leave aside the rights and wrongs of the war itself, and consider the paradox. The BBC is owned by the British government, and one might have expected it to support that government's policies. In fact, however, it tried hard -- too hard, its critics say -- to stay impartial. America's TV networks are privately owned, yet they behaved like state-run media.

What explains this paradox? It may have something to do with the China syndrome. No, not the one involving nuclear reactors -- the one exhibited by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation when dealing with the government of the People's Republic.

In the United States, Mr. Murdoch's media empire -- which includes Fox News and The New York Post -- is known for its flag-waving patriotism. But all that patriotism didn't stop him from, as a Fortune article put it, "pandering to China's repressive regime to get his programming into that vast market." The pandering included dropping the BBC's World Service -- which reports news China's government doesn't want disseminated -- from his satellite programming, and having his publishing company cancel the publication of a book critical of the Chinese regime.

[ ... ]

Meanwhile, both the formal rules and the codes of ethics that formerly prevented blatant partisanship are gone or ignored. Neil Cavuto of Fox News is an anchor, not a commentator. Yet after Baghdad's fall he told "those who opposed the liberation of Iraq" -- a large minority -- that "you were sickening then; you are sickening now." Fair and balanced.

We don't have censorship in this country; it's still possible to find different points of view. But we do have a system in which the major media companies have strong incentives to present the news in a way that pleases the party in power, and no incentive not to.

----------
Fox News - banned in Britain?

No, not yet. According to this article in The Guardian, they are being investigated based on complaints about their reporting bias during the Iraq war. Britain apparently takes news impartiality seriously. Fox could lose its license to broadcast in Britain; it happened once before to another channel.

TV watchdog checks claims of bias on Murdoch channel

At this point, it's only an investigation. No decision has been reached.
----------

Here's a little more insight into Fox's high standards for integrity and objective reporting:

From Goldman Environmental Prize

In late 1996, journalists Jane Akre and Steve Wilson began investigating rBGH, the genetically modified growth hormone American dairies have been injecting into their cows. As investigative reporters for the Fox Television affiliate in Tampa, Florida, they discovered that while the hormone had been banned in Canada, Europe and most other countries, millions of Americans were unknowingly drinking milk from rBGH-treated cows. The duo documented how the hormone, which can harm cows, was approved by the government as a veterinary drug without adequately testing its effects on children and adults who drink rBGH milk. They also uncovered studies raising the possibility of its link to breast, prostate and colon cancer in humans.

The Fox affiliate widely promoted the investigative reports. But just before the broadcast, the station abruptly pulled the plug after Monsanto, the hormone manufacturer, threatened Fox News chief Roger Ailes, promising "dire consequences" if the reporters were allowed to broadcast their findings. A Fox lawyer told the journalists, "This story isn't worth a couple hundred thousand dollars to go up against Monsanto." When the reporters implored Fox's station manager to proceed with the broadcast because this was news that consumers had a right to know, he refused.

For eight months, Fox lawyers pressured the reporters to air a version of the story that would avoid conflict with Monsanto. The reporters rewrote the story more than 80 times, but no version was ever acceptable. Instead the pair was repeatedly threatened with dismissal, twice offered six-figure sums to drop their ethical objections and keep quiet, and finally suspended, locked out of their offices, and fired just before Christmas 1997.

[ ... ]

After five weeks of testimony last summer, the jury unanimously ruled that the story Fox had pressured its reporters to broadcast was indeed "a false, distorted or slanted news report." They awarded $425,000 to Akre because they concluded she was fired for no other reason than threatening to reveal Fox's misconduct.

Here's another from the Sierra Club: Silence is Golden

The television station manager turned to the two reporters in his office. He had just been brought in from corporate headquarters and he didn?t mince words. The date was April 16, 1997. "We paid three billion dollars for these television stations. We will decide what the news is. The news is what we tell you it is."

In short, Fox bowed to corporate pressure and tried first to distort the story, then killed it outright. Fox offered "six-figure sums" to the reporters to get them to drop their objections and prevent them from taking their complaint to the FCC. Ultimately, Fox fired the reporters and tried to claim that it's not illegal to lie in their newscasts. I found no evidence in any story suggesting Fox denied the claims made by these reporters.

So, to Corn, thank you for giving us a well-documented example of how biased Fox can be. I found it most enlightening. And kudos to the reporters who were willing to stand up for their principles in spite of intense professional and financial cost. We need more reporters like them.

Finally, for anyone who wants more information, Google is your friend. You can also go to this site, set up by the reporters who lost their jobs. Please note that this is a site with an explicit agenda; it is not a news broadcaster. As such, you cannot expect it to be completely objective and unbiased.

----------
Just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[IamDavid]

Look at the source of your stories Bowfinger. Everyone is tainted in some way. Its impossible to know who to believe so I go by what I see. When I see CNN covering an Iraqi officials news conference as if it had any credibility I can't help but laugh. I know FNC did the same but at least at the end of it Shepard Smith or whoever else brought us back to reality..