The US media was cheerleader to Ira

[mjairlax]

here

The US media is at its lowest point it doesn't report the world acturatly. And in Iraq the major news networks beat the drums of war.

[Draconias]

...

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

To put it bluntly, that's total BS. Everyone in the US knows that the Media is quite the opposite. They are not "cheerleaders" for the war. The Media has done everything it can to bias and slant information against the war and, in particular, Bush. The media is at an all-time low, but that's because they all are full of sensationalist crap broadcasting.

The media is as far from a war "cheerleader" as anyone can get.

[Elfer]

Actually Draconias, I think you're wrong. I've seen the American news, and I've got to disagree with you.

Although they're really not "cheerleaders" per se, they're not very critical of the war or the government in general at all. They never really pursue any big questions about the war, instead just reporting on things like any time a bunch of American soldiers die.

However, only reporting on a bunch of soldiers dying is not an indicator of anti-war bias, it's general news protocol. There's no more significant victories to be won in Iraq, and as such, the only thing left to catch people's interest is bad news.

As it is, I recall seeing far more "hooray" war images than I saw "boo" war images. For example, that statue that got torn down was played about a billion times, as well as a few trillion plays of clips of joyous Iraqis who just voted dancing around like lunatics.

[Me-Patch]

All I see is anti-war anti-Bush whenever I turn on the TV, and I live in America. The only channel that cheers on the war and Bush is Fox News, and I think thats a good thing because it provides some balance.

[Imperator]

Although they're really not "cheerleaders" per se, they're not very critical of the war or the government in general at all. They never really pursue any big questions about the war, instead just reporting on things like any time a bunch of American soldiers die.

That's their job. I don't want the news to be critical, I want the news to be objective.

[RUFUSthePENUS]

Your american media is a disgrace. They are as biased and unambitious in their covering of news as the average 5th grade school paper.
When comparing your newschannels and so called "in-depth" programs i shit myself laughing while becoming increasingly worried about the fact that you are the only super power left.

[MoralLibertarian]

The reason media is at an all time low is that it's poor journalism.

I've heard the argument that the media was a giant cheerleader for the Administration's push into Iraq, and I don't buy it. They were reporting what everyone thought, and usually, they didn't even say that WMDs existed in Iraq, just that "Bush and the International community believed," WMDs existed in Iraq.

I must say, it's getting strange hearing lefties complain about the conservative media. I mean, it's one thing to complain about Rush, but all networks?

[Memorize]

And that's why we have news stations like FOX. At least they report some good every now and then.

[Montgomery-Scott]

At 2/4/06 12:57 PM, Imperator wrote:

Although they're really not "cheerleaders" per se, they're not very critical of the war or the government in general at all. They never really pursue any big questions about the war, instead just reporting on things like any time a bunch of American soldiers die.

That's their job. I don't want the news to be critical, I want the news to be objective.

The news' job is to be critical of goverment. One can think of the Media as the fourth check and ballance -- Its meant to prevent the government from gaining too much power or abusing the power they have. When the government refuses to admit the mistakes they made in Iraq, and try to cover them up, it is the job of the Media to try to uncover these mistakes, and to be critical of the government. Praising the government is what the White House PR office is for, the Media is supposed to ask tough questions to get satisfactory answers for the public, since a well informed electorate is the foundation of any republic.

[RedSkunk]

The media was obviously a very important aspect in the run-up to the war in Iraq. Without the slanted reporting, the population wouldn't have been so gung-ho to go, and we might not find ourselves in the mess that we're in today.

Even today, we don't get objective or investigative reporting. There are two mindsets of a media's role in times of war. The first, is that they are suppose to show the truth, an objective, critical look at what is going on. The second opinion, is that they ought to reinforce the government's position. That the media should not show the truth, because it will result in decreased moral, and "loose the war" like in Vietnam.

I think the media ought to provide a critical eye. It's currently doing otherwise.

[Elfer]

At 2/4/06 01:01 PM, Tal-con wrote: I sincerely and wholeheartedly agree. Whoever says American media is a cheerleader for war obviously hasn't seen our media.

I disagree. Anyone who thinks that the American media is anti-Bush and anti-war has obviously never seen anything BUT the American media.

[Memorize]

At 2/4/06 02:29 PM, Wesley_Crusher wrote:

I disagree. Anyone who thinks that the American media is anti-Bush and anti-war has obviously never seen anything BUT the American media.

Isnt that the point?

[BFG-Nine-Thousand]

The only news show worth watching these days is the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. And maybe the Colbert Report.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 2/4/06 02:29 PM, Wesley_Crusher wrote:

At 2/4/06 01:01 PM, Tal-con wrote: I sincerely and wholeheartedly agree. Whoever says American media is a cheerleader for war obviously hasn't seen our media.

I disagree. Anyone who thinks that the American media is anti-Bush and anti-war has obviously never seen anything BUT the American media.

If you're trying to say that media in other countries are more anti-bush and anti-war than our media is, you're right. But it's pretty hard explaining Cindy Sheehan's rise to fame, the stupid reporting in the Joe Wilson case, the erroneous connections of National Guard levels to Iraq in the Katrina hurricanes, etc. without a significant anti-war bias in the network news.

[102387412]

Contrary to what many Americans might think, the media is very one-sided and biased in its overall support of the war in Iraq.

The images broadcasted are often more influential than the factoids reported. This explains why we hardly ever see dead and wounded Iraqi civilians and American soldiers. We constantly view guns and canons firing, but do we ever get to see the people who are maimed and killed by them? Why not?

[MarkyX]

At 2/4/06 01:49 PM, Montgomery_Scott wrote:

At 2/4/06 12:57 PM, Imperator wrote:

Although they're really not "cheerleaders" per se, they're not very critical of the war or the government in general at all. They never really pursue any big questions about the war, instead just reporting on things like any time a bunch of American soldiers die.

That's their job. I don't want the news to be critical, I want the news to be objective.

The news' job is to be critical of goverment. One can think of the Media as the fourth check and ballance -- Its meant to prevent the government from gaining too much power or abusing the power they have. When the government refuses to admit the mistakes they made in Iraq, and try to cover them up, it is the job of the Media to try to uncover these mistakes, and to be critical of the government. Praising the government is what the White House PR office is for, the Media is supposed to ask tough questions to get satisfactory answers for the public, since a well informed electorate is the foundation of any republic.

So what you're saying is to report nothing but bad news?

How come when I read stories from Iraqis and soldier blogs, it is a TOTALLY different light then what the media is showing?

The media is supposed to report facts, from BOTH sides, and not spinning them or looking under a different light.

The problem is, they don't care. They know that many people dislike the war and will profit off those morons. \

[mjairlax]

At 2/4/06 12:57 PM, Imperator wrote:

Although they're really not "cheerleaders" per se, they're not very critical of the war or the government in general at all. They never really pursue any big questions about the war, instead just reporting on things like any time a bunch of American soldiers die.

That's their job. I don't want the news to be critical, I want the news to be objective.

yes you want news to be objective but you also want the the news to tell you that what the gov. is telling is true or complete bullshit

[mjairlax]

If you're trying to say that media in other countries are more anti-bush and anti-war than our media is, you're right. But it's pretty hard explaining Cindy Sheehan's rise to fame, the stupid reporting in the Joe Wilson case, the erroneous connections of National Guard levels to Iraq in the Katrina hurricanes, etc. without a significant anti-war bias in the network news.

No he is not if you read the news paper in other countries about the countries own leaders. Than america's reporting's seen like 5 year old explain nuclear physics.

[GunCrave]

At 2/4/06 07:25 PM, mjairlax wrote: No he is not if you read the news paper in other countries about the countries own leaders. Than america's reporting's seen like 5 year old explain nuclear physics.

What the fuck did this moron just say in the last sentence? I have a hard time understanding special ed kids.

[BFG-Nine-Thousand]

At 2/4/06 07:25 PM, mjairlax wrote: No he is not if you read the news paper in other countries about the countries own leaders. Than america's reporting's seen like 5 year old explain nuclear physics.

I'm crying as I read this.

[Elfer]

At 2/4/06 03:04 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: If you're trying to say that media in other countries are more anti-bush and anti-war than our media is, you're right.

Not just that, but media in other countries has the balls to beat up on the government.

Watch CBC. They're a government-funded news station and ALL THEY DO is make the government look bad, no matter who is in power. The great thing about the situation is that no government has the balls to cut funding when the station says bad things about them, because it would be political suicide to do something like that here.

[Imperator]

At 2/4/06 10:09 PM, Wesley_Crusher wrote:

At 2/4/06 03:04 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: If you're trying to say that media in other countries are more anti-bush and anti-war than our media is, you're right.

Not just that, but media in other countries has the balls to beat up on the government.

Watch CBC. They're a government-funded news station and ALL THEY DO is make the government look bad, no matter who is in power. The great thing about the situation is that no government has the balls to cut funding when the station says bad things about them, because it would be political suicide to do something like that here.

There have been numerous people who have already said that the media portrays the government in a negative light, maybe not as much as others, but our government certainly isn't looking "pretty" on CNN, or even Fox for that matter.........

I seriously have NO CLUE as to what "good" people are seeing in American media............

[TheArmyOfOne]

I agree with mjairlax because not only do americans get their information from local news like upn, fox, etc... but they also get info from blogs. rite now media is at its lowest. for example if you have noticed the war in afghanistan has been completly ignored now. and also americans are very ignorant now a days. for example if you were to walk into my social studies class and hold up a picture of george bush the first reactions or words would be "I hate that guy, he can burn in hell" then if you were to ask them why they hate busch they would just say something stupid like the war in iraq. not only do they not no any thing about what bush has done like his policies or how the us is at a big possibility of a depression, very fex few people know that when bush startedhis term in office we were at a $200 billion and now we are at a $400 billion dollar debt. now i will end my argument and eat my chocolate chip muffin

[Draconias]

At 2/4/06 06:09 PM, Mighty_Genghis wrote: This explains why we hardly ever see dead and wounded Iraqi civilians and American soldiers. We constantly view guns and canons firing, but do we ever get to see the people who are maimed and killed by them? Why not?

The Journalists have been specifically asked not to record anything of the sort by the soldiers themselves and the military. It is considered very, very bad etiquette and extremely insulting to the people recorded, and the American government/military actually have the right to ban such videos from public broadcast unless all faces are censored or all the people recorded have signed their consent, which is actually true for almost all Journalistic video recording.

It's mostly a matter of respecting the soldiers injured and slain.

[RedSkunk]

At 2/9/06 08:33 PM, Tal-con wrote: How can you possibly get more liberal than the American media? Unless your media out and out says Bush sucks. It boggles my mind.

And it boggles my mind that you people can think that a corporate media can be "liberal."

[mjairlax]

The US media is owned by corpations like GE. How are they going to give you accurate information in shit like nuclear (or nukeleer) energy and Global energy.