Of course, I have to agree with that. It's the whole premise for the Iraq war: "Iraq has deceived us so many times that to believe they don't have WMD would be beyond foolish."

SwamP-ThinG hates this rationality unless it serves his own ends.
I think that's part of it. But I also believe many in the media were against this war from the beginning and they have to be proved right. In order to show that they were right from the very beginning they are emphasizing the stories which support their position, and downplaying the stories contrary to their opinion.
I wonder. I mean, we still have embedded reporters. Supposedly they're reporting the stories from there, aren't they? There are 135,000 troops in Iraq; every day we hear about the few thousand who are fighting insurgents, dying and killing civilians. Where are the other 130,000? What are they doing?

If I knew some t.v. producers, I would recommend a weekly reality show with reporters embedded in the different units. Of course, there are some bad things going on in Iraq. Can it all be bad? If you watch the mainstream media, that's the impression you get.

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

News is usually only new when it's bad news. Business as usual isn't considered news. You don't report an airplane taking of and landing safely some time later, you only report it when a plane crashes, killing a lot of people. The same with Iraq. Do you really want to see soldiers on patrol, when nothing happens? And while that is being aired, not seeing other soldiers torturing prisoners?
What I don't understand is why you take embedded reporters seriously. They are like a dog on a collar. The army can dictate 99% of what they see, and more important, what they don't see. That's not what journalism is about, to me.

True, but I would like to see what's actually happening in Iraq. Do you think that the bad news we hear every day comprises the majority of what is happening every day? If so, how can that be? As I said, the overwhelming majority of US troops are not involved in any combat operations. What are they doing? I would like to see soldiers on patrol and hear commentary from an impartial reporter. I would like to see how the Americans and the Iraqis interact. I would like to hear from the soldiers how they actually feel. I would like to see some interviews with Iraqis.

A "reality" type program would be perfect for Americans. It peaks their interest AND it serves as a conduit to explain what is really going on.
Well, according to a study done by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and sponsored by the Pew Charitable Trust:

"the overwhelming majority of the embedded stories studied, 94%, were primarily factual in nature."

I do tend to believe facts more than I believe opinion, or reports filtered through that opinion. Call me crazy.

This embedded reporter doesn't agree with your opinion that he was a "dog on a collar":

"The commanding officer of my battalion gave us virtually unlimited access, even on sensitive stories. He said his orders were to let us report on "the good, the bad and the ugly." And that's what we did."

And that echoes the opinion of every reporter interviewed for the Discovery Channel's production Reporters at War.

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

obviously not.

I've actually seen programs like that, with the Dutch soldiers in Iraq. Why isn't there something like that in the US?

It's not like the bad stuff you see on the news isn't happening... ;)

Something like 60-70% of the media in the US is liberal (can't remember the exact statistics, it's on the web somewhere). I have to imagine that contributes to the coverage.
As I said, I know it's happening. I'm not trying to discount it or dismiss it in any way. What is evident though, is that there is a factual way to report the news and there is an opinionated way to present the news. While I'm not so naive as to believe that ALL bias can be removed, I'm also observant enough to recognize when the reporting has a significant slant. I don't watch Fox news for this very reason: their reporting is so obviously biased to the right that it makes the news worthless (and nauseating).

For example: every headline of this particular incident goes something like this - "US Air Strike Murders 40 Wedding Party Guests". Given the information available to the reporters (or lack thereof) they presume the guilt of the US and in terms that cast the most negative light possible on the US forces. Yankeefan1970 broached the same subject - we hear about civilian casualties and wanton destruction of property by the US forces on page one, when the truth is different it shows up on page 50, if it's mentioned at all. Is this reporting? In the face of limited information, assume that one party is guilty? When those first assumptions are incorrect, bury the truth?

If it were the other way, if the first headlines around the world were "Iraqis Stage Fake Wedding to Cover Up Foreign Fighter Conduit" and the information is the same, would you believe there's some bias there? If you then had to read posts that immediately condemn the Iraqis based upon this information, wouldn't you believe that those posters are jumping to conclusions?

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

And just what is that suppose to mean?
Journalism is about reporting facts, not opinions. What does reporting facts have to do with being liberal or conservative?
The facts are facts, no matter from wich end of the political spectrum you look at it. Assuming both types of media report a given event, like a bombing or an attack on US forces, what diference would it make that the reporter in site belongs to a liberal or conservative media? Would the bombing cease to exist just because it was reported by liberals? Or conservatives?
The facts are absolute. Only people´s opinions are subjective.
The fact is, 40 people were dead by the US bombing. Wether some think it was a marriage and others don´t, it doesn´t alter the fact that those people are dead. Liberal or not, conservative or not, journalism is about giving us, the public, all the facts, not the reporter´s opinions of what the facts should look like.
Just because the US media happens to swing more to the left in the political spectrum, it doesn´t mean they are incapable of reporting the facts as they are. And the same goes to conservative media.
Whenever watching the news, i always strip the factual material from the opinionated material. I take the factual into consideration, while i judge for myself what opinion to make of it.

The real question is not wether the media is liberal or conservative. The real issue is wether they conduct real serious and honest journalism, or wether they conduct loud controverse and sensationalist tabloid journalism.
Liberals or conservatives, none of them has the monopoly on the truth, both sides are capable of doing bad journalism.
Infact, both sides should just drop the partizan crap and stick to reporting facts. Report the "where"s, report the "when"s, and report the "how"s, but leave the "why"s to the public, philosofers and politicians. It´s not the media´s job to know why it happened, only what happened, when and where.

__________________
"Quincitilius Varus, give me back my legions!"
Emperor Augustus of Rome.

It means they are more likely to report on what is going wrong in Iraq than what is going right. It means that they are more likely to believe ANYONE above the US. Psychologists have a name for it "hindsight bias". If you are against this war from the beginning, you are going to find all of the information to prove you were correct. Same goes if you supported the war.
Then you don't have a problem with FOX news reporting? They're just reporting the facts.
Well, it does matter. If those 40 people were on their way to planting car bombs in Shi'a neighborhoods, or on their way to joining forces with Sadr, or on their way to strapping on bombs and blowing themselves up in another crowded Iraqi market then I think it's a good thing they're dead. I prefer that those who wish to extend the US involvement in Iraq be stopped before they get to their targets, I would prefer that those who are intent on killing civilians be killed before they get a chance to. I'm kind of funny that way.
I couldn't agree more. I wish it were that way.
You would think so, but that clearly isn't the case.
Right. Just like you did with this post. You have no more information that we do and yet your opinion latches quickly on to believing one side of the story. You would make a good reporter, but evidently not one you care to hear from.
Hear, hear!

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

*sigh*
Why don´t you start reading the entire posts, instead of browsing them?
I already said this. Fox news doesn´t just report the facts, they elaborate it to fit their opinion of what the facts should be. They spend more time making up assumptions and suppositions. Read the previous post. I have no time or patience to point obvious things to your attention. If you don´t wish to read it, then abstein yourself from commenting it.

If? There is no "if" here. Journalism is not about "if"s and "maybe"s.
These are the facts, no matter from wich side you look at them:
-An incident took place= fact
-Close to the Syrian border=fact
-The US bombed the site=fact
-40 were dead, including many women and many children=fact
-Shots were heard=fact
All the rest are possibilities, assumptions, and just pretty much opinions.
-Some of the dead were foreign fighters=assumption
-They were preparing to commit acts of terrorism=assumption
-The US forces were fired upon=possibility, no proof.
-The site was used as a foreign fighter´s waypoint=possibility. no proof.
-There was a marriage going=likely possibility, no proof.
-The women and children were also terrorists=assumption, or downright false.

*double sigh*
You said it right, my OPINION!
And I am not a reporter, am i? It´s not my job to report facts. A forum exists to state people´s opinions, (based on facts) and not to act as an extension of the media. If i wanted to make a post solely made of knowned facts, and repeat what was said on the news, i would have only posted a link to some news media. If i elaborated, it was because i was stating my OPINION on the matter.
The facts are simple, i did not alter the facts. The bombing DID happened. Or do you dispute that? There were 40 or so dead, including many women and children. Do you dispute that aswell? This is the basis for the thread. 40 are dead, in what was probably a marriage celebration. In my OPINION, they were wrong to bomb it, because they had no reason for it, and no idea of who they would be harming, period.

__________________
"Quincitilius Varus, give me back my legions!"
Emperor Augustus of Rome.

Really? I read your previous post and it doesn't say anything about FOX news. Neither does your post before that. Maybe, just maybe, you're too stupid to remember what you've written? Nope, strike that, there's no maybe about it.
So? There are dead women and children all over the world right now. Is that the fault of the US too?
And this is a "likely", why is that?
And you don't know shit more than I do, yet I choose not to jump to conclusions. But you go ahead, every forum has to have a village idiot.

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

And you´re it!
:bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird: :bird:

__________________
"Quincitilius Varus, give me back my legions!"
Emperor Augustus of Rome.