PDA

View Full Version : Criminal Liberal Media Silent over Al-Qaeda Torture House


Bill Parcells
06-02-2007, 08:29 PM
NINE DAYS AFTER PHOTOS RELEASED, NETS AND TOP
PAPERS SILENT OVER AL-QAEDA TORTURE HOUSE

Yet Top Media Ran More Than 6,000 Stories on Abu Ghraib Abuses




ALEXANDRIA, VA—The U.S. Defense Department released photos last week of an al-Qaeda torture chamber in Iraq, which showed various torture tools—blow torches, meat cleavers, hammers, drills, metal files—drawings of torture methods, and photos of actual victims found in another house in Karmah who had been burned, mutilated, and tortured in myriad ways.

To their credit, CNN and Fox News Channel ran stories on the declassified material. Yet nine days since the material was released, neither ABC, CBS, NBC, The New York Times nor The Washington Post has run a story with the photos of this shocking evidence of al-Qaeda’s barbarism.

Concerning the top media’s silence on the al-Qaeda torture chamber in Iraq, MRC President Brent Bozell issued the following statement:

“The elite media’s liberal bias is abundantly clear in this case. U.S. soldiers raided several al-Qaeda safe houses in Iraq and discovered stacks of evidence about how al-Qaeda tortures its victims. The tools, the drawings, and the photos are gruesome and clearly show what type of enemy the U.S. is facing.

“Yet most of the liberal media are deliberately silent. This is the same self-righteous liberal media that ran more than 6,000 stories and countless photos of Abu Ghraib and the abuse of prisoners there by several U.S. soldiers. Where are they now? Why will they not show the American people what al-Qaeda is actually doing in Iraq right now? Whose side are they on?

“Al-Qaeda’s crimes are a thousand-fold more brutal than anything done by any derelict U.S. soldier. Yet it’s obvious now that the liberal media want to focus on U.S. misdeeds, and alleged misdeeds, and theoretical misdeeds instead of giving the truth to the American people.”
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0524072torture1.html
http://www.mrc.org/press/2007/press20070531.asp

patteeu
06-02-2007, 08:49 PM
It's not as sexy when America can't be painted as the bad guy. Besides, too much publicity might ruin the false "we've sunk to the level of our enemies" mantra.

Taco John
06-02-2007, 09:17 PM
How exactly is it news that Al Queda brutally tortures their captives?

banyon
06-02-2007, 09:18 PM
So, is the argument then that American use of torture should be so commonplace an occurence that it will be no more newsworthy than when Al-Qaeda does it?

:shake:

Taco John
06-02-2007, 09:20 PM
For my part, I saw the photos in the news, and on the Internet. I thought it was horrible. I don't understand the take that the media is silent over it. I think it got about as much coverage as it deserved.

HolmeZz
06-02-2007, 09:25 PM
Why should the media report what we all know?

Are you trying to justify us torturing people because they do it?

mikey23545
06-02-2007, 09:28 PM
Why should the media report what we all know?

Balance in reporting?

Bill Parcells
06-02-2007, 09:31 PM
How exactly is it news that Al Queda brutally tortures their captives?
It wouldn't hurt to remind the public of what we're up against in the war on terror,would it?

Bill Parcells
06-02-2007, 09:33 PM
So, is the argument then that American use of torture should be so commonplace an occurence that it will be no more newsworthy than when Al-Qaeda does it?

:shake:
No

HolmeZz
06-02-2007, 09:34 PM
It wouldn't hurt to remind the public of what we're up against in the war on terror,would it?

Ah, so you want to use it as propaganda to push a completely unrelated war.

noa
06-02-2007, 09:36 PM
There's no partisanship to be found when looking at the amount of news we don't hear. Of course there's good stories about America (or in this case bad stories about our enemies) that we won't hear about. There also happen to be plenty of bad stories about America we'll never hear about. That's just the nature of having 4 companies control the entire MSM.

Bill Parcells
06-02-2007, 09:37 PM
Ah, so you want to use it as propaganda to push a completely unrelated war.
You're a moron with an agenda.

Taking a break from the DU site?

irishjayhawk
06-02-2007, 09:37 PM
It wouldn't hurt to remind the public of what we're up against in the war on terror,would it?

*cough*Fearmongering*cough* :p

I still don't understand this line of thought though. It's so bad for them to torture and kill captives yet would you do the same thing if they were infiltrating your land?

HolmeZz
06-02-2007, 09:41 PM
You're a moron with an agenda.

Says the cockjockey who posts a topic calling the media 'liberal criminals' because they didn't report that water is in fact wet.

Taking a break from the DU site?

Have no idea what DU is.

Bill Parcells
06-02-2007, 09:44 PM
*cough*Fearmongering*cough* :p

I still don't understand this line of thought though. It's so bad for them to torture and kill captives yet would you do the same thing if they were infiltrating your land?
So it's simply ''OK'' for the liberal media to ignore this because it's already accepted they (AQ) take part in this (torturing)?


The way Abu Grhaib was covered you would have thought it was a first time occurrence. detaining Asians in the 1940's was ok though?

Bill Parcells
06-02-2007, 09:46 PM
Says the cockjockey who posts a topic calling the media 'liberal criminals' because they didn't report that water is in fact wet.
So it's simply ''OK'' for the liberal media to ignore this because it's already accepted they (AQ) take part in this (torturing)?


The way Abu Grhaib was covered you would have thought it was a first time occurrence. detaining Asians in the 1940's was ok though?

HolmeZz
06-02-2007, 09:54 PM
So it's simply ''OK'' for the liberal media to ignore this because it's already accepted they (AQ) take part in this (torturing)?

What about the story was a revelation? You yourself said you just wanted it brought up again to 'remind' us. That = propaganda.

The way Abu Grhaib was covered you would have thought it was a first time occurrence.

Because that isn't how we do business.

detaining Asians in the 1940's was ok though?

No.

I've got absolutely no clue what point you're trying to make.

Bill Parcells
06-02-2007, 10:04 PM
What about the story was a revelation?

So you're going to answer a question with another question,I'll play.

Why do you think they're correct in not reporting this?



Because that ain't how we do business.

Who's we?



No.

I've got absolutely no clue what point you're trying to make.
I'm trying to point out that the liberal media is giving the impression that abu grhaib was a first time occurrence, and then dismissing things such as detaining asians in the 40's, Mai Lai in Vietnam, or innocent Americans burning to death in a home in Waco, Texas after attack orders were given by the then AG of the country.....

In your simple mind the liberal media has no agenda- they are unbiased, down the middle of the road outlets which fairly report the news....

BucEyedPea
06-02-2007, 10:07 PM
Of course there's torture chambers in Iraq...by alQaeda as well I'd presume.
The Sunni and Shia have them and torture each other. The Kurds even have 'em. This is the MidEast. If ya' can't beat 'em...join 'em...I guess.

noa
06-02-2007, 10:15 PM
I'm trying to point out that the liberal media is giving the impression that abu grhaib was a first time occurrence, and then dismissing things such as detaining asians in the 40's, Mai Lai in Vietnam, or innocent Americans burning to death in a home in Waco, Texas after attack orders were given by the then AG of the country.....

The liberal media dismisses these events? I don't know what you're talking about, but Waco was widely covered when it happened, and its a well known fact that we detained Japanese people during WWII. I don't know how the media is dismissing these events.


In your simple mind the liberal media has no agenda- they are unbiased, down the middle of the road outlets which fairly report the news....

I won't argue that media reporting isn't slanted to the left. Most reporters are liberals, and that has a way of finding its way into news stories. There is a case to be made there.
But when you're talking about the stories that are chosen to be published, I don't think those decisions are made with a liberal slant. Those are decisions made by very large media conglomerates who control everything from newspaper to television to internet news sources, and I highly doubt that the people at the top of these behemoths are liberals.

HolmeZz
06-02-2007, 10:21 PM
So you're going to answer a question with another question,I'll play.

Why do you think they're correct in not reporting this?

I already said. There weren't any revelations with the story. 'News' should.


Who's we?

The friggin' US of A.

I'm trying to point out that the liberal media is giving the impression that abu grhaib was a first time occurrence

You can point that out all you want, you're probably the only one who sees it like that. Do you not see what was wrong with Abu Ghraib? Or are you trying to advocate that we do torture because Al Qaeda does it?

and then dismissing things such as detaining asians in the 40's, Mai Lai in Vietnam, or innocent Americans burning to death in a home in Waco, Texas after attack orders were given by the then AG of the country.....

Still completely lost on what connection you're trying to draw. I'm beginning to lose faith.

In your simple mind the liberal media has no agenda- they are unbiased, down the middle of the road outlets which fairly report the news....

First off, there's no such thing as an unbiased news source.

The point you can't seem to grasp is that they aren't advancing an agenda by not reporting a story like this. Like noa, there's a whole hell of a lot of important news that goes unreported. And you're complaining that the media hasn't done segments on stuff we've all been aware of and talking about for years(which, if they did report, would actually be advancing an agenda).

Taco John
06-02-2007, 10:26 PM
It wouldn't hurt to remind the public of what we're up against in the war on terror,would it?



Sure. I got the reminder. It was in the news last week. How many news cycles did you think it deserved?

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-02-2007, 10:29 PM
T
I won't argue that media reporting isn't slanted to the left. Most reporters are liberals, and that has a way of finding its way into news stories. There is a case to be made there.
.
And most editors/publishers are conservatives.

It works both ways.

Mr. Kotter
06-02-2007, 10:29 PM
Sure. I got the reminder. It was in the news last week. How many news cycles did you think it deserved?

A half as many, or a third as many, as Abu-Ghraib would have seemed reasonable, don't you think? :shrug:

Mr. Kotter
06-02-2007, 10:30 PM
And most editors/publishers are conservatives.

It works both ways.

Most editors and many publishers are former journalists....you got links to back up that claim? :spock:

noa
06-02-2007, 10:30 PM
It works both ways.

That was kind of the point of the rest of my post...

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-02-2007, 10:32 PM
That was kind of the point of the rest of my post...

I wasn't arguing with you. Just reiterating the point.

HolmeZz
06-02-2007, 10:32 PM
WHY DO THEY ONLY F*CKING PAY ATTENTION WHEN WE TORTURE SOMEBODY

I didn't realize people had such a hard time differentiating between us and the bad guys.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-02-2007, 10:39 PM
Most editors and many publishers are former journalists....you got links to back up that claim? :spock:

If they weren't owned by corporations, you might have a case...but once they reach that position of power, they are subjected to a corporatist interpretation of the news, from the higher ups in the conglomerate, which is slanted right.

Mr. Kotter
06-02-2007, 10:41 PM
If they weren't owned by corporations, you might have a case...but once they reach that position of power, they are subjected to a corporatist interpretation of the news, from the higher ups in the conglomerate, which is slanted right.

I agree, publishers and editors are likely (as a group) "more" conservative; however, the notion that most are....is highly suspect IMO.

Pitt Gorilla
06-02-2007, 10:44 PM
I'm trying to point out that the liberal media is giving the impression that abu grhaib was a first time occurrence, and then dismissing things such as detaining asians in the 40's, Mai Lai in Vietnam, or innocent Americans burning to death in a home in Waco, Texas after attack orders were given by the then AG of the country.....Good Lord, this is stupid.

|Zach|
06-02-2007, 10:49 PM
A half as many, or a third as many, as Abu-Ghraib would have seemed reasonable, don't you think? :shrug:
Ehh, I can only speak for myself but if something is being done and is wrong...I am much more concerned about us doing it then them doing it.

You see...I love that huge line between us and them and the different standards held there that keep us...well us.

Bill Parcells
06-02-2007, 10:52 PM
Good Lord, this is stupid.
Really?

By ignoring Al Qaeda torture stories and publishing over 6,000 Abu Ghrab stories, the liberal media is trying to make the US military look worse than Al Qaeda.

And then you have that fat pig Rosie O'Donnell saying we're killing innocent people on the view.

But it's stupid, right? :rolleyes:

Mr. Kotter
06-02-2007, 10:55 PM
Ehh, I can only speak for myself but if something is being done and is wrong...I am much more concerned about us doing it then them doing it.

You see...I love that huge line between us and them and the different standards held there that keep us...well us.
I see. So this isn't really "news?"

A first hand evidence and a look into AQ torture chambers is less newsworthy than Rosie O'Donnel spat on The View, or Paris Hilton's pending trip to jail--both of which got much, much more coverage than this story. To each his own....

I just don't get that sort of thinking. :shake:

|Zach|
06-02-2007, 10:55 PM
Really?

By ignoring Al Qaeda torture stories and publishing over 6,000 Abu Ghrab stories, the liberal media is trying to make the US military look worse than Al Qaeda.

And then you have that fat pig Rosie O'Donnell saying we're killing innocent people on the view.

But it's stupid, right? :rolleyes:
How could the liberal media in all the power you grant it in your fantasy land make our own US military look worse than Al Queda. Jesus get a grip man.

I saw this on the news as well. I guess I am a part of some cover amazing news stream to be able to have seen it.

If you want to care about what Rosie says that seems to be your problem.

HolmeZz
06-02-2007, 10:56 PM
By ignoring Al Qaeda torture stories and publishing over 6,000 Abu Ghrab stories, the liberal media is trying to make the US military look worse than Al Qaeda.

You're the one holding them up to the same standard. Maybe you don't realize the difference between us and them.

|Zach|
06-02-2007, 10:56 PM
I see. So this isn't really "news?"

A first hand evidence and a look into AQ torture chambers is less newsworthy than Rosie O'Donnel spat on the view, or Paris Hilton's pending trip to jail--both of which got much, much more coverage than this story. To each his own....

I just don't get that sort of thinking. :shake:
No, I am NOT saying it is NOT news. I am saying if you think it should be covered equally to a comparison that you made regarding our soldiers than thats crazy.

I can't believe how many straw men you just projected to my end in this single post. Thats bad even for you Rob.

Mr. Kotter
06-02-2007, 10:57 PM
No, I am NOT saying it is NOT news. I am saying if you think it should be covered equally to a comparison that you made regarding our soldiers than thats crazy.

I proposed a third or half as much, remember?

And it deserves less than the Rosie and Paris stories too....:rolleyes:

noa
06-02-2007, 10:57 PM
I see. So this isn't really "news?"

A first hand evidence and a look into AQ torture chambers is less newsworthy than Rosie O'Donnel spat on The View, or Paris Hilton's pending trip to jail--both of which got much, much more coverage than this story. To each his own....

I just don't get that sort of thinking. :shake:


That has nothing to do with liberalism. Paris Hilton and other such prurient news is solely market driven. That's the problem when news rooms become corporate profit centers. We get inundated with the Runaway Bride, Anna Nicole, and Paris Hilton. I really don't think you can pin that stuff on liberals :shake:

noa
06-02-2007, 10:59 PM
And it deserves less than the Rosie and Paris stories too....:rolleyes:

Again, its not the liberals who are demanding more Paris Hilton stories...its the general viewership that the media is satisfying. :rolleyes:

HolmeZz
06-02-2007, 11:00 PM
Fox News has covered Rosie and Paris. Those liberal bastards.

|Zach|
06-02-2007, 11:01 PM
I proposed a third or half as much, remember?

And it deserves less than the Rosie and Paris stories too....:rolleyes:
Damned if you do damned if you don't right...if they run those stories as much as you want them to then you can bitch about how there is no good news coming out of Iraq.

I love how blame for corporate bias in the news in being cast to democrats here.

Thats amazing work.

Mr. Kotter
06-02-2007, 11:02 PM
Again, its not the liberals who are demanding more Paris Hilton stories...its the general viewership that the media is satisfying.

Wanna bet there is less coverage of THOSE stories in conservative media (sans FOX) outlets? Check the WSJ, Washington Times, CSM, National Review, etc.

|Zach|
06-02-2007, 11:03 PM
Wanna bet there is less coverage of THOSE stories in conservative media (sans FOX) outlets? Check the WSJ, Washington Times, CSM, National Review, etc.
Are you kidding me...the amount of entertainment drivel fox news comes out with.

You will just type anything and press submit on this forum won't you?

Mr. Kotter
06-02-2007, 11:03 PM
Damned if you do damned if you don't right...if they run those stories as much as you want them to then you can bitch about how there is no good news coming out of Iraq.

I love how blame for corporate bias in the news in being cast to democrats here.

Thats amazing work.

See post # 43

Bill Parcells
06-02-2007, 11:03 PM
How could the liberal media in all the power you grant it in your fantasy land make our own US military look worse than Al Queda. Jesus get a grip man.

I saw this on the news as well. I guess I am a part of some cover amazing news stream to be able to have seen it.

If you want to care about what Rosie says that seems to be your problem.
I gave examples of the medias biased handling of some stories, and the complete dismissals of others. what's to get a grip about.

|Zach|
06-02-2007, 11:04 PM
See post # 43
See post #44.

Mr. Kotter
06-02-2007, 11:04 PM
Are you kidding me...the amount of entertainment drivel fox news comes out with.

You will just type anything and press submit on this forum won't you?
See post #44.



Did you miss the (sans FOX)?

|Zach|
06-02-2007, 11:05 PM
Did you miss the (sans FOX)?
So you are putting that one to bed? Please do.

noa
06-02-2007, 11:05 PM
Wanna bet there is less coverage of THOSE stories in conservative media (sans FOX) outlets? Check the WSJ, Washington Times, CSM, National Review, etc.


Those stories weren't exactly dominating the front page of the New York Times either. Those are mostly television stories because the sensationalist nature. I think newspapers in general do a better job of not overloading on those prurient stories, although I'm sure everyone had the Runaway Bride and Anna Nicole on their front pages.

Mr. Kotter
06-02-2007, 11:06 PM
So you are putting that one to bed? Please do.

Go back and reread the thread: I never put it (to include FOX) out there. You did.

I specifically excluded FOX and conceded THEY do--but they are the exception within conservative media circles.

noa
06-02-2007, 11:07 PM
I gave examples of the medias biased handling of some stories, and the complete dismissals of others. what's to get a grip about.


No you didn't. You said the liberal media dismisses Japanese detention camps and the Waco incident, but you didn't back up these claims. All you did was make allegations without a way to defend yourself. How can you claim the liberal media dismisses what happened at Waco? Good luck with that one. That was all over the news.

HolmeZz
06-02-2007, 11:07 PM
I gave examples of the medias biased handling of some stories, and the complete dismissals of others. what's to get a grip about.

When did the media dismiss Japanese Internment?

|Zach|
06-02-2007, 11:09 PM
Except for National Review I see those as great news outlets whose leanings are far far over exaggerated. NR is conservative but does good work. I don't spend so much time obsessed with how different publications lean. Information is information and good reporting is good reporting.

Besides...news papers have everything in them. Each one has a section for entertainment...they are newspapers...I guess people can squabble over their leanings but how does one really bring less news to the table than another.

|Zach|
06-02-2007, 11:10 PM
Sorry, I did miss that. I still have qualms though. I don't think the print medium when it comes to newspapers lends itself to being drowned out by entertainment like its brother in TV. And if it is...I don't think papers leaning either way do it more so than others. WSJ does a great job on that...but they cater to a different audience. Most papers focus so much more on a local area.

|Zach|
06-02-2007, 11:12 PM
I gave examples of the medias biased handling of some stories, and the complete dismissals of others. what's to get a grip about.
You gave your myopic view of news cycles that other people have seen yet you swear are not being played. Its Bill's news world...we are just living in it.

Bill Parcells
06-02-2007, 11:13 PM
No you didn't. You said the liberal media dismisses Japanese detention camps and the Waco incident, but you didn't back up these claims. All you did was make allegations without a way to defend yourself. How can you claim the liberal media dismisses what happened at Waco? Good luck with that one. That was all over the news.
I ****ed up with that one, I'll admit it.

Mr. Kotter
06-02-2007, 11:14 PM
When did the media dismiss Japanese Internment?

In the 1940s and 50s....they rationalized it and glossed over it, big time.

|Zach|
06-02-2007, 11:18 PM
From a friend of mine. Dr. Andy Cline.

Bias in the news media

Is the news media biased toward liberals? Yes. Is the news media biased toward conservatives? Yes. These questions and answers are uninteresting because it is possible to find evidence--anecdotal and otherwise--to "prove" media bias of one stripe or another. Far more interesting and instructive is studying the inherent, or structural, biases of journalism as a professional practice--especially as mediated through television. I use the word "bias" here to challenge its current use by partisan critics. A more accepted, and perhaps more accurate, term would be "frame." These are some of the professional frames that structure what journalists can see and how they can present what they see.

1. Commercial bias: The news media are money-making businesses. As such, they must deliver a good product to their customers to make a profit. The customers of the news media are advertisers. The most important product the news media delivers to its customers are readers or viewers. Good is defined in numbers and quality of readers or viewers. The news media are biased toward conflict (re: bad news and narrative biases below) because conflict draws readers and viewers. Harmony is boring.

2. Temporal bias: The news media are biased toward the immediate. News is what's new and fresh. To be immediate and fresh, the news must be ever-changing even when there is little news to cover.

3. Visual bias: Television (and, increasingly, newspapers) is biased toward visual depictions of news. Television is nothing without pictures. Legitimate news that has no visual angle is likely to get little attention. Much of what is important in politics--policy--cannot be photographed.

4. Bad news bias: Good news is boring (and probably does not photograph well, either). This bias makes the world look like a more dangerous place than it really is. Plus, this bias makes politicians look far more crooked than they really are.

5. Narrative bias: The news media cover the news in terms of "stories" that must have a beginning, middle, and end--in other words, a plot with antagonists and protagonists. Much of what happens in our world, however, is ambiguous. The news media apply a narrative structure to ambiguous events suggesting that these events are easily understood and have clear cause-and-effect relationships. Good storytelling requires drama, and so this bias often leads journalists to add, or seek out, drama for the sake of drama. Controversy creates drama. Journalists often seek out the opinions of competing experts or officials in order to present conflict between two sides of an issue (sometimes referred to as the authority-disorder bias). Lastly, narrative bias leads many journalists to create, and then hang on to, master narratives--set story lines with set characters who act in set ways. Once a master narrative has been set, it is very difficult to get journalists to see that their narrative is simply one way, and not necessarily the correct or best way, of viewing people and events.

6. Status Quo bias: The news media believe "the system works." During the "fiasco in Florida," recall that the news media were compelled to remind us that the Constitution was safe, the process was working, and all would be well. The mainstream news media never question the structure of the political system. The American way is the only way, politically and socially. In fact, the American way is news. The press spends vast amounts of time in unquestioning coverage of the process of political campaigns (but less so on the process of governance). This bias ensures that alternate points of view about how government might run and what government might do are effectively ignored.

7. Fairness bias: No, this is not an oxymoron. Ethical journalistic practice demands that reporters and editors be fair. In the news product this bias manifests as a contention between/among political actors (also re: narrative bias above). Whenever one faction or politician does something or says something newsworthy, the press is compelled by this bias to get a reaction from an opposing camp. This creates the illusion that the game of politics is always contentious and never cooperative. This bias can also create situations in which one faction appears to be attacked by the press. For example, politician A announces some positive accomplishment followed by the press seeking a negative comment from politician B. The point is not to disparage politician A but to be fair to politician B. When politician A is a conservative, this practice appears to be liberal bias.

8. Expediency bias: Journalism is a competitive, deadline-driven profession. Reporters compete among themselves for prime space or air time. News organizations compete for market share and reader/viewer attention. And the 24-hour news cycle--driven by the immediacy of television and the internet--creates a situation in which the job of competing never comes to a rest. Add financial pressures to this mix--the general desire of media groups for profit margins that exceed what's "normal" in many other industries--and you create a bias toward information that can be obtained quickly, easily, and inexpensively. Need an expert/official quote (status quo bias) to balance (fairness bias) a story (narrative bias)? Who can you get on the phone fast? Who is always ready with a quote and always willing to speak (i.e. say what you need them to say to balance the story)? Who sent a press release recently? Much of deadline decision making comes down to gathering information that is readily available from sources that are well known.
9. Glory bias: Journalists, especially television reporters, often assert themselves into the stories they cover. This happens most often in terms of proximity, i.e. to the locus of unfolding events or within the orbit of powerful political and civic actors. This bias helps journalists establish and maintain a cultural identity as knowledgeable insiders (although many journalists reject the notion that follows from this--that they are players in the game and not merely observers). The glory bias shows itself in particularly obnoxious ways in television journalism. News promos with stirring music and heroic pictures of individual reporters create the aura of omnipresence and omnipotence. I ascribe the use of the satellite phone to this bias. Note how often it's used in situations in which a normal video feed should be no problem to establish, e.g. a report from Tokyo I saw recently on CNN. The jerky pictures and fuzzy sound of the satellite phone create a romantic image of foreign adventure.

HolmeZz
06-02-2007, 11:18 PM
In the 1940s and 50s....they rationalized it and glossed over it, big time.

I thought he was talking about today's media.

If he's trying to compare how stuff was handled in the past to now, his argument is even more baseless.

Bill Parcells
06-02-2007, 11:23 PM
I thought he was talking about today's media.

If he's trying to compare how stuff was handled in the past to now, his argument is even more baseless.
Get a grip dude, anything not leaning far left is baseless to you. you're never objective. :spock:

HolmeZz
06-02-2007, 11:24 PM
Get a grip dude, anything not leaning far left is baseless to you. you're never objective. :spock:

Tell me the base of your argument. Is it that the media should've looked the other way with Abu Ghraib?

|Zach|
06-02-2007, 11:25 PM
Tell me the base of your argument.
This response is going to be hilarious.

Bill Parcells
06-02-2007, 11:27 PM
Tell me the base of your argument. Is it that the media should've looked the other way with Abu Ghraib?
No

They should have reported Abu Ghrab, absolutely. but 6,000 times? :spock:

Meanwhile, this story gets no play time.

|Zach|
06-02-2007, 11:30 PM
No

They should have reported Abu Ghrab, absolutely. but 6,000 times? :spock:

Meanwhile, this story gets no play time.
I don't think this shouldn't be news (and it has been nes) but at the same time...what did you expect?

I am thinking of that place in NY where the news tickers go by...and a flashing of "BREAKING NEWS | BREAKING NEWS" and what follows is a story about how Al Queda...a terrorist groups...has a torture camp. And everyone looking at each other waiting for the breaking news.

Of course they do. They are ****ing terrorists.

Bill Parcells
06-02-2007, 11:35 PM
I don't think this shouldn't be news (and it has been nes) but at the same time...what did you expect?

I am thinking of that place in NY where the news tickers go by...and a flashing of "BREAKING NEWS | BREAKING NEWS" and what follows is a story about how Al Queda...a terrorist groups...has a torture camp. And everyone looking at each other waiting for the breaking news.

Of course they do. They are ****ing terrorists.
I understand your point, but the NY Times and the Washington post have still not reported this story.

Anybody know why?

HolmeZz
06-02-2007, 11:36 PM
No

They should have reported Abu Ghrab, absolutely. but 6,000 times? :spock:

Meanwhile, this story gets no play time.

Everyone here has said they heard this story.

Secondly, the situation with Abu Ghraib spanned over two years. There were investigations and revelations that occurred. There was news to report.

Logical
06-02-2007, 11:36 PM
What a shock, AQ tortures people. Breaking news at 11.:rolleyes:

Logical
06-02-2007, 11:37 PM
I understand your point, but the NY Times and the Washington post have still not reported this story.

Anybody know why?Perhaps because AQ torturing people is really not new News!

Logical
06-02-2007, 11:40 PM
In the 1940s and 50s....they rationalized it and glossed over it, big time.I think you would find that Roosevelt used probably illegal influence to prevent those stories from going public.

Sully
06-03-2007, 07:15 AM
Dear News Media,
When the bad guys are, well, acting like bad guys, I'm sure that fits within news, but I will understand if it doesn't have much staying power. I mean, after all, it'd be silly to report daily that water is wet, or the sun will be rising in the east.
However, when the folks we consider "us" and consider "good guys" act in the same manner, or a manner similar to the bad guys, then I can appreciate that the matter deserves much more coverage due to the shock and differing levels of expectations of the matter. I mean, if the sun were to suddenly rise in the west, I bet you'd spend a little more time reporting on it than the aforementioned rising in the east scenerio.
Of course, in the case of the sun rising news, people would probably still bitch.

patteeu
06-03-2007, 08:14 AM
How exactly is it news that Al Queda brutally tortures their captives?

So, is the argument then that American use of torture should be so commonplace an occurence that it will be no more newsworthy than when Al-Qaeda does it?

:shake:

This is a ridiculous way to view the role of the news media. Their first role should be to paint an accurate picture. Relying on newsworthiness in the way you two seem to advocate, leads to dramatic distortions of the picture. If this form of "newsworthiness" is the primary criteria for whether or not a piece of information should be reported, then we shouldn't have to hear the same story over an over an over again. How "newsworthy" was that 6000th Abu Ghraib story anyway?

If the people who bring us our news are thinking like you guys are, we desperately need a new media because the old media has been corrupted by an extremely faulty paradigm.

banyon
06-03-2007, 08:48 AM
This is a ridiculous way to view the role of the news media. Their first role should be to paint an accurate picture. Relying on newsworthiness in the way you two seem to advocate, leads to dramatic distortions of the picture. If this form of "newsworthiness" is the primary criteria for whether or not a piece of information should be reported, then we shouldn't have to hear the same story over an over an over again. How "newsworthy" was that 6000th Abu Ghraib story anyway?

If the people who bring us our news are thinking like you guys are, we desperately need a new media because the old media has been corrupted by an extremely faulty paradigm.

Wow I didn't realize your pervasive need for free market capitalism did not extend to the news media where you would prefer state run media to ensure that things should be reported in a certain way.

patteeu
06-03-2007, 10:01 AM
Ah, so you want to use it as propaganda to push a completely unrelated war.

Unrelated? You realize these safe houses/torture chambers were found in Iraq don't you?

Adept Havelock
06-03-2007, 10:01 AM
Wow I didn't realize your pervasive need for free market capitalism did not extend to the news media where you would prefer state run media to ensure that things should be reported in a certain way.


ROFL

Perhaps we could build a giant Pyramid-like Ministry to house the new State-Run Media to insure only the "correct" information is distributed. ;)

patteeu
06-03-2007, 10:03 AM
I still don't understand this line of thought though. It's so bad for them to torture and kill captives yet would you do the same thing if they were infiltrating your land?

I don't understand this line of thought. This kind of justification is deplorable. And besides, many/most of the al Qaeda in Iraq are not defending their land.

patteeu
06-03-2007, 10:09 AM
And most editors/publishers are conservatives.

Link?

patteeu
06-03-2007, 10:10 AM
I didn't realize people had such a hard time differentiating between us and the bad guys.

Ironically, I have a hard time differentiating between several of you and the bad guys.

patteeu
06-03-2007, 10:14 AM
I saw this on the news as well. I guess I am a part of some cover amazing news stream to be able to have seen it.

Everyone knows that this story has made it into the fringes of our news media. Duh. If it hadn't, bill parcells wouldn't have been able to post the OP. The problem, as the OP makes clear, is the lack of prominence, especially in contrast to the extremely overblown coverage of Abu Ghraib. Don't look now, I think your strawman just burst into flames.

patteeu
06-03-2007, 10:27 AM
Wow I didn't realize your pervasive need for free market capitalism did not extend to the news media where you would prefer state run media to ensure that things should be reported in a certain way.

Wow, how did you get that from my post? I was criticizing what I see as your wisdom shortfall on this subject (which is apparently shared by many so-called journalists and is thoughtlessly parroted by many others here), not the lack of government control over our media. In fact, I don't think I mentioned government control at all.

Besides, free market capitalism isn't about the consumer happily accepting what he's offered whether he likes it or not. It's about feedback from the consumer so that the market can respond to his needs. My feedback to the news producers is that I want an accurate picture not a sensationalized one that takes extra care to paint US policy in the worst possible light while glossing over the atrocities of our enemies.

noa
06-03-2007, 10:54 AM
Besides, free market capitalism isn't about the consumer happily accepting what he's offered whether he likes it or not. It's about feedback from the consumer so that the market can respond to his needs. My feedback to the news producers is that I want an accurate picture not a sensationalized one that takes extra care to paint US policy in the worst possible light while glossing over the atrocities of our enemies.


Patty, the point is that its not the "criminal liberal" media that deciding what stories get to the consumer. If you think the media is actually going to be responsive to you as an individual, you will be waiting forever. Its an industry run on numbers. Circulation, viewership, listeners, etc. All having to do with ad money. The motives for what news you receive are not political, they are purely about profit, and that's the simple truth about the state of today's MSM.

I agree with you in principal that it would be nice for the media to give us a full and fair account of what is going on (although I disagree with your assertion that it "takes extra care to paint US policy in the worst possible light"), but I also realize I cannot expect this from today's MSM because of the nature of the giant corporations behind every media entity. The limited amount of news we receive is not the fault of liberals, as I've tried to say repeatedly in this thread.

patteeu
06-03-2007, 11:51 AM
Patty, the point is that its not the "criminal liberal" media that deciding what stories get to the consumer. If you think the media is actually going to be responsive to you as an individual, you will be waiting forever. Its an industry run on numbers. Circulation, viewership, listeners, etc. All having to do with ad money. The motives for what news you receive are not political, they are purely about profit, and that's the simple truth about the state of today's MSM.

I agree with you in principal that it would be nice for the media to give us a full and fair account of what is going on (although I disagree with your assertion that it "takes extra care to paint US policy in the worst possible light"), but I also realize I cannot expect this from today's MSM because of the nature of the giant corporations behind every media entity. The limited amount of news we receive is not the fault of liberals, as I've tried to say repeatedly in this thread.

First, I wasn't the one who used the word "criminal" which I'm sure was not intended literally anyway.

Second, I do believe that liberals decide what stories get to the consumer in many cases. Sure there are strong market considerations at work (which is where a lot of the sensationalism comes into play), but as I think you pointed out, the majority of journalists are liberal. The presidents of their publishing companies may well, in some cases, be conservative, but I don't think the same is true at the level of the editorial boards where decisions about which liberally-biased (and maybe even more relevantly anti-authority biased) articles make it into today's paper. I think that as long as a paper is generating a good profit, any conservatives in the ownership group are willing to leave the editing to the professionals, who often rose through the ranks after having started out as liberal reporters.

Third, I don't think that markets are going to be responsive to me as an individual, but my individual feedback along with that of the rest of the mass of consumers is what the market will respond to. My point when I said that was really that I have not only a right to complain about the kinds of coverage we get, but that if no one complains, it wouldn't be likely to change. I wasn't suggesting that my complaint on a message board will have any measurable effect, though. :)

Lastly, I won't deny that there might be problems that originate from the fact that most of the major media are owned by a small group of megacorps, but I don't think that is the sole explanation for why we get the news that we get. I think there is a herd mentality at work which contributes. I think there is a laziness and a willingness to reprint press releases as news at work (this often works in favor of government, btw). And I think there is an inherent liberal bias based on the dominant worldview of the journalism profession at work too.

I do appreciate that you've been a voice of reason from the left in this thread though even if we don't see eye to eye completely.

DaneMcCloud
06-03-2007, 12:38 PM
Ironically, I have a hard time differentiating between several of you and the bad guys.

Yeah, I'm sure Holmezz has a torture chamber in his basement. :shake:

patteeu
06-03-2007, 01:05 PM
Yeah, I'm sure Holmezz has a torture chamber in his basement. :shake:

It's hard to tell over the internet. I'm basing my comparison strictly on the things he says, though. I'm not making any assumptions about the things he does or the things he has in his basement.

DaneMcCloud
06-03-2007, 01:08 PM
It's hard to tell over the internet. I'm basing my comparison strictly on the things he says, though. I'm not making any assumptions about the things he does or the things he has in his basement.

Seriously? You weren't being sarcastic or joking?

I tend to think of you as a level-headed and smart guy. I must be missing something from either you or Holmezz because that's a pretty serious accusation.

HolmeZz
06-03-2007, 01:28 PM
Seriously? You weren't being sarcastic or joking?

I tend to think of you as a level-headed and smart guy. I must be missing something from either you or Holmezz because that's a pretty serious accusation.

He's a stooge. I dunno how you could've ever considered him level-headed or smart. :p

patteeu
06-03-2007, 01:33 PM
Seriously? You weren't being sarcastic or joking?

I tend to think of you as a level-headed and smart guy. I must be missing something from either you or Holmezz because that's a pretty serious accusation.

It is, of course, somewhat TIC, but I'm serious that he and several others in this thread are apologizing for a media that is painting a distorted picture about our involvement in Iraq and sarcastically pushing the point that instances of US detainee abuse (or even non abusive harsh interrogation techniques) are the equivalent of al Qaeda torture. Al Qaeda would have to be pleased with the coverage the Iraq war gets in the MSM and with those here who apologize for that coverage. If they had a sophisticated PR machine, and if that machine had any interest in posting on a Chiefs website, I'm not sure how it would look different from some of the posts in this thread.

This type of thing is going on all over the place these days. Al Qaeda doesn't need a PR machine.

noa
06-03-2007, 01:38 PM
Patty, do you honestly believe that if news reporting was as fair and unbiased as possible, the news coming out of Iraq would be painting a positive picture?

HolmeZz
06-03-2007, 01:42 PM
It is, of course, somewhat TIC, but I'm serious that he and several others in this thread are apologizing for a media that is painting a distorted picture about our involvement in Iraq and sarcastically pushing the point that instances of US detainee abuse are the equivalent of al Qaeda torture.

You're the only one equating them and frankly it's sad that you think so little of the American people that you believe they'd think we're worse than Al Qaeda just because the investigation with Abu Ghraib got more media coverage than us stumbling upon an Al Qaeda torture hut.

(or even non abusive harsh interrogation techniques)

Please site where anybody's even talked about non-abusive interrogation in this thread, just so it doesn't look like you're completely making shit up.

Nightwish
06-03-2007, 01:46 PM
NINE DAYS AFTER PHOTOS RELEASED, NETS AND TOP
PAPERS SILENT OVER AL-QAEDA TORTURE HOUSE

Yet Top Media Ran More Than 6,000 Stories on Abu Ghraib Abuses




ALEXANDRIA, VA—The U.S. Defense Department released photos last week of an al-Qaeda torture chamber in Iraq, which showed various torture tools—blow torches, meat cleavers, hammers, drills, metal files—drawings of torture methods, and photos of actual victims found in another house in Karmah who had been burned, mutilated, and tortured in myriad ways.

To their credit, CNN and Fox News Channel ran stories on the declassified material. Yet nine days since the material was released, neither ABC, CBS, NBC, The New York Times nor The Washington Post has run a story with the photos of this shocking evidence of al-Qaeda’s barbarism.

I'm not surprised. It's not news. When the Abu Ghraib thing happened, it was news, because not a lot of people expected it. People expect Al Qaeda to be barbaric, so it's hardly newsworthy to report each time some new evidence that Al Qaeda is bad comes to light. It would be like reporting that the sun rose in the east this morning.

dirk digler
06-03-2007, 02:01 PM
If you look at Fox News 2 top shows OReilly and Hannity and Colmes they have completely ignored this story as well. OReilly hasn't talked about it all and I think the first day it came to light Hannity talked about it and then hasn't since.

Contrast that with the constant talking of Rosie, Paris, and Anne Nicole on both shows goes to show that it is more advertising and viewer driven.

DaneMcCloud
06-03-2007, 02:02 PM
This type of thing is going on all over the place these days. Al Qaeda doesn't need a PR machine.

No, it's not. The ONLY place where *I* hear this kind of talk is on Chiefsplanet. Period. I've NEVER heard anyone say "Bush is an idiot" followed by "You're supporting Al-Qaeda!!!" in public, at parties, etc. That's just going way, way, way too far with your "patriotism".

News media outlets report stories of interest. Period. It's all about ratings. Why is it about ratings? Income! Ad money. That's how media outlets, whether they be print, radio or television *earn* money. Why would news outlet print something so obvious? Doesn't everyone on in the Lounge bitch when Liz Merrill or Adam Teicher or Blog Gretz print something that *we* know already? Do you really think that the "job" of the national media is to print redundancy?

And this idea of an overwhelmingly "Liberal" media is fiction. There's no way you're going to convince me that the board members of Disney, Viacom & GE are all "liberals" who impose their will onto the news broadcasters. Clinton certainly had his fair share of bad press. It just that the Bush Administration seems to screw up on a daily basis. As far as I can tell, that's not being caused by the media.

patteeu
06-03-2007, 04:47 PM
Patty, do you honestly believe that if news reporting was as fair and unbiased as possible, the news coming out of Iraq would be painting a positive picture?

I think there would still be plenty of opportunities for people to draw negative conclusions, but if a portion of the people in the hopeless camp were shifted to the pessimistic camp by more balanced coverage, and a portion of the pessimists were in the concerned camp, and a portion of the concerned were in the cautiously optimistic camp, and so on, I think it would make a big difference in public support for the war effort.

patteeu
06-03-2007, 04:50 PM
You're the only one equating them and frankly it's sad that you think so little of the American people that you believe they'd think we're worse than Al Qaeda just because the investigation with Abu Ghraib got more media coverage than us stumbling upon an Al Qaeda torture hut.

I don't believe you. And frankly, I do have a low opinion of many of the American people. I doubt that I'm much different than you or most of the others here in that regard.

Logical
06-03-2007, 04:55 PM
This is a ridiculous way to view the role of the news media. Their first role should be to paint an accurate picture. Relying on newsworthiness in the way you two seem to advocate, leads to dramatic distortions of the picture. If this form of "newsworthiness" is the primary criteria for whether or not a piece of information should be reported, then we shouldn't have to hear the same story over an over an over again. How "newsworthy" was that 6000th Abu Ghraib story anyway?

If the people who bring us our news are thinking like you guys are, we desperately need a new media because the old media has been corrupted by an extremely faulty paradigm.
You are not this dumb patteeu. News also is influenced by ratings, what grabs the peoples attention. Americans torturing people is far more shocking than AQ torturing people. Therefore the former grabs news while the latter is more likely ignored.

HolmeZz
06-03-2007, 05:00 PM
Tell me what % of the American public you think believes we're worse than Al Qaeda, Pat.

patteeu
06-03-2007, 05:10 PM
No, it's not. The ONLY place where *I* hear this kind of talk is on Chiefsplanet. Period. I've NEVER heard anyone say "Bush is an idiot" followed by "You're supporting Al-Qaeda!!!" in public, at parties, etc. That's just going way, way, way too far with your "patriotism".

I don't go to parties much. But to clarify, what's going on all over the place is the kind of political criticism that a crafty al Qaeda PR operative might write if we didn't have so many unwitting accomplices to do the job for him. I'm not talking about the kind of exchange that you are describing, I'm talking about people saying that we've sunk to the level of the terrorists or that we've abandoned what America always stood for or that Dick Cheney is a war criminal.

News media outlets report stories of interest. Period. It's all about ratings. Why is it about ratings? Income! Ad money. That's how media outlets, whether they be print, radio or television *earn* money. Why would news outlet print something so obvious? Doesn't everyone on in the Lounge bitch when Liz Merrill or Adam Teicher or Blog Gretz print something that *we* know already? Do you really think that the "job" of the national media is to print redundancy?

Do you really think that I ever even hinted that I think the "job" of the national media is to print redundancy? Maybe you can explain to me why so many of the people defending the lack of coverage of this story complain about Fox News?

And this idea of an overwhelmingly "Liberal" media is fiction. There's no way you're going to convince me that the board members of Disney, Viacom & GE are all "liberals" who impose their will onto the news broadcasters. Clinton certainly had his fair share of bad press. It just that the Bush Administration seems to screw up on a daily basis. As far as I can tell, that's not being caused by the media.

The board members of Disney, Viacom & GE, for the most part, don't impose their will onto the news broadcasters at all so it doesn't really matter whether they are liberals or conservatives. Nor do they rewrite the liberal tainted copy that the leftwing journalists that work for their organizations produce.

There are multiple biases at work in the MSM. I agree with those who believe that the profit bias is as big as any. But there are also other biases. When it comes to the liberal/conservative dimension, the MSM is decidedly liberal, IMO. There's no way you're going to convince me otherwise. Clinton ran into trouble because the liberal bias isn't the only bias... and because he was a corrupt, sleaze bag, of course. :D

patteeu
06-03-2007, 05:18 PM
You are not this dumb patteeu. News also is influenced by ratings, what grabs the peoples attention. Americans torturing people is far more shocking than AQ torturing people. Therefore the former grabs news while the latter is more likely ignored.

I was talking about what I think the proper role of the news media should be, not necessarily the corrupted reality. There are certainly explanations for why the coverage is what it is and not least among them is the pursuit of ratings/revenue. I've also suggested that there is a liberal anti-war bias and an even bigger anti-Bush bias at work here. But that doesn't make it right.

patteeu
06-03-2007, 05:22 PM
Tell me what % of the American public you think believes we're worse than Al Qaeda, Pat.

Why do you ask? I don't recall saying that I think any American believes we're worse than al Qaeda although there are obviously a few.

HolmeZz
06-03-2007, 05:28 PM
Why do you ask? I don't recall saying that I think any American believes we're worse than al Qaeda although there are obviously a few.

You said that was what the media was doing; making it seem like we're worse than Al Qaeda just because Abu Ghraib got more coverage. I responded by saying the American public would never come to that conclusion and deserved more credit than that. You replied that you had a low opinion of the public.

DaneMcCloud
06-03-2007, 05:45 PM
I don't go to parties much. But to clarify, what's going on all over the place is the kind of political criticism that a crafty al Qaeda PR operative might write if we didn't have so many unwitting accomplices to do the job for him.

You know that I respect your viewpoint so I don't mean to come across as disrespectful and I apologize if I do so. But quite frankly, I think you're giving Al-Qaeda much more credit than they deserve. They're a small group of not very well funded terrorists. I don't think they have the ways and means to infiltrate American Broadcasters. We're not talking about a small country, we're talking about a group of 5,000 or so insurgents. I would bet that 4,923 of those are expendable so that should tell you something about their "organization". And maybe I'm not looking in the same places that you are but I don't see how political criticism aids Al-Qaeda. Are we supposed to suspend all "so-called" negative talk just because it *might* make Al-Qaeda look better? That's ludicrous.

Do you really think that I ever even hinted that I think the "job" of the national media is to print redundancy? Maybe you can explain to me why so many of the people defending the lack of coverage of this story complain about Fox News?

This story is tantamount IMO (and obviously the news networks as well) to beginning each and every hour with the following headline:

"Ice is Cold. Film at 11!"

We all know that Al-Qaeda tortures people. So do the Rwandans, Iraqi's, Iranians, Russians and (oops, God forbid!) Americans. It's bigger news when Americans are caught torturing others because this current administration portrays themselves as the "God Administration". So obviously, that's news when it occurs under this admin.



The board members of Disney, Viacom & GE, for the most part, don't impose their will onto the news broadcasters at all so it doesn't really matter whether they are liberals or conservatives. Nor do they rewrite the liberal tainted copy that the leftwing journalists that work for their organizations produce.

This is almost a conspiracy theory, IMO. I've worked at NBC/Universal and at Viacom (actually, I won the Viacom Visonary of the Year Award in 2003) and at no time did I ever hear of a political agenda. Not in the music division, the movie division, etc.

There are multiple biases at work in the MSM. I agree with those who believe that the profit bias is as big as any. But there are also other biases. When it comes to the liberal/conservative dimension, the MSM is decidedly liberal, IMO. There's no way you're going to convince me otherwise. Clinton ran into trouble because the liberal bias isn't the only bias... and because he was a corrupt, sleaze bag, of course. :D

You have to realize that in order for publications to make money, they have to appeal to a certain audience. This country is VERY divided right now, with the major cities being Democratic and the rural areas more Republican. Again, it's all about ratings. Everyone seems to perceive the media differently. I don't see any liberal bias and I'm not a so-called "Liberal" (though I'm certainly not a Neo-Con either). Clinton got railed during his presidency (as he should have) and at that time, it was impossible to detect a "Liberal Media Bias" during his administration.

It's all perception, IMHO.

patteeu
06-03-2007, 06:54 PM
You said that was what the media was doing; making it seem like we're worse than Al Qaeda just because Abu Ghraib got more coverage. I responded by saying the American public would never come to that conclusion and deserved more credit than that. You replied that you had a low opinion of the public.

Oh, I see. I said they were having the effect of pushing the notion that US interrogation techniques were equivalent to al Qaeda torture and the evidence of people buying into this myth is all the talk you hear about how we're lowering ourselves to the level of our enemies. I don't know how many people actually believe it (surely not a large percentage) but there are sure a lot of people saying it and I do think there are a lot of people who think we are a heck of a lot closer than we really are.

patteeu
06-03-2007, 07:08 PM
You know that I respect your viewpoint so I don't mean to come across as disrespectful and I apologize if I do so. But quite frankly, I think you're giving Al-Qaeda much more credit than they deserve. They're a small group of not very well funded terrorists. I don't think they have the ways and means to infiltrate American Broadcasters. We're not talking about a small country, we're talking about a group of 5,000 or so insurgents. I would bet that 4,923 of those are expendable so that should tell you something about their "organization". And maybe I'm not looking in the same places that you are but I don't see how political criticism aids Al-Qaeda. Are we supposed to suspend all "so-called" negative talk just because it *might* make Al-Qaeda look better? That's ludicrous.

No, but we should suspend all negative exaggeration. We should speak the truth, but when there is doubt we should err on the side of the US (or not speak at all). If a former detainee says he was tickled until he cried uncle at Guantanamo but there is no independent corroboration of his story, we shouldn't assume that he's telling the gospel truth because we don't like the Bush administration or it's war policy.

This story is tantamount IMO (and obviously the news networks as well) to beginning each and every hour with the following headline:

"Ice is Cold. Film at 11!"

We all know that Al-Qaeda tortures people. So do the Rwandans, Iraqi's, Iranians, Russians and (oops, God forbid!) Americans. It's bigger news when Americans are caught torturing others because this current administration portrays themselves as the "God Administration". So obviously, that's news when it occurs under this admin.

First of all, I don't think the US committing torture should be more newsworthy under Bush than it would have been under Bill Clinton or any other President just because we all believe Bush when he says he believes in God.

Second, the fact that al Qaeda tortures people routinely and we don't is no reason to report the story in a way that exaggerates our interrogation practices (both in quality and in quantity) while minimizing al Qaedas torture practices. Reporting only the man bites dog stories will eventually lead people to believe that man bites dog a lot more than it really happens. We can see this in the way child abductions are reported these days.

This is almost a conspiracy theory, IMO. I've worked at NBC/Universal and at Viacom (actually, I won the Viacom Visonary of the Year Award in 2003) and at no time did I ever hear of a political agenda. Not in the music division, the movie division, etc.

You misunderstand me I think. I agree with all this. My point is that there is no such conspiracy. The people at the top don't dictate the ideological slant. That comes from the footsoldiers as they write their own reports and from the editors who work with them on a day to day basis. The people who think that most of the top bigwigs at these corps are conservatives and therefore there's a conservative MSM bias are the ones buying into this conspiracy theory.

You have to realize that in order for publications to make money, they have to appeal to a certain audience. This country is VERY divided right now, with the major cities being Democratic and the rural areas more Republican. Again, it's all about ratings. Everyone seems to perceive the media differently. I don't see any liberal bias and I'm not a so-called "Liberal" (though I'm certainly not a Neo-Con either). Clinton got railed during his presidency (as he should have) and at that time, it was impossible to detect a "Liberal Media Bias" during his administration.

It's all perception, IMHO.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion on this of course, but I disagree. :)

CHIEF4EVER
06-03-2007, 07:23 PM
ROFL

Perhaps we could build a giant Pyramid-like Ministry to house the new State-Run Media to insure only the "correct" information is distributed. ;)

LMAO

I LOVE your posting style even though we rarely agree.

Logical
06-03-2007, 08:38 PM
I was talking about what I think the proper role of the news media should be, not necessarily the corrupted reality. There are certainly explanations for why the coverage is what it is and not least among them is the pursuit of ratings/revenue. I've also suggested that there is a liberal anti-war bias and an even bigger anti-Bush bias at work here. But that doesn't make it right.
I don't see how this is an anti-Bush bias or an anti-war bias. Do you seriously believe acknowledging AQ has tortured people is really going to cause people to suddenly support Bush or the war? I seriously doubt it.

Logical
06-03-2007, 08:45 PM
Oh, I see. I said they were having the effect of pushing the notion that US interrogation techniques were equivalent to al Qaeda torture and the evidence of people buying into this myth is all the talk you hear about how we're lowering ourselves to the level of our enemies. I don't know how many people actually believe it (surely not a large percentage) but there are sure a lot of people saying it and I do think there are a lot of people who think we are a heck of a lot closer than we really are.

Oh hell no we are smarter than that we contract our serious torture to other countries to do for us. In Vietnam we looked the other way when the S Vietnamese troops would torture the Vietcong. Same way with the S. Korean in Korea and so forth on up to the present. We have alway been smart enough to allow others to do our torturing for us. That is why it is shocking that the Bush administration has sanctioned any torturing at all, no matter what politically correct name you use for it.

patteeu
06-03-2007, 09:23 PM
That is why it is shocking that the Bush administration has sanctioned any torturing at all...

They haven't, unless it's as yet undisclosed, IMO, but it doesn't surprise me that you'd stoop to claiming they have.

Taco John
06-03-2007, 10:38 PM
A half as many, or a third as many, as Abu-Ghraib would have seemed reasonable, don't you think? :shrug:



No, not at all... I think Abu-Ghraib got all the news it deserved. Those are our tax dollars at work.

You've got a pretty flakey idea of what should and shouldn't make news.

Taco John
06-03-2007, 10:57 PM
This is a ridiculous way to view the role of the news media. Their first role should be to paint an accurate picture. Relying on newsworthiness in the way you two seem to advocate, leads to dramatic distortions of the picture. If this form of "newsworthiness" is the primary criteria for whether or not a piece of information should be reported, then we shouldn't have to hear the same story over an over an over again. How "newsworthy" was that 6000th Abu Ghraib story anyway?

If the people who bring us our news are thinking like you guys are, we desperately need a new media because the old media has been corrupted by an extremely faulty paradigm.



It's my job to know how the news media thinks. That's how I get paid. People pay me for my knowledge on how to get their stories told in the media... Only, I do it for tech companies. Still, the fundamentals are all the same regardless of the vertical section.

The fact is that Abu Ghraib was 10,000 times more newsworthy than the Al Queda torture story. Mostly because it was a story about us and our society, and made us question what our society finds acceptable treatment for prisoners in war time. It got a lot of play because there was a direct and personal connection to the US.

If you're expecting even a month long cycle on the fact that Al Queda tortures people, you're clearly going to be disappointed. I'll add that you clearly don't understand what news is, or why it's news. The fact that Al Queda tortures people is not news. The fact that they found a handbook on torture IS news, but of the 5th page variety. If you wanted to bump that up to the front page, you'd need a more local, US connection... names and stories of Americans who have suffered this torture would do it.

What you want is a propaganda machine. You should stick to Fox.

Logical
06-03-2007, 10:59 PM
They haven't, unless it's as yet undisclosed, IMO, but it doesn't surprise me that you'd stoop to claiming they have.

Waterboarding is torture, you just choose to believe it is not.

Direckshun
06-03-2007, 11:03 PM
I don't understand.

Not reporting on this story would do the Bush administration a favor. So I'm not sure how the "liberal" media would be doing themselves a favor by blowing this story off.

Perhaps it's been answered much sooner in the thread.

Logical
06-03-2007, 11:08 PM
I don't understand.

Not reporting on this story would do the Bush administration a favor. So I'm not sure how the "liberal" media would be doing themselves a favor by blowing this story off.

Perhaps it's been answered much sooner in the thread.I pointed this out earlier as well. It got no play.

Direckshun
06-03-2007, 11:10 PM
I pointed this out earlier as well. It got no play.
Shame.

Logical
06-03-2007, 11:18 PM
Shame.People just want to argue that the media is liberal or conservative biased. That and they see an awful lot as anti-Bush and get easily sidetracked on that.

bkkcoh
06-04-2007, 10:01 AM
I don't understand.

Not reporting on this story would do the Bush administration a favor. So I'm not sure how the "liberal" media would be doing themselves a favor by blowing this story off.

Perhaps it's been answered much sooner in the thread.


it is early on Monday morning, can you explain a little bit more as to how this helps Bush and Co if they don't present the story?

Bill Parcells
06-04-2007, 10:03 AM
Massive Terrorist Plot! NYT: See Page 30
By Ben Johnson FrontPageMagazine.com | June 4, 2007

This weekend, federal authorities foiled a stunning terrorist plot by Muslim extremists to kill thousands of our readers, strike the international transport grid, and depress the nation’s economy during its slowest quarter since late 2002 – but enough about that.

That was the message of Sunday’s New York Times.

The FBI had prevented four men, including a former member of Guyana’s parliament, from blowing up John F. Kennedy International Airport – and possibly part of Queens. They hoped to ignite underground fuel pipes, setting off a chain reaction of explosions that would envelop the entire complex. The NY Post and New York Daily News made it front page news. The NY Daily News headlined its story, “They Aimed to Kill Thousands.” The Post included a chilling sidebar, “Pipeline Security A Joke.”

The (inexplicably) most prestigious newspaper in the world put its bland story on page 30. Instead, page one featured yet another story about Guantanamo Bay detainees.

Any junior editor at any county newspaper in the country would have been fired for putting the most reported story in the nation two-and-a-half dozen pages into the well. Aside from burying a major international story that took place in its metro area, the Newspaper of Record took pains to make the Muslim battle plan that could have atomized a portion of its immediate readership appear utterly irrelevant.

The NYT began by obscuring the terrorists’ target. Although it faults the U.S. military for using the term “collateral damage,” the Times wrote as though the plotters only planned to blow up inanimate objects, certainly not human beings. Its opening line read, “Four men, including a onetime airport cargo handler and a former member of the Parliament of Guyana, were charged yesterday with plotting to blow up fuel tanks, terminal buildings and the web of fuel lines running beneath Kennedy International Airport.”

Secondly, it minimized the severity of the plot. JFK “was never in imminent danger because the plot was only in a preliminary phase and the conspirators had yet to lay out detailed plans or obtain financing or explosives.” Besides, “safety shut-off valves would almost assuredly have prevented an exploding airport fuel tank from igniting all or even part of the network.” Move along. Nothing to see here!

And, as they have for the last several plots (Ft. Dix, Miami, etc.), the Old Gray Lady portrayed the would-be mass killers as pathetic and sympathetic. Plot originator Russell Defreitas, 63, was “divorced and lost touch with his two children.” Once homeless, he moved into an apartment where “the weather was rough on his health and the cold was tough on his arthritis.” He now lives on “a run-down block full of graffiti.” He liked jazz, “especially the saxophone.” Friends described him as a “polite man” and “not that bright” – not bright enough to pull off a serious attack.

Much deeper into the story the crack staff fesses up: “Defreitas envisioned ‘the destruction of the whole of Kennedy” and theorized that because of underground pipes, ‘part of Queens would explode.’” He told his co-conspirators he wanted to inflict such massive loss of life that “even the twin towers can’t touch it.” Beyond crippling the U.S. economy (during a downturn), the move would have symbolic value, as well. Americans “love John F. Kennedy,” he said. “If you hit that, this whole country will be in mourning. It’s like you kill the man twice.” Apparently murdering the president’s brother once was not enough for Muslim extremists.

Later still, the Times notes that, while they weren’t al-Qaeda operatives, the four sought help from “extremist Muslim group based in Trinidad and Tobago called Jamaat al-Muslimeen.” They had “precise and extensive” surveillance of their target, which serves 1,000 flights a day. The quartet “was very familiar with the airport and how to access secure areas.” The plotters were motivated by “fundamentalist Islamic beliefs of a violent nature.” (Coincidentally, every terrorist who has killed Americans since the late Clinton administration has also shared “fundamentalist Islamic beliefs of a violent nature.” In fact, “Mr. Kadir, who, along with being a former elected official [in Guyana], is an imam.”) An unnamed law enforcement official told reporters they stopped the plot early for a reason: “if we let it go it could have gotten [serious]; they could have gotten the J.A.M. fully involved, and we wouldn’t know where it could have gone.”

Oh, and one of the plotters is still at large. Perhaps getting “J.A.M. fully involved” now. “The fourth suspect, Abdel Nur, 57, remained a fugitive.”

Too busy to concentrate on news that doesn’t fit, the Times featured another front page story in which the terrorist is portrayed as a victim, this one set in Gitmo. The story begins:

The facts of Omar Ahmed Khadr’s case are grim. The shrapnel from the grenade he is accused of throwing ripped through the skull of Sgt. First Class Christopher J. Speer, who was 28 when he died.

To American military prosecutors, Mr. Khadr is a committed Al Qaeda operative, spy and killer who must be held accountable for killing Sergeant Speer in 2002 and for other bloody acts he committed in Afghanistan.

But there is one fact that may not fit easily into the government’s portrait of Mr. Khadr: He was 15 at the time.

Not only a mere teen, Khadr is:

the youngest detainee at Guantanamo Bay, nearly blind in one eye from injuries sustained during the July 2002 firefight in which Sergeant Speer was mortally wounded and another American soldier was severely injured. Last week, Mr. Khadr said he wanted to fire all of his American lawyers, and some of them said they understood why he might distrust Americans after five years at Guantanamo. (Emphasis added.)

His lawyer, Muneer I. Ahmad is – surprise! – an associate professor at the American University Washington College of Law. Saith Ahmad, “If Omar had had his free choice, what he would have chosen to do is ride horses, play soccer and read Harry Potter books.”

Another innocent betrayed by Bush’s War on Terror! Just like Hillary Clinton.

Only in the 17th and 18th paragraphs of the story do we learn Omar’s father, Ahmed Said Khadr, was a “senior deputy to Osama bin Laden,” and one of his brothers told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, “We are an al-Qaeda family.”

Moreover, the story grudgingly acknowledges international law does not forbid the United States from doing precisely what it is with Omar. Not only is this a non-story, it is an old non-story. FrontPage Magazine covered The Littlest Jihadist as early as 2002 and has run numerous stories about this extremist family, with its extensive ties to the 9/11 plotters. But to the Times, his alleged suffering trumps the suffering of its own readers.

In addition to this meager coverage of a legitimate threat, the NYT editorial page had not a single editorial on the threat to its readers’ hometown, although Sunday’s issue had three editorials targeting President Bush, Dick Cheney, and the “harsh” jurisprudence of Clarence Thomas.

The decisions to put a story portraying the plight of Guantanamo Bay’s beleaguered terrorist population on page one and to ignore the JFK plot in its editorial coverage were transparently political moves. While Muslim extremists wage a hot war against the United States – often centered in one of the bluest cities of the nation – the Left sees its war on President Bush as infinitely more important. Why do anything that would put the spotlight on terrorism, vindicate the present administration, or – worse yet – perhaps elect a Republican in 2008? The NYT would not take that chance, and it had no difficulty altering its news coverage to fit that political template.


Ultimately, said Mark J. Mershon, the assistant director in charge of the FBI’s New York office, the JFK plotters based their actions on “a pattern of hatred toward the United States and the West in general.” One suspects the same could be said of the New York Times.


http://www.frontpagemag.com/Article...le.asp?ID=28594

Bill Parcells
06-04-2007, 10:09 AM
Now, am I going to hear that the JFK airport terrorist attack wasn't news because we all know terrorists want to blow up airports?

banyon
06-04-2007, 10:35 AM
Now, am I going to hear that the JFK airport terrorist attack wasn't news because we all know terrorists want to blow up airports?

:spock: Are you saying this story isn't being covered? I went to CNN and it was on the front page of their U.S. Website. http://www.cnn.com/US/

CRIMNAL LIBRAL MEDIUH!!!

HolmeZz
06-04-2007, 10:36 AM
Now, am I going to hear that the JFK airport terrorist attack wasn't news because we all know terrorists want to blow up airports?

1. There wasn't a terrorist attack.

2. Of course it's news. If you wanted to draw a parallel to the other story, it'd be like the networks reporting that Al Qaeda wants to blow up airports(without any actual evidence or referring to any specific location). Everyone knows they want to blow up airports, so that wouldn't be news. This JFK attempt was a plot. 'Plot' suggests the public didn't know about it. That = a revelation. Revelations make for news! You have to pass on new information!

Bill Parcells
06-04-2007, 10:40 AM
:spock: Are you saying this story isn't being covered? I went to CNN and it was on the front page of their U.S. Website. http://www.cnn.com/US/

CRIMNAL LIBRAL MEDIUH!!!
Now you know that's not what I said. :spock:

I am pointing out that It was on page 30 of the New York Times (The number 1 liberal media outlet), while the front page had a tear jerking story of a poor terrorist being detained at Gitmo. :spock:

Bill Parcells
06-04-2007, 10:41 AM
1. There wasn't a terrorist attack.

2. Of course it's news. If you wanted to draw a parallel to the other story, it'd be like the networks reporting that Al Qaeda wants to blow up airports(without any actual evidence or referring to any specific location). Everyone knows they want to blow up airports, so that wouldn't be news. This JFK attempt was a plot. 'Plot' suggests the public didn't know about it. That = a revelation. Revelations make for news! You have to pass on new information!
See post #120

HolmeZz
06-04-2007, 10:44 AM
I see post #120. It doesn't have much to do with my response.

banyon
06-04-2007, 10:48 AM
Now you know that's not what I said. :spock:

I am pointing out that It was on page 30 of the New York Times (The number 1 liberal media outlet), while the front page had a tear jerking story of a poor terrorist being detained at Gitmo. :spock:

Maybe because they reported it in Yesterday's paper on the front page (http://www.nytimes.com/indexes/2007/06/03/todayspaper/index.html)? :shrug:

memyselfI
06-04-2007, 10:56 AM
Maybe because they reported it in Yesterday's paper on the front page (http://www.nytimes.com/indexes/2007/06/03/todayspaper/index.html)? :shrug:

I thought the right found torture to be an efficient, productive, justifiable as well as legimitate means of acquiring information...

what, all of a sudden it's none of those things????

Oh, it's just those things when WE do it to get information that WE need...

ah. I see an interesting conundrum here. The NY times should be minding their own bees wax lest they uncover how awful torture is. :hmmm:

StcChief
06-04-2007, 11:55 AM
We are bad guys for doing anything to the Stateless Al Queda terrorists..... but they can do anything since they DO NOT adhere to the Geneva convention rules. :rolleyes:

where is the out rage.... they are likely afraid of them too.

patteeu
06-05-2007, 06:51 AM
It's my job to know how the news media thinks. That's how I get paid. People pay me for my knowledge on how to get their stories told in the media... Only, I do it for tech companies. Still, the fundamentals are all the same regardless of the vertical section.

The fact is that Abu Ghraib was 10,000 times more newsworthy than the Al Queda torture story. Mostly because it was a story about us and our society, and made us question what our society finds acceptable treatment for prisoners in war time. It got a lot of play because there was a direct and personal connection to the US.

If you're expecting even a month long cycle on the fact that Al Queda tortures people, you're clearly going to be disappointed. I'll add that you clearly don't understand what news is, or why it's news. The fact that Al Queda tortures people is not news. The fact that they found a handbook on torture IS news, but of the 5th page variety. If you wanted to bump that up to the front page, you'd need a more local, US connection... names and stories of Americans who have suffered this torture would do it.

What you want is a propaganda machine. You should stick to Fox.

It sounds to me like you're a part of the problem. I realize what the news media *is*. My post was about what the news media *should be*. I'm not sure what you have against painting an accurate picture, but it's disappointing that you defend the distortions and that you deceptively describe painting an accurate picture as "propaganda."

patteeu
06-05-2007, 06:52 AM
Waterboarding is torture, you just choose to believe it is not.

You just choose to believe it is. I guess we have a difference of opinion.

patteeu
06-05-2007, 06:53 AM
I don't understand.

Not reporting on this story would do the Bush administration a favor. So I'm not sure how the "liberal" media would be doing themselves a favor by blowing this story off.

Perhaps it's been answered much sooner in the thread.

How would not reporting this story do Bush a favor?

patteeu
06-05-2007, 07:02 AM
Maybe because they reported it in Yesterday's paper on the front page (http://www.nytimes.com/indexes/2007/06/03/todayspaper/index.html)? :shrug:

It wasn't reported on the front page, there was a "link" and a brief teaser on the front page in the corner section about what's "Inside" the paper. The New York Times gave this story almost no prominence.

banyon
06-05-2007, 01:50 PM
It wasn't reported on the front page, there was a "link" and a brief teaser on the front page in the corner section about what's "Inside" the paper. The New York Times gave this story almost no prominence.

I'm referring to the print edition and there is a picture of it available on the site. The website changes from day to day.

It was on the front page of their "New York" section as the above the fold picture and front page section story for several days.

jettio
06-05-2007, 03:33 PM
It wouldn't hurt to remind the public of what we're up against in the war on terror,would it?

It wouldn't hurt to remind the public that B*sh thought that war was fun and games and sh*ts and giggles and that he would liberate the thankful Iraqi people from brutality while his favorite companies made billions of dollars.

Anyone that sides with B*sh that also thinks that it reflects well on B*sh and his supporters that Al Qaeda is torturing people in Iraq is doubling down on dumb.

BIG_DADDY
06-05-2007, 03:38 PM
It wouldn't hurt to remind the public that B*sh thought that war was fun and games and sh*ts and giggles and that he would liberate the thankful Iraqi people from brutality while his favorite companies made billions of dollars.

Anyone that sides with B*sh that also thinks that it reflects well on B*sh and his supporters that Al Qaeda is torturing people in Iraq is doubling down on dumb.

Some times I wonder why you even bother posting.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-05-2007, 03:45 PM
Some times I wonder why you even bother posting.

That's a hell of a lot more lucid than your usual schlock.

Sorry, I'll STFU since I'm a faggot communist Towelhead n****r camel jockey.

jettio
06-05-2007, 03:51 PM
Some times I wonder why you even bother posting.

What do you disagree with? Do you think Al Qaeda torturing people in B*sh's cradle for democracy in the Middle East reflects positively on him and dumbazzes like you that were gung ho for the war?

I bother posting because I believe that the truth is powerful enough to reach anyone, anyone I say, even those who have significant anabolic and dogsh*t vapor exposure.

BIG_DADDY
06-05-2007, 04:02 PM
That's a hell of a lot more lucid than your usual schlock.

Sorry, I'll STFU since I'm a pillowbiter communist Towelhead n****r camel jockey.


More like a terrorist wanna be. "I named myself Hamas because I terrorize BB's" ROFL Yea, OK.

BIG_DADDY
06-05-2007, 04:04 PM
What do you disagree with? Do you think Al Qaeda torturing people in B*sh's cradle for democracy in the Middle East reflects positively on him and dumbazzes like you that were gung ho for the war?

I bother posting because I believe that the truth is powerful enough to reach anyone, anyone I say, even those who have significant anabolic and dogsh*t vapor exposure.


I was never for the war I was against it. That is well documented. Go ahead and keep posting I was all gung ho for it fi it makes you feel better though.

jettio
06-05-2007, 05:30 PM
I was never for the war I was against it. That is well documented. Go ahead and keep posting I was all gung ho for it fi it makes you feel better though.

If you want to display your posts from 2002-2003 make the most of it.

I expect that I would remember if you had stood up and disagreed with the bullies who were wrong about B*sh's dumbazz idea.

Please show the posts where you said that France and Germany had the right approach and that the UN Security Council and the weapons inspectors were right that the best course of action for solving the "problem" was to continue inspections.

If you were against the war before it started, you probably did not post it on Chiefs Planet. You just don't have the sack to publicly agree with people you think are "liberal," whether they are liberal or not, on any topic unrelated to pornography or controlled substances.

patteeu
06-05-2007, 05:40 PM
I'm referring to the print edition and there is a picture of it available on the site. The website changes from day to day.

It was on the front page of their "New York" section as the above the fold picture and front page section story for several days.

The print edition on which day? The June 3 edition that you linked to didn't carry the story on the front page. Neither did the June 2 or the June 4 editions.

When you say front page of the "New York" section, I assume you mean the local part of the paper like the "Metropolitan" section of the KC Star. If so, that's a far cry from the kind of front page treatment that I presume bill parcells was talking about. :shrug:

Boyceofsummer
06-05-2007, 07:59 PM
Really?

By ignoring Al Qaeda torture stories and publishing over 6,000 Abu Ghrab stories, the liberal media is trying to make the US military look worse than Al Qaeda.

And then you have that fat pig Rosie O'Donnell saying we're killing innocent people on the view.

But it's stupid, right? :rolleyes:

Just let it out! It kills you that Abu Ghrab and other lies and mistakes associated with all this insanity called Iraq is the work of Rumsfeld and other Neo Cons. Bush is their daddy. Say it................He's my Daddy! :hail: