Tag Archives: Media Bias
You may recall the ambulance in the Israeli/Hezbollah recent dispute. You know, the one that the Israelis ‘deliberately’ rocketed…at least that was the view of the world media.
Personally, when I saw the pic of the missile hole through the roof I instantly dismissed it as bullshit and went on with life.
How could I have been so sure?
Vehicle hit by missile…..
…….vehicle taken from wreckers yard and definitely not hit by missile. Note the windscreen has collapsed inwards. In my experience, and I have heaps, missiles and other ordnance, having penetrated a target, always explode and never ever impode. Simple Infantry stuff. [In a previous life I was an anti-tank gunner/driver]
The media gratefully accepted the incident at face value as they wanted to believe it and flogged it for all it was worth. Remember the Israeli Captain being interviewed…We never intentionaly target civilians or ambulances.
Sure, said the media presenter and interspersed shots of wounded ambulance occupiers with a loop of the captain saying We…never…intentionaly…target…civilians…or…ambulances.
Good media but now it might be reasonable to get that same presenter and have him say, in a loop, just like the Captain, that We, [the media] always take the viewpoint of the terrorists without checking details because we want to believe it.
Why? Go to Zombie and view the article and all will become clear to you.
Posted in the interests of pointing out the lies of the enemy we face.
From the Wall Street Journal, AKA The Opinion Journal
Letter From Iraq
Here’s an email we received from a U.S. military officer who asks us to withhold his name:
I am currently stationed here in Iraq and have been here for the past 11 months; I am an adviser to the Iraqis and meet them on a daily basis. I have been in many locations in the country and am involved on a daily basis together with the Iraqis fighting the insurgency.
The media manipulation by the insurgents is brilliant and extremely effective. The press has become a puppet for the insurgents; the insurgents know exactly what they are doing with these “massacres” (quoted here because the investigation has not been completed, nor have any charges been filed) and the political nightmare they will cause the current administration. Bodies are produced for film, and there is zero fact-checking by the media–the media eat up this “news” like there is no tomorrow. A couple of hundred bucks paid by the insurgents to a few guys/ladies in the town where this “massacre” occurred to make up some bad news and pine for the BBC’s or CBS’s or whoever’s cameras is a nice month’s salary for many and money well spent by the insurgency.
All the Arabs (Sunni and Shia), Kurds and Chaldeans I have come to know well here will tell you that Arabs are emotional people who tend to exaggerate. A lot. Experience has shown that “50 insurgents hiding out in XX location” is five, at most 10. “Three hundred dead” at the morgue is at most 40. “A huge cache with WMD” is 45-50 weapons. It is a cultural norm and is accepted over here as a norm. It is reported in the West as fact. With no fact-checking.
When we convoy, all in the town/village know when and where there is a bomb/IED/VBIED that is targeting coalition forces. This is not so true in Baghdad, but in the outlying towns all know. What is the culpability for those people in the village/town? Would the Marines be guilty in the U.S. under the same circumstances?
I do not know whether or not the Marines are guilty. A Marine’s job is to “close with and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver,” and I can guarantee its effectiveness. But the insurgents have the ear of the press. Hopefully the politics will be put aside for the investigation and the facts will be told, whatever they may be.
We live in hope but I’m sure the media can be relied upon to take a negative view prior to the release of the report on the investigation.
Coonass in Texas has caught the London Times out in a blatant case of anti -anything US.
I was shocked that there were photos of victims killed by marines,bound and blindfolded, these guys must be guilty I thought and there must be more photographic evidence. With a heavy heart I searched google images for ‘haditha’, expecting to find the entire massacre photo’d from every angle.
Instead I found the same photo in this article in newsweek, with the caption: “Insurgents in Haditha executed 19 Shiite fishermen and National Guardsmen in a sports stadium”
I think this goes beyond a slant,this is slander. The times posted a photo that shows “haditha victims” in a story about marines killing people in haditha, when they know they stole the photo from an earlier story about insurgents killing shiites in Haditha.
I don’t know what really happened to the marines in Haditha, but I tend to believe their version more than the other side’s version and I’m willing to wait for the court martial for the facts to come out before passing judgement.
Michelle Malkin picks up on the story and suggests readers might like to write to the Times Editor pointing out their feelings on the matter. Michelle herself wrote to him and in an interchange of accusations and excuses said;
If you are left with the impression that the dead bodies on the ground were massacred by our Marines, that is exactly what the Times intends.This is an accurate statement. If the Times did not intend for readers to associate the photograph with the Nov. 19 Haditha incident, why did your newspaper use the photo?
I hope the paper provides a full explanation for exactly how it came to characterize and caption an April 2005 AP photo of fishermen murdered by insurgents as “victims of al-Haditha” of the “Massacre Marines blinded by hate” on Nov. 19, 2005.
The Times has withdrawn the photo associated with the article but the article is still slanted very much against the marines as I have mentioned previously all is not as it seems.
If the investigation finds against the Marines then they should feel the full force of the law but keep in mind the only information we have at this stage is from the Media and a clever wordsmith can turn any story into a disaster. There are currently thousands of journalists around the world hoping like hell that the Marines are guilty…more gist for the anti-US mill and as always, they will write up the incident day after day for months in the absence of any proof and by the time the investigation report is released it won’t matter what it says.
The world will have readily accepted their guilt.
Whatever readers may think I’m not an apologist for the US. I don’t feel I have to be as unlike most of my readers, and most probably all of the media, I have worked with the Americans on a soldier-to-soldier basis and know them more than most. Like all large forces they will always have rogues amongst them but no society can absorb this continual media scrutiny with jourmalists sitting on the shoulders of every soldier like vultures waiting for a mistake.
The bar has been set as ‘perfect’ only with no allowances made for the horrors of battle or human reactions to being fired on or holding a friend while he dies.
No mistakes, not ever. Unless an editor deliberately places a photo in an article to create a false impression of savagery.
No emotions, not ever. Unless you hate the Americans so much that you ignore all positives to highlight one negative in a widespread and difficult war.
John Burtis in the Canadian Free Press puts the ‘Dick Cheney shooting a lawyer mate’ press frenzy in perspective.
In their Herculean efforts to lend further “gravitas” to the beleaguered story, the media trundled out grizzled hunting experts, college-trained weather men and women, experts on color recognition and the reasons for the use of international orange on hunting outfits, the problems to be encountered from lead poisoning, ornithologists and the year of the expected Texas quail extinction, medical experts and the grave damage to be expected from the horrors of bird shot, cardiologists, Neil Young and the needles and the damage done, schematic diagrams of shooting victims, savvy attorneys to discourse on the legal ramifications of the expected charges for attempted murder and great bodily harm, pettifoggers to discuss the upcoming civil penalties, constitutional scholars to describe this latest nail in the proverbial coffin of impeachment, pundits to describe in glib detail the replacement of Dick Cheney for this strategic gaffe of immense proportions and experts in finer points of haberdashery to explain the meaning of the pink tie – the full list may never be fully tabulated because of its absolutely daunting size and the fact that it was pounded out in 24 news cycles for nearly a week.
And finishes with this;
And on the world front, as the hunting accident is still being rehashed for inconsistencies, investigated for further nefarious activities and the possible consumption of, gasp, a beer in the woods, the cartoon wars go on, Iran continues its nuclear build up, North Korea remains a menace, Hamas continues its activities to destroy Israel, we have helicopters down off the African coast, the UN remains a rotten borough, Islamist terrorists are still killing people in Iraq and the Philippines and the beat goes on.
But at home the US press burns in its own bonfire of inanities and it won’t step out of the fireplace or look outside its ridiculously small box because there was a hunting accident and somebody’s got to pay.
The story rates with SBS running their 433rd episode of Abu Ghraib prison saga.
ILLUSTRATOR Michael Leunig has been accused of playing the martyr in expressing outrage over his work being included in a distasteful Iranian cartoon competition because the images were anti-Semitic.
Leunig, whose cartoons appear in the Fairfax newspapers, was the subject of a bizarre hoax when someone fraudulently entered one of his works in an Iranian newspaper competition for the world’s most offensive Holocaust cartoons.
For more details see Tim Blairs expose
The entry was initially taken seriously and was picked up around the world by media including Australian Associated Press, The Sydney Morning Herald, Le Monde and Islamonline. But the cartoon was withdrawn from Hamshahri’s website after Leunig demanded it be removed.
The entry was taken seriously because it is believable. Leunig is anti-Semetic and anti-everything else I stand for and there is a fair chance his cartoon could’ve picked up a prize in the Iranian news competition for the most offensive cartoon that redicules the West or the Jews
In the Age Leunig seeks sympathy from the Australia public, long used to his offensive cartoons with the header;
Amid the pain, God puts his hand on my shoulder.
But not on everybodies shoulder apparently;
Elsewhere in the world, families stricken with anger and sadness grieve for loved ones killed in the madness of war. Homes lie in rubble.
Wars started, I might add, by those who Leunig supports with his cartoons
What an offensive tosser
A letter in todays Australian
If Bush was on a mission from God to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, does that follow that he evolved from Intelligent Design?
Not at all, H.Casson but it does follow that you didn’t. Some people will believe anything so long as it is based on the premise that Bush is stupid. If you don’t question the motives of the BBC in posting such a story then you can hardly claim your brain is designed, let alone intelligently.
A translation of a translation quoted from Palestinian sources….yeah I can believe that.
How sweet the sound of Liz Jackson of Media Watch getting confused about the blogging world. Rattling on last night in an attack against Janet Albrechtson and local Brisbane blogger, Arthur Chrenkoff, Liz makes a huge point of the fact that Arthur’s articles on the Wall Street Journal’s website Opinion Journal are not published by the Wall street Journal.
Maybe the ABC should tell the Wall Street Journal to remove their WSJ.com logo from the site as it’s confusing Liz. With Wall Street Journal links all over the Opinion Journal page and vise versa I don’t quite accept Liz’s arguement that;
Good News from Iraq is not published on the highly respected Wall Street Journal website — it’s a blog published by a sister site.
If Media Watch feel obliged to attack bloggers, then our pressure on the MSM is being felt. It is, in effect, a compliment to Arthur for all the hard yards he does in trying to balance the MSM bias and will give him a hits boost.
Liz’s bias is plain to see for all those that care and her prattling on about minor details only tends to reinforce this bias.
To prove she isn’t biased, Liz finds a suitable quote about the Iraq War.
Being a foreign correspondent in Baghdad these days is like being under virtual house arrest… I leave when I have a very good reason to and a scheduled interview. I avoid going to people’s homes and never walk in the streets … I … can’t strike up a conversation with strangers, can’t look for stories, can’t drive in anything but a full armoured car, can’t go to the scenes of breaking stories, … can’t take a road trip, can’t say I’m American, can’t linger at check points, can’t be curious about what people are saying, doing, feeling.
— Farnaz Fassihi, 29 Sept 2004
Ah, that’s better, it’s negative.
Good show, Arthur. Keep up your ‘Good News’ series and publish it where you will. People will seek you out for what you say that the MSM doesn’t and will not give a fig about you’re being paid or not. Nor will they care if they have to click once to follow the link.
Tory fury as BBC sends hecklers to bait Howard
The BBC was last night plunged into a damaging general election row after it admitted equipping three hecklers with microphones and sending them into a campaign meeting addressed by Michael Howard, the Conservative leader.
…the hecklers began shouting slogans that were “distracting and clearly hostile to the Conservative Party”.
These included “Michael Howard is a liar”, “You can’t trust the Tories” and “You can only trust Tony Blair”.
Why is anyone surprised. That’s the role of public funded TV. Like it’s spawn, the ABC, the BBC has always had a left bias and a belief that their role is to make any conservative government look bad.
The ABC bias debate. Dr Martin Hirst from the School of Journalism & Communication UQ writes to the Australian and proves the bias of the ABC by trying to prove there isn’t any. I find his letter as a case in point about what is wrong with the ABC.
If you watch the ABC, particularly the news and current affairs programmes and find yourself generally agreeing with what you see and hear then you are most probably in the political range of centre to left – if you disagree, you are most probably centre to right. It isn’t “juvenile” to comment on this, it is simply a matter of fact and has ever been thus. The point thousands of people previously, and Senator Alston recently, are trying to make, is that it is simply unprofessional to show a bias one way or the other when reporting the events of the day and to then claim it is a balanced opinion.
Calling a government “juvenile” indicates the type of bias we conservative types are talking about. Martin Hirst teaches at UQ’s School of Journalism – can’t you just see him lecturing and shaping the minds of undergrads with key phrases like ‘juvenile government’, ‘propaganda….a lie’, ‘Alston’s half-arsed whingeing’, ‘gung-ho patriotism’ and ‘the Government’s ridiculous panic-inducing anti-terrorism publicity campaign’? Good fodder for a balanced diet!
The quote from Max Uechtritz that annoyed Senator Alston:
“We now know for certain that only three things in life are certain – death, taxes and the fact that the military are lying bastards,” Mr Uechtritz is reported to have said during a forum on war reporting in Afghanistan”.
Senator’s dossier is meaningless
WELL done Max Uechtritz for getting up Richard Alston’s nose again. It just goes to show how juvenile this Government can be. The 14-page “dossier” Alston’s office compiled is ridiculous and so out of context that it’s meaningless. This is a blatant case of political interference and Alston’s motive, in my view, is no more than trying to distract attention from the mounting problems of the Howard Government.
There is no substance in the minister’s allegations of bias. The situation on the ground in Iraq was very fluid and many things were said by reporters that later proved false. Let’s not forget that in the last 24 hours, the US has admitted they found no weapons of mass destruction and that they probably never existed. So the propaganda that the coalition had to invade Iraq to get rid of the WMDs was a lie.
No! The coalition invaded Iraq as part of the War against Terror – WMDs was one of several reasons – there were a lot more. The fact that Hussein has tortured and murdered hundreds of thousand of his citizens is one. Another is that we know his form – he has fired missiles at Israel; he has chemical weapons and has used them against the Iranians and his own people, he has atomic research programs for the stated purpose of creating atom/nuclear weapons and is altogether an unsavoury person.
It is the duty of independent journalists to question everything. The Senator seems to think the media’s duty in time of war is to fall meekly into line with the Government. This is not the media’s role and it is not what the public would expect. As a former journalist and now as a lecturer at the University of Queensland, I know that journalists must report without fear or favour.
The requirement is not to ‘fall in line’ but to report the facts in an unbiased manner. Leave editorials to editors and snide political comments to political commentators – we expect an opinion from these people and can allocate a loading left or right depending on their background. But the everyday journalist who fills in a line on TV or contributes to an article in the newspaper should indeed ‘question’ everything in the pursuit of professional accuracy and then when satisfied he or she has the story correct, submit for broadcast. Just the facts mate!
I have read upwards of 40 student essays on the Australian television news media’s coverage of the Iraq War and in each of them the conclusion drawn by the students is that the ABC did a better job than everyone else.
Besides stating the obvious that if taught by you ‘they would say that wouldn’t they’ you are hardly comparing apples with apples here. Commercial TV exists on 30 second grabs to get their story over – something to do with the attention span of the viewers maybe? Try tasking your students to compare the ABC with some major broadcasters – BBC, NBC, CNN, Fox, ABC (US) to name a few.
I’m not so much concerned about the ABC’s or Martin’s left wing sentiment as I am about the fact that he feels he has to abuse people who call it for what it is.
Senator Alston penned an article in the Age about the issue. Judge for yourself.
Now interested in Martin Hirst I googled his name and found him billed with Margo Kingston at a symposium on the Language of War organized by Just Peace – People for Peace through Justice – in response to what it called was the “unilateral, pre-emptive and illegal military response by the US with the aim of imposing its views and authority on the nations of the world”. It was all faithfully recorded by the ABC but, strangely enough, try as I might, I couldn’t get a response for “right wing symposiums” the ABC might have recorded.
Finally an invite for Max Uechtritz. I am going to a Regimental Reunion in Wagga Wagga in August – you might like to drop in and explain to the blokes of my Infantry Battalion what you mean by ‘lying bastards’. For details visit the website.