Fox News Alters AP Reports To Mimic WH

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

MrsSpringsteen

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
29,274
Location
Edge's beanie closet
http://mediamatters.org/items/200502230006

"Since April 2002, FOX News has consistently doctored Associated Press articles featured on the FOX News website concerning terrorist attacks in the Middle East to conform to Bush administration terminology. "

"Dennis Murray, executive producer of [FOX News'] daytime programming, said executives there had heard the phrase ["homicide bombing"] being used by administration officials in recent days and thought it was a good idea."
 
It also says on that site that they actually changed the term in a quote from Hillary Clinton - is that ethical? Then they changed it..

"And then revised it to restore the quote without noting either the original alteration or its correction."
 
I second it. If we are going to have a Free Press, then the White House should have very little to say about the terminology.
 
nbcrusader said:
So? Should AP be the final arbiter of what "proper" terminology is used?

When they write the press releases and when they are published as an AP release, yes. You then cannot arbitrarily change the words. Isn't this copyright infringement? :eyebrow:
 
However, a good news organization will have full disclosure. If FOX is going to change terminology, they should openly reflect that they made changes to AP articles and where.

Instead, what they are really doing is using the credibility of the AP to post news articles that most people trust and then not telling people when they change articles to suit their ideology--thus assuming that it reflects what the AP wrote. It's very misleading and unethical.

But the biggest farce of all is FOX News ever getting away with "fair and balanced," considering that the FOX News Chairman and CEO, Roger Ailes, used to be a big shot with the Republican Party. Now tell me: do you think the Republican Party is interested in being "fair and balanced" or just winning elections? I think the latter is certainly the case.

Melon
 
Do they actually get away w/ fair and balanced anymore? Is there anyone left on this planet who believes that? :wink:

I think there might be more people who believe in the Easter Bunny..
 
nbcrusader said:
Agreed. And Fox should be free to choose their terminology.

Isn’t it just a stupid term?


McVeigh was a "homicide bomber"

Palestinians used to be, but could no longer be effective, so they switched to 'suicide bombers"

Use of that term only confirms that one is lock-step in line with the Israelis.

Therefore, they have little credibility in discussing Mid East policy objectively.
 
This may be White House terminology now but the declaration of homocide bomber existed before ~ suicide bomber really doesn't remind people that they are mass murderers, suicide homocide bomber could be more applicable but it is a very good thing to see.The label millitant on a bomber or activist for guys who gun down innocents is one of the more despicable pieces of reportage in this day and age.
 
A_Wanderer said:
This may be White House terminology now but the declaration of homocide bomber existed before ~ suicide bomber really doesn't remind people that they are mass murderers, suicide homocide bomber could be more applicable but it is a very good thing to see.The label millitant on a bomber or activist for guys who gun down innocents is one of the more despicable pieces of reportage in this day and age.

This may be White House terminology now but the declaration of homocide bomber existed before ~

so the US should take it's talking points from Israel?







They are not called:

Hero bombers

Martyr bombers

Warrior bombers

Soldier bombers

Since when is “suicide” a complimentary term?

I think if someone in Texas went out in the middle of a field and blew himself or herself up they would not be called a suicide bomber.

Hunter Thompson was a suicide,. not a suicide gunman.



It is just stupid.


Again, Tim McVeigh was a homicide bomber.

I have never heard the term suicide bomber used without the number of victims included.
 
I wouldn't say that suicide bomber is sympathetic, it is a generally used and accepted term but it does open the door for sympathy.

How many times do we hear the - Suicide bombers are driven to it by their suffering or poverty (all of which are of course the victims fault; Palestinian Terrorists killing Israeli's ~ because of the settlements, or the barrier, or their shame in the world, or any reason that isn't the fault of the terrorists themselves. Al Qaeda kills Civilians around the world ~ some say this is the fault of the US because US supports the Saudi Monarchy, US troops in SA, US support for Israel, US racism, US genocides, US imperial aspirations, US Christianity, US Republicans, US affluence etc.). The burden is put on the victim ~ they are killed because of the crimes of their country.

We say suicide bomber because it is the moderate term that opens the door to blame the victim ~ if we were to say that these terrorists were cold calculating murderers then the burden of responsibility would shift and a case of moral equivalence and mutual blame can no longer be made.

Blaming the victims reinforces a worldview where all violence in the world is motivated by root causes and that by adressing these root causes we will acheive peace in our time. The sad fact of humanity is that when people get what they want by killing for it the seem to make a habbit of it their desires or bloodlust become to big. And we love murderers when they can gather sympathy ~ just look at Yasser Arafat, he is viewed by many around the world including the west as a champion for his people, an unyielding hero to some; he was able to play the international community like a fiddle because they decided that they could overlook his crimes in order to help his people ~ what did this appeasement achieve? a dictator who stole billions, a people raised on violence in the name of statehood, thousands of dead Palestinians and Israelis - all of this subsidised by the west in the name of peace. When we refuse to call murder when we see it and excuse it when it isn't happening to us the concequences are always dire.

Maybe thats half the problem ~ mankinds innate ability to commit evil is something that people don't like to face up too - we have to justify evil because if we open up to the possibility that people do evil things when given the choice it reflects on all of us. How we view the nature of evil may well be the greater ideological divide ~ I see it as a choice, others see it as circumstance (I am not saying that circumstance isn't part of it ~ I am saying that no matter what the circumstance there is a choice ~ blow up innocent people or not, seek vengence or not, slaughter children or not).

If a mans family is kidnapped and he is told to murder and he commits the crime he is not an evil man ~ he is a victim.

If a man goes to murder by his own volition then is he not responsible?
 
Last edited:
A_Wanderer said:
We say suicide bomber because it is the moderate term that opens the door to blame the victim...

That may be what the term suggests to you, but I doubt many Americans hear it that way. During WWII, American newsreels and WPCC propaganda often invoked the spectre of 'Swarms of Suicide Pilots!!!' descending on the mainland as a justification for all-out war on Japan. The implication was exactly what the word choice suggests--Japanese soldiers were insects doing Hirohito's bidding in a fanatic frenzy, like worker ants who live and die at their queen's bidding. American soldiers, by contrast, were noble individuals who risked death out of a love for freedom, not blind loyalty to some bloodthirsty tyrant.

Mass media was in its infancy then, so average Americans knew a lot less about Japan than they do today about the Middle East. But I think 'suicide bomber' to most Americans still suggests something much closer to this quasi-paranoid 1940s idea than the 'blame-the-victim' notion you're describing. What the Bush Administration dislikes about the phrase is more likely its connotation of blind loyalty to insurgent leaders like al-Sadr, whom they wish to portray as 'fringe' radicals with little popular support.

Blaming the victims reinforces a worldview where all violence in the world is motivated by root causes and that by adressing these root causes we will acheive peace in our time.

Yes, there is a recognition that those who recruit suicide bombers are tapping into widespread feelings of humiliation and rage--which can (and should) be taken as cause for concern about why those feelings are widespread and what can be done to address that situation. Ruthless opportunists like al-Sadr and bin Laden may not be CREATED by such situations, but they certainly have more fuel to work with in them.

The sad fact of humanity is that when people get what they want by killing for it the seem to make a habbit of it their desires or bloodlust become to big.

With reference to the bin Ladens and al-Sadrs of the world, sure. But the people who actually become suicide bombers certainly don't 'make a habit of it'--you can only blow yourself up once.

How we view the nature of evil may well be the greater ideological divide ~ I see it as a choice, others see it as circumstance (I am not saying that circumstance isn't part of it ~ I am saying that no matter what the circumstance there is a choice ~ blow up innocent people or not, seek vengence or not, slaughter children or not).

If a mans family is kidnapped and he is told to murder and he commits the crime he is not an evil man ~ he is a victim.

If a man goes to murder by his own volition then is he not responsible?

This seems self-contradictory. If a man murders someone to obtain his kidnapped family's release, surely he has committed that murder by his own volition?! He certainly had a choice NOT to commit the murder, and thus compound the wrong done to him by wronging another innocent. Your examples here suggest that you believe evil inheres in motives, not acts, but that seems to fly in the face of the rest of your argument.

Or were you citing the 'kidnap' scenario as a hypothetical example of the evil-is-a-circumstance arguments you oppose?
 
Of all the things that Fox could legitimately be criticized for, I don't think drawing attention to the fact that Palestenians who blow themselves up on busses and in cafes in Israel are committing murder is one of them.

That said, if they modify the AP report, they should say so, instead of just crediting the story to the AP.
 
You know what I am going to take the third way and say that both AP and Fox are dead wrong. The bombers are spontaneously exploding religiously inspired indiscriminate mass murderers.
 
A_Wanderer said:
You know what I am going to take the third way and say that both AP and Fox are dead wrong. The bombers are spontaneously exploding religiously inspired indiscriminate mass murderers.

That covers it nicely and by the time the talking heada are done saying it, it will be a commercial break and we can get on with the rest of our lives.
 
Complimentary, no. Sympathetic, yes


There is some good news here


at least, this family is not homeless


Tel Aviv bomber's family shunned

Conal Urquhart in Deir al Ghusun
Tuesday March 1, 2005
The Guardian

Scores of chairs lined the rooms and corridors, and jugs of coffee and water and trays of figs were ready to welcome men paying their respects.

But the family of Abdullah Badran, the 21-year-old who blew himself up at the entrance to a Tel Aviv nightclub on Friday, killing five Israelis, were left alone in their grief.

For seven days after a burial a Palestinian family receives mourners, normally a big social event involving colourful banners and patriotic music.

But yesterday seven members of the family occupied the otherwise empty chairs and when asked if Abdullah's death had achieved anything they all shook their heads, and one said no in English.

Abdullah's brother Ibrahim said they were mystified and angered by his death.

"I really do not know what was on his mind. Maybe he was thinking about the killing of Palestinians in recent weeks, the building of the wall, the lack of goodwill from the Israelis in the political process.

"He wanted to be a teacher, to get married and get a home. He seemed optimistic in spite of everything. It never occurred to any of us that he would blow himself up."

Deir al Ghusun is a hill town of 8,000 inhabitants. The flags of Islamic Jihad, Hamas and the leftwing Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine fly from many buildings, but there are none near the house of mourning.

Islamic Jihad, which has claimed responsibility for the bombing, was keeping a low profile.

Sami Qadan said the whole town was shocked and angered by the bombing and in protest no one was paying respects to the family.

"Things were getting better and then no sooner do we have money coming in again then it is stopped by this suicide bombing. This intifada has killed us and the wall has destroyed us. We cannot even leave our homes and we want it to stop," he said.

Six of his sons were working as builders in Israel but when they tried to cross the checkpoint on Sunday they were told: "No one from Deir al Ghusun is coming into Israel."

Abdullah, a student of Arabic literature at a branch of the al-Quds (Jerusalem) University in Tulkarem, was last seen at breakfast on Friday. " We didn't ask where he was going because it wasn't our normal practice. There was nothing in him to suggest that he had no plans to return," his brother said.

The family realised that something was wrong only when Israeli soldiers arrived at 5am on Saturday morning and told them that he had killed himself and four Israelis -a fifth died of injuries yesterday.

Abdullah's father, Said Badran, refused to believe them, insisting that his son was still in bed. The army arrested the two brothers in the house and later the local imam and five of Abdullah's friends.

The family had not suffered any particular grievance at the hands of the Israelis, Ibrahim said, although he was detained in 1989 and held for 18 months without trial.

The town has lost a large part of its livelihood because the separation barrier has cut it off from its 825 acres (334 hectares) of farmland.

In theory they can reach it through a gate, but it is rarely open, and the Israelis have begun chopping down some of the trees.

Ibrahim said that the family was extremely angry with the people who had chosen and prepared Abdullah for his suicide mission.

"I don't know who they are but we want them to stop this and reach out their hands for peace. That is the only way the situation will improve."
 
I guess that just shows how much Arafat was able to keep the terror running. Without all that money and glorifying by the PA to the bombers families it seems like a lot less of a glorious death.
 
Back
Top Bottom