Media Bias Rears its Head - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-18-2004, 08:57 PM   #1
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 08:54 PM
Media Bias Rears its Head

How come when the United States is accused of atrocities, the press has NO PROBLEM publishing photographs?

When terrorists strike, the press edits, blurs, places rocks...ect...
Why? Is it to diminish the effects of the terrorism? Is it to prevent people from reacting harshly towards the terrorists?

Does this bother anyone else? Or is it no big deal

The real photo:



The Guardian:



The Times:




The Telegraph:



Well, shouldn't journalists present the truth? Is this acceptable? Or is it only acceptable to show how bad the US is?

Just curious.
__________________

Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-18-2004, 09:06 PM   #2
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 08:54 PM
Maybe I'm blind, but I don't see any differences in any of the photos.

Melon
__________________

melon is offline  
Old 03-18-2004, 09:08 PM   #3
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 08:54 PM
Look at the body part in the first photo.....front left.....
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-18-2004, 09:08 PM   #4
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,961
Local Time: 08:54 PM
was that an arm that was erased from the other photos?
Screaming Flower is offline  
Old 03-18-2004, 09:08 PM   #5
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 08:54 PM
or leg....
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-18-2004, 09:12 PM   #6
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 08:54 PM
Interesting...that's not good journalism. They should have published the first photo unaltered.

Melon
melon is offline  
Old 03-18-2004, 09:17 PM   #7
Acrobat
 
enggirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Superstar Trailer Park
Posts: 435
Local Time: 09:54 PM
I just saw this photo in the newest TIME magazine, and what I think you're pointing out is hidden there, too...but by the title in big red letters. If you look in the lower left, to the left of the tracks, it loos like someone's head that's been blown off. It's red in the first photo above, then brownish in the next one, then completely gone in the other two. However, they did leave in the man in the very first train window who looks to be dead.

As far as only showing atrocities when we do them: I don't know if I agree with you. I seem to recall that, during the "war," there were very few really graphic photos published in any mainstream magazine like the ones you could see online (children with brains blown out, people with missing limbs, etc.). I think, rather, that it's a difference of viewers/readers in different countries.

Here in the US, we are strangely (when you consider the ridiculous crap we watch on TV), sensitive to "graphic" images. When things first happen, cameras roll and we see things (such as the people jumping out of the towers on 9/11), but when time catches up, those things are deemed unseemly and off-limits. At the newspaper where I work, one of the editors had to spend hours going through every picture coming off the wires after 9/11 and pick what could go in the paper so as not to freak people out more than they already were.

I think that this is why we, as a nation, can be a little gung-ho on violence--we tend to live in a bubble when you compare our media to that in other countries.

I don't know if this really answers your question--it probably opens us up to more questions/comments, actually.
enggirl is offline  
Old 03-18-2004, 09:23 PM   #8
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,226
Local Time: 07:54 PM
I agree that good journalism should have shown the photo undoctored, but I don't think it has anything to do with media bias. I agree with enggirl.

I think the real reason is they are afraid someone like the FCC will come along and shut them down for obscenity.
BVS is offline  
Old 03-18-2004, 09:26 PM   #9
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 08:54 PM
LOL...except these are British papers....

Now I have to go get TIME,,,,

I think of the horrible photo of the napalm victims from Vietnam. I think of the pictures of the boy who lost his limbs from Iraq.

It does not add up. I believe it is important to show the truth. The ugly truth of what the terrorists did.....just as it was important to show the consequences of our actions in these two wars.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-18-2004, 09:35 PM   #10
Acrobat
 
enggirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Superstar Trailer Park
Posts: 435
Local Time: 09:54 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
I agree that good journalism should have shown the photo undoctored, but I don't think it has anything to do with media bias. I agree with enggirl.

I think the real reason is they are afraid someone like the FCC will come along and shut them down for obscenity.
Ha! Especially considering the FCC has sorta overturned it's previous quasi-OK of Bono's "this is f***ing brilliant" from over a YEAR ago! But they're not going to fine him. So I wonder when the statue of limitations is up on "offensive" behavior?

I think's it's offensive that we are considered too delicate and unable to handle the absolute TRUTH. The truth--in photographs, etc.--is ugly at times and scary as hell...but wouldn't you feel better if you knew what was out there so you could try to avoid it? Sanitizing what we see just sanitizes what we think...(does that make any sense?)
enggirl is offline  
Old 03-18-2004, 09:39 PM   #11
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 08:54 PM
Heh...the FCC can't do a damn thing to them. Not only is it on paper, rather than the broadcast spectrum (the FCC's territory), but the press' freedom is protected by the First Amendment. No other medium has such wide discretion to tell the truth, no matter how frightening it is.

Melon
melon is offline  
Old 03-18-2004, 09:45 PM   #12
Acrobat
 
enggirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Superstar Trailer Park
Posts: 435
Local Time: 09:54 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
Heh...the FCC can't do a damn thing to them. Not only is it on paper, rather than the broadcast spectrum (the FCC's territory), but the press' freedom is protected by the First Amendment. No other medium has such wide discretion to tell the truth, no matter how frightening it is.

Melon
True, Melon, when we're talking about newspapers and mags. Unfortunately, I live in a rather conservative town and work at a conservative-ish paper. (Um, we don't like to quote people when they say that something "sucks"!). The upper-ups at the paper are in the position of protecting the virgin eyes of the town from anything unpleasant until it's been completely sanitized. (Hmmm...but "The Passion" is A-OK---oh, and this is NOT to start a big yell-fest on that, I'm just making my own little point about how, for some people, violence/gore is okay in one context but not another. 'nuf said.)
enggirl is offline  
Old 03-19-2004, 12:04 AM   #13
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,226
Local Time: 07:54 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
Heh...the FCC can't do a damn thing to them. Not only is it on paper, rather than the broadcast spectrum (the FCC's territory), but the press' freedom is protected by the First Amendment. No other medium has such wide discretion to tell the truth, no matter how frightening it is.

Melon
OK first of all everyone I was being tounge in cheek. Secondly I said someone "like the FCC". I just think if things continue the way they are we may have Federal commisions for everything. Anyways back to the subject.
BVS is offline  
Old 03-19-2004, 03:02 AM   #14
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,761
Local Time: 03:54 AM
Hello,

I don't know where I read it (maybe in the paper I bought last Saturday which had a large comments section on this photograph), but IIRC the reason they did edit the photographs was that the newspaper editor(s) thought it was too much. Even without the limb the photo portrays a horrible image.
Here in the Netherlands they did publish the original photo and got a lot of negative reactions (if it was really necessary to show that limb).

BTW, is it really not presenting the truth when a photo is edited like this?

Marty
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 03-19-2004, 03:35 AM   #15
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 01:54 AM
So what right wing blog did this one come from?

If you're trying to paint is as left-wing bias then I'd merely point out that the Telegraph is the most right-wing of all the broadsheet newspapers we have in this country, closely followed by the Times. Honestly, that liberal media bias.

As for the allegation that the press are willing to show pictures of US atrocities: the press show extreme caution in printing images from Iraq. I can't begin to count how many shocking pictures I've seen of "coalition" troops abusing Iraqis which haven't made it to the mainstream press. It is near impossible to have a decent understanding of the current situation in Iraq simply from reading the mainstream press.
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 03-19-2004, 05:55 AM   #16
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 08:54 PM
[Q]Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees
So what right wing blog did this one come from?[/Q]

Are we going to play this game every time I post? I have responded politely to you in the other thread. If you have an issue with something I post, please PM me. As I said to you, I hate it when people link to left wing propaganda. I have tried in all my time here not to do the same. There is nothing RIGHT wing about what I posted, unless it is now RIGHT WING to believe that there is media bias against the US.

[Q]If you're trying to paint is as left-wing bias then I'd merely point out that the Telegraph is the most right-wing of all the broadsheet newspapers we have in this country, closely followed by the Times. Honestly, that liberal media bias. [/Q]

Actually I am a little bothered that you are trying to paint my post as an attack on the "liberal media"(Your words not mine). None of what I posted indicates that I felt it was a "liberal media" bias. It almost appears to me that you have a personal issue with what I post based on the above sentences, or that you feel that I cannot have an opinion that does not come from the right. I think that is a shame, since I have made an ethical point about journalistic integrity. Please do not put words into my mouth.

[Q]As for the allegation that the press are willing to show pictures of US atrocities: the press show extreme caution in printing images from Iraq. I can't begin to count how many shocking pictures I've seen of "coalition" troops abusing Iraqis which haven't made it to the mainstream press. It is near impossible to have a decent understanding of the current situation in Iraq simply from reading the mainstream press.
[/Q]

So you disagree that there is an uneven playing field. Not publishing pictures is quite different from EDITING them to portray something not as horrific. There have also been many horrific pictures from the war that have made it in. I cited the vietnam picture as an example. If you do not see a difference beteween editing and not showing fine.

I do believe this photo was edited to diminish the anger towards terrorism. It was the wrong thing to do.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-19-2004, 06:00 AM   #17
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 08:54 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Popmartijn
Hello,

I don't know where I read it (maybe in the paper I bought last Saturday which had a large comments section on this photograph), but IIRC the reason they did edit the photographs was that the newspaper editor(s) thought it was too much. Even without the limb the photo portrays a horrible image.
Here in the Netherlands they did publish the original photo and got a lot of negative reactions (if it was really necessary to show that limb).

BTW, is it really not presenting the truth when a photo is edited like this?

Marty
Marty,

Thanks for your response. I do believe it is wrong to edit the photograph. If we are not willing to accept the reality of the situation, with all of its horror, then it does have an impact on how the situation is viewed. In my opinion, it is necessary to show the truth.


Matt
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-19-2004, 10:37 AM   #18
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 01:54 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
Are we going to play this game every time I post? I have responded politely to you in the other thread. If you have an issue with something I post, please PM me. As I said to you, I hate it when people link to left wing propaganda. I have tried in all my time here not to do the same.
I would think that asking for the source of a picture or article is quite legitimate. Apparently you disagree, as shown by you declining to name the source of the Le Monde article you posted or the source of these photographs. I don't see the difference between linking to "propaganda" and posting said propaganda. If anything, I would say posting it is worse as people don't have to consciously decide to click on the link. In any case, I don't have any problem with people posting "propaganda" from either side of the argument, although the definition of propaganda is certainly open to debate.

Please don't let's make this into another personal fight, Dread -- there are enough of them in FYM already and we don't need any more, right?

Quote:
It almost appears to me that you have a personal issue with what I post based on the above sentences, or that you feel that I cannot have an opinion that does not come from the right. I think that is a shame, since I have made an ethical point about journalistic integrity. Please do not put words into my mouth.
Your claim, by your own admission, is that papers edited this photo due to "media bias" - what bias were you referring to? Bias in favour of terrorism? Bias against the United States?

Your original post was about the claim that "when the United States is accused of atrocities, the press has NO PROBLEM publishing photographs." A completely false allegation often made about the left-wing press is that they are "anti-US" or "try to portray America in a negative light." It's not a claim that's frequently made about the right-wing press, so forgive me for associating your comments with criticism of the left-wing press.

Quote:
So you disagree that there is an uneven playing field. Not publishing pictures is quite different from EDITING them to portray something not as horrific. There have also been many horrific pictures from the war that have made it in. I cited the vietnam picture as an example. If you do not see a difference beteween editing and not showing fine.
I agree: there's a difference between editing a picture and refusing to print a picture. However, you made the claim that the press has "NO PROBLEM" publishing photographs of American atrocities: I merely pointed out the censorship of images showing atrocities committed by "coalition" soldiers in Iraq as evidence that the mainstream media clearly does have a problem with printing photographs of American atrocities.
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 03-19-2004, 12:04 PM   #19
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 08:54 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees


I would think that asking for the source of a picture or article is quite legitimate. Apparently you disagree, as shown by you declining to name the source of the Le Monde article you posted or the source of these photographs.
I was asked not to drag issues from one thred to another...and you are doing so with your first post.

I had NO need to put the source of the article when I posted the article DIRECTLY....I also told you I did not remember where I ran into the article(Which you have now either ignored or believe that I am lying about). I told you the name to search:

[Q]The main page that everyone links to is Andrew Sullivan...although I do not think that is where I read it. [/Q]

it took quite a bit of searching to get to the actual article. and you would see a TON of pages through a basic google search(, of which I am sure you are capable) that linked to it so I am not sure which one I used. I find it REDICULOUS, that when I post an article and link to the article directly that you want to know more than that. I did not quote from ANYTHING other than the article.

In this case I have posted actual photographs and posted what papers they were from.

I asked politelty for a PM if you had something to say on this. I think YOU may be making it personal in this thread and I hope not, but it seems to me that you have an issue with my postings that would be better left in PM land.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-19-2004, 12:11 PM   #20
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 08:54 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees
Your claim, by your own admission, is that papers edited this photo due to "media bias" - what bias were you referring to? Bias in favour of terrorism? Bias against the United States?

Your original post was about the claim that "when the United States is accused of atrocities, the press has NO PROBLEM publishing photographs." A completely false allegation often made about the left-wing press is that they are "anti-US" or "try to portray America in a negative light." It's not a claim that's frequently made about the right-wing press, so forgive me for associating your comments with criticism of the left-wing press.
By your own posting I clearly demonstrated a VARIETY of newsprint from the more right and left papers. You ASSUMED I was ignorant about the leanings of the paper.

In General...I do believe the PRESS as a WHOLE is biased towards this administration. But I digress....

They are treading on thin ice....in my opinion....I am not certain we can trust what we see anymore.
__________________

Dreadsox is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×