The newsmedia in this war...

[Elvis Presley]

Ok, question for whomever would like to respond. I have noticed that many posters here and elsewhere feel that the US news media is giving a one sided view of the war and that they are not to be trusted.

So, my questions are, What media outlets do you trust?

Where do you go for news?

If, in fact, the media is not telling the whole story (which may be the case) who can we trust to tell us the whole story?

I am on the fence on this issue, i have some trust in the media but realize that many things they report may in fact be one sided or innaccurate.

Thanks

 

[anitram]

From US media sources, I read only The New York Times. I cannot stomach FoxNews, or CNN, and have very little patience for the NBC/ABC/CBS trio.

Checking out FAIR is pretty good.

I read The Guardian (UK) and The Globe and Mail (Canada).

As for TV, I'll watch the BBC and the CBC, their reporting is strikingly different than any mainstream American network. A totally different picture presented, totally different focus, much more honest, IMO.

 

[kobayashi]

this is from another thread. basically everything that is read should reasonably taken with some scepticism.

during war time journalism can become a very difficult and easily falsified task. governments occupy control of information pertinent to the war. this is done for various reasons: safety of journalists, security of military information and pure economics-this is cheap information for the networks and there are plenty of viewers.

right now for instance cnn is quite proud to state how many 'embeds' it has. these are reporters who are 'embedded' within a military section and given exclusive access to their actions. im sure the other us networks also have them, but have not seen any.

the media use this information out of neccessity-it is, in most cases, the only resource available regarding issues of grave importance to the nation.

while this is a great resource put forth by a government during war time, we must also remember the powers of control which governments therefore come to occupy.

we will see statements like the one you posted tiny dancer, which i'm guessing you retrieved from some sort of western media resource. we will also see reports from iraqi media about how many civilians have been killed.

both of these are, like all reports at this time, to be taken with a great deal of scepticism. whether its al jazeera, iraqi tv, cnn or ap.

_______
having said that, cnn seems to be at the forefront with information but do tend to do a fair amount of flag waving as any american outlet is likely to do at this time.
i am reading mostly papers-washington post, new york times, national post. the guardian is always a favorite. i have found the economist to be excellent also.

 

[gherman]

CNN and ABC news. It's not that news media is not to be trusred just keep an open mind and sift throught the data and b elieve the facts not the opions.

 

[kobayashi]

CNN and ABC news. It's not that news media is not to be trusred just keep an open mind and sift throught the data and b elieve the facts not the opions.

thats the point. at a time like this, even 'facts' can become suspect.

 

[nbcrusader]

What media outlets do you trust?

Excellent questions and a question much different from "What media outlets are trustworthy?"

I tend to look at multiple news outlets, including BBC, CNN, IHT, MSNBC, New York Times & Washington Post

I find that viewing multiple sources for news helps filter out the agenda/editorial & the commercial elements.




Of course, if you really want to know what is happening in the world, read The Drudge Report

 

[meegannie]

thats the point. at a time like this, even 'facts' can become suspect.

Not only that, but major American media outlets are very selective about what facts they report.

 

[nbcrusader]

All media outlets are selective about what facts they report. Its the nature of the beast.

 

[meegannie]

Some more so than others, however.

 

[Scarletwine]

I'm finding WorldlinkTV a good source. While they lean towards the left they show actual news reports from a variety of sources, including Europe and a lot of middle eastern news reports from different countries.
Cspan is great also. This morning they had Canadian Broadasting Co. Just a different perspective.
Balance that against CNN. I quit watching ABC all together a few weeks ago when they were already in War mode.

 

[Gickies Gageeze]

FOX FOX FOX!!!!!!!!!! NEWS!



"where people get their news, in an mtv-kick-ass sorta way!"

 

[adamswildhoney]

I watch either CNN or BBC for my news, but I hate the fact that we can see LIVE FOOTAGE of the war, I think that's wrong bc I dont want to see people killing other people bc we already have enough of it in our regular lives.

 

[MissVelvetDress_75]

i am sticking w/ the bbc coverage.

 

[diamond]

i listen to Big Brother

 

[nbcrusader]

Some more so than others, however.

I guess it depends on which facts you want reported.

 

[meegannie]

I have NEVER seen a report on the Meggie Party by any of the American media outlets.

UNACCEPTABLE.

 

[Screaming Flower]

*proud member of the meggie party

 

[Elvis Presley]

thanks for the opinions/suggestions, I have found that the best way to get news in through newspapers, read certain writers consistently that you are aware of thier background and other writings while reading them

tv kinda sucks, but they are up to the minute........

 

[sharky]

Ok, this is the thread to defend myself. I am one of the media in question -- I work for the Wall St. Journal's web site. Honestly, I don't think some of you understand how we work on a daily basis to be getting information out there. For our daytime coverage, we draw from several sources including the Associated Press and Reuters, both of which have a reputation for being great unbiased news organizations.

But we can't be everywhere and do everything. We're getting reports from our reporters imbedded with troops, reports from briefings, reports from other sources in the field. We try our hardest to cover both sides. We have done a fair job, I believe, covering both sides. Two weeks ago, for example, we ran an editoral from the head of the IAEA asking for more time for inspections.

The US gov't spent $1.5 million on a media facility in Qatar for briefings. There are several hundred reporters inbedded with US troops. Ask yourselves why the US is doing this and you will understand why most news organizations that don't have the resources of a NY Times or WSJ have to rely on information slanted toward the US.

Also remember who they have to report to. Unfortunately, sales of the Omaha World Herald would decrease if the paper started slanting coverage against the US. We as journalists have to walk the unfortunate line between telling both sides of the issue and making enough money to not lose our already shitty salaries.

I suggest you try and find an AP wire and how much information is coming out of Iraq -- and how much of it you could use for an actual publication. Its tough to have to decide what to publish and what has to end up getting cut.

 

[kobayashi]

can i be meggite #00000003? or is that already taken?

I have NEVER seen a report on the Meggie Party by any of the American media outlets.

UNACCEPTABLE.

the meggie party should appear in project censored's next top underreported stories publication.

 

[meegannie]

yes you can kobe

the meggie party should appear in project censored's next top underreported stories publication.

We are trying to take our message to the people, but the American media is uncooperative.

 

[Scarletwine]

Re: yes you can kobe

We are trying to take our message to the people, but the American media is uncooperative.

Hey Girl, I looove your avatar. I'm a BBQ bitch myself (OMG did I say that?) Long live eastern BBQ Pork w/ coleslaw.

I'm definitely voting the Meggie Party!

 

[kobayashi]

thanks for the opinions/suggestions, I have found that the best way to get news in through newspapers, read certain writers consistently that you are aware of thier background and other writings while reading them

tv kinda sucks, but they are up to the minute........

if you are looking for specific writers with a refreshing dose of scepticism...
dana millbank of the washington post...ivins of the dallas fort-worth star-telegram is good...and for issues of economy, paul krugman from the ny times is top rate.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

CBC Newsworld (Canada) is the best North American News service right now. It's much more honest and in depth than CNN. I just watched a story that critically examined the "Coaliton of the Willing". They picked it apart, country by country, and revealed many of the countries are small and dirt poor and dependent on US aid. Other countries didn't even want to be named, but had little choice. And many others aren't offering anything but moral support. The story alluded to the fact that this isn't so much a coaliton of the willing, but a "coalition of the coerced". I like honesty like that. I don't think CNN has critically examined it in such a way.

 

[Gickies Gageeze]

michael, most would agree that cbc has as good of a news service that exists in the mainstream.

 

[The Wanderer]

ESPN is tops for hockey news and highlights

 

[pub crawler]

Michael, you rule. And your signature cracks me up.

 

[Gickies Gageeze]

ESPN is tops for hockey news and highlights

i find that hard to believe, but i wouldnt know. is this true? i guess there arent a lot of choices when it comes to hockey...

 

[The Wanderer]

alright, i have no idea really why i said that, they talk about Detroit and Colorado, and lament about the Rangers' woes for 25 mins, then give the rest of the night's scores

 

[Michael Griffiths]

ESPN is tops for hockey news and highlights

You haven't watched Sportsnet then! They carry all the Canucks games out here. (If I have to watch that Subway commercial one more time, I'll have to invest in some rubber bricks to throw at the TV.)