Message Board User's Guide,
Reading about the New York Times most recent reporting, or as usual misreporting on Abu Ghraib made me wonder. Does anyone else find it odd that the Times devoted font page space, for over fifty consecutive days, to a story of mainly hazing like antics by a few, now convicted miscreants, but hardly a word about Tom Fox? He was the U.S. citizen and ‘peace activist’ tortured and murdered by terrorists.
I guess they just can’t find any spin that would embarrass this country?
I agree that the coverage is way out of balance.
Perhaps it's because terrorists and extremists committing atrocities is not as much a shock, and therefore less of a headline, than American forces committing acts in violation of their own rules.
Like most things, it's mostly all about money.
Forgive my ignorance compounded because I really can't read the i d on the chart. Is that U.S. GNP being depicted?
A couple of years back I took a journalism course at UCLA. In addition, to the basic course material we were subjected to about five guest speakers most of whom worked for the LA Times. Compared to these guys Leon Trotsky was middle of the road. Each one, from an Islamic militant to a gay rights activist, had an agenda, and each made it clear that their agenda directly impacted what and how the "news" was reported. I should make it clear that this was an intro journalism course, and had nothing specifically to do with agenda or advocacy journalism. I should also make it clear that journalistic technique and any sense of objective reporting (barely discussed), took a backseat to politically enlightening the masses.
To Al Gore's credit he actually had a republican as a guest speaker when he taught journalism at Columbia. In a subsequent interview one of his students stated that it was the first time that she had ever been exposed to the Republican political message. You would have thought Al had invited a monarchist to speak to his students. As we are all aware the country is pretty evenly divided politically, but this was the first time a student at America's premier school of journalism had been exposed to the views of approximately half of her future audience.
The fact that the mainstream media ignores kidnappings, beheadings, and hundreds of thousands of bodies in mass graves, while maintaining a grossly disproportionate focus on Abu Ghraib doesn't surprise me at all.
I'm not sure if your complaining about left learning reporters or left leaning professors, or both.
I don't see a problem with either. But I do see a problem with the manipulation of the media or education by vested interests, especially foreigners.
Worse is when Americans stake out a position on the right or left and inflexibly stay there and defend their leaders no matter how embarrassingly they behave, or how ineptly they govern, or how shamelessly they BS the public.
I've got one kid in graduate school -- went to a conservative Jesuit college; one at a top tier liberal think tank; and one college bound, who, if he has his way, will be the next Jack Bauer. I have no impulse to guide their opinions. But I would hope that they form passionate opinions on issues, based on morality and reflection, not on blind allegiance to the right, the left or anything else.
As for academia's alleged liberal bias, here's an opposing view:
Rare Birds in the Ivory Tower (4 Letters)
Perhaps a couple of definitions from a, er, Republican dictionary would help clarify this discussion:
liberal media1. The great majority of the mainstream media, whose corporations are owned and operated by wealthy Republican capitalists, that engage in a constant campaign of domestic propaganda to undermine the wealthy, Republicans, and capitalism.When the public embraces the theory of the media as a liberal conspiracy, they have been successfully trained to reject negative reporting on Republicans as liberal bias, and accept positive reporting on Republicans without question.
bias1. A predisposition held by many liberal journalists to support or denounce a certain point of view, which invariably influences their reporting. Conservative journalists are open-minded enough to avoid this problem, as is the very fair and balanced Fox News Channel. Reporting on events which appears to imply failure or wrongdoing by President Bush or the Republican Party in any circumstance is a reliable indicator of bias.
How does either of you definitions explain or even apply to the Abu Ghraib reporting?
What do you do that you has access to Bloomberg?
I hope you got my email in Nov 04 telling you you had to buy Grabal Alok Impex LTD.
Are you on medication, or should you be? You're making less sense then usual, not a insignificant achievement.
I ask how your definitions of 'liberal media' or 'bias' explain the coverage of Abu Ghraib and you response with two definitions, apparently your own, for Abu Ghraib prison. "Unfortunate but necessary ... EXECUTION, " by the US? That's a bit much even for you.
Judith Miller? What's she got to do with anything?
Oh well, luckily this ain't no debating team, so no need for you to make any sense.
In regard to my question, your response made no sense to me at all, and really had nothing to do with the question. I don't how what could explain it other then you weren't concentrating.
I thought you might not be feeling well. I hope you are, but I can't understand your lack of focus.
PS With what fact in that post am I confronted?
The media may be more culpable than even I had thought.
Especially interesting is the link,
"Anatomy of a Photograph;"
but most of the links are worth a look
We all know how we can count on our wonderful ‘main stream media.”
Now that Jill Carroll has repudiated statements she made while in captivity, my guess is we’ll hear less about her then we did Tom Fox. Even if she is a co-worker in the media who was held captive for 83 days.
Full disclosure and good reporting when, over the weekend the mass media said that Jill Carroll appeared on television AFTER HER RELEASE stating she was well treated, never threatened, and that the insurgents were just Iraqis defending their country. Somehow it was OVERLOOKED that that statement was filmed while she was still held, only aired after her release. I guess that’s why people refer to ‘See B. S.’ and more B.S.
The media may be more culpable than even I had thought.
Supported videos include:
Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!