FPjohn
Well-known
Chris101
summicronia
I love the godzilla picture.
georgef
Well-known
lack of belieif in the media is the new multinational propaganda!
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
Isn't this the second thread on this topic?
mervynyan
Mervyn Yan
Propaganda maybe, but consider we are also living in a media bubble.
I am comparing TV footage of Georgian's war, BBC, AFP, CNN, Reuters. It is very apparent that CNN is the most bias. BBC doesn't like Russian much but the footage is comprehensive, only the reporter is making some smart "HOWEVER" comments. Reuters and AFP photos are good depiction (Georgian army armed with M-16 rifles in assault formation in S.O.), but none of them are on the front page of US newspapers.
Well, if you buy it, you believe it.
I am comparing TV footage of Georgian's war, BBC, AFP, CNN, Reuters. It is very apparent that CNN is the most bias. BBC doesn't like Russian much but the footage is comprehensive, only the reporter is making some smart "HOWEVER" comments. Reuters and AFP photos are good depiction (Georgian army armed with M-16 rifles in assault formation in S.O.), but none of them are on the front page of US newspapers.
Well, if you buy it, you believe it.
jan normandale
Film is the other way
... didn't Hearst say ".. all the news that fits".. nothing changes much does it. Caveat emptor!
georgef
Well-known
north america has lived in the media bubble since McCarthy; we now are creating our own bubble.
40oz
...
every news organization is biased. Reading Pravda's English coverage of the war in Georgia, I at first was skeptical of gleaning any truth from them, but sure enough, it was there. IMHO, while I'm sure it reads a bit different in the original Russian, I found the headlines and some content to be a bit too much pro-Mother Russia, but it was not really different than US coverage of the early days of the Iraq conflict.
It is totally their right to protray their government as the savior of the people. Is it accurate? That depends on who you talk to. I'd say it's probably heavily slanted, but the conclusions of the articles and my own conclusions meshed precisely, even while we differeed on our position regarding the oppposed parties. I also found it useful to see things through the eyes of the Russian press. I don't care that it might not reflect the actual opinions of everyone on the street there. No paper in the US can possibly represent the diversity of American opinion on anything, so I can hardly expect a Russian rag to do so.
Let's be fair - every war requires at least two divergent sides. The opinions of outsiders might make for interesting reading, but no more reflect the "truth" than the opinions of the participants. Do you suppose the Russian people look to the UK press for "the truth?" I look to the UK press for another side to the story, to furnish another angle I don't get at home. I certainly don't expect UK pieces to be an accurate depiction of "what's really going on," anymore than I expect to find that in Pravda or Fox News or CNN.
I do expect Fox News and CNN to kowtow a bit less to the current administration than Pravda does. I don't expect the UK press to do any more than cater to the UK people, same as the press the world over does. The fact that the US and UK press don't rely on gov't approval simply means I am getting something other than the party line.
That doesn't mean I don't need to know the party line, however. A mouthpiece like Pravda is invaluable in that it gives me a look at the attitude of the Russian gov't I can't get anywhere else. I would like to read how the Georgian press handles the events, but I haven't found an English language outlet for them yet.
Mulitple viewpoints are valuable. One can figure out the slant of the various news orgs by reading them and comparing notes. The fact that they are all slanted does not invalidate their offerings. I don't care where you live, outlets like the BBC, Reuters, UPI, Pravda, the NYT, etc. are all valuable sources *taken together.* The biggest mistake one can make is buying into the lies of only one outlet, if I can be so cynical.
IMHO choosing to believe Reuters (or some other news org) is somehow "better than" CNN reveals your own bias. The folks at CNN have their own opinions, but bend over backwards trying to keep things balanced. Obviously their idea of "balanced" is imperfect, but the fact that they try is noteworthy, IMHO. I have a lot of respect for Al Jazeera even if I believe they are also hopelessly tied to their own agenda. I do believe they make an honest effort to present more than one angle, but again, their vision of balance is inevitably colored by their own vision (the same as CNN's vision of balance), if that makes sense.
Bias in the newsroom is unavoidable. Hearing from more than one side allows one to get a clearer picture of what actually is happening. But ultimately, you cannot ever *really* know what is happeneing by reading the news.
It is totally their right to protray their government as the savior of the people. Is it accurate? That depends on who you talk to. I'd say it's probably heavily slanted, but the conclusions of the articles and my own conclusions meshed precisely, even while we differeed on our position regarding the oppposed parties. I also found it useful to see things through the eyes of the Russian press. I don't care that it might not reflect the actual opinions of everyone on the street there. No paper in the US can possibly represent the diversity of American opinion on anything, so I can hardly expect a Russian rag to do so.
Let's be fair - every war requires at least two divergent sides. The opinions of outsiders might make for interesting reading, but no more reflect the "truth" than the opinions of the participants. Do you suppose the Russian people look to the UK press for "the truth?" I look to the UK press for another side to the story, to furnish another angle I don't get at home. I certainly don't expect UK pieces to be an accurate depiction of "what's really going on," anymore than I expect to find that in Pravda or Fox News or CNN.
I do expect Fox News and CNN to kowtow a bit less to the current administration than Pravda does. I don't expect the UK press to do any more than cater to the UK people, same as the press the world over does. The fact that the US and UK press don't rely on gov't approval simply means I am getting something other than the party line.
That doesn't mean I don't need to know the party line, however. A mouthpiece like Pravda is invaluable in that it gives me a look at the attitude of the Russian gov't I can't get anywhere else. I would like to read how the Georgian press handles the events, but I haven't found an English language outlet for them yet.
Mulitple viewpoints are valuable. One can figure out the slant of the various news orgs by reading them and comparing notes. The fact that they are all slanted does not invalidate their offerings. I don't care where you live, outlets like the BBC, Reuters, UPI, Pravda, the NYT, etc. are all valuable sources *taken together.* The biggest mistake one can make is buying into the lies of only one outlet, if I can be so cynical.
IMHO choosing to believe Reuters (or some other news org) is somehow "better than" CNN reveals your own bias. The folks at CNN have their own opinions, but bend over backwards trying to keep things balanced. Obviously their idea of "balanced" is imperfect, but the fact that they try is noteworthy, IMHO. I have a lot of respect for Al Jazeera even if I believe they are also hopelessly tied to their own agenda. I do believe they make an honest effort to present more than one angle, but again, their vision of balance is inevitably colored by their own vision (the same as CNN's vision of balance), if that makes sense.
Bias in the newsroom is unavoidable. Hearing from more than one side allows one to get a clearer picture of what actually is happening. But ultimately, you cannot ever *really* know what is happeneing by reading the news.
Last edited: