FOX news sensationalist journalism - worrying trend?

ixoy

I'm sure if anybody here has ever tuned into FOX News on Sky Digital, they'll have realised it's a militant hardcore outlet for right-wing America. However, look at this latest clip from Fox News' My Word program - a blatant attack on anybody who dares attack the US' motivation with a horrific smugness that the BBC got done for their reporting. Does anyone else find the fact this sort of irresponsible media is being beamed into the houses of millions, warping their world view?

Rock Climber

Oh typical Fox.

It's just as well they only get into a minority of homes in America.

Anyone see qustion time on BBC one last night?
Rod Liddle editor of the today programme was on and very caustic towards Peter Hain.

At one point he said " I can't believe it I'm sitting beside lewis carroll... "

magick

FOX NEWS Fair and Biased

Zombrex

ROFL

oh mercy ... that was one of the funnest things I have ever seen

Even if you know about the story and realise that the BBC did mess up, the way FOX present it is so stupid and OTT and makes it so clear that they know absolutely nothing about what is really going on or even what the basic facts of the story are.

And that thing at the end about the flag in his jacket ... priceless

Cork

If ye don't like Fox News - why watch it?

Vote with your remote control. If ye have objection with Fox News - don't watch it.

mike65

"frothing at the mouth"???????? Thats Fox News job.

Mike.

jank

that stuff is so dangerous
and to think most of the good ol USA are watching that ****e!
bill o reilly is an other wanker who talks through his ass with his "no spin zone" ****e!!

its a good thing i dont have digital other wise id probably have thrown some thing through the screen by now!

Hobbes

Orginally by Marge Simpson
You know, Fox turned into a hardcore sex channel so gradually, I didn't even notice. Yeesh!

Cake Fiend

What a childish tirade.
Also, I wonder if, while he's up there blah-blahing about the BBC's lack of honesty, all the while he's satisfied that Dubya is a saint?

Akrasia

"if you don't like it, don't watch it"

I take the opposite stance, if you don't like it, if you think they're lying, watch it and then publically disprove what they say so that people who do like it might have to think twice about the jingo-istic "news" that they are being brainwashed with

Cork

But are people not being brainwashed with "touchy feely" liberal based news stations?

Today - people are getting news from a variety of sources.

For instance - internet, newspapers, 24 News Channels etc.

Fox News is one source of news. They are many others.

Let people vote with their zappers.

Look at the news content of tabloid newspapers - tittle tattle, entertainment news,sports & gossip.

But if people want these products - the choice is theirs.

Atreides

since when does unbiased equate to being liberal cork?

Gerry

The majority of the great american public, Cork, are not getting their news from a variety of sources. They are mainly getting it from Fox and CNN, and tabloid newspapers. What they accept as gospel affects how they vote in the US presidential election, which affects the whole world. Its only a little bit important.

Zombrex

Originally posted by Cork
But are people not being brainwashed with "touchy feely" liberal based news stations?

A liberal based news station in the US .... thats a joke right :rolleyes:

Cork

Many media organisations have been accused of bias. Over in the UK - you have papers that support the Conservatives & others who support New Labour.

They report the same news but from differant prospectives.

You now find the sme on the internat and on TV.

People can now get get news from a variety of sources. This is a positive development.

Hopefully SKY News will make inroads into the Irish TV market.

It is up to each & every consumer to decide on where he or she decides to get their news. (or if they are bothered to get any news at all).

since when does unbiased equate to being liberal cork?

What media organisations are independant & don't have their own agendas?

Singling out Fox News is unfair.

Cork

Originally posted by Gerry
The majority of the great american public, Cork, are not getting their news from a variety of sources. They are mainly getting it from Fox and CNN, and tabloid newspapers. What they accept as gospel affects how they vote in the US presidential election, which affects the whole world. Its only a little bit important.

They are many in this country who rely on tabloid newspapers & RTE for their news.

Look at the news content of the tabloids or RTE's talk radio?

Gerry

Maybe they do, but Joe Duffy and the Star/Sun/Whoever are hardly right wing cheerleaders, now are they? The media in this country may be biased in some ways, but it lacks the hard, military edge of Fox. Thats why I watch Fox.

bus77

Sure didnt Dev Valera own the Idependent and a few other papers, goin a bit far back I know, but that type of thing has been goin on since day one.

DeVore

I think someones been reading my journal

DeV.

mike65

Sure didnt Dev Valera own the Idependent and a few other papers, goin a bit far back I know, but that type of thing has been goin on since day one.

The Irish Press group was FF in print for decades.

Mike.

Zombrex

Originally posted by Cork
What media organisations are independant & don't have their own agendas?

Singling out Fox News is unfair.

But Fox News continually markets itself as not having a biased agenda ("fair and balanced" anyone) while critizing organisations such as the BBC for being anti this and pro that. It is the blatent bias and opion lead "news" (constantly much much worse than anything the BBC or CNN has ever been) while at the same time the continual "we are the only non-bias news source" crap that really pisses people off about Fox News.

People wouldn't mind so much if they just came out and said we were right-wing, pro-republican in our views and wish to present a republican news outlet.

jank

one of the problem is that there are so much more sources of news out there that they they try and sell the news to people

foxnews are always on about ratings and how the american public vote with their so called zappers and how fox wins out all the time. news reporting isnt a commercial commodity that should be sold to someone
It should be based on the facts, the truth and delivered in a unbiased way, something fox news seems incapable of, and then go off and attack the left wing loonies like the bbc :rolleyes:

anytime someone critises fox their comback is always "well just look at out ratings!!"(bill o reilly always loves to compare the sales of his book to others like hillary clinton and other lefties, his comes out on top so that means he is right the most time about topics that come under discussion!!!?? logic anyone)

news reporting in general is becoming more tabloidy and trashy so to catch the public eyes and to attact better ratings! and sales

Cork

Originally posted by Wicknight


People wouldn't mind so much if they just came out and said we were right-wing, pro-republican in our views and wish to present a republican news outlet.

But newspapers don't come out & state their favoured agendas or political partys.

Look at the campaign that was launched aganist property tax?

Was this balanced, fair & unbiased?

No media source is balanced, fair & unbiased.

We even had a political party in Ireland bemoaning that they did not get "Charlie Bird" to cover their election campaign.

You have Fox news & web sites - for an alternative slant on events - I find them interesting. But you should not shoot the messanger - if you disagree with the message.

news reporting in general is becoming more tabloidy and trashy so to catch the public eyes and to attact better ratings! and sales

I agree. Standards on TV news & newspapers have fallen. When I see soft focus "touchy feely" tabloid stories being covered by news organisations - It makes me switch off.

Maybe certain demograpics like these storys.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Zombrex

Originally posted by Cork
But newspapers don't come out & state their favoured agendas or political partys.

Well should they not at least stop saying they are unbiased and non-paritisan in their oppions then?? It is like the Guardian stating it represented the true face of Conservative England.

Originally posted by Cork
No media source is balanced, fair & unbiased.

Exactly, so would it not be a good idea for them to stop saying they are, and then viciously attacking other organisations for not being fair and balance. You would never get any "opion" attacking FOX News, like the one attacking the BBC above, on any other major news station (RTE, BBC, CNN). It is a joke.

Originally posted by Cork
You have Fox news & web sites - for an alternative slant on events - I find them interesting. But you should not shoot the messanger - if you disagree with the message.

But FOX News is the message, not the messanger. Thats the point. They are not presenting news as someone elses message, they are making the message up in the first place. The attack against the BBC is Fox's crusade, because Murdock hates the BBC. So FOX News takes any chance to attack them. Ironically Murdock dropped the BBC News service from his China stations because the Chineses government didn't like the BBC reporting on human rights in China. I would love to hear FOX News response to that. You would laugh if it wasn't so serious.

Cork

Fox news is not unbiased and it does offer a pro us & conservattive view on the news.

There is nothing wrong with alternative openion.

I won't rely on Fox News as my daily source of news.

But - do ye not find having an alternative view on world events interesting.

Joe Lee once offered an openion that all is not black or white - but parts of history are grey.

Can't people get views from many media sources & then make up their own mind.

(Point of information: I don't regularly watch Fox News. I've watched about an hour of it in the last year.)

Capt'n Midnight

http://www.netfeed.com/~jhill/RupertMurdoch.htm

On February 14, a Florida Appeals Court ruled that there is absolutely nothing illegal in a major media organisation lying, concealing or distorting information. The court reversed the US$425,000 jury verdict of 2000 that was in favour of journalist Jane Akre, who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information.

On August 18, 2000, a six?person jury was nanimous in its conclusion that Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report the station's pressure to broadcast what jurors decided was "a false, distorted or slanted" story about the widespread use of Monsanto's rBGH, a genetically engineered growth hormone given to dairy cows. The court did not dispute the heart of Akre's claim, that Fox pressured her to broadcast a false story to protect the broadcaster from having to defend the truth in court as well as suffer the ire of irate advertisers.

Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the grounds there there is no hard, fast and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news. The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, argued that the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.

flogen

the fact is fox, like many stations, are Blatantly bias. they claim to be fair etc, but are not, and so should not say they are. if they sold themselves as a right wing look at the news it would be a bit better.
The reason why they can get away with it is because the liable laws in the US are much more lenient that here and the UK, and any change in that by anyone will be met by huge critisism and claims of censorship etc. Can you imagine how stations like CNN, NBC or Fox would react if they were told they had to steer clear of comment on the news. If Fox was UK based they would be sued every day, which is why their english sub, Sky News, is alot less sensational than Fox, but is still very dodgy.
Also, remember that the US dont have any (or many) PSBs (such as BBC or RTE, everything is corporate).
Look at who owns Fox, Murdock is in serious cahoots with the Republicans, and it is in his interest to do what he can to keep them in power. Its no coincidence that Fox, the Sun, Sky etc were all pro-war and pro-bush, and failed on numerous levels to criticise him, and even now as the inquireys are being set up they still do what they can to dodgy questioning him.

Flogen

ixoy

Originally posted by Capt'n Midnight
http://www.netfeed.com/~jhill/RupertMurdoch.htm

Eek! Horribly interesting. I can't believe they can lie and their right to lie is protected?! Well it helps promote the self delusion some Americans live under...

sovtek

Originally posted by jank
its a good thing i dont have digital other wise id probably have thrown some thing through the screen by now!

I get that urge just about everytime I turn on the TV when I'm visiting the parents in America.
CBS, CNN, ABC and CBS aren't much better.
Even PBS can be pretty bad...
Ever heard of Charlie Rose?

Zombrex

Originally posted by Cork

Can't people get views from many media sources & then make up their own mind.

Yes but it is important to criticise the "reporting" FOX News does, otherwise people would assume it is true.

If no one ever said "hang on a minute" to the reports FOX puts out, then people watching it would assume it is true rather than what ever proaganda the Fox management want to push today.

chill

What media organisations are independant & don't have their own agendas?

Singling out Fox News is unfair.

I don't believe it is. No other news channel screams about it's claimed fairness and truthfulness and unbiased'ness. None. They deserve to be held accountable for their blatant dishonesty.

Anyway I don't believe their behaviour matters an awful lot inside the US. That's their problem.

What I care more about it the affect they are having around the world where Fox is beginning to dominate the picture that people are getting of america. You may mention CNN but in most places around the world they, including us, only get CNNi - the international version which is quite bland and boring and doesn't attract the big audiences.
It is Fox that is the loudest and look at the image it reflects. They insult other countries every day, they are basically the mouthpiece of the US Bush baby administration, they are deeply antipathetic toward the Democratic party and any views they consider 'liberal'. Bill O'Reilly is the biggest SpinMeister in existance and then there is the truly ignorant Hannity !
They represent everything distasteful about America imho and it's a tragedy that CNBC does not spread it's service wider around the world as some kind of balance.
I think Fox is feeding the level of anti amercianism that is growing all around the world and is so often reflected on Boards.ie

Cork

Originally posted by flogen

Look at who owns Fox, Murdock is in serious cahoots with the Republicans, and it is in his interest to do what he can to keep them in power. Its no coincidence that Fox, the Sun, Sky etc were all pro-war and pro-bush, and failed on numerous levels to criticise him, and even now as the inquireys are being set up they still do what they can to dodgy questioning him.

Flogen

Other media organisations were anti war in Iraq. There is not a common slant on the news.

For example - the Sunday Busineess Post may report a story differantly to the Sunday Indo.

This is what is great about diversity in the the media.

News is all about ratings - this has crept into media organisations in this country. Where are these unbiased news organisations?

Moriarty

Tragic video

flogen

sorry cork, your missing my point..... I know that other papers reported the news differently, but it is more than a coincidence that ALL the media outlets owned by Murdock were all pro-war, as i already said, Murdock has political and other reasons for the war to go ahead and for Bush to stay in power.

Flogen

Moriarty

From what I remember sky news didnt seem to be especially pro-war.

Cork

Originally posted by flogen
sorry cork, your missing my point..... I know that other papers reported the news differently, but it is more than a coincidence that ALL the media outlets owned by Murdock were all pro-war, as i already said, Murdock has political and other reasons for the war to go ahead and for Bush to stay in power.

Flogen

I agree with you 100% on this point.

Jaden

Fox news is crap - This is not new by any stretch of the imagination.

Fox news, despite the name, is not interested in news, it's interested in ratings. When you graps this idea, it becomes obvious why they sensationalise everything.

You can't blame them for that, just for having a misleading name.

Stop watching it if it bothers you.

It is also useful to remember a key difference in news reporting systems here, and in the US.

Here, the media reflects public opinion. In the US, it's vice versa.

chill

Today: Bill O'Reilly today said he is now skeptical about the Bush administration and apologised to viewers for supporting prewar claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

flogen

Moriarty, due to stricter guidelines on news broadcasts in the UK it was much harder for Sky to be as blatantly pro war as Fox, however it was the subtle things to look out for. For example, the daily bleeding heart snippits of US army men writing letters to their loved ones etc. Dont get me wrong, i wouldnt say its easy to be that far from your family etc, but the fact that this news channel broadcast such slanted views, made you sympatise with the US army etc, and have no counter-piece that showed the damage these men and women were doing to the innocent people of Iraq (excusing the facts they kinda had to show, as in a 5 minute piece about a sad US army man, followed by a 10 second news in brief piece about a bombing of an Iraqi hospital).

One of the most amazing piece of pro-US journalism ive ever seen from a UK source (not exactly war related, but somewhat linked) was Sky News coverage of the Steel Tarrifs the US put on European steel imports. when they were found to be illegal, and Bush was about to stop them, they ran a story on how the US workers will lose out to cheaper Euro imports once tarrifs are lifted. What struck me was their failure to mention the UK steel workers who were being effected by the inability to export to the US due to the tarrifs..... given that steel is a pretty big UK export, and Sky is supposed to be from the Uk.... it was a blatent re-package of a FOX piece, really, they just didnt have the courtesy to admit it.

Flogen

Moriarty

Originally posted by flogen
For example, the daily bleeding heart snippits of US army men writing letters to their loved ones etc.

Have you looked at media coverage from any other war? Did you, perhaps, notice similar pieces? Did you notice how similar storys were carried in many newspapers at the time? Perhaps you were blind to them, but they were there.

Originally posted by flogen
Dont get me wrong, i wouldnt say its easy to be that far from your family etc, but the fact that this news channel broadcast such slanted views, made you sympatise with the US army etc, and have no counter-piece that showed the damage these men and women were doing to the innocent people of Iraq (excusing the facts they kinda had to show, as in a 5 minute piece about a sad US army man, followed by a 10 second news in brief piece about a bombing of an Iraqi hospital).

Arse. Complete arse. You mean to say you dont remember the innumerable reports from bagdad concerning the stockpiling of supplies on the lead up to war, civilian casualties during it and the massive looting after? Again, the reports were most certainly there and they werent rushed through. As somone that was sitting on the fence about the war I detected no bias in sky news' reports.

Originally posted by flogen
One of the most amazing piece of pro-US journalism ive ever seen from a UK source (not exactly war related, but somewhat linked) was Sky News coverage of the Steel Tarrifs the US put on European steel imports. when they were found to be illegal, and Bush was about to stop them, they ran a story on how the US workers will lose out to cheaper Euro imports once tarrifs are lifted. What struck me was their failure to mention the UK steel workers who were being effected by the inability to export to the US due to the tarrifs..... given that steel is a pretty big UK export, and Sky is supposed to be from the Uk.... it was a blatent re-package of a FOX piece, really, they just didnt have the courtesy to admit it.

You see, i actually saw those reports and remember them quite clearly. They werent pro-US, they were laying out the reasons why bush had imposed them in the first place to give a better understanding of the story. There was no judgement passed on who was right or wrong, they were simply reporting why the tarrifs were first put in place and why europe among others were annoyed with them.

Your attitude ironically enough smacks of a neo-con screaming blue bloody murder when anyone criticises them, labeling them as 'anti-american'; except now the soundbite is 'pro-US'. You seem to desperately want to discredit sky for some reason thats beyond me.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Moriarty
I detected no bias in sky news' reports.

Sky is just about as bias as Fox now these days, just in a different way. Bare in mind they are owned by the same people.

the only real way to detect bias.. or rather all news companies have bias, the best way to determine the most impartial story is to read it from various sites.

flogen

Moriarty, you seem to be under the impression that to be bias you have to be blatently one sided. this is not so.
Firstly, yes i saw those kind of reports in the likes of The Sun, but in all honesty no-where else. They failed to make any link between the sad US army men and the US army men who consistently miss targets and kill innocent people.
And I do feel that these bleeding heart reports got far too much air time given other goings on. their reportings of any botched bombings in Iraq were all at face value, no depth, they just reported the fact it had happened, however when something happened regarding Iraqi cruelty etc, they analysed it with that stuid big screen they have behind them...

Secondly, about the imports thing. They dont have to say the US was right, by encouraging you to feel sympatetic with the plight of the US workers, and totally neglecting the situation the tarrifs put the UK workers in, the were showing pro-US bias, against what is supposed to be their own country. There were no counter pieces, no mention, AT ALL of how the UK was effected by the tarrifs, just how the US workers were going to suffer.
that IS bias, and its not me giving out because due to criticism, its my opinion. as I said, bias does not have to be blatent like alot of FOXs broadcasts are, infact its possible the more subtle is the more effective.

Flogen

bonkey

Originally posted by flogen
and the US army men who consistently miss targets and kill innocent people.

I don't think there was any article in any media anywhere about any individual or individuals who "consistently miss targets".

The army, as a whole, had a consistent non-100% hit-rate, but that is not quite the same as what you are implying.

It is reasonable to assume that the vast majority of soldiers regularly wrote home. It is not reasonable to assume that the vast majority of soldiers "consistently miss targets".....so I fail to see why you would expect to see the two to be linked.

Unless, of course, I'm missing some information that you have access to, and that there was a group of soldiers who were consistently shooting up civilians????

And I do feel that these bleeding heart reports got far too much air time given other goings on.

Well gee...the UK had their own soldiers in the field too. Given that the US had far more reporters in-theatre, it is not unreasonable to expect pieces on US soldiers reported on UK media to remind the readers/viewers/listeners of the type of stuff that their own contingent of lads are going to be doing out there.

their reportings of any botched bombings in Iraq were all at face value, no depth, they just reported the fact it had happened, however when something happened regarding Iraqi cruelty etc, they analysed it with that stuid big screen they have behind them...

No argument from me there. Thats the type of biased reporting I do have a problem with.

In fairness, though, they did usually follow the alleged botches/cruelties by the Coalition up with the US military to a point...after which you have to ask what you expect from teh reporters? Should they turn around to the US generals etc. and say - without any proof, mind you - "you're lying...you don't care about these poor Iraqis at all"???

I don't think the reporters covered themselves in glory, but lets face it...there's a limit to how impartial we can expect the reporters of a nation who has soldiers in the field to be.

jc

flogen

although to expect no bias whatsoever would be unreasonable, and thats from any source, not just Sky news, however, I think we should always be attempting to reach such perfection..
Sky News was not at war, nor was the BBC or ITV, so none of them should be allowed to be bias on the basis of UK or US soldiers being in the firing line (however, some personal emotion is bound to spill over into news... my problem is when its so much so that the reality is distorted, or if the reason for bias is not emotion but more executive desicion, for which the likes of The Sun are unquestionably guilty). In honesty I dont think national bias should be an issue (although it is), I would like to think that RTE would report a scandal story on Irish Officials just as well as a US or UK news source.

also, although I understand your point about the reasons behind the pieces on soldiers away from home, I dont think, although its just opinon really, that Sky were trying to show the plight of soldiers, but more encouraging sympathy for these people, while showing much less human compassion as regards actual tragedies regarding Iraqi innocent.
The showed plenty of news features that struck the heart of people in regard to the UK/US army personell, but presented the X amount of Iraqi dead as a hard news piece, a statistic... there was very little in the way of making you feel sorry for these people any more than you would when presented the facts.. surely they could have done a feature on families of the victims etc, shown that they have lost a relative that wasnt even fighting?

And excuse me if i seemed to imply that these men and women were constantly missing their targets, or doing so on purpose, I was just pointing out that these people were being built up as national heros and brave men and women, of course they are brave, but we must remember that they are somewhat responsible for the death of countless innocents, not that it was by intention or anything.

Flogen

Moriarty

Originally posted by Hobbes
Sky is just about as bias as Fox now these days, just in a different way. Bare in mind they are owned by the same people.

I disagree entirely, but theres little point in my trying to argue with you - guilt by association is apparently enough for you. Btw, im sure everyone here knows theyre owned by news corp, theres no need to go stating the obvious.

Originally posted by Hobbes
the only real way to detect bias.. or rather all news companies have bias, the best way to determine the most impartial story is to read it from various sites.

Which is what I do. Presumeably though I wont be reading enough impartial sources for your liking until I sign up to indymedia.

Originally posted by flogen
Moriarty, you seem to be under the impression that to be bias you have to be blatently one sided. this is not so.

tr.v. bi·ased, or bi·assed bi·as·ing, or bi·as·sing bi·as·es or bi·as·ses
To influence in a particular, typically unfair direction; prejudice.

I responded to your claim that sky were "as blatantly pro war as Fox".

Originally posted by flogen
And I do feel that these bleeding heart reports got far too much air time given other goings on. their reportings of any botched bombings in Iraq were all at face value, no depth, they just reported the fact it had happened, however when something happened regarding Iraqi cruelty etc, they analysed it with that stuid big screen they have behind them...

Incorrect. There were the obvious logistical problems of there being far more reporters with the uk/us forces than there were with iraqi forces or in iraqi citys and therefore there were far more reports filed from the coalition perspective. The reporters in bagdad could only make so many reports per hour or day. Never the less, they reported numerous times on bombs and missiles going astray and killing people, on missing Iraqi conscripts and on the deterioration of the infrastructure. There were countless reports througout Iraq of severly injured civilians flooding local hospitals ill-equipped to cope with the demand.

Originally posted by flogen
Secondly, about the imports thing. They dont have to say the US was right, by encouraging you to feel sympatetic with the plight of the US workers, and totally neglecting the situation the tarrifs put the UK workers in, the were showing pro-US bias, against what is supposed to be their own country. There were no counter pieces, no mention, AT ALL of how the UK was effected by the tarrifs, just how the US workers were going to suffer.

They no more made you feel sympathy towards the US steel workers than the UK steel workers. They interviewed some workers asking them what they thought of the tarrifs. If your opinion can be swayed so easily that you'd change your mind based on those interviews, its worth nothing.

Originally posted by flogen
that IS bias, and its not me giving out because due to criticism, its my opinion. as I said, bias does not have to be blatent like alot of FOXs broadcasts are, infact its possible the more subtle is the more effective.

It wasnt bias. The US imposed the tarrifs so the story was, naturally enough, about america and why the tarrifs were imposed - to keep jobs. If europe had imposed tarrifs on the US, would it be wrong to interview european steel workers for their opinions? If you cant see that they were just the opinions of workers the US government was trying to protect for whatever reason, I cant help you.

Originally posted by flogen
The showed plenty of news features that struck the heart of people in regard to the UK/US army personell, but presented the X amount of Iraqi dead as a hard news piece, a statistic... there was very little in the way of making you feel sorry for these people any more than you would when presented the facts..

You need a puff piece to get it through your head that people have died?!

Originally posted by flogen
surely they could have done a feature on families of the victims etc, shown that they have lost a relative that wasnt even fighting?

Actually there were a number of reports on this very topic. Im sure if you dig around on the sky news site youll find them easily enough.

Originally posted by flogen
And excuse me if i seemed to imply that these men and women were constantly missing their targets, or doing so on purpose, I was just pointing out that these people were being built up as national heros and brave men and women, of course they are brave, but we must remember that they are somewhat responsible for the death of countless innocents, not that it was by intention or anything.

I'm sure that many armys will be extremly intrested in your fantastic plan on how to wage war without the killing of non-combatants. Heh.

chill

And excuse me if i seemed to imply that these men and women were constantly missing their targets, or doing so on purpose, I was just pointing out that these people were being built up as national heros and brave men and women, of course they are brave, but we must remember that they are somewhat responsible for the death of countless innocents, not that it was by intention or anything.
Flogen

These men were and are incredible heroes for the US and the Iraqi people. They managed to destroy the army of Saddam in a couple of days when almost every anti war activist said it would be six months. They did so with the greatest care not to kill innocent civilians in the history of warfare and succeeded in winning the war with only a thousand or less civilian casualties. If Iraq does indeed grasp the opportunity of democracy then these men will be remembered with gratitude for liberating 20 million people or more.

chill

Let's look at a selection of 'expert' guests that Fox retains for regular consultations on screen...

Bill Bennet: Hypocrite extraordinaire who made his name wagging his finger at Bill Clinton and sundry, exposed as a lying gambling addict.

Dick Morris: Former democratic election advisor, caught in a an almost daily 'affair' with a prostitute.

Ollie North: A traitor who fought a treasonous war and lied to Congress.

Detective Mark Fuhrman: Caught bare faced lying in the OJ trial.


What a line up of credible commentators for the channel that brings us 'Fair, Balanced and unafraid" news...... NOT.

Piliger

Originally posted by MODERATOR Moriarty

Arse. Complete arse.

Huh ?

Moriarty

Huh?²

flogen

ok, moriarty, let me just sort afew things out.,
at no point did i say sky were as blatently pro-war as fox. i did say they couldn be due to different liable laws in the UK and US, so I assume you mis-read it. I did say sky were pro war, however, that is for sure.

perhaps other reporters gave as much time to bombing etc as you say, but sky did not, from what I saw (I'll be honest in saying I didnt watch the channel 24/7, and i doubt anyone here did). As i stated, Sky were inclined to give hard facts about the dead innocents, but make us feel sorry for a US soldier who misses his/her loved ones. No i do not need a 'puff piece' for me to understand the tragedy of a stray bomb in a market place, but I also dont need such a piece to tell me just how hard it is to be away from your family with the prospect of never seeing them again, or at least for some time. And it would be an insult to the public, both here and in the UK to assume that they would need one either.

on the matter of the tarrifs. Yes, i know why the US imposed them, and thats fair enough, but that piece was run after they were found illegal, and just before they were revoked. Now it is obviously in the interest of the US government to protect US jobs, but it is also in the interest of the EU, and thus the UK to protect European/UK jobs. these tarrifs meant huge export losses for English steel companies, and may have resulted in big British job losses. So why is it that a UK channel shows us the plight of US worker while failing to mention that if the tarrifs remain, the UK and EU will suffer? the piece was what is known as bias by omission, in that it omitted the facts about the threat to UK jobs in an attempt to sway the viewers opinion. a simple 10 second addition at the end stating how the lifiting of tarrifs will mean better income for UK companies would have removed this at least somewhat.

please do not try and patronise me by assuming my opinion can be swayed by such a report, or tell me the value of my opinion either. as i said, the piece was bias, but that does not mean I am thus influenced by it. However, there may be less media-aware people, who unlike you and I, only get their news from one source, or fail to question it and just digest it. such a report may effect these people. Also, as previous Murdock expeditions have shown (such as the so called 'slow drip back to work') if something is drilled into the public enough, they are likely to accept it as fact (especially if it comes from an outlet they would consider reputable). If sky slowly work it into the viewers head that everything Bush does is a good thing, they may soon be a supporter rather than neutral or opposed. This is just my opinion as to why sky would air such a piece by the way, naturally I cannot give you conclusive proof which documents such a plan on sky news part

the only features i saw on sky involved Iraqi injured being helped by US/UK forces. such as the boy who lost his limbs in an accidental bombing of a public place, who was later being treated in the US, and was showing support and forgiveness for the mistake made by the army. i most certainly saw nothing as regards the grief of families involved in such mistakes, however i will have a look and see

and i never claimed that i had a solution for the deaths of innocent people in a war situation, I understand that it has been and is likely to always be a factor in war. In saying that, I feel that encouraging sympathy for the US soldiers while avoiding details as regards the people they have killed (and by killed I refer mainly to innocents), is bias.

and chill, in all respect to you (and the soldiers) although it is brave to go and fight whatever the reason is or the fight is regarding, i do not think they (or at least the upper-level of army officials) were very careful in the handling of avoiding civilian casualties. the Shock and Awe campaign is a good sign of this. To basically carpet bomb the capital city, and thus most built up area in the country, is just asking for non-army deaths. I understand that alot of other deaths were due to logistics error perhaps, or even nervous young army personell who paniced when a van failed to stop at a checkpoint, but both of these could be blamed on Americas lack of preperation at the same time. Didnt they bomb a pharmacutical factory because they thought it was a WMD site? its this kind of bad planning that leads me to believe that not everyone cared so much as to the amount of Iraqi civilians dead.
I would also assume that the civilian death toll is above 1000, it is uncounted so far, for whatever reason, but the likes of the market place bombing had a huge toll, as did many other bombing mistakes (many of which we will never really know the toll, one way or the other)

Flogen