The American Media

The Saint

I believe if there was complete honesty of international affairs in the American media then the american people would have a different view on foreign policies. Their coverage on issues seem completely different to the European coverage and seem to push their own agendas, like everyone knows that the americans want cheap oil from Iraq but they say Saddam, weapons of mass distruction ect. Also in the Israli, Palistinian conflict, how can a country be so unilateral in their support of a country built on terror and continues to be. The media seem to print what the american politicions tell them instead of doing some investigating. So I am not very surprised to see this narrow mindedness in their media as they seem to broadcast what they're told, aswell as having Jewish people with the money and power in media corporations and government and christian evangilists getting involved.

paddymee

Their coverage on issues seem completely different to the European coverage and seem to push their own agendas

Wow, imagine that. American media is reporting news from a US point of view and not a European point of view.

So the European media should be reporting from a US point of view, right?

Maybe what really bothers you is that the US media has a different opinion than you do.

Paddy

Typedef

Originally posted by The Saint I believe if there was complete honesty of international affairs in the American media then the american people would have a different view on foreign policies.

True, and the same can be said of European people, for example the news that you get from RTE is allegedly coloured in favour of Labour & Fine Gael, because RTE believes it will glean more money form another Rainbow coalition.

Sky News for example is supposed to be 'Conservative' or Tory, perhaps it is, but Rupert Murdoch has been called a King maker in a sense, so if the premis is true, then Sky News is in fact in favour of the Labour party.

So who makes objective news? Perhaps it is all a matter of perspectives on that one.

Their coverage on issues seem completely different to the European coverage and seem to push their own agendas, like everyone knows that the americans want cheap oil from Iraq but they say Saddam, weapons of mass distruction ect.

Saddam should have been removed from power the second he used Chemical weapons against the Kurdish people of Northern Iraq, the fact that the US has an oil interest in Iraq is measurably incidental, so what, the US doesn't go to war for principals, well neither do any of the other countries in the World, they go to war for their interests.

Also in the Israeli, Palestinian conflict, how can a country be so unilateral in their support of a country built on terror and continues to be.

You have me there. Clearly the US is completely out of line in it's quasi-theistic support of the occupation and the brutal suppression of the Palestinian people whilst allowing Israel to build settlements on land annexed from war. This is an anthema to the very fundamental principals of equality and the persuit of happiness the US is meant to be founded on.

The media seem to print what the american politicions tell them instead of doing some investigating. So I am not very surprised to see this narrow mindedness in their media as they seem to broadcast what they're told, aswell as having Jewish people with the money and power in media corporations and government and christian evangilists getting involved.

Are you sure you want to say that? Yes there are some affluent Jewish people in the US, no it is not as simple as an rich pro-Israeli lobby in the US, there are many factors not least of which is that support of the Israeli state permits the US to support it's own military complex.

I wouldn't say that the media is controled by the Jewish population, I would say that the US has a much higher percentage of people of Jewish faith then most European countries and that the US' foreign policy reflects that as does the US media.

Basically what the international community has to campaign for on this is for an internationally mediated agreement between the two sides, ideally under the auspices of the UN.

That is one reason why it is important to respect the authority of the UN and not to support US military action against Iraq, without a UN mandate.

DiscoStu

bush has warned the UN that it will be going down a road to irrelivancy(spallinz) by allowing iraq to ignore UN resolutions. On the other hand Bush has made it quite clear that it will go alone with or with out a UN mandate. Has anyone spotted the contradiction? If however there is a resolution passed allowing the use of force against, time to re-phrase, commit ground forces to oust saddam and destroy his WMD capabilities. The war against iraq has never technically ended as combat sorties have been flown nearly every day since the end of the the first gulf conflict. Look at what the US threatened to do in yugoslavia earlier this year. They held the un to ransom until their demands were met.

During a television interview yesterday on bbc news24 a high ranking us state department official was grilled by a panel of english and muslim politcal commentators. When quized by the "token arab" he would not discuss the double standards employed by the bush administration over the israeli situation, likening what was being said to typical iraqi propaganda where they try to deflect attention. Then when asked if iraq allowed inspector back with unlimited access, destroyed all existing WMDs and stopped trying to import conventional weapons systems would the US back down. His response was no.

If americans were exposed to what this man was saying(blatent warmongering) and not subjected to a media that has portrayed the "War on Terror" as a riteous crusade maybe things would be different.

cant remember the name of the us guy but i will try to dig it up.