No bias - they accurately perceive a great nation has been hijacked by a bunch of arrogant, right wing nutters bent on establishing US dominance by lying, bullying, cheating and brute force and report it as such.
The fact that not as many things were looted from the museum is down to the Iraqi curators who fortunately stashed what they could before the mobs got there.
The US were more interested in securing the oil ministry than securing hospitals, museums and NUCLEAR facilities (http://www.npr.org/display_pages/features/feature_1289180.html) Thats what the criticism is about
Hmmmm now what was the reason for the war again
With regard to Guantanamo Bay, more people would respect the US position if the US prisoners that were picked up were in there with everybody else … but no, being US citizens gave then RIGHTS not afforded to anyone else and they PROPER trials on US soil. Whats all that about?
Fair enough. However, why did the media make such a fuss over the false story, but give much less attention to the correction?
BTW, according to an archeological research team, “the U.S. government deserves positive credit for sparing the archaeological sites from bombing” However, the media has nearly ignored that story.
In short, accurate stories reflecting well on the US get less publicity than false stories reflecting badly on the US.
Your cite only shows that there was some looting at the nuclear facility.[ul][li]Your cite doesn’t show that the US was uninterested in securing the nuclear facility.[]Your cite doesn’t show that the US was interested in securing the oil ministry.[]Your cite doesn’t show that the US ever secured the oil ministry.[/ul][/li][quote]
but no, being US citizens gave then RIGHTS not afforded to anyone else and they PROPER trials on US soil. Whats all that about?
[/QUOTE]
The Constitution.
tagos, thanks for your input. One point of this thread is to compare non-US reporting against actual conditions in the US. I’m happy to have your input on the latter, but, I’m even more interested in your input on how things are reported in the Northern England media.
Would it be fair to assume that your understanding of US conditions is based on what your media says?
Not necessarily. A BBC documentary (yes, december, that BBC) aired four evenings ago came to the conclusion that there had been no mobs doing any looting, or at least not of the galleries, and that the thefts were probably carried out with the assistance of the curators, quite possibly before the war began. Most shocking of all were the pictures of storerooms which had remained locked throughout but which were indistinguishable from those which had been looted. The implication was that the museum had been a stronghold of Saddam cronies who didn’t have a clue how to run the place. It also concluded that the claim by the US military that they had initially been unable to secure it because it being defended by Iraqi forces was probably true.
You can be sure about that. Reports about new american weapons give me the creeps, and that was not always the case. See e.g. the new philosophy about space
Why not, you are Anti-Iraq but I hope you are not Anti-Iraqi-People. That was the way the situation was explained by the gov, right? Anti-Iraq but not against the Iraqi-People.
Well, just think that many Europeans are Anti-American but not against the US people. If you absolutely want to call people like me Anti-American, well I don’t care, go ahead. These words are ill-defined and will always be.
Yes I do think that in the US civil rights are questioned in a frightening way and I keep asking myself where the limit is. When will a state, which continuously dismantles civil rights, be called fascist?
cite?
So, if everyting is fine, why are they in Cuba anyway?
Glad to see that the BBC put things right.
For anyone who is still following this poorly named trainwreck of a thread, I received my summer issue of the Atlantic yesterday. (They do a joint July-Aug issue.) Was flipping through it, and saw an extended sidebar (3 pages or so) listing their best calculation of every US military action since 1993.
Have to admit there were a boatload of such actions during the Clinton years. However, their list did not distinguish based on the number of troops committed, the length of time, or the purpose of the action. For example, it included cruise missle attacks, military exercises, military support of evacuations, etc., on an equal level with Somalia or Desert Storm II. Moreover, what I might consider a single military action - say our involvement in Bosnia - was in fact represented as a series of discrete military actions. The buildup, a particular air strike, the peacekeeping, etc.
Tho it did not answer the issue on the table, I found it relevant and interesting nevertheless. I’m sure Mega will be here any time now to clear things up! 
As an aside, for anyone somewhat interested in accessible writing about the US position in today’s and tomorrow’s world, IMO you could do far worse than picking up this issue of the Atlantic Monthly. They have a hefty section diiscussing various factors that may be relevant to this matter. IMO, will make for good summer reading. The articles in tAM are by no means politically objective. But they seem to do a good job of showcasing writers from various points of view, so just about everyone should find something to piss them off in just about eny issue. 
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
They didn’t “put things right”, December, because they were never broke in the first place.
It’s good to see that you linked to Bran’s log. He’s possibly the only person with a bigger chip on his shoulder than Andrew Sullivan. He is happy to blast any media reporting that he feels doesn’t line up with his unique worldview.
Christ, he even manages to have a go at Kevin Myers for potentially boosting the opinion of Caoimhe Butterly!
It is to laugh…
Are you saying that BBC never reported the earlier, incorrect version of the story?
They reported the facts as the world press knew them. You cannot single out the BBC for criticism that applies to the rest of the press also.
The way you have phrased your words gives me the impression that you would expect the BBC not to correct the earlier story. I think this is a very good example of the BBC’s unbias news reporting. It presents the facts at hand, and if those facts are proven wrong, will issue the correct ones.
I saw the programme in question. For the majority of it, it certainly looked like looters had stolen most of the works, but as his investigations discovered, most of the items were removed before the museum was looted. It then focused on where the artifacts were. the Iraqui officials were very reluctant to cooperate, telling him that they were in certain storerooms, but not allowing him (or the U.S. investigators) access to them.
It wasn’t as cut and dried as the Observer article makes out.
I agree that the BBC should not be singled out for criticism. Many others gave similar incorect reports.
But, the BBC was still wrong, regardless of excuses. Also, they gave great prominance to early, uncertain estimates. Also, BBC is supposed to have the judgment and expertise to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Yes, I had that impression from the article I cited, but I was wrong. I give credit to BBC for telling the truth.
It may be that other media who hyped the original story will now make it clear their readers what actually happened. Or, maybe they’ll just move on to other things. I’d be interested in knowing what approach various non-US media have taken to reporting the new information.
No, it comes from decades of study of world history, foreign affairs and a former academic specialisation in US politics and society, under-pinned by a range of philosophical and sociological perspectives, from a wide range of sources balanced with my own understanding of how the world works which is in turn continually fed by reading and reflecting on a wide range of world newspapers across the political spectrum. I even watch Fox News until the gag reflex overpowers me.
And of course the Simpsons and buffy the Vampire Slayer!
In those years i’ve even managed to grasp the difference between opinion pieces and reporting and reliable and unreliable sources. You should try it sometime but I know you can’t teach an old dog new tricks.
Earlier in this thread there was some foofaraw going on about the numbers of U.S. troops committed to battle by the two Bushes and Clinton, but with no hard numbers for the latter. I’m wondering if the Atlantic article might have some useful data in clearing that one up. I’d assume that each commitment would be added as a separate component of the sum; I know that the 10th Mountain Division, or elements of it, were in both Somalia and Bosnia at different times – my son’s brother-in-law was among those deployed each time. Should he count as two separate commitments of a serviceman?
Which would sell more papers?
“Rape and murder bloodfest!!!”
or
“Not that much rape going on”
WTF? The media should run hundreds of stories saying “Thank you for not bombing what you shouldn’t have bombed”? I guess since the media hasn’t run stories praising Bush’s use of the letter M then it must be biased as well. freakin’ liberal media.
You should request a thread title change or start a new one with a more clear title if this is what you really want to talk about.
Sorry if it was too subtle. Put plainly: I am not impressed with claims of “we looked after them really well. Right up until when we killed them.”
[url=http://robots.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/12/sprj.nilaw.museum/]Priceless vase returned to Iraqi museum
[/quote]
But too bad this report doesn’t exist!
Conservative claims of a liberal media are just misdirection. They’re busily engaged in taking over the media – that’s what the recent FCC rules change is all about – which is why the vote was split right along party lines, with the Repubs for, Demas against.
By continuing to maintain the existence of a liberal media, they keep the debate from focussing on the crassly biased conservative media and the way it’s being used in conjunction with the RNC to ensure that the Dems remain on the ropes in elections.
But since none of them have been killed, your comments are a bit premature, dontcha think?
No. We are discussing, amongst other things, the building of execution chambers in Guantanamo. Someone commented that the prisoners are being well-treated because they put on weight. My point is that I will not regard them as being well-treated if they are executed, even if they have been well-fed up to that point. Yes, my last sentence contains an “if”. If they are not executed, then that fear of mine will no have been realized. But that does not mean I cannot express my fears at this time.