All right, Minty, what should the Coalition of the Willing be called? “A Quarter Pounder with Cheese”? “Two Guys, a Girl, and a Pizza Place”?
Fellow Dopers - please be aware that in this post, I am not attacking the USA or it’s people in any capacity. I merely offer the following observations for your edification… and for those of you who read some of these observations elsewhere on the SDMB recently, I apologise for being repetitive.
Here goes - the cynic in me feels compelled to note something…
It seems to me that by and large, TV News is almost always a commercial enterprise in the USA. Accordingly, by extension this also means that the persuit of ratings is paramount above all else - because it sells advertising. As such, the persuit of ratings is even MORE important, sadly, than unbiased objectivity on occasion.
And most cynically of all, I’ve noticed over the years that nothing sells like BAD NEWS. From a news organisations point of view, BAD NEWS is like manna from heaven. Indeed, often, in the abscence of genuinely bad news, various news organisations will beat up a story to make it seem worse than it truly is. And it’s worth noting we have 3 major commercial TV networks down here too - and they do the same thing as well. It sucks all round… I agree.
Arguably, perhaps the reason why the BBC TV news remains as respected as it does is because it doesn’t NEED to pander to ratings - due to the fact that it’s a national broadcaster paid for and supported by the British Government - whilst also maintaining a charter of objectivity and freedom of the press.
Perhaps one day my American friends might consider cloning the institution that is the BBC?
Thankfully, in my estimation, broadsheet newspapers in the USA remain amongst the highest quality newspapers in the world - and it isn’t hard at all to find quality journalism in such papers. And oddly enough… few people to this day ever point to Dan Rather’s work (for example) as being anywhere near as momentous as Woodward’s and Bernstein’s work during Watergate. I tend to think that that observation betrays the innate difference between the TV presenter and the written word - the latter, when done well, can resonate for decades.
Yeah, but what about that time Bernie Shaw told the world he was hiding under the bed?
If we can get France on board, we’ll have to switch to “Royale with Cheese.”
I’m sorry, Boo Boo Foo, I misspelled your name. I did not intend to be insulting.
Mayonaise on my fries, please.
But… CNN is against the war now? CNN is spinning against Bush?
Am I getting a different CNN feed here in Amsterdam? Because it sure as hell doesn’t look like anti-GWB spin. It looks like spin alright, just the other way around.
[sub]And YES, I know I’m watching CNN from a European feed. Most of the programs are still the same.[/sub]
When Mr. Bush hijacked our PM by saying he was part of his Coalition Of The Willing all hell broke out here as our PM John Howard supposedly had not made up his mind at the time. It was a skillful political ambush on Mr. Bush’s part. The story has expired at most places. I think so-called is perfectly apt under the circumstances.
Not a problem my friend…
Sadly, I’m not totally up to speed with everything American. At the risk of asking a dumb question (coz I’m sure your reply was rather funny) but would you encaspulate the Bernie Shaw story for me please?
I’m glad somebody got the reference…
Oh, sure!
Back in the last war (Gulf I, Bush I), three CNN reporters–Peter Arnett, John Holliman, and Bernard Shaw–were in the al-Rashid Hotel in Baghdad. They had a satellite phone and a live feed on the night that the war began.
Holliman and Arnett were veteran war correspondents, if I remember rightly, but Shaw as far as I know was just an anchorman who inexplicably stayed behind.
Anyway, he just freaked out. Holliman and Arnett were doing a really good job of (carefully) describing the antiaircraft fire and the like. Then at some point, Shaw’s voice broke in, saying “I’m hiding under the bed now…”
Or something to that effect. Maybe it was a table, I can’t remember, but it was hilarious.
I remember the rest of it even less well, but I think it was a little later when a partially-recovered Shaw began saying he heard a helicopter in the distance, and started describing where it was. Holliman and Arnett tried to get him to shut up, but he just kept chattering about it, and then the transmission was shut off, whether by one of the other correspondents or by the Feds I don’t know. I later learned that the helicopter was one of ours, extracting the Special Forces guys who were illuminating the targets for the laser-guided bombs we were dropping.
Anyway, poor Bernie was scared shitless and not thinking very well. Not his best reporting.
Sofa King! - how embarassing was THAT! Oh my!
Thank you! What a great story! Lots of warm karma from me to you! 
Fuck if I know. According to the OP’s reasoning, we have to call them, unqualifiedly, anything they want to be called, except that we’re not allowed to repeat anything they say about the situation.
Sheesh, now I know why HAL decided killing the crew was the best way to go.
—And as I already explained, CNN’s presentation of Saddam’s agents were in the context of moral rightness, with Nick Robertson reporting live from Bagdad.—
You didn’t “already explain:” you just said it without explaining. And I still don’t understand where the “context of moral rightness” idea comes into the picture: how was that context established? I’m not even clear on whether you are saying that the reporter used “buts” and “neverthelesses” or Saddam’s statements did. I didn’t see that guy.
I’m with you on the issue of factual inaccuracy: I think news agencies should point out definitively demonstrable lies and misrepresentations when they repeat them. But this policy is rarely followed: the current practice is to refute statements not with evidential cites, but rather only with other speeches or press releases, if on point and immediately available.
—Incidentally, if what you say is true about their policy—
Waitaminute: I didn’t say it was a “policy” in the sense of some mandated practice at CNN. I pointed out that the term has a legitimate interpretation and usage in journalism. And I pointed out that the prejeduce could work both ways, with or without the term: I can see how any combination of those terms could be biased or not, depending on the tone. You obviously read a different tone out of the usage than I did, which is fine. But even if that really was Blitzer’s intent, how is anyone’s read of FoxNews’ tone about the “Coalition of the Willing,” (used in the sense of “brave, committed, the few the proud”) really any worse?
—Hell, Apos, I’m not an idiot. I even oppose the war. But I know what I see on CNN is extreme bias. And I think it sucks.—
Why does it come down to you either being right about whether they are being biased, or you being an idiot? Most of this (the “four” bit aside, which seems not be clear cut either) seems to rest on readings of tone. You wouldn’t be the first to say that CNN is biased: it’s not like anyone is treating you as if you are out of your mind or that this is beyond all possibility. But people don’t always agree on matters like this when the cases aren’t particularly definitive.
The fact that you oppose the war is as irrelevant as the fact that I support it: it doesn’t, by itself, make either of our judgements any clearer, or necessarily less likely to turn on people who actually are pushing either view for some reason.
Minty
You’re comparing calling Iraq “The Forces of Light and Goodness” with calling the alliance “The Coalition of the Willing”? Bad analogy. It would be more apt if Bush had started calling the United States “The Coalition of Willing States”. But he didn’t. “The Coalition of the Willing” is a term for a new entity that did not already have a name.
“So-called” can mean “Incorrectly or falsely termed: My so-called friends were gossiping about me again” (American Heritage). Blitzer is an intelligent man. Had he intended to say “commonly called” he would have said “commonly called” or better yet, nothing at all. He knew that his phrase had a double entendre. And the whole day on CNN was like that. Just a bunch of liberals moping about things not going their way.
Apos
When you refer to a coalition of more than 30 nations (one of the largest coalitions in history) as American unilateralism while trying to paint a picture of an Iraqi despotic regime as victims with the whole world in sympathy, you are establishing a context of moral rightness on behalf of the despot. And lying to boot. That’s what CNN did all day long.
You shouldn’t speak about a “tone” if you didn’t hear Blitzer and Judy and Nick. I heard them. I have enough life experience to know what nuances of tone are in the English language.
I mentioned that I oppose the war because I’ve seen people attack Bush for pronouncing “nuclear” the way Jimmy Carter does (although I haven’t seen them attack Jimmy). If people grasp at that, they’ll grasp at anything. I just wanted to cut off at the pass something that someone might raise that is indeed irrelevant.
CNN is a mopey, whiney, joke of a so-called news network.
Or at least have the decency to not throw in an immature scoff to a group with an odd name… is that too much to ask? Or has the entire planet descended back down to a Middle School locker room mentality?
It was that reporting that made his career! I seem to recall that he received special recognition or an award for his coverage. Sure, he was scared. I listened to it live and the others were obviously frightened too – which is very natural under the circumstances. It is those who are frightened but report anyway that have my greatest admiration.
Maybe we just remember it differently.
Libertarian, I am usually put off my the use of “so-called” also and Webster’s says pretty much what American Heritage does about it sometimes negative implication.
I can remember being unhappy with Tom Brokaw once was saying that “President Clinton claimed…” I think he should have said, instead, “President Clinton said…” And I really like Brokaw.
I have not noticed CNN having a bias one way or the other, but then I tend to watch the news at MSNBC more often. BBS America can be a good source of news as can reading the BBS on the internet.
The BBS is the most reliable news in the world, I think. But government controlled news can be a disaster under the wrong circumstances.
BBS? (or did you mean BBC?)
Yes. Excuse me. I met my husband on a BBS and never quite go over it.
Here’s a link to an article about Bernard Shaw that lists some of the awards he got specifically for his 16 hours plus non-stop coverage of the bombing of Baghdad:
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/S/htmlS/shawbernard/shawbernard.htm
“Shaw’s coverage of the war earned him numerous national and international journalism awards, including the Eduard Rhein Foundation’s Cultural Journalistic Award, a George Foster Peabody Award, and a cable ACE Award as best newscaster of the year. Shaw’s receipt of the Rhein Foundation award is particularly meaningful because it represents the first time this award was bestowed on a non-German.”
Please excuse the consecutive posts.
But damn. I can’t write a coherent sentence!
It’s 3:20 A. M. Do you know where your retired English teacher is?