I find the BBC to be the least blatantly biased thus far. I have also started to read reports from a russian site that claims to get it’s info from Russian intelligence in the area. I’m not sure how accurate it is:
http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news080.htm
I treat all news about this war as biased, but there are degrees of bias.
Here is an example of actions that make some folks annoyed at Al-Jazeera: (warning, some facts may have shifted in transit through my brain)
You remember that video tape of Bin Laden hanging out at the Sheik’s house shortly after September 11? This was the one where he says something like, “I told them that it would work well, but this was more than even I thought.” It was basically the first piece of hard evidence that Bin Laden was at least involved in planning the attacks.
Well, IIRC, Al-Jazeera had that tape for over a month without showing it. All the while letting talking heads make claims about poor Osama being framed and Israeli plots and the U.S. attacking the people of Afghanistan needlessly.
They didn’t even turn it over to CNN despite an agreement between the two stations to share information.
It only came out when somebody leaked a copy to CNN, who broadcast it.
I don’t want to tar and feather them, like some, but this seemed like a pretty clear case of deliberately covering up news that disturbed them.
We get all the major American stations up here , and I have to say that CTV and CBC seem to be giving much less sensationalized coverage. I try to watch Canadian news nightly to catch up on events, and only tune into CNN’s wartainment at odd times during the day when the other stations aren’t running news programs, and I feel like checking to see if anything big has happened. I can’t watch Fox news at all. It angries up the blood, and such.
To be fair, I decided to get my real news from canadian TV not long after the start of the war, since they seemed to be giving much better coverage, so my views on how the American stations are dealing with it may not be up to date.
Uh, Keeper0, if I assume your recollection is accurate (I never heard that, but I could have missed it), are you suggesting that CNN or western media wouldn’t do the same thing?
If so, look for my recent GD thread titled ‘Is the US spying on our UN “friends”’.
—Now, you can go ahead and complain that Hannity is overpowering and it isn’t a fair match. So what. At least they are showing both sides.—
Does Colmes actually speak on that show except to introduce guests and sign off? This is like saying that Conan’s announcer guy Joel balances out Conan.
And is conservative side really best presented as “Hi new guest! Why are such a traitor and a moral pervert all the time, wife beater?”
Contrary to your view, I think adversarial debates are a TERRIBLE way to learn about truth, especially when they do not have strictly enforced standards of evidence and rhetoric (as in the trial system). What they are good for is learning about what arguments there are out there: provided they are actually sophisticated enough to delve beyond “Me Tarzan, You Hanoi Jane” Which I’ve yet to see WWFoxNews or Crossfireinacrowdedthreater even approach.
Debates of this sort also assume that there are only two sides. But this is pure nonsense as well. I maybe conservative, but I would never let someone like Hannity speak for anything I care about, or even run an interview.
—The truth lies in the middle. But, I am glad that at least both sides of this story are getting told.—
This little saying is almost self refuting. If YOU think that the real truth lies in the middle of continuum A thru Z, then it must also lie in the middle of continuum A (my truth) through K (your truth), and so on. This position would also allow the “truth” to move around simply because one end of the spectrum becomes more extreme than previously: which is exactly what people try to exploit all the time.
I havent watched too much of the coverage but it seems that CNN does a decent job from what ive seen. I wont even turn on the “FOX propaganda and self-praise of its unprecendented coverage” network (unless im up for a good laugh)…
Doesn’t this show your own personal bias?
I’ve watched a good deal of CBC, CTV, and BBC coverage, and I’d give the nod to the Beeb for most thorough and balanced coverage. Not that either CBC or CTV haven’t been providing good coverage, but I think the BBC World Service bits that I’ve seen has been a smidgen better.
—Doesn’t this show your own personal bias?—
Whoa, and this shows YOUR bias!
Oh shoot! But I just showed my bias!
Yet, since I called attention to it, doesn’t that mean I’m NOT biased?
No! It means I’m biased towards considering that I’m not biased!
And wait: my carrying on has mostly just been a way of diverting attention from the massive new airstrikes! Bias everywhere!!!
Pardon Apos, what he meant to say was:
Welcome to the SDMB!
(And then everything he posted)
Oh heyI didn’t catch that: welcome to the boards Conflict of Interest! (first time I’ve ever done that!)
*from: *AZCowboy
I think that western media would do and has done similar things. Particularly in those first months after 9-11, I think they were very cautious about airing things which diverged too far from the national mood.
I suspect that was the same type of mindset at Al-Jaz. As it stands, some facts do seem to have shifted in transit. I think I am recalling this story on the CNN website. The facts are not quite as damning as I originally made them out to be.
The fact that they gave credible air time to people who believed the U.S. deserved 9-11 is probably enough for many people’s vitriol against them without me confabulating that.