In terms of impartiality, Al Jazeera vs. Fox News would be a more appropriate comparison.
CNN seems biased to me. I was watching a Japanese channel (NHK) this afternoon and they reported that the US bombed a market in Baghdad, killing over a dozen civilians. I switched to CNN and watched for a while, and didn’t hear anything about it. I suppose both channels are biased in opposite directions to some extent, but NHK usually doesn’t have a liberal bias. CNN gives an illusion of providing detailed information, but there seem to be a lot of gaps.
Well maybe, though some might feel that the station’s biased simply because it shows unpalatable stuff that the US networks don’t want to. Of course I haven’t seen it in full, and nor do I speak Arabic, and I’m guessing neither have you - but historically most people working for Al Jazeera were trained by the BBC, and it has been roundly criticised in Arab countries in the past for being ‘pro-Zionist’ after it became the first Arab station to interview Israeli politicians. Further reading. When you’re being slagged by both sides, you’re probably doing something right.
Your faith in the US media is a wonder to behold, Lib. Say, do you remember that old cliché about the first casualty of war …. ?
I heard about the market, that it was reported by Iraqi sources, that the US could not confirm, and the toll was up to 15, on the radio this morning, CBS AM.
CNN has reported this incident at least four times in the last hour. MSNBC conducted an interview with Peter Arnette in Baghdad about it. Fox News has reported it. And even Centcom covered it in its briefing this morning. But what the Japanese channel apparently is not reporting is that it is not known at this time exactly what was the source of the explosion. I’ve seen live images of the Fedayeen paramilitary in Basra holding children in front of them while they engaged in combat. I think it might be premature to dismiss Fedayeen involvement in the Baghdad explosion.
My faith in the US media? 
As I just said, I reckon people see what they want to see.
OK, so maybe it was just timing, or maybe CNN was waiting for confirmation before talking about it. The fact is that I watched CNN for half an hour right after I heard it on NHK (around 08:45 UT) and I didn’t hear it reported.
Sorry, make that 10:45 UT.
Perhaps, but the question is whether it is a violation of the Geneva Conventions. And the issue, as far as I know, is not settled in legal precedent. I don’t believe that where the line between legal and illegal is has been established.
I’m aware of what the Geneva Convention says, but it is written sufficiently vaguely that the line is not clear. I am not even sure if the Iraqis are in violation.
However, all we have to go on so far is US accusations of crimes. And the Iraqi actions that the US is calling violations (the public interviews) have not been practiced by the US media. When an international law expert or international tribunal weighs in on the matter, then my opinion may change. But at this point, the US has not done what it is condemning the Iraqis for.
Your last question is just silly and ignorant.
You are correct in that you misinterpreted it. The e-mail was about US media not showing US POWs until their families have been notified. Now that the families of the POWs have been notified, coverage is normal. You can even find information about each of them on CNN.com.
antechinus, I don’t have cable either but Channel 9 (or 7) News have frequent feeds to American news programmes and I can tell you that the reporting is no different from what the local news channels are giving us. I am afraid that there is no huge propoganda machine being run in the US telling everybody that all is good and wonderful - at least, no more than what we are getting.
I was more interested in the delivery of the news rather than the content. eg with a lot of slick graphics, fast vision switching, vision mixing, commentators (retired soldiers - like retired football players), screen statistics and acton shots: giving it a sports-show like presentation.
I miss the commercial news - I come home from work too late, because I spend too much time reading the SD :).
It is quite clear to me that both CNN and Al Jazeera are biased in their coverage, but not in unethical ways. Both report the facts, as they understand them, that their viewing audience wants to hear. I suspect they both downplay what their audience doesn’t want to hear (but still report it).
Now, I may be quite wrong, as I don’t speak Arabic, and don’t have access to Al-Jazeera. I have arrived at this conclusion with little anecdotal evidence.
Much of the reporting of CNN is based on the embedded reporters (CentCom is releasing far less information than they did in GW1). Those reporters carry the biases of the units they are embedded with. CNN doesn’t have reporters embedded with Iraqi troops or the Fedayeen. Resulting bias should be of no surprise.
Al Jazeera, on the other hand, has reporters “embedded” in Iraqi communities, and they appear to have the upper hand in reporting Iraqi sentiment (something US viewers don’t seem to want to hear).
Take the example of Basra yesterday. The British report a popular uprising, targeted with mortars from Ba’athist party members. Iraq calls the reports “delusional”. CNN, MSNBC, Fox, and practically every other station reports it as fact. Al Jazeera, on the other hand, shows video from downtown Basra with mobs of people parading with a shotdown US drone. Which picture is closer to the truth? I don’t know, but the video footage from in the city is more compelling than the interview with the British commander lobbing artillery from a few miles outside the city.
I suspect if you wanted a truly balanced view of this war, you would have to watch both CNN and Al Jazeera.
The most balanced english language coverage I have found on my DirecTV system is Newsworld International (which I think is Canadian, but I’m sure).
Just my 2 cents.
that should have been “which I think is Canadian, but I’m not sure”
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has an all-news network called Newsworld. That may be what you are referring to.
If you can give me some more detail, I may be able to confirm that for you.
Of course not. War is nothing but politics. It’s two irreconcilable viewpoints that two groups feel so strongly about that they are willing to risk life and limb to defend them.
That said, sometimes I just want to see the pro-American cheerleading viewpoint. Kind of like Chris Matthews interviewing Gov Jessy “the Body” Ventura on MSNBC this morning.
Yep. Good point.
I just came across this on the onion. Views on the war coverage.
Actually, they have. In fact, Iraqi prisoners have been shown on the news being asked questions that go way beyond what the Convention requires them to answer. They have been asked, for example, how many other combattants are in the area, and that while the camera was running.
Al-Jazeera stood up at the press conference this morning and asked… Oh wait. They didn’t ask anything. They made a speech.