Why don’t you do it now by reading The Japan Times English language version, you can also get The Times of India, Pravda, or many other English versions online. You can, for example, read in the Turkish Daily News, Turkey’s First And ONLY English Daily, that Turkish border villagers fear gas attack as a possible result of a U.S. invasion. Anyway, it’s not hard to find non-U.S. news sources online.
Why? Because his personal bias is against the US? Carefully read the news, and you’ll realize that every single journalist put his bias in news - often jumping to unwarranted conclusions, associating different fundamentally unrelated events, ignoring information or caracterizing people, events or things in a manner that show bias. We’ve debunked news report time and time again here on Straightdope - I’ve seen incredible bias in the U.S. reporting of Irak. It is really inevitable…
There still a good amount of truth after all in that the US is an empire (yes) that it is economically decadent (yes; see how much debt you are accumulating and how your financial institutions are corrupt) and morally decadent (in the sense that it does have the complete moral high ground).
Caracterizing it in this particular way just reflect the intense frustration this journalist (and the general population) has about US foreign policy and is a good indicator of what the people here really think (which I find surprising, since I thought people who could come to this conclusion were a minority). You know why he hasn’t been fired? Because the whole damn newsroom and his boss share his opinion, that’s why!
Perhaps why you don’t notice it is that you share the same bias, the same way here no one (except for my mother and I) was surprised when they heard it on the news? If we followed your rules, there would not be a single journalist left. The only thing really surprising in this particular report was that it was AGAINST war in Irak, while most report I expect to hear from journalists in North America is mostly a pro-war (or perhaps just an ignorant and incomplete one that repeats press release - the I-don’t-care bias). So you see, they are saying what people want to hear; people here think and want to hear that the US is a big bully. People in the US want to hear that they are good and morally justified.
This whole event is taking me to the conclusion that “objectivity” doesn’t exist. The only thing we can hope for is strong, well informed, opiniated, on-the-ground journalists that will provide convincing “cite” and competent analysis while calling bullshit when they hear bullshit from other journalists. My other opinion is that the US is pissing way too many people because of its foreign policy.
And you are welcome to call bullshit on my opinion, that is why I’m here - to evolve my opinion 
Well, yes, you are right js_africanus. It is just that I expect Japanese to not openly critize US foreign policy in their media, they are generally way too polite for that ;). And how do you know that these “English” versions reflect what they are truly reporting? I’ve demonstrated that even here in Canada transcripts are incomplete (so would the English translation if it was done based on this transcript). The bias is a subtle version of the opinion of the people in those countries.
Don’t blow it out of proportion. Acknowledging that people have their own world views and unstated assumptions is not the same as denying objectivity. Go too far and you’ll end up saying that all politicians merely want to strengthen their grip on power, that all CEOs want to amass money at the expense of everybody else, and that the only thing news outlets are interested in is entrenching the positions of their owners.
Fair enough.
One reason might be that bi-linguals in the home country might point it out and cause problems. Regardless, being skeptical is different from just assuming that they change the bias for the English language versions. I actually don’t sit and read foreign papers, it would be interesting to see how they compare. After all, if every English language foreign paper tows the American line, then I would certainly be suspicious.
I don’t see much evidence that the “average” American is that gung-ho, or that the administration gives a fig what the “average American thinks.”
I sure wish I could go back and move those quotation marks around a little.
Well, there’s the irony. If the reporter used the wrong word through a Freudian slip or some other unintentional error, or he was having a bad day and let it affect his work, he can’t go back and fix it. Even if he apologized and/or resigned/fired, the statement itself will live on.
I ask again: Why didn’t you see headlines reading:
BUSH LIES TO AMERICAN PEOPLE ABOUT IRAQ
This is not “biased” any more than pointing out that the sun rises in the east is biased. It is simply a fact.
quote:
Originally posted by Bryan Ekers
Because if people saw blatantly biased headlines like this on the New York Times every day, they’d start to hold it in the same rolled-eye contempt that many people on this board have for, well, you, actually.–Bolding By Bosda
Did you read the “contempt” part? You didn’t, did you? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :smack: :smack:
Please explain to me why the president lying to the American people in order to justify a war is NOT news, and why reporting it would count as “biased.” Please explain to me why the Times credibility would evaporate if it reported the fact that the president lied about Iraq.
Please explain to us in which statements specifically the President has lied “in order to justify a war” (let’s try to keep it to the past year, if you don’t mind). Don’t forget to provide one or more references that prove the selected statements were lies.
"In a Sept. 7 news conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Mr. Bush said: “I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied — finally denied access [in 1998], a report came out of the Atomic — the IAEA that they were six months away from developing a weapon.
‘I don’t know what more evidence we need,’ said the president,…” cite
There was never any such report by the IAEA.
Excellent. I think you are finally beginning to get the picture. In future, I trust you will remember to be as rigorous about providing references for claims in which the facts are not generally known.
Geez, not very intelligent of Bush or Blair to claim that report existed when the agency cited could show that it was false with a two-minute call to any newspaper. Go figure.
You are making my point. Why is this not generally known? Why was this not front page headlines? It seems pretty important to me.
I wasn’t arguing against your point. I was just trying to demonstrate for you that your arguments will gain credibility in direct proportion to your willingness to back up your claims.
As for why this is not generally known, who knows? The Washington Times is not usually considered a bastion of the left. You’d think they’d have the least to gain by publishing an article of this nature, and the rest of the ‘liberal press’ the most to gain by running with it.
Could it be that Bush and Blair made a mistake? Naww…
Yes, I understood your snide comment. It is obvious though, that your dismissals of my arguments have nothing to do with my ability to back up my claims.
The idea that the mainstream media is liberal is a myth. A cite for ya. Another cite for ya. The reason why the media acts as a 4th arm of the state is that the interests of the state and the interests of the corporate elite are the same.
A mistake. A MISTAKE!? Citing a non-existent report to justify a war is a MISTAKE?
No, leaving the kitchen light on is a mistake. Forgetting your keys is a mistake. Citing a non-existent report to justify an invasion of a sovereign country is NOT a mistake.
Jeez, ya know, Chump, you are quicker to take offense than just about anyone I’ve ever seen.
Get over yourself, why don’t you.
No, you didn’t understand my comment. 1) I was the furthest thing from snide; 2) My dismissals of your arguments have everything to do with your inability to back up many of your claims.
Quick, what are my political beliefs? You haven’t a clue; I’ve never stated them to you. Why might I object to yours? Hint: most of the time, you make claims that aren’t supported by facts. This time, for once, you did. I helped you out here, and instead of thanking me for supporting your position, I get called ‘snide’. Talk about ill-mannered.
I think it’s fairly obvious that you consider any person who doesn’t accept every silly thing you say as some sort of enemy; it certainly goes far to explain your unceasing hostility.
For Christ’s sake, I know that. Why do you think I put the term ‘liberal media’ in quotes?
Look, you’re the one who claims the media are the lapdogs of those in power. Let’s hear a reasonable explanation as to why the Washington Times, of all papers, would break this story, given their usually sycophantic attitude towards the Bush administration. The fact that the story exists at all sort of mitigates against your theory that the US press is tightly controlled by those in power, doesn’t it?
Actually there was. http://www.iaea.or.at/worldatom/Programmes/ActionTeam/
Bush based his statement on other US intelligence sources, as was clarified later.
Regards,
Shodan
Oh, please. You know as well as I do that I provide at least as many references as anybody on this board. It is just totally untrue that I don’t support my claims with facts. Also, I have stated on numerous occasions that I am more than willing to hunt down references for facts I present from memory, if there is a dispute. And, naturally, you do not point to examples of this alleged lack of references.
The question was why this story was not front page news, in big, bold letters:
PRESIDENT LIES TO AMERICAN PEOPLE ABOUT IRAQ
This is, by almost any standard I can think of, a major story. Or, at least it should be. War is pretty serious, and you would think that the fact that the president is lying to the people in order to start a war would be a big story. It isn’t. I actually watched the Bush press conference and thought it sounded fishy, and then went and did some research. On none of the mainstream TV news channels, at least that I saw, was any doubt cast on his comment. Indeed, even to suggest that the president might mislead the public throws the media minions into fits of apoplexy. cite
But, you say, at least the story IS covered. This is true. In fact, most of the facts are presented in the mainstream news sources. You can actually find out a lot by reading the New York Times, if you know what to look for. However, the problem is one of emphasis and repetition.
How many times have you heard the phrase “He gassed his own people”? How many times have you heard the statement “Saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors”? Well, if you follow the media like I do, you have heard these statements repeated over and over, maybe hundreds of times. No context is given, the second statement isn’t even true. Yet, they are repeated ad nauseum in every single discussion of the Iraq “conflict.”
Is the fact that Bush has lied and continues to lie about Iraq as important as the alleged “fact” that Saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors? Of course it is! The idea that there might be a hidden agenda for the Iraq invasion is certainly germane to the discussion. Yet, how many times have you heard it? Is it EVER mentioned in discussions in the mainstream?
The general rule is that we must focus like a laser beam on the iniquities of the official enemies. No stone must be left unturned as we ferret out the misdeeds of those we are about to bomb. If our own leaders deliberately mislead us, well, that is just a “mistake,” to be forgiven as we move on to the much more important task of justifying a new slaughter.