ABC and NBC News Are No Different...

[Mark Heide]

than news organizations run like the former Soviet Union's Pravda. I say this because, they have decided to censor the war news for you. On Sunday, Aljazeera News had re-broadcast the Iraqi News broadcast of the five American POWs and seven dead solders throughout their network. If you went to their website on Sunday, at aljazeera.net, you would have seen in the afternoon on the front page a picture of one of the American POWs on the front page (the young guy with the glasses). One of the POWs named Hudson was seen by his mother in New Mexico on the Philipino channel. Well, eventually the news traveled fast that she had saw her son.

The point of this story is when I watched ABC's World News program Peter Jennings stated that there were other news organizations broadcasting this tape, but the president of ABC News said not to do it. So, I flipped to NBC and Tom Brokov said that the US administration requested them not to show it. The point I'm making here is that ABC did not report the fact that the US administration either asked them or told them not to broadcast it. Anyway, NBC called up Hudson's mother on the phone and showed an except from Aljazeera News of Hudson while he was interviewing her. Tom Brokov said that he only was going to show Hudson and not anyone else.

The point here is that if Hudson's mother never saw the news on another station, no one in this country would have heard about it, because the major news media has decided that they have to follow government orders and have to show us only what they want to show us.

Today, both ABC and NBC showed all five POWs, but still refuse to show dead American solders.

If you want the real news in this country, I suggest going to alternate sources, and forget about the most popular American news channels because they don't tell all the news.

Quit watching ABC and NBC. Demand they tell it like it is!

Good Luck

Mark

[Glenn]

Mark,

You can't be serious. I don't even know how to respond. I only hope that you never lose a family member and then find out about it by seeing a picutre of their dead body all over TV. They did tell it like it is. They just didn't show pictures of the troops before their families were notified. And they didn't show picutres of dead/mutilated bodies that Iraq was using as propaganda. It is called class, not censorship.

[adios]

As Glenn stated they reported the news but didn't show the videos. I suppose that the Iraqis blatent violation of the Geneva Convention in putting it on TV and the fact that it's obviously something Iraq was doing for propaganda purposes would also be good reasons not to run the videos. Also those networks don't live in vacum Mark. They're well aware that if people really want to see them they can.

[MMMMMM]

Mark Heide wrote:

"ABC and NBC News Are No Different than news organizations run like the former Soviet Union's Pravda. I say this because, they have decided to censor the war news for you."

Now take the following statements:

Losing $1,000 at poker and losing $100 at poker are no different. I say this because they are both losses at poker.

See if you can identify the subtle hidden flaw in the above argument.

[BruceZ]

They weren't shown for a good reason; the families weren't notified yet. FOXNews showed the bodies without showing the faces. They also keep showing Iraqi TVs war updates given by the Iraqi minister of (dis)information, which is about 180 degrees opposite from the news we hear the rest of the time. So if you really weren't sure whether the US reporting or the Iraqi reporting were more accurate, you would have both there to choose from. You can't get much more "fair and balanced" than that.

I'm starting to see a pattern with some of the left commentary. Our media is no different from Iraq's because it..., Bush is no different from Hitler because he..., the US is no different from Ghengis Kahn because it... /forums/images/icons/tongue.gif

[MMMMMM]

So this pattern of thought really breaks down to: things which show "some similarity" are considered to be therefore "no different"...interesting pattern...how do I get those little graemlins into the text here?;-)

[BruceZ]

Just click the gremlin from the one's down below where it says "Instant Graemlins". 896 posts and you don't know how to do that? /forums/images/icons/smile.gif /forums/images/icons/frown.gif /forums/images/icons/blush.gif /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif /forums/images/icons/wink.gif /forums/images/icons/tongue.gif /forums/images/icons/cool.gif /forums/images/icons/crazy.gif /forums/images/icons/mad.gif /forums/images/icons/shocked.gif /forums/images/icons/smirk.gif /forums/images/icons/grin.gif /forums/images/icons/ooo.gif /forums/images/icons/confused.gif /forums/images/icons/spade.gif /forums/images/icons/diamond.gif /forums/images/icons/heart.gif /forums/images/icons/club.gif

[Chris Alger]

Isolated cases of failing to show particularly grisly images are one thing. However, if the pattern from the Gulf War holds, the networks will be guilty of systematically failing to televise images that show the actual effects of the war on human beings. This is not an issue of taste but quasi-official censorship for transparent political reasons. Contrast the way this war is portrayed with 9/11, when the networks endlessly broadcast images of unprecedented violence to show how America had become a victim. In this war, since the US is the aggressor and much of the public opposes the government, the networks must be wary to "inflame" an already sensitive public opinion. If they do, they'll be accused, with some justification, of throwing a monkey wrench in the government's war machine, something that can only be tolerated up to a point.

Very few Americans, for example, know that the best estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths caused by the Gulf War and it's immediate aftermath (which excludes the effects of sanctions) approach 200,000. For one of many articles available about media self-censorship regarding Iraq, see
http://216.239.53.100/custom?q=cache:qWz-I92EEeAC:user.ksni.net/~uuquincy/talks/gulfwar.htm+gulf+war+civilian+deaths&hl=en&start=6 7&ie=UTF-8

[Martin Aigner]

1) You guys don´t really think that the coverage to be seen in the USA is no propaganda. Sure it is, as it would be in any other country in the world, too. That´s obvious. The mass media play a huge roll in this war. If the government doesn´t have the backup of the poeple, they can´t win, no matter whether they defeat Iraq or not.

2) I have seen parts of the pictures on TV. As I´ve read in todays newspaper they did broadcast only a small fraction of what was filmed, in Austria. I´afraid, there is a reason, why. Anyway, even the scared look in the face of the soldier is brutal enough. But he´s not the only man in the Iraq with this look on his face.

3) Geneva Convention: Well, don´t you think that Saddam can use a pretty easy apology for not using the Geneva Convention? Isn´t it just what the USA/Bush does with all the prisoners in Cuba?

Let´s pray for all the poor souls over there. No matter which side they are fighting for or (and these are the most) are not fighting for

Martin Aigner

[MMMMMM]

It never works for me when I do that;-)

[MMMMMM]

So Chris, do you agree with Mark Heide that the "quasi-official" censorship of ABC and NBC is the same as the government censorship of Pravda during the Soviet years?

[adios]

"1) You guys don´t really think that the coverage to be seen in the USA is no propaganda. Sure it is, as it would be in any other country in the world, too. That´s obvious. The mass media play a huge roll in this war. If the government doesn´t have the backup of the poeple, they can´t win, no matter whether they defeat Iraq or not."

If anything I would say that ABC and NBC are biased against the war. That's certainly open to debate but that's what I would tend to believe. The media is easily manipulated and I have no doubt that the administration is doing this to a certain extent. If the press and the administration were in cahoots then why wouldn't the President have press conferences very frequently instead of very infrequently? If they're in cahoots all the President has to do is field a bunch of softball questions in order to get great publicity. The reason is that the President as a general rule don't like fielding tough questions and opening themselves up to criticism.

"2) I have seen parts of the pictures on TV. As I´ve read in todays newspaper they did broadcast only a small fraction of what was filmed, in Austria. I´afraid, there is a reason, why. Anyway, even the scared look in the face of the soldier is brutal enough. But he´s not the only man in the Iraq with this look on his face. "

Ok but they're not being shown on a state run media. Don't you admit the Iraqis are behaiving outrageously by doing this? Also I believe this will work against the Iraqis. It will, probably has, galvanized USA public opinion against Iraq and I would guess motivate USA troops.

"3) Geneva Convention: Well, don´t you think that Saddam can use a pretty easy apology for not using the Geneva Convention? Isn´t it just what the USA/Bush does with all the prisoners in Cuba?"

How so? Even if it was true, why do NBC and ABC have to support violations of the Geneva conventions. Methinks you're making a big mistake in implying that NBC and ABC are quasi US government institutions.

[KDF]

1. You guys don´t really think that the coverage to be seen in the USA is no propaganda. <font color="red"> TRUE </font color> Sure it is, as it would be in any other country in the world, too. That´s obvious. The mass media play a huge roll in this war. If the government doesn´t have the backup of the poeple, they can´t win, no matter whether they defeat Iraq or not. <font color="red">Incorrect- last poll showed 70% American people support the War. Your country may be different, just as the angle of the news you receive is different. </font color>

2) I have seen parts of the pictures on TV. As I´ve read in todays newspaper they did broadcast only a small fraction of what was filmed, in Austria. I´afraid, there is a reason, why. Anyway, even the scared look in the face of the soldier is brutal enough. But he´s not the only man in the Iraq with this look on his face. <font color="red"> True, but whats your point. Sounds like there are scared people in Austria too. </font color>

3) Geneva Convention: Well, don´t you think that Saddam can use a pretty easy apology for not using the Geneva Convention? Isn´t it just what the USA/Bush does with all the prisoners in Cuba? <font color="red"> Incorrect; prisoners in Cuba are not POWs, they are terrorists, war criminals and true enemies of our country. Also, we have yet to torture or execute any of them ...there's a huge difference. Somehow you seem to think the information you receive is true, while what we get is propaganda. I think we all receive a liitle bit of both. Don't try to protray your European interpretation as superior, when it is no less slanted than any other source.</font color>

Let´s pray for all the poor souls over there. No matter which side they are fighting for or (and these are the most) are not fighting for. <font color="red"> I pray for the world, (Europe included) in the hope that future, more deadly conflicts can be avoided by the action taken today. I also pray for a swift victory and resolution to end any suffering. </font color>

[Martin Aigner]

"If anything I would say that ABC and NBC are biased against the war. That's certainly open to debate but that's what I would tend to believe. The media is easily manipulated and I have no doubt that the administration is doing this to a certain extent. If the press and the administration were in cahoots then why wouldn't the President have press conferences very frequently instead of very infrequently? If they're in cahoots all the President has to do is field a bunch of softball questions in order to get great publicity. The reason is that the President as a general rule don't like fielding tough questions and opening themselves up to criticism"

I can´t watch neither ABC nor NBC. But for what I have read in the european newspaper it is a fact that every american reporter had to be approved by the army. Furthermore everything they film will be watched by the army first. Part of the reason is that in Vietnam the american population finally turned against war because of the uncensored coverage by medias. This sure is something every government in the world don´t want to happen again.

"Ok but they're not being shown on a state run media. Don't you admit the Iraqis are behaiving outrageously by doing this? Also I believe this will work against the Iraqis. It will, probably has, galvanized USA public opinion against Iraq and I would guess motivate USA troops."

We sure agree on this one


About geneva conventions: What I meant was that the new laws after 9/11 reagarding terrorism and the rights of the imprisoners don´t go conform with geneva conventions.

Regards

Martin Aigner

[Clarkmeister]

"But for what I have read in the european newspaper it is a fact that every american reporter had to be approved by the army."

Duh. These reporters are embedded with the troops in action. I would be mortified if extensive background checks as well as physical readiness tests were not conducted.

"Furthermore everything they film will be watched by the army first."

This is clearly false. I have seen more live feed than I can count. Live battlefield shots, countless live interviews with troops, and live unedited opinions from the reporters. I have heard that at times the Pentagon gets their information from the 24 hour American news networks before they get it from the field.


I would start to question the veracity and motivation of the newspaper you read.

[Martin Aigner]

1. You guys don´t really think that the coverage to be seen in the USA is no propaganda. TRUE Sure it is, as it would be in any other country in the world, too. That´s obvious. The mass media play a huge roll in this war. If the government doesn´t have the backup of the poeple, they can´t win, no matter whether they defeat Iraq or not. <font color="red"> </font color>

We don´t disagree on this one. But there are lots of reasons why there are 70% supporters. One of them is the media. Others are psychologie, fear, ....

2) I have seen parts of the pictures on TV. As I´ve read in todays newspaper they did broadcast only a small fraction of what was filmed, in Austria. I´afraid, there is a reason, why. Anyway, even the scared look in the face of the soldier is brutal enough. But he´s not the only man in the Iraq with this look on his face. <font color="red"> </font color> True, but whats your point. Sounds like there are scared people in Austria too.

Geneva Convention: Well, don´t you think that Saddam can use a pretty easy apology for not using the Geneva Convention? Isn´t it just what the USA/Bush does with all the prisoners in Cuba? Incorrect; prisoners in Cuba are not POWs, they are terrorists, war criminals and true enemies of our country. Also, we have yet to torture or execute any of them ...there's a huge difference. Somehow you seem to think the information you receive is true, while what we get is propaganda. I think we all receive a liitle bit of both. Don't try to protray your European interpretation as superior, when it is no less slanted than any other source

Sorry, not true. It´s just that everybody is told they are terrorist. But nobody can know whether that´s true. I don´t say that none of them is a terrorist, there sure are lots of them. But you know how many innocent people are in prison (all over the world), and I´m sure that there are some innocent people in Cuba too. The problem is that they don´t get the rights they should.

I´m sorry, if it sounded that my "european" interpration sounded superior. That´s not what it was meant to be. It´s just that I don´t agree with everything that happens now.

Regards

Martin Aigner

[Chris Alger]

First, I don't think that the network news in the US is identical to the propaganda from state controlled systems. Censorship in the US is much more evident and profound when in the area of foreign policy and especially when military force is the subject.

But to answer your question, no, US censorship is much more insidious because it presumably doesn't exist, while state censorship is self-evident. But it doesn't make that much difference. Democracy exists if public policy reflects the informed consent of the governed. If that consent is not reasonably well informed, then what you get is policy with a random relationship to what people actually want, which is often no better than dictatorship.

I think I can safely say that one would be hard-pressed to find many Russians in the era before Gorbachev, at least any with a minimal education, who believed that the state-controlled media provided a fair reflection of reality. The mere fact of knowing that it was state-controlled gives rise to a presumption of extreme bias. The bias and lack of credibility was further evidenced by the inability to reconcile the official line with everyday experience: a "people's democracy" on TV, long queues and corruption in real life.

In the US, however, pulbic opinion polls suggest that people believe the media to be biased, but in a fashion that is the opposite of the actual bias: they think the media are too combative, too demanding, too aggressive and too liberal. When it comes to foreign policy, people are helpless to refute what they see in the media because they have little or no independent experience in confronting the issues they face. Virtually everything most people know about Iraq comes from the press, and most of what's in the press reflects, in various degrees, a narrow spectrum of opinion dominated by the pronouncements of state officials.

[MMMMMM]

Chris Alger wrote:

"Censorship in the US is much more evident and profound when in the area of foreign policy and especially when military force is the subject."

Would you care to elaborate on just how US media censorship is "more profound" than the totally censored foreign policy news of Soviet-era Pravda or the state-controlled TV news in Iraq?

Also, I take it that you prefer totally state-controlled news sources such as those in Cuba or Iraq
to news sources in the USA--please correct me if I'm wrong in this impression.

[Chris Alger]

I meant that US self-cencorship is more frequent regarding foreign policy than US self-censhorship is regarding doemstic issues.

Regarding my alleged preference for state censorship, I've already responded to this non-argument many times in many contexts. It seems that every time someone identifies a shortcoming with an American institution, instead of dealing with it you point out something that's worse, assume the worse thing is the sole alternative, and then accuse the poster of preferring the worst of the two evils. Why can't you think of something more intelligent to post than these constant straw man arguments? After all, Hitler's arguments were much worse than mine. You must like Hitler.

[Jimbo]

"It seems that every time someone identifies a shortcoming with an American institution, instead of dealing with it you point out something that's worse, assume the worse thing is the sole alternative, and then accuse the poster of preferring the worst of the two evils."

Actually Chris I think it is more the fact that you rarely if ever post anything positive about America. That tends to make you seem above average on the radical scale and thus less likely to be credible. America with all it's shortcomings are better than all the other alternatives, whether they are the worst alternatives or simply just a little worse is not important. Some people just like to complain for it's own sake.

[MMMMMM]

OK, the first was just a misunderstanding of what you were comparing it to.

My initial post in this thread was to Mark Heide regarding what I see as his absurd equivalency statement. The issue of whether problems of some sort of censorship exist in US media is another matter--I'm really just taking issue with his statement here, and I was just trying to get at whether you agreed with his statement or not.

I have no idea what you're talking about referencing Hitler in this thread. I think Hitler was a loathsome character who propounded poor arguments and calls to despicable inhumane actions.

[Mark Heide]

M,

Try this one.

ABC + NBC + CBS + CNN + FOX are five major American news stations that broadcast government propaganda. Iraqi TV is one major Iraqi news station that broadcasts government propaganda.

Can you identify the subtle hidden flaw?

Good Luck

Mark

[Mark Heide]

Glenn,

The point of my post here is that ABC and NBC waited until the US administration said if it is OK or not OK to broadcast a news story. The similarity between Pravda and US news media is the same. Pravda had to get Stalins approval. This issue just happened to be controvertial, but the sad part of it was is that our govenment is more worried about how propaganda will influence the American public, than our brave and courageous solders and their parents. I would be mad at the US administration if I was Hudsons father and heard about my son being captured on a Phillipino news channel as the first source of information. There was no reason why the US administration could not call these parents immeadiately after it happened. Instead the US administration fumbled and fell into Saddams propaganda trap again.

Mark

[brad]

'have no idea what you're talking about referencing Hitler in this thread.'

i understood perfectly. reread perhaps. you have a tendency to be concrete maybe a little dense sometimes (no offense im sure you just read it real fast)

[Mark Heide]

Tom,

It was the US administration and news media that violated the Geneva convention first by showing Iraqis surrendering. So, the tactics are the same. The US used this to influence Iraqis that they have no chance and should give up immeadiately.

With the communication on the battlefield today, our government knows who is captured and who is dead. I believe that the broadcast of this information would provide more determination for the American public to want to see the US objective accomplished. The mistake the administration made, is that they didn't think that anyone in our country would be watching alternative news sources. Don't forget that Bush and the administration are watching all the foreign broadcasts along with the major American news sources. Since, they can watch it, I'd like to see it too. I'm just as much an American as Bush.

Mark

[Mark Heide]

Chris,

Great post.

Mark

[MMMMMM]

Mark Heide:

"ABC + NBC + CBS + CNN + FOX are five major American news stations that broadcast government propaganda. Iraqi TV is one major Iraqi news station that broadcasts government propaganda.

Can you identify the subtle hidden flaw?"

Yes, it's the same flaw: you are failing to even roughly quantify anything. You might as well say that a cup of coffee with a teaspoon of sugar is the same as a cup of coffee with 10 tablespoons of sugar. When making comparisons you can't simply list ingredients without quantities/percentages/ratios yet expect to have a meaningful comparison.

A news station that is 100% censored is different than one which is mildly censored, or even moderately censored. Also, censorship by threat of torture and death is different than censorship by subtle coercion.

Finally, the mere fact that news media in the USA frequently print articles highly critical of government policy belies your claim, for in state-controlled media like Iraqi news or Soviet-era Pravda there were never any dissenting views. The diversity of opinion in US news media and editorials is proof that US censorship is mild compared to that of the media of totalitarian regimes where only one view is put forth.