What a Surprise!! Al Jazeera "Outed".........

[Dr Wogga]

......"LONDON — Iraqi intelligence agents infiltrated Arab satellite channel Al-Jazeera (search) in a push to win favorable coverage, Britain's Sunday Times newspaper reported."

Gee, all you lefties who posted about the "impartiality" and "gosh dang, solid unbiased coverage" of this arab rag - what say you now? I spit on this pro-terrorist scumbag "news media outlet" - which is quite obviously nothing more than a political mouthpiece for anti-Americanism. Eff these al-jazeera arab bastards. They have always had zero relevence - now its official.

[andyfox]

It has at least as much relevance as does Fox News, which yesterday promoed the Democrats' budgetary plans while playing the song "The Candy Man." Fair and unbiased, huh?

[MMMMMM]

Both may be biased but Al-Jazeera is more so. And now we have this BBC report.


For instance, note the widespread reactions of those on the Arab street who had been watching only Al-Jazeera for war coverage. "Huh? (or whatever's Arabic for 'huh?';-))" "Iraq lost the war?" "Already???" They couldn't believe it because Al-Jazeera had been continuously replaying images of the few incidents of apparently good resistance or of coalition casualties. The Arab street in many countries was let down by Al-Jazeera, and later said so. They really didn't know the war was nearly over, or how easily Baghdad was being taken.

So Al-Jazeera doesn't have at least as much relevance as Fox. Both may be biased but one at least covers the news more accurately.

Par for the course.

[nicky g]

Heh. Fox news when I saw it had Oliver North as one of its embedded correspondents. He was going on about the "terrorist death squads" (ie Iraqi troops) his unit had encountered. Apart from the absurdity of such a statement coming unchallenged from Mr Iran Contra himself (I mean, I think that may have been the absurdest thing I've ever scene, it almost made me cry - it was as if the Simmpons and the real world had switched places), how much less impartial can you get than having a man close to the administration as one of your reporters? I also liked a bit I saw in which the anchor man, on being shown horrific footage of alleged looters being beaten with rifle butts before being taken away and shot by other Iraqis, said "Yeah but these guys are thieves." That's alright then.

As for the war ending quickly, absolutely everyone was predicting a bloody battle in Baghdad that would last some time, that the Iraqi plan was to draw the coalition into Baghdad and have the real fight there. Al-Jazeera was hardly unique in this.

[Dr Wogga]

Post deleted by Mat Sklansky

[andyfox]

Your usual inciteful and penetrating analysis.

How is it that our own scumbag media outlet, Fox News, doesn't upset you?

[andyfox]

Is should read "inciteful [sic]."

[John Cole]

Fox News reached a new nadir when it reported on the anniversary of the death of IRA hunger striker Bobby Sands when the anchor moralized, "The moral of the story? Eat more." Even Sat. Night Live Weekend Update had more validity. Wonder if they'll keep trotting out Bill Bennett at every opportunity.

Take off on Lord Byron:

Bill Bennett made his living explaining
Morals to the Nation.
I wish he would
Explain his explanation.

[John Cole]

Post deleted by Mat Sklansky

[Zeno]

SO- What’s the "best" place to get the most inciteful (thanks Andy) News of the Day, Hour or last Second: Al-Jazerra, Fox, BBC, Local Astrology Channel, or Psychic News Service maybe. I'm lost here. My clairvoyance is in disarray. Should I just stick with print media for insightful news and commentary, like National Review /forums/images/icons/smirk.gif or World Press Review? /forums/images/icons/shocked.gif or Mad Magazine? /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

Inquiring minds want to know. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

-Zeno

[MMMMMM]

Wrong about al-Jazeera.

We're not talking about predictions, we're talking about when Baghdad was actually being taken and the entire West knew that it was almost over. The Arab street who watched only Al-Jazeera did not.

[nicky g]

When exactly are you talking about? I had no idea it was on the verge of collapse till the morning the statue was pulled down. It was incredibly sudden - up till that all we knew was that they were on the outskirts and that the odd unt was ducking in and out of more central areas. Maybe al-Jazeera didnt focus on that as much as Western media, but Western media had embedded journalists with those troops while al-Jazeera's journalists were in the city centre. Even that only lasted a day or so. I'm pretty sure the statue would have been broadcast to the Arab world along with everyone else. I was very surprised myself.

[MMMMMM]

I guess you missed the multiple interviews, quotes and reports of how the Arab world was thunderstruck and shocked and dismayed that al-Jazeera had "lied to us."

While the rest of the world knew collapse was occurring, those watching only al-Jazeera didn't.

[nicky g]

In all honesty, the only place I've heard that is from you. D'you have any links? I was probably travelling at them time. It still doesn't make sense to me, though - the collapse was overnight - i went to bed with troops in the suburbs, and woke up to them in the city centre - and once it happened there was no way people could have not heard about it.

[MMMMMM]

I didn't see any reason to save or bookmark any of those links at the time.

I do recall reading many excerpts from interviews with the Arab street in various countries after the collapse.

Granted, the collapse happened fairly quickly, but apparently al-Jazeera had been overplaying scenes that indicated the Iraqis were putting up a much better resistance than was really taking place. As a result, after the collapse, the Arab street who had watched only al-Jazeera was far more surprised than everyone else, and they did not hide their disappointment. Not only were they dismayed and shocked by the outcome, but they felt greatly let down by al-Jazeera for slanted reporting which gave them a false impression and false hope--and they said so. In other words al-Jazeera did not portray American troops being in Baghdad to nearly the appropriate extent, and also over-portrayed the resistance.

[andyfox]

Pull out your copy of the collected writings of Mencken, and you'll have all you need to know. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

[Parmenides]

Post deleted by Mat Sklansky

[BruceZ]

It has at least as much relevance as does Fox News, which yesterday promoed the Democrats' budgetary plans while playing the song "The Candy Man." Fair and unbiased, huh?

No, not if you use music as your basis for extracting information.

They have an entertainment aspect, especially on the morning show, and they have some conservative analysts. They also report hard news, have liberal personalities, e.g. Alan Colmes, and have liberal guests. BTW, it is not biased to report that certain ideas are flaky if in fact they really ARE flaky. To do otherwise would be biased or simply incorrect.

To say it has as little relevance as Al Jazeera shows your bias, and seriously damages your credibility. FOX was named the best station for war coverage by at least one major city newspaper.

[nicky g]

"They also report hard news"

Well the bits I saw with Col. North as an embedded reporter and the anchor musing that it was ok that people were being lynched cos they were looters was in a "hard news" section.

Which paper voted Fox best war coverage? It wouldn't happen to be owned by Rupert Murdoch (who also owns Fox)?

[ACPlayer]

[Dr Wogga]

Post deleted by Mat Sklansky

[Dr Wogga]

Post deleted by Mat Sklansky

[Chris Alger]

"FOX was named the best station for war coverage by at least one major city newspaper."

I doubt it, although its hardly below one of Murdoch's papers to do this.

You're probably thinking of the "award" given Fox by Brent Bozell's Media Research Center, a self-proclaimed "conservative" media watchdog that lambasts any departure from the right-wing line. Bozell is a GOP activist-thug from way back and his nasty little outfit is funded by the usual goon squad of right-wing personal fortunes (the Mellons, Coors's, the Bradleys, the Olins).

[ACPlayer]

So, which is it: a> you are not using calm reasoned logic or b> fox News is not news?

[IrishHand]

How truly you speak. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[MMMMMM]

Sure, I agree that Fox News is biased. But the main thing point here is that Al-Jazeera is more biased, and apparently more deceptive as well.

Now of course ideally we'd all like to see completely unbiased news (I hope). But let's assign credit or blame in proportion.

When bias spills over into not reporting important facts (such as Al-Jazeera's misleading the Arab street into thinking Baghdad was not about to fall), or when CNN deliberately withholds very important and newsworthy stories (about their detailed knowledge of torture practices and locations in Iraq during the last decade), these things are more culpable (search CNN Eason Jordan if you want links. Even PBS was outraged at the revelations by CNN's Eason Jordan).

Certainly playing "Candy Man" and ridiculing ideas or parties or people is not pure reporting, and it's a low swipe. However it also is not pure deceit, whereas Al-Jazeera and CNN are both guilty of pure deceit through deliberate and very important ommissions. And I expect everyone would agree that in journalism, deliberate deceit or deliberately withholding vital information for ulterior motives is the worst kind of reporting and goes beyond mere bias.

[andyfox]

Of course it's biased to say something is flaky. It's an opinion. I thought the administration was crazy to invade Iraw. It's my opinion. It would have no place in a newscast, the same was playing The Candy Man to describe a policy, during a newcast, has no place.

The relevance comment was facetious.

Which major city newspaper(s) named Fox best for war coverage?

[ACPlayer]

Hmmm.

Clearly the only thing worth reading that is left is the Guardian; there is clearly no news worth reading that is right.

[BruceZ]

The article naming FOX the best war coverage appeared in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, a very old, employee owned, and award winning newspaper. It may have just been an article rather than an actual award.

What you are all missing is that FOX does news, and news ANALYSIS. It is perfectly valid and expected for an analyst to express his informed opinion during news analysis, and this is different from hard reporting. When a fact based analysis favors one side of an issue, the other side always claims bias, it's a political thing.

Here is a link to an earlier post I wrote detailing some of FOXs various shows. I have it on nearly 24 hour a day. I fall asleep in front of it, until I get awakened by people screaming at each other. /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif This morning I woke up to some lefty screaming "TELL ME HOW MANY AMERICANS SADDAM HUSSEIN HAS KILLED IN THE LAST 11 YEARS!" You hear some really interesting things when you listen to it in a half asleep state.

FOXNews (http://www.twoplustwo.com/forums/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=exchange&Number=228451&For um=exchange&Words=FOXNews&Match=Entire%20Phrase&Se archpage=1&Limit=25&Old=3months&Main=227836&Search =true#Post228451)

Hey, I finally figured out how to give these things my own label instead of that long mess. Just click URL, next to the Graemlins, and it will prompt you for a link and a title. I think you have to select "using UBBCode" from the list box.

[BruceZ]

Don't forget the North Koreans.

[andyfox]

I see. And if, say, This Week had interviewed Ted Kennedy on Iraq, and then said they'd be interviewing Powell, Wolfowitz, and Bush next, and played Three Blind Mice while they showed them, this wouldn't be an example of bias? Fact based analysis my eye.

[MMMMMM]

LOL very funny andy.

Anyway, I firmly believe there should be one place for hard reporting, and another place for analysis and opinion. Mixing of the two seems pretty common in the media today, and it irks me greatly. It shouldn't matter what the anchors or producers think is right or best when they are reporting, but they insist on weaseling their own opinions into what should be a conveyance of facts. I say fire the whole damn lot of them.

[ACPlayer]

Fox News does "Analysis" in the guise of news. From body language, to music, to the choice of words.

During the war they should have been renamed the Neo-Con blatant propaganda channel. In peace times it is a mouth piece for the Republican parties.

Regarding your choice of sleeping companions, if you really want to sleep to the sound of Bill O'Reilly this is still a free country.

[andyfox]

Yeah, but news on TV is entertainment, guided more by ratings than by anything else. I actually like watching the guys I disagree with (who are mostly on Fox) more than anyone else because I find them entertaining. Which, I suppose, is the whole point.

[Mat Sklansky]

Just letting everyone know that this thread will be heavily edited due to the plethora of insults and lack of rational debate. So don't bother making any silly responses.

Mat

[Dr Wogga]

....forgot these a-holes. But, since we don't buy WMD or run a terrorist network, I can't think of too much that Mrs Wogga and I might purchase that's made in north korea. However, I will make sure I mention them when I go into one of my ususal rants about scumbag anti-USA countries. My apologies for this glaring omission.

[Cyrus]

Post deleted by Mat Sklansky

[BruceZ]

During the war they should have been renamed the Neo-Con blatant propaganda channel. In peace times it is a mouth piece for the Republican parties.

I'd say it is the mouthpiece for fact based analysis. If this analysis happens to conclude that the republican party is almost always right, or that the war is almost certainly right, then that is what they should report. To say it is a propaganda machine is wrong. If it were a propaganda machine, they would not present both sides of the issues, or have any liberal commentators and guests as they do.

[BruceZ]

[Parmenides]

I'm not surprised that you choose to protect known racists. You have a track record of doing so, and betraying your own people. G-d knows. Someday you will be held accountable.

[ACPlayer]

If you listen to something long enough you believe it and I believe you have this channel on all the time.

I completely disagree with your view, but you are certainly entitled to it. Fox as a source of News or analysis is blatantly one-sided.

For the most part, in public discourse the art of the debate is lost and it is all about advocacy and spin.

[Mat Sklansky]

you talkin' to me?

[BruceZ]

But O'Reilly hosts the "no-spin" zone. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif I don't always agree with him, but he is usually right on, and I believe he is objective. Many people confuse opinion with spin, and they are not the same. Spin is making something into something that it is not, because the facts would not support a particular agenda.

[ACPlayer]

Remember the tooth fairy and santa claus. Just because he calls it the no-spin zone does not make it the no-spin zone.

It is really up to each of us to decide what is right and wrong and not get sop up the opinions of some paid hacks. The best way to do this, IMO, is to get as many different viewpoints and then create your own.

I have to think about exactly what is spin. But listen to Ari Fleischer, Bill Clinton, G Bush, Tom Daschle, they are all spinning the facts to advance there own agendas. The facts are shaded and presented in a way that is designed for just that purpose.

[BruceZ]

Hmmm, I actually thought I deleted that post to add some more stuff, but I guess it didn't work.

Most people don't think very well, and most media up until recently has been liberal spin, and so when a channel like FOX starts laying things on the line based on cold hard facts which support a position much more to the right than usual, many will interpret that as spin. You can tell the difference between the guests who present facts and perspectives, and those who are spinning.

I like the channel for the debates, and because we do get to hear from both sides, no matter how ridiculous one side may be, e.g. they had that EmClone alien guy on. He actually made more sense than most of the left wing guests /forums/images/icons/grin.gif If it were all one-sided, it would not be interesting to me. My learning style is confrontational. /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif I like listening to debates even if I don't care about the subject being debated. I doubt I would otherwise have the time and interest to gather facts and do an analysis that would be any better than what the insiders from both sides who come to debate are presenting. I have more than enough analysis to do in my own field without worrying about things I can't do anything about anyway. Besides, I do get other opinions, I come here. It doesn't seem like I'm missing much sticking to FOX. /forums/images/icons/tongue.gif

O'Reilly isn't a hack, he's a very intelligent and educated man, and he knows how to think (most of the time). I agree with him on economic and defense issues, but he is too conservative for me on some social issues, hence my libertarian stance. Most people agree with my opinion, and that is why FOX is dominates the news media.

As for being entitled to my opinion, I like what Mike Caro says about that. He says no one is really "entitled" to hold any opinion, unless they have done some analysis or research to back it up.

This is off topic, but since you're here, and I don't want to open the other thread again, did you understand why we can't use the binomial distribution for the sequence of AAs problem, except as an approximation? We do not have independent Bernoulli trials, as I detail in that thread.

[ACPlayer]

Ya. I dont remember the exact sequence of notes -- but the binomial solution i proposed is not quite correct. The problem is in the definition of a trial. It is a very crude approximation.

I have been trying to figure out a closed form solution -- short of enumerating the possibilities and have failed. I even pulled out some old texts but no help.

[BruceZ]

I think it is very unlikely you will find an exact closed form solution, being familiar with the partial fraction expansion approximation methods normally used for such renewal problems. My inclusion-exclusion formula will converge to the solution with arbitrary accuracy with some tediousness in computing higher order terms, but this really isn't necessary for a satisfactory answer. My general conditional probability equation can be evaluated exactly in theory. I have another idea for a way to solve these problems that I am working on. I have solved it for the p=1/2 case in terms of Fibonacci, and I have not seen this published anywhere. I believe I can extend it to this type of problem. There may be an issue of factoring a large polynomial in the z-domain, but there are techniques for that. This is also what leads to partial fraction expansion. Otherwise, it should be possible to present a recursive solution.