ABC and NBC News Are No Different...

[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.