Major US News Broadcasters Still Suppressing News

[adios]

“My complaint last time I posted was that the broadcast news media in the US, specifically ABC, NBC, and CBS which are watched by most Americans did not even mention the BBC World story about Tony Blair's Dossier which was broadcast on PBS in the USA and posted on the BBC News web site.

Lastly, the only two major American organizations that I know that covered the story on the internet were MSNBC and CNN.

Putting politics aside, my issue is that the major news networks in the US only report what they want and what they are told to do by the government and the corporations that run them.

I'm talking about both. The US run media is owned by large corporations and are forced to be biased by their owners. Censorship comes with bias. There are many examples in the past and I don't think the US media is any different in it's biases from the Iraqi, British, French, Soviet, or German media. “

If the USA is telling the media what to convey as news why not tell PBS, MSNBC and CNN as well? Mark you allegation that the USA government tells the media what to convey as news is preposterous and borders on lunacy. It’s claims like this and obfuscation of the issues involved with Iraq that really, really detract from the credibility of those who oppose an armed conflict with Iraq and the war on terrorism. Equating the Iraqi media to the USA media further erodes your credibility.

[MMMMMM]

Good reply Tom.

By the way, I'm glad that someone else is pointing out examples of something which have been bothering me for a long time: false equivalences and obfuscations arise frequently in discussions/articles/essays of this type-- political/social/economic/cultural/strategic issues can be quite complex, so to some degree this is unavoidable. However everyone would do well to remain alert for such "fuzzy thinking", because where there are significant false equivalences or obfuscations, the conclusions drawn can easily be different, or even inverted(!), from what should rationally be determined.

There is probably some media bias almost anywhere, and the US government might occasionally request the news media not to carry certain stories (especially if there are serious military/security implications--but in these cases we can almost rest assured that someone will "leak" the story anyway;-). However to compare this with the former Soviet Union's absolute control of Pravda is absurd IMO, and I don't quite see how anyone could completely believe that.

Anyway it's been a good while since our posts crossed paths;-)--and I would like to say that I have always considered your posts to be very thoughtful, sincere, and frequently quite thought-provoking.

[Plzr]

at the moment ,major media coverage of current events is extremely sketchy and biased. I find it hard to subscribe to the idea of a "conspiracy" to deliberately misinform us.Rather it has more to do with the "entertainment" angle which they are increasingly packaging the news. Things like avoiding the more unpleasant aspects of the world while trying to put a more gentle spin on things overall.
Of course this is more of an indictment of the dismal level of awareness of your typical US citizen than anything else.After all the networks are just slavishly trying to follow the viewing tastes of the least common denominator of our society.
The really bad part comes when the GOP pushes through the "Media Consolidation Act" and then the control over almost all the news outlets ,from papers to radio/TV stations will belong to a handful of conglomerates. Try to find someone telling the unvarnished truth then !!

[Mark Heide]

Tom,

You ask the question,"If the USA is telling the media what to convey as news why not tell PBS, MSNBC and CNN as well?"

Before the Gulf War, the former Bush administration told the press to leave Baghdad, so ABC, NBC, and CBS left. Ted Turner, who was the owner of CNN told Bush that he represents an international news organization and will stay. Note, that CNN was not considered to have a major audience at that time. Back in 1991 I knew few people that had cable hookups, and they are not one of the mostly watched networks today either.

Here's a link to the article that proves that the Bush administration ordered the media to leave (from an American source):

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0120-04.htm

Furthermore, I don't think the administration would worry about PBS or MSNBC or any other small news source, because the size of it's viewership combined is only a fraction of what ABC, CBS, and NBC get. I consider ABC, CBS, and NBC to be very soft on the Bush administration since 9/11. These news organizations are not doing any hard hitting investigative reporting concerning political issues like they have prior to 9/11. With all the media mergers, these companies have become mega media outlets. Furthermore, they align themselves with the corporate image. It would be impossible for NBC to report a negative story on GE. Plus, GE donates money to political canidates (I've think I have said enough on this).

You have also critized me for equating the Iraqi media with the USA media. Note that, the USA media I'm fundamentally concerned with is the broadcasters ABC, NBC, and CBS, because most Americans get their news in the formats provided by these networks, and most do not look for an alternative source.

The views of the world are worlds apart between Americans and Islamic Iraqis. The major population in Baghdad is the Islamic Iraqis. They are very religious and are not materialistic like Americans. The Iraqis look at Americans as the evil empire, somewhat similar to the Iranian situation back in the late 70's. So, the way these people live my look like they are oppressed when compared to your values.

I couldn't find any translation of the Iraqi media, but I did find a newpaper based in Egypt that has the middle east point of view with contrasting views to the major media in the USA. Here's a link to it:

http://metimes.com/2K3/issue2003-6/methaus.htm

I think this publication represent the middle eastern view of the world, and I'm sure many of the articles here are reprinted in arabic and published in Iraq. After you read this paper, imagine that this was one of the only newspapers that you have read all your life, and I think your viewpoint may change.

Mark

[nicky g]

"use of open source materials in intelligence dossiers is quite common."

That's true, adn I don't think the plagiarism aspect was too interesting a story either, though they handled it badly. But what interested me is that it wasn't an intelligence dossier in any real sense; it was compiled not by the security services but by TOny Blair's press advisers, on their own with no assistance from MI6 etc. I think it's pretty bad when spin doctory is being presented as intelligence material. Could it be they didn't go to the real intelligence services because they knew the real intelligence wouldn't back them up?

[WTF]

"I believe that these news organizations were told by the Bush administration to not cover it.."

Yeah, the Republicans have a lot of pull with the media, just ask George's daughters Jenna and Barbara. [img]/forums/images/icons/laugh.gif[/img]

[MMMMMM]

I remember the networks being ordered out of Iraq. So what? That still doesn't support your contention that there is no difference between the Iraqi, Soviet or US news medias.

Just how can you possibly equate the US mainstream news media with the former Soviet news media, which was 100% state-controlled???

Please explain. At the moment I can't think of anything I've read in recent years which strikes me as more asinine than this statement.

[adios]

Thanks for the support. I think many of the issues brought up are "red herrings" more or less. War is a terrible thing that needs to be avoided if possible. I don't think that taking a "soft" stance with Hussein will be effective in disarming him from weapons and material to make weapons that will certainly be used to commit terrorist acts in the USA.

[nicky g]

"I don't think that taking a "soft" stance with Hussein will be effective in disarming him from weapons and material to make weapons that will certainly be used to commit terrorist acts in the USA. "

[My bold]
Whyohwhyohwhyohwhyohwhyohwhyohwhyohwhy do people keep saying that this is "certain" when there is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that this will happen. [img]/forums/images/icons/frown.gif[/img] If you're going to say this is a certainty could you tell us how you know, when noone else seems to? You're welcome to believe it but you just can't say that something's certain when noone can conclusively back it up.

[MMMMMM]

Saddam already supports terrorists (Palestinian homicide bombers), he hates the USA, and called for jihad against us. I suspect the that USA's (and other countries') claims that he is linked with al Qaeda are true. Anyways, allowing him to continue possessing WMD consitutes a grave risk to our allies and the region even if you rule out the possibility of attacks on US soil using his weapons. Should this man be allowed the power to blackmail the world with threats of oilfield annihilation at some future date? Should he possess the means to destroy Israel? His entire miltary philosophy is offensive in nature--as is the actual structure of his military--and he's working on missiles and UAV's with greater and greater ranges--he can already strike southern Europe with WMD's delivered by missile. Why--oh why--should we allow him to continue in this vein when he has demonstrated clearly his tendencies towards aggressive military actions? And why should we trust that Saddam won't provide terrorists with these weapons? Maybe you would prefer trusting him but I surely don't. The man is obviously totally untrustworthy.

Yes war has a price--a tragic price--but so too would allowing Saddam to remain in power (he will continue to torture and murder his own citizens on a wide scale, even if he never commits aggression outside Iraq again). Not going to war carries risks which I, and many others, deem unacceptable. You ask for evidence or proof--I think there is some, though we are not privy to all of it--but for me, the man's past actions and character are all the evidence I need to not trust him one single inch, and to feel most strongly that there is no way in hell this aggressive tyrant should be allowed to possess history's most devastating weapons. I'm simply not willing to risk the security of my country, or of our allies, or the world's oilfields, by trusting the likes of Saddam Hussein.