The War You Don't See

I lol'd at that.

Might watch this online as only caught the end of it. My personal view on the media portraying war is that they are biased and/or one sided. This is a small problem in its own right, but the reporters/newsgroup/channel will have their own agenda so in a small way it is expected. The main problem is that without the news reports you would have no idea what is going on around the world. Short of joining the army we, the public, can't really go to iraq, afghanistan etc to find out the truth of the situation so have to rely on the news reports.

I was half asleep at the time but this stood out for me. The American cheif of staff (I think) near the end said something along the lines of "America goes to war to protect it's interests" I couldn't help but think - that's oil then.

I still do not understand why those people who lied about the WMD's in Iraq haven't been brought to any justice. Without the WMD's and knowing that there weren't any surely makes the whole war illegal and people should be punished of war crimes. Unfortunately it seems the whole thing is repeating with Iran.
 
lixxus said:
You believe the media have no real purpose in war.
The fact media censor information from us regarding secret wars in Pakistan and Yemen as has been discovered by wikileaks .
Click to expand...

Floogie said:
You may be dreaming yourself buddy if you think the media plays no role other than to inform. The media chooses either willfully or through government (and corporate) coercion, which stories to cover and emphasise and how to present them in a suitable frame of reference.
Click to expand...


Greboth said:
My personal view on the media portraying war is that they are biased and/or one sided. This is a small problem in its own right, but the reporters/newsgroup/channel will have their own agenda so in a small way it is expected. The main problem is that without the news reports you would have no idea what is going on around the world. Short of joining the army we, the public, can't really go to iraq, afghanistan etc to find out the truth of the situation so have to rely on the news reports.
Click to expand...

Sorry to pick a number of posts to make my point but all miss a vital aspect with regard to reporting things of this nature in the UK.

While elements of the media (including the BBC) all have an editorial line when presenting their stories and some have an agenda and bias towards one side of the argument (right or wrong) or the other, clearly the reasons may vary between govt complicity and corporate pressure.

However all media are bound to comply with the D-Notice system which operates in the UK. Basically it is a Government request not to publish material which is deemed sensitive, and this includes military operations. The media do not necessarily have to comply, but usually do so.
Link to Wikipedia entry

Wikileaks by its nature is not bound by this system and has (as far as I can make out) attempted to co-operate with Government departments before releasing the cables. According to some sources I have read (print and internet), the assertion that lives have been put at risk is an error. The only reason the politicians are jumping up and down is because they have been exposed along with their hypocrisy and mendacity.
 
I can't speak for the others you quoted but I shall clarify my piont that you made bold. I am not saying that any sensitive or secret information should be made public. I refer to words in the media being chosen carefully depending on who they are directed at. The Arab-Israeli conflict was highlighted in that program that when reporting what happened they would choose words carefully to not portray Israel in such a bad light.

The news say side a attacked side b but did they really? Not saying that the news would lie to that extent but how would we know really? Without the new reporting exactly what is going on impartially we, in honesty, don't know the details of what is going on. Unfortunately no one is perfect so every report by nature will be geared on way or another.
 
Broadie said:
Sorry to pick a number of posts to make my point but all miss a vital aspect with regard to reporting things of this nature in the UK.

While elements of the media (including the BBC) all have an editorial line when presenting their stories and some have an agenda and bias towards one side of the argument (right or wrong) or the other, clearly the reasons may vary between govt complicity and corporate pressure.

However all media are bound to comply with the D-Notice system which operates in the UK. Basically it is a Government request not to publish material which is deemed sensitive, and this includes military operations. The media do not necessarily have to comply, but usually do so.
Link to Wikipedia entry

Wikileaks by its nature is not bound by this system and has (as far as I can make out) attempted to co-operate with Government departments before releasing the cables. According to some sources I have read (print and internet), the assertion that lives have been put at risk is an error. The only reason the politicians are jumping up and down is because they have been exposed along with their hypocrisy and mendacity.
Click to expand...

I think you may have shot a little wide in your point. It is entirely possible to be impartial and to give a true representation of the news without incurring a D-Notice.

The real problem which the documentary just happened to gloss over, is the role of money in media reporting. Aside from an actual freedom to operate, media outlets need capital from a substantial reader-base (which in turn attracts investors and advertisers) to sustain themselves. To increase readership they need exclusives and news reported quickly from the best sources. This requires fostering a good relationship with them and often involves kowtowing to corporate and governmental interests. If you were a corporation, would you advertise in media that promotes trade unions? If you were a government, would you provide access to officials, press conferences or uphold legislation protecting an outlet that consistently promotes a dissenting view? So the bottom line is however honest your intentions are in reporting, you become willingly or unwillingly, a slave to the promotion of one particular view to ensure financial sustainability.

Then there is also the money factor within the media company itself (which the documentary did touch on) which discourages rogue journalist reporting. Would you report a dissenting view if it was at the expensive of well-paid and attractive job and future employment prospects?

The fix would be to take the money out of the entire process, but how that can be acceptably achieved is anyones guess. Media in its current form will never be the solution though.
 
w3bbo said:
Propaganda.

The media has the capability to shroud a nation in one sided opinions.
Click to expand...

A great example of this is the recent protests.

Last year when Iranians were rioting they were branded by western media as revolutionaries, whenever it happens over here they're called anarchists. ;)
 
Castiel said:
Can someone explain why, if the media are the mouthpieces of State propaganda, are they printing the wikileaks cables etc.......?
Click to expand...

You forget the primary purpose of a 'independent' media outlet is to make money and not necessarily to be a tool of state propaganda. Parroting the view of the state (or the corporate world) just happens to be more profitable. On this occasion perhaps media outlets think there are more gains to be had in running the Wikileaks story?

Also (though I have no strong feelings for or against it) there is also the argument that the leaks are leaked purposely by the US government...
 
lixxus said:
I feel media peddle political agenda.

The bottom line however is to make profit by any means.

Also we can look at how BBC news report on gaza. clear example of this is refusing to air public aid appeal when all other news media channels did.
Click to expand...

True look at how much profit was made from the anthrax scares in the states.
 
Castiel said:
Can someone explain why, if the media are the mouthpieces of State propaganda, are they printing the wikileaks cables etc.......?
Click to expand...

Have to have to post some truth or are all the cables themselves the truth? Also did not see any of the cables regarding USA funding Kurdish rebels in Turkey on the bcc, fox etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom