"Eighty percent of Fox viewers believed at least one of these un-facts; 45 percent believed all three,"
OK. What % of those who watch ABC, NBC, CBS over the last year believe those? That may be the missing key.
Here's Fox News online:
foxnews.com
Now tell me which lies you find in there. And also point out how it is so different from these:
abc.net.au
cbsnews.com
msnbc.com
How's this: Lacking statistics showing that viewers of other networks are significantly better informed, this is just a cheap shot, most likely originated by a source with an ax to grind. Sound reasonable?
Here's the local Fox channel I get most of my TV news on:
ktvu.com
Now the fact is that they are generally regarded as the best news source in the SF Bay Area. I'm sure some pothead from Bezerkely (sorry; I couldn't resist that shot) will pop up and deny it, but it consistently wins awards for its coverage.
I guess that by nothing "remotely implying" any of the un-facts "on their news programs" you're excluding commentary and opinion programs.
I am referring specifically to their news programs. I thought that was the subject under discussion.
BUT if you want to get into commentary, I suspect it would be rather easy to show PBS has a major problem with bias. And we all know in which direction.
Message 19433702
siliconinvestor.com
siliconinvestor.com
Like the Post, they certainly took their time. Journalists are disinclined to puncture "feel good" stories, especially those that they themselves have sent aloft.
archives.cjr.org
That's your piece I'm quoting from.
Second, this coverage Lynched the image of the American woman in uniform, perpetuating a pattern of distorted reporting set out in these pages last year (See "Women Warriors," cjr, May/June 2002). As in Gulf War I, when two female America POWs drew massive, disproportionate coverage, news media bombarded the audience with a tale of female vulnerability in 2003. Lynch was described hiding under the sheets as her rescuers burst in, clinging to a military doctor’s hand and pleading, "Don’t let anybody leave me."
Give me ****ing break! Let's see. First women aren't allowed in combat and get little coverage. They b***h and whine about it. Then, in response to that, they are and they do get coverage. Now THAT is being b***hed about.
How do you win?
Such a heavy focus on one vulnerable woman can only have warped the overall picture. Male U.S. soldiers also were captured, but their plight and liberation got much less attention. Meanwhile, thousands of other American women were making history performing bravely under fire in jobs that were once off limits. The public heard less about them than about the broken bones of Jessica Lynch, damsel in distress. Her dramatic rescue was very likely the one memory most Americans had carried away from the war with Iraq. How awkward to have to tell them she was a truck crash victim saved by the enemy and not actually rescued by the same commando unit that did not actually find those elusive weapons of mass destruction. But that’s what happens when you write first and ask questions later.
You really don't want to hear from me about that paragraph. Bob would give me life without parole.
-- I suspect that situation will end up being that the firefight story with Jessica shooting her gun was bs (everyone acknowledges this), that the capture and treatment by the military itself was bad, but once she was taken to the hospital, she was treated kindly and got as good medical care as could be given under the circumstances. I also suspect the portrayal of a "daring and dangerous" rescue involving a dramatic shootout necessary to free her from the armed enemy was a sham.
I suspect that situation will end up being that the firefight story with Jessica shooting her gun was bs (everyone acknowledges this)
Apparently. But you know something? Everything you heard about Audey Murphy wasn't true either.
Speaking of Audey Murphy, maybe that's where Lynch got the idea:
csulb.edu
They aren't cute enough or blonde enough
csulb.edu
My, my, my, aren't we jealous!
that the capture and treatment by the military itself was bad
Maybe. I wouldn't be surprised. Humans generally aren't kind to other humans who are trying to kill them.
but once she was taken to the hospital, she was treated kindly and got as good medical care as could be given under the circumstances.
That is my understanding. And you want to know where I first heard that she had received good treatment from her Iraqi captors? FOX NEWS!
Apparently those incompetents can't keep their bias straight.
I also suspect the portrayal of a "daring and dangerous" rescue involving a dramatic shootout necessary to free her from the armed enemy was a sham.
Quite possibly. Holes are showing up in the story.
But you know something?
Military organizations do lie. I suspect ours is towards the low end of that scale. They know the press is watching and will happily have THEM for dinner on on the 6 PM news. Including Fox News.
If the fact that military organizations lie is sufficient reason not to fight a war, I guess we're going to have to revive the Nazi Party and give them Europe. |
