Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (93566)	4/14/2003 8:58:47 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Join the club, John, I've been listening to the BBC for twelve years on WBUR, since Gulf War I. They used to be good, but their slant on this war is becoming nearly as obvious as the Arab press. For instance, a few days ago I heard a BBC announcer interviewing a Human Rights Watch worker on the civilian casualties caused by US troops - or potentially about to be caused. I heard the HRW guy say, in answer to the obvious but unaired question, "what if the US troops turn out not to care about civilian casualties?", "well if the US troops do not care about civilian casualties, we are all in big trouble." Now, we have just seen two major US campaigns, in Afghanistan and Iraq. You would think that these campaigns would furnish some evidence regarding the extent to which the US troops do or do not care about causing civilian casualties. You might think an objective observer, looking at those campaigns, would say something like, "the US does try to avoid civilian casualties as long as it doesn't cost them extra casualties or military setbacks. In short, they care a good deal but not enough to lose." So what did the BBC report say about the evidence of these two campaigns? Nothing. Not a word. The entire report was devoted to actual civilian casualties, taken out of their context (no differentiating, for example, between anti-aircraft guns in schoolyards and stray bombs), and potential horrors. The mass of existing evidence was ignored. This is reporting with a script, nearly as obvious as Al Jazeera.

To: JohnM who wrote (93566)	4/14/2003 10:16:32 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

There is a wide world of media sources out there John, as you know. If your students only picked from media sources that agreed with whatever their own beliefs were on any given subject, and not from a wide variety of other sources, I really do believe you would be less than amused. I sometimes hear BBC on the radio. I usually do check into BBC on internet. They are from a socialist country, and do reflect that in most of the articles. We watch International News on cable...it seems to have a wide view of info from around the world, and a decided slant isn't easily detected. You might also try Strait Times from Singapore, and the Times from India...Heck, you might even want to check into newsmax....they pull from the right more than you'd like...but on the other hand, I know you would find some info of interest. If nothing else, you could throw darts at whatever you found that you didn't agree with. As for Fox vs CNN as mentioned in the article you posted...at least Fox mentions the bias if it is intended. CNN does not as a rule do that. In fact, I can't ever remember them EVER doing that.