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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (98027)	5/12/2003 8:03:32 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

But, but, but....it got the story wrong. Only if you thought the only story was Tommy Franks walking on water all the way to Baghdad. I found the reporting broken into an uncountable number of small reports, none of which I could check for accuracy, but almost all from the US cable networks were cheerleading and unabashedly so. So, based on those numerous small reports, I found I was given two or three sides of each event from the BBC reports; whereas I got only one from the US media--walking on water.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (98027)	5/13/2003 9:51:45 AM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 281500

Doesn't that [accuracy] count in your score? even a little? Presumably not. I suppose in certain quarters it is considered better to espouse a line of thought, regardless of its faults, than to be accurate. The issue points to the bedrock of an old debate--process vs. substance, Old Europe vs. New Europe, multilateralism under all circumstances vs. decisive action if needed, etc., that I think can be encapsulated under the title "It doesn't matter what you do so long as the French are for it and it is debated endlessly or how I learned to stop worrying and love Saddam." Apologies to the dead Mr. Kubrick and Dr. Strangelove. The debate is still a valid one, but is subsumed by the fact that for the moment the rigthies appear to be right. Things can change, however. The present debate on the media's lack of "objectivity" is utterly useless, in my view. It will result in interminable ankle-biting. Every rational thinking person across the political spectrum will agree that the vast majority of media are hopelessly biased, some more than others. And, yes, accuracy counts, despite any bias that might be exhibited in the process. Not much value in being biased and wrong, is there? Sy Hersh will hold an advanced post-grad seminar on that subject soon.....