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 : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: abstract who wrote (2178)	5/2/2004 4:48:47 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (50) \| Respond to of 35834

Message 20081004 Message 20081030

To: abstract who wrote (2178)	5/3/2004 1:22:08 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

This story reminds me of how the liberal press has gone after the Bush Admin. An ounce of truth amidst a ton of slant, spin, deceit, distortion, intentional misrepresentations & intentionally not covering the whole story objectively & completely unbiased.... but then this guy noticed too...... <font size=4> Whatever happened to reporting the truth? <font size=3> By Phillip Hamilton Published May 02, 2004 <font size=4> About a dozen years ago I learned an important lesson about journalism.<font size=3> At a time when South Africa was preparing to transition away from its apartheid system of government, I was selected to participate in the Rotary International Group Study Exchange program, which allowed me and five other participants to spend six weeks in that country studying the people and places, as well as our professions. I was somewhat apprehensive about traveling to South Africa, where news reports indicated that black-on-white and white-on-black violence was commonplace. To hear the 24-hour news channels and the writers of some of America’s largest newspapers tell it, multitudes of people were dying daily in South Africa’s racial struggle. Nevertheless, I was not about to miss the opportunity to visit South Africa at such a historic moment in time. Not long after arriving in the country, our team was invited to attend a political protest rally. I was not sure what we were getting ourselves into when we accepted the invitation, but our hosts said the rally was something we needed to see. Having positioned ourselves along the parade route, our apprehension increased as we heard the sounds of drums and chanting voices in the distance. But our fears faded as protesters surrounded us a short time later. Instead of seeing violence, we saw a beautiful display of cultural dancing and chanting. We were even allowed to join in the colorful tribal dances. <font size=4> After the rally, our hosts turned on a U.S.-based 24-hour news channel and asked us to watch. We didn’t know why, but we agreed to do so. Had I been reporting what I saw that day for my newspaper, I would have written it this way: ‘More than 20,000 people peacefully demonstrated against the apartheid system of government today.’ But that’s not how it was reported on the 24-hour news channel and in the papers the next day. The news channel’s report began with a broad shot of the massive crowd, but then focused on what was actually about a dozen or so young South Africans looting stores, tossing rocks and bottles and clashing with police. The report went something like this: ‘Demonstrators clashed with police and looted buildings today as more than 20,000 people took to the streets.’ The report was not wrong, but it did create a false impression with viewers around the world. I’m sure the footage increased ratings back in the United States for the 24-hour news channel, but it did not present a true picture of what was happening in South Africa. <font size=3> During the weeks that followed, I attended more political protest rallies throughout the county and made a habit of checking how each was reported. Over and over again, the reporting told the story in such a way that it helped create international pressure on South Africa to end its apartheid policies. Apartheid needed to end, and I am glad that it did. But <font size=4>I don’t agree with slanted reporting to achieve a political agenda. It was my first true understanding of the bias that exists among this nation’s media elite — those who report to a broad, and in many cases national and international, audience. I have watched with interest in recent days how two current events are reported by the national media, and especially that same 24-hour news channel, and I am not convinced the American people are getting true stories. The first event was the so-called March for Women’s Lives in Washington, D.C., last weekend. The other is Iraqi war coverage. The crowd in Washington, D.C., last weekend was not near as large as reported, and there were not many reports about the ugliness displayed by many of those who participated in the death march against the unborn. Also, not much was reported about how First Amendment freedoms were denied to those who sought to conduct counter protests along the sidewalks of the nation’s capitol. Viewers didn’t know that pro-life advocates were not allowed to even have posters along the parade route. In Iraq, there is an incredible amount of great things happening, and American soldiers are making a difference in the lives of the Iraqi people. But the 24-hour news channel shows small pockets of violence and keeps repeating an American soldier body count that actually is incredibly low. In both cases, this nation’s media elite have established a political agenda and are now attempting to educate the masses with selective reporting. The messages are clear: Women should be able to abort babies in any term, and George W. Bush should be aborted in his first term. You know, sometimes I’m embarrassed by my profession. Whatever happened to reporting the truth in an unbiased manner, presenting facts as facts and opinions as opinions?