Media Bias?

OK, whatever the accuracies and inaccuracies of the public war on media bias (does it exist? where does it tilt?) there are moments where it is (in an individual new source) so blatant and absurd that it can’t be missed.

To wit:

More than a half-hour after the capture of the Butcher of Ramadi, Amir Khalaf Fanus, Al Qaeda’s #3 in Iraq and one of the most brutal and feared terrorists in Iraq was reported on the AP news wire, CNN gave us the following headlines:

What caused the Southwest crash? 10 p.m. ET

Now as terribly pressing as all of this news about Paris Hilton, Matt Damon, and Bill’s comments on the environment are, is a major capture in the Iraq War, not, perhaps, massively newsworthy? OK, now add this element: he wasn’t just captured, he was HANDED IN BY IRAQI CITIZENS. That news is doubly huge in its implications. But for CNN… it’s far, far more important that the world know that four hostages (four more victims of W’s illegal war!) and that no one get any inkling that there might not only be hope of progress in our existential conflict with the Islamofacsists, but that the people of Iraq are actually WITH us in that struggle.

Truly truly am I amazed.

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “Media Bias?

  1. Hey Stu– you’re right. Last night, perhaps 30 minutes after your post, I saw that CNN had nothing while Fox News did have a story. (Neither the WSJ nor NY Times did, either.) However, this morning I see that neither Fox News nor CNN have anything. In fact, I can’t seem to find the story anywhere. And since I didn’t read up on it, it’s frustrating because I don’t know what happened.

    Like

  2. I did some searching. The < HREF="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ_AL_QAIDA?SITE=PAYOK&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT" REL="nofollow">AP<> says:“Fanus was No. 3 on a most-wanted list for Ramadi drawn up by the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 28th Infantry Division.”So he’s not the #3 in Iraq, he’s the #3 in Ramadi, according to the military brigade there. Yes, according to the Captain in charge, “He is the highest ranking al-Qaida in Iraq member to be turned into Iraqi and U.S. officials by local citizens.” So that’s sort of a big deal. I suppose. But while it’s certainly more important than Matt Damon’s secret wedding, I not sure that by <>not<> making this front page news, CNN is showing its “liberal bias.” Unless you’re willing to suggest that Fox News’ short-lived hype of the event proves that its “Fair and Balanced” motto is a giant lie and that they’re really nothing more than Bush cheerleaders. And even then, if it were such a big deal, why is Fox News not hyping it now, less than 24 hours later?

    Like

  3. US news judgment is a joke. We have no existential conflict with islamo-anyone. We have strategic economic and military interests in the Middle East which we are protecting aggressively. People who are there are generally not pleased with our behavior. Some are risking their lives and opposing it. And George Bush does not have long held, publicly stated existential values suggesting that we should be willing to do whatever it takes to impose democratic values, even if it requires a trillion dollar nation-building exercise. We have a muscular, intrusive willingness to prop up dictators, overthrow governments and kill people when it serves our pursuit of Mammon. Sometimes, people react. 5% of insurgents are foreign fighters, and most of them are likely more motivated by arab nationalism that a vision of authoritarian government.I wondered when the berlin wall fell what boogeyman could be created to engender enough fear and paranoia to justify maintaining and growing military budgets designed to fight the Soviet Union and the International Communist Movement. Didn’t take long.And, then, there is this, from my friends at Salon…http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/review/2005/12/08/btm/index.html

    Like

  4. all-encompassingly has < HREF="http://www.all-encompassingly.com/cnn-ann-coulter/" REL="nofollow">a post up touching on media bias<>, once again dealing with Ann Coulter, but that should only be a minor distraction. The important thing is the context and the way it was reported thereafter.

    Like

  5. Mr. Gruber,An existential conflict is, by definition, a conflict with someone that wants to end you and your way of life. By this measurement our conflict with the Zarqawis of the world is indeed existential.

    Like

  6. This is the crux of the issue, not this phony cut and run versus stay the course nonsense. No one wants to leave the Iraqis vulnerable. But if we want to stay because we are engaging in a clash of civilizations, we will stay as long as it serves OUR security and commercialo interests, not THEIRS.There are, indeed, some lunatics, some very dangerous, violent, evil men with imperial ambitions. Some are jihadis. Some are American fundamentalists. In the Muslim world, they can give a shit about our way of life. Now, when we try to impose our way of life on theirs, when we assassinate their democraticly elected leaders (Iran 1953), when we prop up vile dictators with our oil money (Saudi Arabia), when we cause tens of thousands of violent deaths (Iraq), when we arm military dictators (Indonesia), when we aggressively market gratuitous sex, crass commercialism and violence with our movies, music, clothes and products, then, surprise, there is blowback. Reaction.They hate our policies, our actions, our muscular imposition of our itnerests on theirs. We behave like Christians, with love, generosity, peace, compassion, tolerance and patience, we lose their enmity.

    Like

  7. You have some fair points there with respect to the crass, violent American realities that filter through to Muslim countries.But I am at a loss to understand how a culture (since we are speaking broadly) that actually finds religious sanction (in numerous fatwas) for beheading the infidel and is willing to explode it’s own teenagers in acts of terror can point to Hollywood as a source of violent mentalities.Also I generally find it confusing when I am told that we “caused” tens of thousands of deaths in Iraq…although I think I understand. It is true in the same sense that we caused tens of thousands of deaths in Nazi Germany. The numbers are, in any event, contentious. And given that Human Rights Watch estimates that an average of 60,000 innocent Iraqis were deliberately eliminated each year by the Saddam Hussein regime, given that the UN’s corrupt management of the Oil for Food program was preventing it from benefitting the starving innocents it was supposed to (while it enriched Russian oil magnates and bloward British parliamentarians), the argument can certainly be made that it is possible, in net, that the Coalition has saved Iraqi lives by its intervention in the failed state that Iraq had become.

    Like

  8. Yes, the same old Manifeest Destiny, Onward Christian Soldiers nonsense. Let’s invade countries and save them from their selves. Not Burma, or Saudi Arabia, or other freak shows of tyranny. Iraq.I think when our troops go in using our weapons, that counts as us killing Iraqis. Low end estimates are 20,000, high end estimates 100,000 dead. Contentious? And I get confused. Did we invade because of WMD? Democracy? Getting rid of Hussein? Central front of war on terror? And please don’t tell me that because a small number of hoodlums behead Americans or suicide bomb, then the Muslim world can justifiably be invaded at will. And why is it that when a million pounds of explosives blow apart civilian bodies, that is more civilized and less violent than a handful of beheadings. And why is it when our teenagers sacrifice their lives to take a military position, they are heros, and theirs are not? Certainly, they are manipulated and exploited. Watch the next round of our military ads and ask yourselves how we use fantasy and imagery to get poor kids into the military.My grandchildren will live in peace if we figure out how to live in peace. America has lost its moral authority in the world, which is a sad, sad thing.

    Like

Comments are closed.