Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
CNN transcript is cut a bit short

By llamasex in Media
Sun Feb 16, 2003 at 11:35:05 PM EST
Tags: News (all tags)
News

On Friday the 14th of February CNN.com presented a "transcript" of Hans Blix's presentation to the U.N. Security Council concerning the progress of weapons inspections in Iraq. Comparison with other transcripts, notably that presented by the BBC , reveals that a substantial section of the presentation was omitted in the CNN version. The missing text includes descriptions of important instances of Iraqi government cooperation and presents a relatively favourable picture of inspectors' access to scientists.


The excised text consists of 878 words, but they are words that matter. The passage begins by describing the expansion of an Iraqi commission tasked with uncovering any remaining proscribed materials within Iraq, which Blix describes as "welcome". Blix also mentions the establishment of a second commission, headed by former Oil Minister Amer Rashid, with a mandate to find any documentary evidence of attempts to conceal prohibited weapons.

The passage also offers a brief assessment of the progress of UNMOVIC interviews with scientists. Here again Blix presents information that runs against the present media orthodoxy. In Blix's speech interviews are "declined" rather than forbidden, and he expresses the opinion that inspectors will be able to gather an increasing number of candid interviews in the future. These, if they materialise, will come on top of three interviews "on UNMOVIC's terms" that were conducted in early February and which proved "informative".

When combined with Blix's report that legislation enacting UN weapons restrictions has been passed by an extraordinary session of the Iraqi National Assembly, this information provides a surprisingly positive impression of Iraqi cooperation with the inspection teams, and certainly suggests a vast step up from the period following UNSCOM's departure in 1998.

The second half of the deleted passage concerns the inspectors' use of intelligence data from allied sources such as the United States. Blix says that such information is valuable to the inspection effort in locating undeclared items and sites. However, he also cautions against total reliance on intellience data, warning that satellite imagery and other information can be misinterpreted. He mentions that intelligence services have identified as inspection targets houses that were subsequently found to contain only conventional munitions, indicating that conventional, permissable weapons are also moving around Iraq and may be causing false reports of suspicious activity.

If the missing passage could be said to favour one side of the debate or the other, then it is the anti-war side. However, the cautiousness and reserve of these paragraphs suggests that they were probably not ommitted as a result of political bias. Further evidence of an accident is provided by the seeming clumsiness of the cut, which causes the term "the site" to appear with no explanation of what site it applies to.

Regardless of whether the ommission is deliberate and politically motivated or an editorial accident, readers of CNN.com are being denied important information about the actual content of Hans Blix's report to the U.N Security Council and, perhaps more importantly, about the conduct of the Iraqi government in the face of inspections.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Funny business in the missing words
o Yes, CNN is a tool of the government Military Industrial complex 92%
o No, Accidental this happens all the time 7%

Votes: 289
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o "transcrip t"
o BBC
o Also by llamasex


Display: Sort:
CNN transcript is cut a bit short | 221 comments (212 topical, 9 editorial, 0 hidden)
Cuts both ways (2.75 / 16) (#3)
by Demiurge on Sun Feb 16, 2003 at 10:00:21 PM EST

Regardless of whether you think CNN is showing editorial slant in excising a portion of the transcript(personally, I think it goes more to incompetence or error), the BBC article is not neutral itself. I noted that the quotation boxes on the side seemed to emphasize the more positive aspects of Blix's report, i.e. "The presentation of the papers could be indicative of a more active attitude focusing on important open issues". I find this bit particularly amusing, because Blix himself has admitted the papers provided no new information, so apparently the Iraqis buying time by giving the inspectors useless and old information is somehow indicative of something other than a reluctance to comply with the UN.

Indeed (4.81 / 11) (#4)
by The Artificial Kid on Sun Feb 16, 2003 at 10:14:25 PM EST

But the problem here is the missing information. It is far easier to ignore a text box than to conjure up missing paragraphs to fill even the most obvious gap in a transcript.

In any case, this article makes no statements about the bias or otherwise of the BBC, nor does it draw any definitive conclusions about bias on the part of CNN. The story here is the omission in a source that large numbers of people take as reliable and even complete.

[ Parent ]

But it's a "transcript" (4.88 / 9) (#21)
by nevertheless on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 12:25:05 AM EST

Here's the lead in:
Following is a transcript of chief weapons inspector Hans Blix's February 14 presentation to the U.N. Security Council on the progress of the inspection effort in Iraq.
It doesn't say "edited transcript," it just says "transcript." News media are certainly free to slant and edit whatever they like, but if you present something as a "transcript," it had better be one. At least "The News Hour" says "here are excerpts from ..." or so and so "has highlights from today's testimony." There's a big, big difference.

--
This whole "being at work" thing just isn't doing it for me. -- Phil the Canuck


[ Parent ]
error... (4.66 / 3) (#32)
by Jordan Block on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 04:19:33 AM EST

Error like "Oops, I accidentaly cut off over 800 words of Blix's speah that just happens to show that war may not be a neccecary move?

While I'll cetainly grant that pretty much all media puts its own slant on things, the little things like this have been adding up for some time now (and not just with the Iraq situation).

[ Parent ]
I think CNN is no better than the old Pravda. (3.94 / 17) (#6)
by Noam Chompsky on Sun Feb 16, 2003 at 10:23:45 PM EST

Except, perhaps, it is better at dramatizing everything. Nobody with a lick of sense who reads foreign news can possibly watch CNN without being struck by the absurd propagandized model of the world it constructs for American internal consumption and entertainment. I watch CNN to punish myself. Sometimes I berate the anchors. When Connie Chung comes on the air, I take off my clothes and sit next to Camera 1, a leer on my face, my legs spread wide open. Is that so wrong?

--
Faster, liberalists,

When you think about Connie Chung... (2.00 / 2) (#9)
by Hatamoto on Sun Feb 16, 2003 at 10:41:44 PM EST

... you touch yourself?

That's wrong on so many levels, I don't even know where to begin.

--
"Innocence is no defense." - Federal District Judge William H. Yohn (People v. Mumia Abu-Jamal)
[ Parent ]

Perhaps I said too much? (4.00 / 2) (#14)
by Noam Chompsky on Sun Feb 16, 2003 at 11:02:08 PM EST

I just assumed we were all adults here, beautiful sinners on the Myer-Briggs scale of personality type.

--
Faster, liberalists, Parent ]

fucking disgusting (3.66 / 18) (#13)
by ucblockhead on Sun Feb 16, 2003 at 10:51:08 PM EST

I've broken my "-1 on politics" for this. Fucking disgusting.
-----------------------
This is k5. We're all tools - duxup
This is why I stopped reading/watching CNN (4.41 / 17) (#15)
by christonabike on Sun Feb 16, 2003 at 11:07:27 PM EST

or just about all American media in general. The only time I'm willing to check out CNN/ABC/CBS and even Reuters or the Associated Press is to see what they don't report. It's amazing that a 24/7 news channel can manage to report so few stories. It's like the 30 minute news shows on the mainstream networks stretched over 24 hours; they focus on a small amount of "top stories" all day long. I recommend BBC World as well as Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting. I read Salon as well, but I do so knowing it's a bias, or at least slanted, source.

All Media is biased. (3.50 / 2) (#39)
by MKalus on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 08:08:53 AM EST

Even though we like to think that sources like the BBC, DW or CBC aren't they still are there to form opinions, maybe they are a bit more balanced than the "mainstream" media but the matter of fact is media only lets you know what they WANT you to know.

That can be a lot or that can be nothing depending on the channel.

indymedia.org is maybe the future as they are not profit driven and are local (most international news are bought from Reuters or AP or even CNN) but right now indymedia doesn't have an press credential which for example exempts them from attending the UN meeting or a Whitehouse briefing. And I doubt it'll change, indymedia could be a real thorn in the side of the people in power if they would get access as "Free press".

M.
-- Michael
[ Parent ]

indymedia is even worse. (none / 0) (#141)
by Work on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 07:38:26 PM EST

reason being, every 2 bit hack with a political agenda can write a story for it. So its credibility is nonexistant.

With the more mainstream news sources, the individual writer has no say over such things, as they have bosses, whose bosses have bosses and so on. Granted, this does not eliminate bias by any means (rather, it leads to organizational bias), its generally much more watered down bias, as the organization must appeal to broader audience.

[ Parent ]

I am not so sure... (none / 0) (#172)
by MKalus on Tue Feb 18, 2003 at 12:27:42 PM EST

Because everyone can post you can get a picture for the whole, from one extreme to the other and the bias is only existant in your mind.

But I guess that you already knew.

The problem is that media in general (especially if it is happening broadly) can easily sway public perception of what is "right" and what is "wrong".

Or differently: Today a lot of the media do the thinking FOR you. And thus I don't think Indymedia is really all that bad.
-- Michael
[ Parent ]

Indymedia isn't news (none / 0) (#205)
by subversion on Wed Feb 19, 2003 at 02:39:18 PM EST

News implies that there was some fact-checking going on, that there was verification, that there is some truth. Admittedly, news media often fail in this, but they do issue corrections, and generally do try to present a picture of things that actually happened (when they stop doing this, they lose the right to call themselves news). Indymedia is just that - independent media. As rusty said - it came from indymedia, it sure as hell is fiction. No truth, no use. Indymedia is worthless.

If you disagree, reply, don't moderate.
[ Parent ]
Really? (none / 0) (#220)
by MKalus on Wed Mar 12, 2003 at 04:19:54 PM EST

I am not so sure about your views.

Every media has it's agenda, the strength in indymedia is (IMO) the fact that if you know it's wrong YOU CAN POST a correction and it will be seen.

Also the editorial Staff I have met from Indymedia ARE concnered about doing a "good job" and even though most people have "left" ideoligies(sp?) they seem to do a better job than most "professionell" outlets.

I guess once you start making money with "news" you are tempted to only show the "news" that you consider giving you a "payback".
-- Michael
[ Parent ]

Don't lump Reuters in with CNN! (5.00 / 1) (#88)
by mr strange on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 11:40:10 AM EST

Reuters is a UK company. Their news wire contains vast volumes of news that never gets into mainstream "retail" news media. I used to have a Reuters Terminal on my desk, and read their raw feeds as my main source of news. I found it amazing that many significant world events reported ad nauseum by Reuters never made it onto the BBC.

intrigued by your idea that fascism is feminine - livus
[ Parent ]
True. (4.00 / 1) (#127)
by Phillip Asheo on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 04:36:08 PM EST

I used to work in a very newsfeed-dependent environment. We had feeds from just about every wire there is. Its amazing some of the stuff that goes on that is ignored by the mainstream.

Our applications were experimental prototype program trading systems written in a combination of prolog, C++, Smalltalk-80 and perl that would make certain commodities futures & options trading decisions based on natural language analysis of the news feeds. Some of the deals these systems wanted us to make would make your eyes water. Fortunately they all got fed past a team of traders and risk managers who would make the final call.

Turns out that the NLP AI system we had could work out that an event was significant from parsing the feeds and doing a bit of hardcore NLP, but it never quite got well tuned enough to work out whether a significant event was positive or negative.

The most hilarious moment of all came when we added an RSS interface and plugged a well known "news for nerds" website into it ("+5 Informative" comments and all!). Suddenly all the tech trading decisions became more random and further analysis using a random "tech dictionary" feed demonstrated that slashdot as a news source for trading decisions was little better (and in some cases much worse) than a random tech buzzword generator.

At this point, we put a line of code in to reverse the input from the slashdot feed, and suddenly the tech index options trades we were doing started to outperform the conventional numerical analysis based program trades by 2-3%. As time wore on, the quality of the slashdot feed declined and we were forced to remove it eventually. (we tried setting it to browse at 1, but -1 seemed to be the only way to get any meaningful output from it).

Strangely enough, when we filtered out the troll posts, we got worse results, and filtering out the 'informative' posts had almost no effect. go figure.

How I miss the "dotcom" days of limitless funding for stupid ideas!!!

Another very interesting result we got was that the more news sources we added, the less extreme the trading decisions became. It was almost as if you needed bias to get any sort of positive or negative outcome.

Interestingly enough, some time later, we replaced the complex AI with a simplified word counter (written in 'awk', believe it or not!) and applied this to the news feeds. At this point things just became hilarious.

The 25 line awk script was, at one point making more profitable trades than the entire NASDAQ index option trading group. The author of that piece of code must be one of the highest paid developers per line of code in history.

She got a > $375000 bonus that year.

--
"Never say what you can grunt. Never grunt what you can wink. Never wink what you can nod, never nod what you can shrug, and don't shrug when it ain't necessary"
-Earl Long
[ Parent ]

Media Hype Driven Dot-Com (none / 0) (#134)
by cronian on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 06:18:24 PM EST

I would guess your results reflect how the media hype drove the dotcom boom. I would like to see how that strategy would work now. You could put in an algorithm that would sort and analyze articles by how many times they say terrorism.

BTW, do you how to get access to all of these newsfeeds? Is there any way without spending some huge chunks of money?

We perfect it; Congress kills it; They make it; We Import it; It must be anti-Americanism
[ Parent ]

Access to newsfeeds. (none / 0) (#136)
by Phillip Asheo on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 06:39:14 PM EST

Is there any way without spending some huge chunks of money?

Financial organizations have very deep pockets, and the research we were doing was extremely profitable. Timely access to accurate information literally is money in the financial markets.

Officially there is no way to get these feeds cheaply. Unofficially, I couldn't say, but you could try hanging around with these informative guys and see if you picked up any useful information.

Bear in mind, not all the people you might meet this way will have your best interests at heart. There are quite a few wierd people and a few downright nasty people in the underground community. If you really need access to a wire feed, I believe some schools and libraries carry them.

--
"Never say what you can grunt. Never grunt what you can wink. Never wink what you can nod, never nod what you can shrug, and don't shrug when it ain't necessary"
-Earl Long
[ Parent ]

You could try Clari... (none / 0) (#146)
by siobibble on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 09:34:03 PM EST

Some usenet servers have a feed to the clari.* heirarchy, which has AFP and AP feeds. The only official site that has full clari.* feeds is airnews. Other sites get it via peers that forgot to close of clari.* feeds and because it's through usenet, there might be some delay. I believe giganews, newshosting, and easynews also carry clari.* feeds, but I'm not sure if those are official clari.* feeds.

[ Parent ]
Corrections (none / 0) (#147)
by siobibble on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 09:41:57 PM EST

I hate it when I press post instead of preview, grrr =(

The only official site that has full clari.* feeds is airnews.

I meant to say that's the only one I knew at the time. Upon further research, there is also altopia

The clari.* heirarchy is split into different genres and provides the raw newswire feeds. The system works like this: AP/AFP sends news through the newswire, clarinet resends it out to the usenet server, and you can obtain it from a specific group in the usenet server. You could probably easily create a client that takes the feed from the usenet services and process it from there.

[ Parent ]

Thank you (none / 0) (#132)
by christonabike on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 05:53:40 PM EST

I did not know that.

[ Parent ]
cut and paste (4.44 / 9) (#17)
by kalculy on Sun Feb 16, 2003 at 11:15:12 PM EST

I'm not surprised in the least. I find the only relatively reliable news source (besides the BBC and ABC - Australia, that is!) is the public broadcaster here, the CBC (it's somewhat anti-gov). I've witnessed the same sort of more cut and less paste when comparing interviews broadcast on both the CBC (not cut) and the commercial broadcasts (drastically cut; the meaning diametrically opposed to the original, longer CBC version)
cogito, ergo sum
Oh no! (1.45 / 11) (#18)
by Hide The Hamster on Sun Feb 16, 2003 at 11:43:50 PM EST

Say it isn't so!

{=0


Free spirits are a liability.

August 8, 2004: "it certainly is" and I had engaged in a homosexual tryst.

FAIR.ORG, Now! (4.40 / 20) (#19)
by limekiller on Sun Feb 16, 2003 at 11:54:31 PM EST

llamasex, contact Fair.org immediately.  

Fair.org is a media watchdog group and a highly respected one, too.  They will be all up in their ass like a wedgie.

I'm not doing it because you deserve the credit.  And ...I wrote to them last week with a story about a fundamentalist television "reporter" plagiarizing a whole crapload of stuff.  =)

Is this a surprise? (4.62 / 24) (#20)
by gbd on Sun Feb 16, 2003 at 11:55:07 PM EST

If there is a war in Iraq, then the average American's propensity to watch news channels is going to increase dramatically. This, in turn, translates to inflated viewership for CNN (and MSNBC and Fox News and the three broadcast networks.) This, in turn, translates to higher advertising revenue. All American news outlets stand to make a tidy profit from any war with Iraq. From a purely capitalist business perspective, it is not in the best interest of any of these networks to broadcast material that might cause Americans to re-evaluate their stance on any upcoming military action against Iraq. Their interests are best served by a public that is thirsting for war. For months now, the news networks have been promising action against Iraq. And by God, they'd better deliver it.

And yet we still hear the endless droning about this nebulous "left-wing bias" in the American media.  Unbelievable.

--
Gunter glieben glauchen globen.

What about other countries? (4.50 / 6) (#27)
by swr on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 01:14:16 AM EST

If there is a war in Iraq, then the average American's propensity to watch news channels is going to increase dramatically. This, in turn, translates to inflated viewership for CNN (and MSNBC and Fox News and the three broadcast networks.) This, in turn, translates to higher advertising revenue.

But that should be true of news channels in other countries as well, yet we don't see the same pro-war slant there.

My guess (and it is just a guess) is that the American news networks get most of their information about military action directly from the USG, and fear getting cut-off if they step on the wrong toes.



[ Parent ]
Difference is in the funding.. (4.88 / 9) (#29)
by Kwil on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 01:39:29 AM EST

..most other countries have large partially publically funded stations, such as the BBC, CBC, etc.  The lesser reliance on private funding allows these stations some leeway in the opinions they express.  (Of course, total public funding can be a road to government yes-men, so I tend to think it's best to have a combination of the two)

The existance of such a station forces adjustment to those stations in the region that are purely privately funded, because any obvious differences in the factual reporting would be quickly noted.

That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze


[ Parent ]
The BBC is frequently a PITA for the government... (5.00 / 5) (#33)
by IslandApe on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 04:29:21 AM EST

...and three cheers for that! Whatever its faults, the BBC is sufficiently independent from the British government to provide some degree of balance. British readers will know about the (in)famous Today program on national radio that prides itself in roasting anybody and everybody. Due to the demographic of the listeners, politicians have little choice but to appear. I feel the BBC goes some way to keeping at least some of the commercial broadcasters honest. Britsh newspapers are another matter though.

O wad some Power the giftie gie us To see oursels as ithers see us! It wad frae monie a blunder free us, An' foolish notion;
[ Parent ]
BS. (3.00 / 2) (#125)
by Phillip Asheo on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 04:17:17 PM EST

The BBC is nothing more than a mouthpiece of the government. It is directly dependent upon a tax levied by the government. The UK government effectively coerces the people into paying for the propaganda they are exposed to. The government could close it down at the drop of a hat if it ever stepped out of line. Truth be told, I wish it would.

Nowhere is this bias more evident than in the BBC "coverage" of the Euro issue. The BBC presents a consitantly pro-Euro stance, all news items on the Britain giving up her sovereignity are couched in pro-European terms.

The sooner this state-sponsored propaganda machine is closed down and I can stop being coerced into funding it by the ludicrous "TV licence fee" (better described as a propaganda tax) the better.

--
"Never say what you can grunt. Never grunt what you can wink. Never wink what you can nod, never nod what you can shrug, and don't shrug when it ain't necessary"
-Earl Long
[ Parent ]

You might like to read (5.00 / 5) (#145)
by it certainly is on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 08:52:09 PM EST

this. It's also worth reading the TV pages of Private Eye, this is about the only nationally published place where disgruntled BBC sources mouth off and leak their latest BBC pet hates. There are also websites like BECTU or CPBF.

It's really not dependence on the licence fee that makes the BBC such a pushover -- BBC Enterprises and BBC Worldwide make a huge profit in syndicating TV shows and selling CDs, videos, DVDs and merchandise for popular shows that were originally paid for in full by the British taxpayer. If there were a cut in the license fee funding, the BBC could deal with it. The BBC's complicity stems chiefly from the fact that the Governers of the BBC, including Director General are appointed by the government. These Governers in turn choose the managers, who in turn grab the program makers by the balls and squeeze.

You can genuinely get unbiased, truthful news reporting out of the BBC -- provided it airs before any managers have a chance to review it properly. The BBC could be seen as a battlefield between the meddling, incompetent, bumbling managers and program makers. The corporation was almost destroyed by John Birt's "Producer Choice" internal market.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

Good enough for Mrs T - good enough for me!!! (1.00 / 1) (#175)
by Phillip Asheo on Tue Feb 18, 2003 at 03:37:30 PM EST

Her animosity towards the BBC was fuelled in part because its very existence as a publicly-funded universalist entertainment and media corporation was anathema to free-market values.

It's very difficult to argue with Mrs T on this one!

--
"Never say what you can grunt. Never grunt what you can wink. Never wink what you can nod, never nod what you can shrug, and don't shrug when it ain't necessary"
-Earl Long
[ Parent ]

But what was her solution? (4.00 / 1) (#176)
by it certainly is on Tue Feb 18, 2003 at 05:10:55 PM EST

It was to flood the BBC with her cronies, weakening its independence and doing her dirty work by softening (and outright censoring) politically embarrasing stories. As Mr Chompsky was pointing out earlier, all news organisations should be pitted against the government, not acting as its mouthpiece.

The Digger 's Sky, Sun and Times are absolutely no better in this respect, as the Digger has pledged support to Tony in return for being able to buy Channel 5. Neither are Dirty Desmond's Star or Express, as we recently saw Desmond giving Tony a generous donation. The only hope we have left is ITV, Channel 4, the Telegraph, Grauniad and Mail. God help us. (I don't think the Sport counts as a "newspaper" and the Morning Star is a bit too left wing to be taken seriously.)

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

Capitalist ownership of the media is the problem (1.00 / 1) (#177)
by Phillip Asheo on Tue Feb 18, 2003 at 05:20:41 PM EST

Only when educated, altruistic philanthropists give freely of their time and resources will we ever be able to enjoy a truly independent news source.

--
"Never say what you can grunt. Never grunt what you can wink. Never wink what you can nod, never nod what you can shrug, and don't shrug when it ain't necessary"
-Earl Long
[ Parent ]

Woah! Phil goes for the 360! (none / 0) (#179)
by it certainly is on Tue Feb 18, 2003 at 05:27:01 PM EST

First, media not being free-market enough was your problem, now capitalist media ownership is the problem. That's a U-turn that ol' Maggie would be proud of.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

Just call me Elisa Steamer! (3.00 / 2) (#180)
by Phillip Asheo on Tue Feb 18, 2003 at 05:52:44 PM EST

As an anarcho-libertarian, I can accept that Capitalism is not without a few minor flaws. Most notably when it interferes with the freedoms of the individual, (insofar as those freedoms do not involve the coercion of others).

So, Capitalist ownership of the media per-se is not the issue, its just that capitalists in large groups tend towards coervicist modes of behaviour. Like they will use their huge capital bases to coerce newcomers out of the market.

My main beef with the bbc is not its ludicrous pro-European liberalist political bias, as I am a grown-up, fully able to see through the propaganda to the anunaki-lizards beneath. My problem with the BBC is that they FORCE me to pay them whether I watch them or not. And in my language that is coercivist behaviour of the lowest and most despicable kind.

--
"Never say what you can grunt. Never grunt what you can wink. Never wink what you can nod, never nod what you can shrug, and don't shrug when it ain't necessary"
-Earl Long
[ Parent ]

Blah blah blah. (none / 0) (#181)
by it certainly is on Tue Feb 18, 2003 at 07:10:15 PM EST

My problem with the BBC is that they FORCE me to pay them whether I watch them or not. And in my language that is coercivist behaviour of the lowest and most despicable kind.

I thought you had stopped trolling for the New Year? Anyway, as you should know well:

You're not forced to pay them if you don't watch. As you know full well, if you don't watch TV at all then you have no obligation to pay for a TV license.

Secondly, as you should also know, Capita are in charge of license collection, which means that it's incredibly shoddy and very easy to get around. Capita work by compelling shops selling A/V consumer goods (TVs, videos, etc) to demand and report to them a name and address for each item sold. Simply pay in cash, eschew "free home delivery", and give them the address of someone you don't like. If Capita do ever turn up, simply refuse them entry to your premises. They have no legal authority to enter, and they cannot press non-payment charges without eye-witness proof of you having a TV.

But, of course, why would you want to avoid paying the TV license? It's an incredible bargain! If it cost any less, you'd probably get shite like you do from Sky and NTL.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

Its an incredible bargain for the BBC... (none / 0) (#206)
by Phillip Asheo on Wed Feb 19, 2003 at 05:26:14 PM EST

Why should I be forced to act with an almost French disregard for the law in order to watch ITV in peace ?

The issue is not whether its easily avoidable (it is) or whether it pumps out pro-government pro-euro pro-establishment propaganda (of course it does). The issue is, in a self-described capitalist free market society, why should I be forced to buy a product I don't want ?

I am sure there are many places that would install a 'princes wand' at startling 'value for money' prices. Nonetheless I would resent it if the government forced one upon me. What's the difference ?

--
"Never say what you can grunt. Never grunt what you can wink. Never wink what you can nod, never nod what you can shrug, and don't shrug when it ain't necessary"
-Earl Long
[ Parent ]

Come, now. (5.00 / 1) (#207)
by it certainly is on Wed Feb 19, 2003 at 07:15:10 PM EST

The issue is, in a self-described capitalist free market society, why should I be forced to buy a product I don't want?

I'm not sure how this passed you by, but you don't live in a "self-described capitalist free market society" (the so-called "libertarian" society). You live in a socialist society with a free-market economy.

Nobody has ever shown a libertarian society to work. In fact, no-one has ever started a libertarian society experiment -- in marked contrast to communist society (which has worked in small communities of like-minded people) or socialist society (which has succeeded the world over).

Now, at least with the BBC you have the opportunity not to pay for them. You can directly vote against our socialist telly by not buying one. You still have to pay income tax, council tax, inheritance tax, national insurance, stamp duty and many other stealth taxes. Your "argument" applies so many times over, it's not funny. I can ask "why should I pay for motorway building if I don't drive a car?", or "why should I pay for refuse collection if I incinerate all my own rubbish?" or "why should I pay for health care if I'm invulnerable to all diseases?". -- the list of rhetorical questions goes on. I'll call it the "whining libertarian" argument. The answer to it is that this country is not populated in the majority by selfish supermen who never get ill and fly to work with their Super Powers, it's populated by people who approve of the social welfare model and enjoy paying taxes (as far as that's possible).

Libertarians are permitted to leave and start their own country composed solely of employed, fit men (i.e. only those who can fully afford to support themselves financially at all times) and can execute on sight any abandoned children, those unfit or unwell for work, or those who are retired. Of course, people get very edgy at working without any safety nets, so capitalists run insurance schemes for such basic human needs as healthcare, which is privatised socialism by another name. As the barrier to entry for the insurance market is unreasonably high, it can be deemed "taxation without representation" when not having insurance is a non-option (such as with the US medical system).

Of course, if you're rich, life is great -- but then, when in history has being rich not been great?

I am sure there are many places that would install a 'princes wand' at startling 'value for money' prices. Nonetheless I would resent it if the government forced one upon me. What's the difference ?

The difference is fairly obvious - the government doesn't really force you to do anything other than pay taxes. There are a few occasions of where the government forces its coercivist agenda on you under the auspices of making the country a better place (for example, when you break the laws of the country or you concieve a child to use as a living ashtray or fucktoy), but for the most part you are never compelled to use anything your taxes pay for. If you want to put in without getting anything in return, you're welcome to do so. The government doesn't force you to watch the BBC any more than it forces you to get a Harkonnen heart-plug fitted.

PS: If your prince's wand starts to pick up Radio 2, relax! You don't have to pay to listen to BBC radio.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

BBC pro-Euro??? (none / 0) (#160)
by the sixth replicant on Tue Feb 18, 2003 at 04:34:17 AM EST

You have got to be joking. I watch the BBC (i'm living in Belgium, if it's relevant) and I'm tired of the anti-European feel of the BBC. It's subtle, I admit. But if they can get the chance they will quite happily ALWAYS take the negative spin on a european story.

They definitely *mostly* pro-government (there are exceptions, thank god, for instance The Blair interview with Paxton, where FOR THE FIRST TIME IN MAINSTREAM MEDIA in the WORLD :) someone questioned the line that the previous inspectors were kicked out of Iraq). For the most part media outlets just read out the press releases they get from big business and government since it's just easier that way. They keep everyone happy (advertisers, access to the right people etc etc) expect the general public. BBC is included in that.

Ciao

[ Parent ]

Yeah, right. (5.00 / 1) (#191)
by rodgerd on Wed Feb 19, 2003 at 03:21:37 AM EST

That's why Thatcher repeatedly threatened to have them shut down. Because they were so pro-government she loved them so dearly.

[ Parent ]
They actually lose revenue (4.66 / 3) (#40)
by ToastyKen on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 08:16:23 AM EST

I just read an article recently (don't have the link, unfortunately) about how the major networks actually LOST money during the coverage of the '91 war.  CNN got a lot of respect and long term benefit, but in the short term, advertisers don't want to be associated with war coverage, so networks lose a lot of advertising revenue.

[ Parent ]
What about New York Times? (4.76 / 13) (#22)
by tilly on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 12:53:07 AM EST

On the day the Pope issued a warning against the war, the New York Times Online chose to ignore that and ran a piece on lutefisk instead as one of the top stories. Senator Byrd's withering criticism of GWB never did make it to New York Times Online. Correct me if Im wrong ...

The Times (3.50 / 2) (#76)
by myshka on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 11:10:45 AM EST

New York's pro-war paper of record. The official editorial stance supports the war on Iraq, so the news is filtered appropriately.

Generally speaking, the Times is at an interesting juncture in its history. The paper's local coverage is nonexistant, its treatment of domestic politics is a study in passionless, uninformative "balance", while the foreign desk aligns itself with government policy, presumably out of the fear of being cut off from juicy DC gossip. The paper has quite frankly become shit, coasting along on a good reputation, a very nice culture section and the complacence of its audience.

[ Parent ]

I disagree (2.50 / 2) (#81)
by vile on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 11:18:48 AM EST

The times is a good paper -- at least as good as CNN and Fox are. I can disagree with some of the things they put forth as a paper. I agree that they have a non-existant local business. Furthermore, I agree that their business model is based on DC gossip for the most part/sales.

Totally.

However, I disagree that the NYT is shit. They have a respectable name, with respectable writers, for the most part.. and to this day I still know their name. In 50 years I will remember it. In 50 years, I'm sure, the NYT should still be around, still presenting their side of the news. Think about that.

~
The money is in the treatment, not the cure.
[ Parent ]
Rupert Murdoch (4.33 / 9) (#23)
by twistedfirestarter on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 12:56:59 AM EST

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,897015,00.html
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/13/1044927741662.html
http://www.wsws.org/articls/2003/feb2003/murd-f15.shtml


link fix (4.50 / 4) (#24)
by twistedfirestarter on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 12:58:57 AM EST

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/feb2003/murd-f15.shtml

[ Parent ]
And what does Rupert have to do with this? (5.00 / 1) (#109)
by leviramsey on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 01:52:08 PM EST

In case you weren't aware, CNN is most definitely not one of Murdoch's properties. The News Corporation's American cable news channel is Fox News Channel; CNN is owned by AOL Time Warner.

CNN's founder, Ted Turner, is famous for his dislike of Murdoch; he has referred to Rupert as a Nazi on a few occasions, not to mention resorting to tactics of questionable ethics in competition (refusing to carry Fox News on AOLTW's cable assets, for instance). There is no love lost between CNN and Rupert Murdoch.



[ Parent ]
Not that I don't trust someone called (4.87 / 16) (#25)
by porkchop_d_clown on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 01:00:43 AM EST

"llamasex" but I chose to do the diff myself, and I have to agree: CNN's "transcript" is missing a good deal that is present in the BBC transcript.

I believe that the majority of the differences were due to formatting issues that make a simple diff problematic; but there are significant pieces of text completely missing from the CNN piece.

There are possible explanations besides deliberate alteration by CNN or the BBC. One is that they used different sources; for example, one may have used a press release made before the speech, and the other may have used a recording of the speech (which would explain many of the minor differences in wording and punctuation).

It sure don't look good, though.


--
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him go off the high dive.


Why act surprised? (4.42 / 7) (#26)
by DominantParadigm on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 01:04:51 AM EST

How many times does CNN have to do this before you realize it's business as usual for them? I've lost count of the number of times that CNN has redacted their own transcripts (which is a slightly different issue, but still).

Caller:So you're advocating bombing innocent children? Howard Stern:Yes, of course!


[ Parent ]
Money (none / 0) (#77)
by vile on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 11:11:46 AM EST

Think as an editor @ CNN should (does?).. how do we stay alive.. hmm, money. How do we make money? Hmm ads. How do we sell ads? People watch us. How do we keep people/get more people to watch us? Interesting thought flow here.. I'll leave it at that. ;)

~
The money is in the treatment, not the cure.
[ Parent ]
Actally... (3.66 / 3) (#31)
by The Artificial Kid on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 02:27:31 AM EST

It was written by someone called The Artificial Kid, but posted under llamasex's account as a cooperative effort because he kicked off the initiative to try to draw attention to this whole business.

[ Parent ]
ah, assumptions. (3.40 / 5) (#59)
by momocrome on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 10:25:04 AM EST

who's to say that the BBC didn't add filler to the transcript to satisfy their own snaggle-toothed agenda?

"Give a wide berth to all that foam and spray." - - Lucian, The Way to Write History
[ Parent ]
That's why I didn't lay the blame on CNN (none / 0) (#118)
by porkchop_d_clown on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 02:53:01 PM EST

And why I mentioned that there might be innocent reasons for the differences.


--
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him go off the high dive.


[ Parent ]
Do you honestly believe... (none / 0) (#123)
by DominantParadigm on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 03:57:32 PM EST

That if the Beeb added "filler" to the transcript (aka putting lies in his mouth) that heads wouldn't roll, and lawsuits wouldn't start being thrown around?

Caller:So you're advocating bombing innocent children? Howard Stern:Yes, of course!


[ Parent ]
No, I honestly believe (none / 0) (#138)
by porkchop_d_clown on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 07:29:44 PM EST

That one of them might have used a press release, a pre-printed version of the speech, and the other created their own transcript from a recording of Blix's speech.

As to which web site was correct, there was no way to tell at the time I did my analysis - Blix might have added extra text at the last second, or he might have dropped text. One of the web sites was wrong, but there was no idea which.

The fact that CNN changed their text to match the BBC's, however, is an important second piece of evidence that wasn't there when I did my original post. We still don't know whether it was deliberate or not, but obviously it was CNN's transcript that was in error.


--
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him go off the high dive.


[ Parent ]
didn't mean to confuse... (none / 0) (#133)
by momocrome on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 06:00:11 PM EST

I was quite actually agreeing with you. The 'assumptions' bit was aimed at the author of the story.

"Give a wide berth to all that foam and spray." - - Lucian, The Way to Write History
[ Parent ]
With good cause (5.00 / 1) (#163)
by The Artificial Kid on Tue Feb 18, 2003 at 06:27:03 AM EST

The main indication is that the CNN version is linguistically disjoined around the cut, as mentioned in the story. The BBC version provides a plausible and consistent 900 word arc between two unconnected but neighbouring paragraphs in the CNN version.

This also reduces the likelyhood of the CNN version having been a pre-issue transcript, because the UN would most likely have been extremely careful with such an important text.

[ Parent ]

Read `manufacturing consent' (4.84 / 19) (#28)
by hugues on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 01:20:25 AM EST

OK, it may not be the lightest read and it is co-authored by Noam Chomsky, but it is a classic:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0375714499/qid=1045462209/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2 _1/002-3199453-0548009

Basically, if you don't believe that you are manipulated right now on how to think, you are a bit naive. This book shows specific, well researched examples of previous manipulations.

In Australia, where I live, there was a report on how the French position in the UN was reported in the US media. Basically all the francophobe cliches were put forward (they surrender at the slightest whim, they stink, never shower, are arrogant, ungrateful, etc). Evidently it has eclipsed all other countries' opposition to Bush's plan for Iraq because it is an easy target and as such easily dismissed as irrational or counter-productive.

Apparently not one line was devoted to Collin Powell's own opinion on the French position (which was relayed in the Australian media) that they have a democratic right to have a position that differs from the US's.

That is just a fact. Now think for yourself and try to decide for yourself if a non-UN backed war in Iraq really is in the US best interest.


If the Americans want to have a go at French impor (4.33 / 3) (#37)
by AndrewH on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 06:55:34 AM EST

They should start in New York harbour.
John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr — where are you now that we need you?
[ Parent ]
Blah, read 'Propaganda' (4.33 / 3) (#57)
by RofGilead on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 10:00:25 AM EST

Propaganda, written in the 30's by a nephew of Sigmund Freud, Edward Bernays, is the complete guide to the art of what is now known as 'PR', public relations. Back in the time period when this book was written, propaganda as a word didn't have the negative connations that it did after WWII. Just goes to show that no idea is original (manufacturing consent).

-= RofGilead =-

---
Remember, you're unique, just like everyone else. -BlueOregon
[ Parent ]
hmmm. (3.00 / 3) (#58)
by momocrome on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 10:19:46 AM EST

If propaganda is so effective, why does 'propaganda' have such negative connotations?

just thinking out loud...

"Give a wide berth to all that foam and spray." - - Lucian, The Way to Write History
[ Parent ]

*because* it is effective (4.50 / 2) (#63)
by coffee17 on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 10:37:41 AM EST

Does brain washing have a negative connotation?
How about coercion?  Black mail?

-coffee


[ Parent ]

but- (none / 0) (#96)
by momocrome on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 12:28:03 PM EST

wouldn't it be in the best-interest of 'propaganda' and propagandists to cast the notion in an obscured or favorable light?  Certainly the power to accomplish this is inherent in the propaganda technique from the get-go, presuming it is as effective as people seem to believe.  

It would seem that propaganda is not very effective at all, if the cat has been let out of the bag and we commoners are 'hip' to it.

"Give a wide berth to all that foam and spray." - - Lucian, The Way to Write History
[ Parent ]

it's in the labeling (none / 0) (#113)
by coffee17 on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 02:17:05 PM EST

I'd imagine that very few people would classify themselfs as propagandists, and the same with their work. Propaganda is what the enemy/competitor puts out. "Communist propaganda" vs. "Anti-saddam leaflets" ... yes, leaflets, not propoganda... the u.s. would never create propoganda ;)

-coffee


[ Parent ]

Public Relations. (none / 0) (#121)
by RofGilead on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 03:38:02 PM EST

Public Relations is the new term for propaganda, which we all switched over to after the second world war. Public relations means pretty much exactly what propaganda means, but it is socially acceptable to work in Public Relations. Just mentally replace "public relations" with "propaganda" the next time you read about a new Pepsi campaign, or what the staff of a Mayor is doing. Its all the same, yet it is socially acceptable, and so it appears that the Propa^H^H^H^H^HPublic relations folks are doing their jobs pretty well.

-= RofGilead =-

---
Remember, you're unique, just like everyone else. -BlueOregon
[ Parent ]
Yes, but Spin ... (5.00 / 1) (#128)
by pyramid termite on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 04:37:34 PM EST

... is now the new word for public relations, giving it a negative connotation once again.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
Pearl Harbor (4.00 / 1) (#74)
by vile on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 11:05:55 AM EST

does it discuss Pearl Harbor & its relevance to WW2?

~
The money is in the treatment, not the cure.
[ Parent ]
Now were blaming Iraq for Pearl Harbor? (3.50 / 2) (#84)
by michaelp on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 11:26:27 AM EST

Might as well, makes as much sense to blame them for the WTC.


"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

[ Parent ]
Awesome (none / 0) (#86)
by vile on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 11:32:26 AM EST

quote on dubya. Seriously, it says a lot.

However, I wasn't attempting to link Iraq and PH. Although, interesting point.

What I was attempting to do was understand what the book entailed. If it does not include the information denial that preceded WW2 with respect to the Pearl Harbor attacks, then I don't want to bother with it.

~
The money is in the treatment, not the cure.
[ Parent ]
Not that kind of book (5.00 / 1) (#155)
by ucblockhead on Tue Feb 18, 2003 at 12:27:13 AM EST

The book does not claim to describe every example of propoganda, instead, it puts forth a theory of how capitalist societies automatically generate propoganda, without explicit coercive command from the ruler, and gives three examples.
-----------------------
This is k5. We're all tools - duxup
[ Parent ]
cool (none / 0) (#186)
by vile on Tue Feb 18, 2003 at 10:00:31 PM EST

thanks.

~
The money is in the treatment, not the cure.
[ Parent ]
Naive (none / 0) (#144)
by A Trickster Imp on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 08:48:59 PM EST

> Basically, if you don't believe that you are
> manipulated right now on how to think, you are
> a bit naive.

...or that's what they want you to think.

[ Parent ]

Liberal attempt to discredit opposition... (1.00 / 1) (#187)
by benzapp on Tue Feb 18, 2003 at 11:47:01 PM EST

Chomsky and Herman here set out to describe a process whereby the consent of the masses is secured by their rulers and in spite of their objective interests. As a concept, this is not new - it accords with the Gramscian notion of hegemony, and the concept popularised by Marcuse of false consciousness - and Chomsky and Herman's variant yields neither distinctive insights nor social-scientific procedures. It does, however, yield a rather dispiriting glimpse into the values and mores of what Lionel Trilling aptly termed the adversary culture, of which Noam Chomsky is an indefatigable representative.

The authors' premise is that the communications media in capitalist society conform to a 'propaganda model'. With this model, it is apparently possible to delineate "the routes by which money and power are able to filter out the news fit to print [and] marginalise dissent". Thus the media define the limits of public debate by ignoring views that fall outside a pre-determined consensus. The authors claim to provide scientific substantiation to their claim with five 'filters', but in essence their method is to look at what constitutes the 'progressive' side of debate in the media, and then claim that they and people like them are systematically excluded from that debate by not being asked to contribute. (Other observations by the authors rarely extend beyond truisms and non sequiturs - e.g. news organisations aim to be profitable; some people with political views that the authors disagree with regularly have op-eds published - and we may safely put them aside.)

As a contribution to political sociology, this is, to say the least, question-begging, in the strict, technical sense that the methodology assumes the truth of the conclusions the authors are supposed to be proving. It is patently true that some views do not get aired - or at least not regularly - in mainstream media: Holocaust denial doesn't; flat-earth advocacy doesn't. The question is not whether a media consensus exists, but whether it amounts to bias against credible alternative accounts and conforms to what Chomsky and Herman claim is a monolithic structure of corporate interests. The issue comes down, in short, to whether the views Chomsky and Herman propound are themselves a credible alternative account. On the issues they choose to focus on in this book, that conclusion is very difficult to sustain. They rehearse a typical melange of complaints against the policies of the US and Israel, and then present these as unexceptionable judgements. The complaints are, in fact, very far from being a credible and well-researched alternative account. To talk of anti-Communism as a 'national religion', as these authors do, is to subsume a wide variety of political views into a bogus abstraction. What is the similarity in outlook between, say, National Review and Arthur Schlesinger Jnr except that both espouse anti-Communist views? What is the sense of talking about 'neo-Fascist national-security states' in Latin America but making no such stricture about a totalitarian police-state such as Cuba?

In practice, readers disinclined to examine every footnote, analyse every heroic assumption, and disinter every tendentious premise, might be misled into believing there is something in what the authors say, especially if they are already ideologically predisposed to the authors' political opinions. But there is, in truth, precious little here except a catalogue of personal complaints that the authors' own political opinions are not taken seriously by the people, and that, ex hypothesi, the people must have been duped. Needless to say, the perfectly accurate premise that most voters are averse to the far-Left does not generate the authors' conclusion that the people can't be aware of their own interests. Rather, the authors' patent disregard for the way most people in the electorates of advanced democracies reason is an indication of how far removed the far-Left is from normal canons of civilised discourse. A neat example of this is unintentionally given by the authors themselves in their complaint (this was in 1988) that new items distinguish between the liberal democracies of the west and the totalitarian societies of the Communist bloc, and that "rooting for 'our side' [is] considered an entirely legitimate news practice". Well, yes, indeed it is: just as rooting for our side against Nazi Germany was considered a sine qua non of responsible journalism by George Orwell. The alternative would have been to betray the notion of objective journalism by failing to describe the world accurately; and the world in 1988 could properly be described only as a division between imperfect but civilised democracies in the west, and grotesque if decrepit totalitarian tyrannies in the east. That Chomsky and Herman didn't see this says more about their own set of values than it does about a supposedly corrupt communications media.



[ Parent ]
Insightful criticism (none / 0) (#194)
by shinshin on Wed Feb 19, 2003 at 04:16:59 AM EST

Perhaps you should try writing your own someday, rather than stealing someone else's.

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]
Ooooh (1.00 / 1) (#197)
by benzapp on Wed Feb 19, 2003 at 09:49:21 AM EST

You are a real detective aren't you!  Fancy that critical ability to hunt down the truth! That criticism of the book was the first one under the link the parent poster presented.  Do you think anyone read that post without clicking on the link?

Eat a dick!

[ Parent ]

You should have posted the changes. (4.64 / 17) (#30)
by gr3y on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 02:09:15 AM EST

And while I was figuring out what they were, this story posted. Would that were not so.

"B" denotes the BBC transcript. "C" denotes the CNN transcript. This is probably the "missing text":

B:

"I trust that the Iraqi side will put together a similar list of names of persons who participated in the unilateral destruction of other proscribed items, notably in the biological field.

The Iraqi side also informed us that the commission, which had been appointed in the wake of our finding 12 empty chemical weapons warheads, had had its mandate expanded to look for any still existing proscribed items.

This was welcomed.

A second commission, we learnt, has now been appointed with the task of searching all over Iraq for more documents relevant to the elimination of proscribed items and programmes.

It is headed by the former minister of oil, General Amer Rashid, and is to have very extensive powers of search in industry, administration and even private houses.

The two commissions could be useful tools to come up with proscribed items to be destroyed and with new documentary evidence.

A number of persons have declined to be interviewed.

They evidently need to work fast and effectively to convince us, and the world, that this is a serious effort.

The matter of private interviews was discussed at length during our meeting.

The Iraqi side confirmed the commitment, which it made to us on 20 January, to encourage persons asked to accept such interviews, whether in or out of Iraq.

So far, we have only had interviews in Baghdad.

A number of persons have declined to be interviewed, unless they were allowed to have an official present or were allowed to tape the interview.

Three persons that had previously refused interviews on Unmovic's terms, subsequently accepted such interviews just prior to our talks in Baghdad on 8 and 9 February.

These interviews proved informative. No further interviews have since been accepted on our terms.

I hope this will change. We feel that interviews conducted without any third party present and without tape recording would provide the greatest credibility.

At the recent meeting in Baghdad, as on several earlier occasions, my colleague Dr ElBaradei and I have urged the Iraqi side to enact legislation implementing the UN prohibitions regarding weapons of mass destruction.

In a letter just received two days ago, we were informed that this process was progressing well and this morning we had a message that legislation has now been adopted by the Iraqi National Assembly in an extraordinary session.

This is a positive step.

Mr President, I should like to make some comments on the role of intelligence in connection with inspections in Iraq.

A credible inspection regime requires that Iraq provide full co-operation on "process" - granting immediate access everywhere to inspectors - and on substance, providing full declarations supported by relevant information and material.

However, with the closed society in Iraq of today and the history of inspections there, other sources of information, such as defectors and government intelligence agencies are required to aid the inspection process.

I remember how, in 1991, several inspections in Iraq, which were based on information received from a government, helped to disclose important parts of the nuclear weapons programme.

It was realised that an international organisation authorised to perform inspections anywhere on the ground could make good use of information obtained from governments with eyes in the sky, ears in the ether, access to defectors, and both eyes and ears on the market for weapons-related material.

It was understood that the information residing in the intelligence services of governments could come to very active use in the international effort to prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

This remains true and we have by now a good deal of experience in the matter.

Movements are not necessarily related to weapons of mass destruction.

International organisations need to analyse such information critically and especially benefit when it comes from more than one source.

The intelligence agencies, for their part, must protect their sources and methods.

Those who provide such information must know that it will be kept in strict confidence and be known to very few people.

Unmovic has achieved good working relations with intelligence agencies and the amount of information provided has been gradually increasing.

However, we must recognise that there are limitations and that misinterpretations can occur.

Intelligence information has been useful for Unmovic.

In one case, it led us to a private home where documents mainly relating to laser enrichment of uranium were found.

In other cases, intelligence has led to sites where no proscribed items were found.

Even in such cases, however, inspection of these sites were useful in proving the absence of such items and in some cases the presence of other items - conventional munitions.

It showed that conventional arms are being moved around the country and that movements are not necessarily related to weapons of mass destruction.

The presentation of intelligence information by the US secretary of state suggested that Iraq had prepared for inspections by cleaning up sites and removing evidence of proscribed weapons programmes.

I would like to comment only on one case, which we are familiar with, namely, the trucks identified by analysts as being for chemical decontamination at a munitions depot.

This was a declared site, and it was certainly one of the sites Iraq would have expected us to inspect.

We have noted that the two satellite images of the site were taken several weeks apart.

The high degree of co-operation required of Iraq for disarmament through inspection was not forthcoming in 1991."

But there were also weird transcription errors. Having done this, I can see how they might occur. What's weird is that they were both posted to the web and they don't agree in places, and the glaring discrepancies are easy to spot. For instance:

B:

"on 8 February."

C:

"on 8th and 9th of February."

B:

"15 IAEA inspectors, 50 aircrew"

C:

"50 IAEA inspectors, 15 air crew"

B:

"Not least against this background, a letter of 12 February from Iraq's National Monitoring Directorate may be of relevance."

C:

"Not least against this background, a letter of the 12th of February from Iraq's National and Monitoring Directorate may be irrelevant."

B:

"These developments are in line with suggestions made in a paper recently circulated by France, suggesting a further strengthening of the inspection capabilities."

C:

"These developments are in line with suggestions made in a non-paper recently circulated by France suggesting a further strengthening of the inspection capabilities."

And the following lines were omitted from the CNN text:

"In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming."

"Inspections are effectively helping to bridge the gap in knowledge."

"Governments have many sources of information that are not available to inspectors."

There were miscellaneous other editorial errors, some of which I didn't comment on (like the BBC's tendency to use absolute dates, and CNN's tendency to use ordinals). There might be some major differences that I missed (I doubt it). I did not do a word-by-word comparison; I did a line-by-line comparison.

Personally, I don't see censorship. CNN did present an edited transcript, and didn't specifically mention it. That's a no-no. Otherwise, there's nothing to see here.

I am a disruptive technology.

media coverage (4.00 / 3) (#34)
by Michael Moser on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 04:37:41 AM EST

Do you think the BBC/CNN could say something  radically different from the position of the foreign office/state department?

If yes, then please come up with a precedent.

[ Parent ]

Those last three lines aren't missing from CNN (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by djw on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 08:26:49 AM EST

And the following lines were omitted from the CNN text: "In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming." "Inspections are effectively helping to bridge the gap in knowledge." "Governments have many sources of information that are not available to inspectors."
The BBC threw those lines up in quote boxes alongside the text. They aren't missing from the CNN version, but they appear twice on the BBC, fooling your diff.

Most of the minor discrepancies seem more like typical transcription errors (50/15, "of relevance"/"irrelevant", etc.) than deliberate editing. Never ascribe to malice etc. etc.

[ Parent ]

The no-no (none / 0) (#71)
by vile on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 10:59:56 AM EST

Personally, I don't see censorship. CNN did present an edited transcript, and didn't specifically mention it. That's a no-no. Otherwise, there's nothing to see here.

Of course CNN presented an edited transcript. The thing to 'see here' is the why.. not the knowledge that it is a 'no-no.'

~
The money is in the treatment, not the cure.
[ Parent ]
Tangentially related anecdote (4.61 / 13) (#35)
by Rogerborg on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 05:59:04 AM EST

I have a friend who has a friend, etc, and editing out undesirable memes is apparently business as usual for any media outlet.  The idea of reporting what actually happened is considered laughable, and nowhere near as important as reporting exactly and only what people want to see happening.  You simply don't produce content that your key demographic doesn't want to consume.

Hilarious example: a couple of weeks back, the Guardian (UK middle-class faux-intellectual newspaper) carried a front page picture of students protesting against the war.  On 2nd and subsequent editions, if you look carefully, you'll see two suspiciously similar placards saying "No war".  The (camera) right hand one looks curiously bright white and pixellated.

Find a 1st edition of the paper, and you'll see the right hand placard bearing the rather more picant statement "Bush uses his flag as a wankrag".

Now that is what the protester was actually saying.  But what the newspaper wanted was not an image of what was actually being said, but simply a representative picture that shows the idea that they wanted to sell, and which fills the right amount of space.

They're not reporting, they're marketing.  You'll get exactly the same from any commercial news source.  We really need to get over it, and incidentally accept that anecdotes from "a friend of a friend" might actually be as reliable as the News-O-Rama that we're fed by Stacey Implants between the Important Messages from her Sponsors.

"Exterminate all rational thought." - W.S. Burroughs

I find that very hard to believe (2.00 / 1) (#36)
by Richey on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 06:43:53 AM EST

Why would the Guardian change the sign? The sentiment expressed is the same, and the Guardian isn't exactly squeamish, especially if they're quoting someone. I remember them printing "fuckwit" in a front page headline (in terms of a quote) and recently there was a bit of controversy when they decided to decorate their tabloid section (G2) with a sign saying "Fuck Cilla Black".

Do I detect a bit of a grudge against the Guardian?

[ Parent ]

I think you missed the point. (none / 0) (#45)
by codemonkey_uk on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 08:43:09 AM EST

I may be wrong, but I think you missed the point of the comment your replying to. Read the last paragraph again.
---
Thad
"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way." - Bertrand Russell
[ Parent ]
Heh, that reads both ways (none / 0) (#53)
by Rogerborg on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 09:32:50 AM EST

Depends if you believe Stacey, I suppose.  Kind of hard to reference these things when there's no record.  And if I scan the two images, then it's trivial for me to fake one up either way.

Glad that you're taking my claim with a pinch of salt.

"Exterminate all rational thought." - W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

Not at all (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by Rogerborg on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 09:35:21 AM EST

This just illustrates that news vendors will court controversy when it's profitable for them to do so, and avoid it when it distracts from the sales pitch.

The Grauniad isn't alone in this, I just mention it because I've seen the two pictures and found it amusing.

"Exterminate all rational thought." - W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

Controversy (1.00 / 1) (#124)
by Phillip Asheo on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 04:10:08 PM EST

As an ex-editor at the most Controversial site on the Internet I could not agree with you more.

Controversy is the lifeblood of the media. Without it, the news would be colourless and boring, and nobody would want to read it, or the commercials that accompany it.

--
"Never say what you can grunt. Never grunt what you can wink. Never wink what you can nod, never nod what you can shrug, and don't shrug when it ain't necessary"
-Earl Long
[ Parent ]

Adaqueacy ex-editor? (none / 0) (#189)
by carbon on Wed Feb 19, 2003 at 01:05:24 AM EST

And I thought being turned down for a job at McDonalds was harsh...


Wasn't Dr. Claus the bad guy on Inspector Gadget? - dirvish
[ Parent ]
Media are terrible! (none / 0) (#60)
by Viliam Bur on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 10:28:50 AM EST

I have only personal experience with newspapers. Once I was at Amnesty International and translated for them a few papers from english. It was about how Israel army day before bombed people in refugee camps... OK, it was months ago and I do not remember the details. I just rememeber feeling very cool for having information which surely will not ever appear in Slovakian "free press".

And as the day went on, on my way home I met some people demonstrating; and it was just because of what I have read before. There were some jurnalists, doing interviews mostly with Palestinians, who mostly said things that contained many emotions, but few political information. As I stood there, one journalist saw me and asked me if I support the demonstration.

Now, she was from SME - biggest Slovakian political newspaper, by the way completely pro-American. But I felt great for being asked, and for about 15 minutes I explained her every possible detail about the situation. (As it was still very fresh in my memory.) I hoped I provided her a valuable insight into the story.

However, next day in SME there was an article basicly saying that some Palestinians demonstrated, and a few young people joined. Then there were three quotations, among which the one important for me was:

Student Viliam says: "Killing people is bad."

So much for the 15 minute explanation of international law, "collective punishment" and human rights. Of course, one of the comments on newspapers' web started with words: "The 'student Viliam' is an idiot. Doesn't he understand that terrorism has to be prevented...?" Quite predictable. Nothing personal.

The moral is: "You say to journalist what you want to say; and he/she will write what he/she wants to write."

[ Parent ]

I don't think that's marketing so much as... (none / 0) (#73)
by Skywise on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 11:02:35 AM EST

Just basic censorship of offensive material.

Though they would've been better off doing: A> Not running that photo and picking one without offensive commentary B> just fuzzing out the boards, or C> at least claim that the photo was edited for offensive remarks in the caption.

[ Parent ]

Fixed? (4.40 / 5) (#38)
by MutantEnemy on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 07:52:12 AM EST

I just looked at both transcripts, and they seem equal in length. Has the problem been fixed?

They changed it! (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by porkchop_d_clown on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 08:32:56 AM EST

You're right - the original CNN story was dated 2/14, the current story is dated 2/17 - and has no mention of being an update!


--
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him go off the high dive.


[ Parent ]
did you save the old version (3.00 / 2) (#55)
by turmeric on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 09:44:23 AM EST

does cnn read k5, does hanoi jane know what she is supporting

[ Parent ]
CNN? (none / 0) (#70)
by vile on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 10:53:06 AM EST

No, I'm sure CNN does not. However, I am also sure that people that work at CNN do.

~
The money is in the treatment, not the cure.
[ Parent ]
I guess I shouldn't be surprised... (1.00 / 2) (#78)
by DominantParadigm on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 11:13:12 AM EST

At how naive you are, and how surprised you are at CNN's actions. You are a conservative, after all.

Caller:So you're advocating bombing innocent children? Howard Stern:Yes, of course!


[ Parent ]
Still at least one issue (none / 0) (#44)
by Crusader on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 08:37:55 AM EST

BBC:
At the recent meeting in Baghdad, as on several earlier occasions, my colleague Dr ElBaradei and I have urged the Iraqi side to enact legislation implementing the UN prohibitions regarding weapons of mass destruction. In a letter just received two days ago, we were informed that this process was progressing well and this morning we had a message that legislation has now been adopted by the Iraqi National Assembly in an extraordinary session. This is a positive step.
CNN:
At the recent meeting in Baghdad, as on several earlier occasions, my colleague, Dr. ElBaradei, and I had urged the Iraqi side to enact legislation implementing the U.N. prohibitions regarding weapons of mass destruction. This morning we had a message that a presidential decree has now been issued, containing prohibitions with regard to importation and production of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. We have not yet had time to study the details of the text of the decree.
I haven't watched the Blix footage again to see which one is more accurate, but such wildly differing "transcripts" for the same section of text seems, well, odd.
:wq
[ Parent ]
FNS Error? (5.00 / 2) (#46)
by Crusader on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 08:54:49 AM EST

Digging around, it looks like the version without the "positive step" line originated at the Federal News Service:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/15/international/middleeast/15BTEX.html?pagewante d=4&ei=5062&en=8ebc6143686b5c4f&ex=1045976400&partner=GOOGLE

http://usinfo.state.gov/cgi-bin/washfile/display.pl?p=/products/washfile/latest& amp;f=03021407.tlt&t=/products/washfile/newsitem.shtml

That said, several news outlets have the omitted text in their transcripts.

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=%22positive+step%22+blix

Can anyone with more time watch Blix's report (http://www.un.org/webcast/) and determine whether or not the FNS text is in error?
:wq
[ Parent ]

Your wish is my comment [sic] ;-) (none / 0) (#162)
by Gromit on Tue Feb 18, 2003 at 05:59:50 AM EST

Can anyone with more time watch Blix's report (http://www.un.org/webcast/) and determine whether or not the FNS text is in error?
Done; here. Kudos for pointing out the webcast.

--
"The noble art of losing face will one day save the human race." - Hans Blix

[ Parent ]
The funny thing is... (none / 0) (#198)
by DDS3 on Wed Feb 19, 2003 at 09:55:03 AM EST

The Iraqi government passed a law preventing non-government companies and private individuals from owning or manufacturing NBC materials, however, it said nothing about the government creating or owning these materials.  In other words, they passed a law to placate the inspectors which has no real value in the real world.  Yet, to avert war, Blix was kind enough to talk about it as if it were really meaningful.  Oddly enough, a status report on Iraqi law has nothing to do with Blix's mission.

In other words, it was a non-news event which had zero value in any shape or form...well, aside from further opening eyes as to what Iraq is really doing.  If they don't have NBC materials and really have no desire to use or have them, why didn't they pass a law preventing the government or government run companies from owning and making NBC materials?


[ Parent ]

msnbc vs fox (4.00 / 2) (#41)
by mdouglas on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 08:22:50 AM EST

i saw a news conference a few weeks back given by tony blair and the prime minister of spain. both were taking press questions. the prime minister of spain was taking and answering questions in spanish, on msnbc they had someone overdubbing a translation realtime. i was flipping around and saw fox covering the same press conference, with one small difference, they didn't provide a spanish translation, their newscasters just talked over him whenever he was speaking.  

Yes (4.00 / 7) (#47)
by psychologist on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 08:55:33 AM EST

Are you surprised? Ted Turner said last year that Israel is a terrorist government. A few months later, he is made to resign, or willingly resigns, citing differences in the editorial agenda. I'm not implying anything, simply stating the facts.

And CNN, previously neutral to left wing, took a large step to the right since then.

And for my fellow Arabs, how come CNN suddenly decided to start "Be the first to know. IN ARABIC" after the Sept. 11th? Because they suddenly became aware of a new money making area? Or could it be because somebody thinks that the Arabs should know more about america. And is that someone motivated by business factors, like every real business should be, or by political factors?

I don't know, just stating the facts.

Can anyone explain this paragraph? (4.16 / 6) (#48)
by djw on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 08:57:37 AM EST

The two editions (BBC and CNN) seem largely identical now, barring some minor transcription errors. However, one paragraph in the middle differs completely between the two sites:

BBC:

In a letter just received two days ago, we were informed that this process was progressing well and this morning we had a message that legislation has now been adopted by the Iraqi National Assembly in an extraordinary session.

This is a positive step.

CNN:
This morning we had a message that a presidential decree has now been issued, containing prohibitions with regard to importation and production of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. We have not yet had time to study the details of the text of the decree.
What the hell?

BBC in Error (3.75 / 4) (#49)
by Crusader on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 09:24:59 AM EST

I just watched the archive, Blix doesn't state "positive step" at that point of his speech.
:wq
[ Parent ]
Why do you all assume that (2.50 / 2) (#50)
by Skywise on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 09:25:13 AM EST

the BBC's version is the "right" one?

Think about it. (5.00 / 4) (#52)
by Happy Monkey on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 09:30:56 AM EST

Which is more likely - cutting out words that were there, or making up an 878 word section that explains the later use of the word "site"?
___
Length 17, Width 3
[ Parent ]
That doesn't "prove" anything (1.00 / 2) (#67)
by Skywise on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 10:49:43 AM EST

I could just as likely say that the added material is to strengthen the anti-war position.


[ Parent ]
I was there (5.00 / 1) (#93)
by SanSeveroPrince on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 12:09:41 PM EST

Well, not really. But I did hear the 'full' speech on other channels, and the beeb's is a full one.

Euronews and Italia Uno both showed the full thing, as did a couple of Dutch channels. There you go, your news channel sucks.

----

Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think


[ Parent ]
That's better than (none / 0) (#97)
by Skywise on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 12:34:26 PM EST

One was longer than the other...

[ Parent ]
It's not about length, it's about structure (none / 0) (#164)
by The Artificial Kid on Tue Feb 18, 2003 at 07:01:44 AM EST

The evidence was never to do with length, it was to do with structure. The CNN version contains the term "the site" with no explanation of its meaning immediately after the place where we alleged the cut - and where the Beeb version contained almost 900 words of further text that followed perfectly between the non sequitur paragraphs in the CNN version.

[ Parent ]
because (5.00 / 2) (#66)
by ucblockhead on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 10:48:50 AM EST

Because I watched the press conference on live TV and very distinctily remember wording that appeared in the BBC version and not the CNN version.

FWIW: the MSNBC version roughly agrees with the BBC version.
-----------------------
This is k5. We're all tools - duxup
[ Parent ]

CNN has a predominantly conservative audience (4.00 / 1) (#51)
by Silent Chris on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 09:29:59 AM EST

It's actually not that surprising.  CNN has always had a conservative audience.  Most of their polls about the war have been in support of it.  Look at today's poll about the antiwar protests (I had to vote "no", because honestly I didn't attend any).

If it were in holland, and a representative sample (4.00 / 1) (#80)
by Ranieri on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 11:16:02 AM EST

11% of 15 million would be 1.65 million people, versus that 80.000 that actually attended. I don't know the numbers for the US, but my feeling is that if it's off, it's off by a factor of at least 10 in favour of the protesters.
--
Taste cold steel, feeble cannon restraint rope!
[ Parent ]
FOX edits out anti-US rhetoric (4.16 / 6) (#56)
by JasonDiceman on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 09:46:55 AM EST

I'm in Toronto Canada watching the American news via an illegal Direct TV dish. As I flip channels on Friday between FOX, CNBC, CSPAN, MSNBC and others, I noticed that FOX twice unnecessarily cut anti-American speeches off to go to mundane in studio discussion. The first was during Syria's condemnation of Israel and the second was during the Iraqi press conference from Rome where the Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister spoke out against American imperialism. In both cases CNBC continued coverage. Scary thing is that FOX News is often the most popular news source in America.

Fox News is useless (4.00 / 4) (#65)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 10:47:40 AM EST

Fox News is useless if you like your news without constant right-wing influence. The permanent waving flag on the screen should clue most viewers in, but for some reason it doesn't. Also O'Reilly is a tool.

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]
That doesn't change (3.00 / 1) (#68)
by vile on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 10:52:00 AM EST

the fact that it is most likely the #2 (after CNN) viewed TV news resource in America.

~
The money is in the treatment, not the cure.
[ Parent ]
So you would prefer... (1.00 / 2) (#117)
by MyrddinE on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 02:49:36 PM EST

... incessant left wing bias to your news?

Remember that the media, as a collective, are strongly liberal. I think it's nice that a moderately conservative news source finally emerged after THIRTY years of news on TV.

ANY news is going to have bias. I'd rather have a choice of bias rather than none.

[ Parent ]

True (none / 0) (#119)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 03:12:03 PM EST

You're right that there's a definite liberal bias in many news sources, but I find Fox News to be much more shameless and exploitative. Also, all of the big 3 cable news channels jumped on the patriotic bandwagon after 9/11. After all, this article is about CNN possibly omitting statements that would go against US policy. The left wing bias is found more in newspapers than cable news.

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]
Oh? (none / 0) (#159)
by Gromit on Tue Feb 18, 2003 at 04:32:00 AM EST

You're right that there's a definite liberal bias in many news sources
Which ones? This is not a dig, this is genuine question. I keep hearing this, over and over, and I've never seen any evidence of it. You can find liberal publications (The Nation, et. al.) if you go looking for them, but in terms of mainstream news sources, I can't think of a single truly liberal one. Can you?

--
"The noble art of losing face will one day save the human race." - Hans Blix

[ Parent ]
New York Times (3.00 / 3) (#165)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Tue Feb 18, 2003 at 08:13:00 AM EST

NY Times is the biggest example. Nobody denies that paper has a liberal slant. I think you see it the most in newspapers, of course most newspapers aren't clearly liberal.

Some conservatives complain too much about the liberal media, it's part of the theory that most of the country is conservative but the entertainment and media industries are controlled by a vast left-wing conspiracy.

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]

"Liberal" like a New Democrat... (none / 0) (#166)
by Gromit on Tue Feb 18, 2003 at 09:14:41 AM EST

Fair point, I guess I've heard the NYT called "liberal" many times. Mostly by New Democrats and other conservatives. ;-) I was pretty irritated with their under-reporting the crowd at the London rally on Saturday, I have to say (off by a factor of two, reported numbers even lower than police estimates).
Some conservatives complain too much about the liberal media, it's part of the theory that most of the country is conservative but the entertainment and media industries are controlled by a vast left-wing conspiracy.
Yes, a classic example of "The Big Lie" form of propaganda. A fairly successful one, too, sadly.

--
"The noble art of losing face will one day save the human race." - Hans Blix

[ Parent ]
OK, I'll bite. (4.80 / 5) (#122)
by Noam Chompsky on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 03:52:25 PM EST

So you would prefer incessant left wing bias to your news?

This is a stupid rhetorical question, usually asked by conservatives to discourage critics with accusations of would-be hypocrisy. News should be biased against whoever is in power. To the extent it is, it fulfills a role in free society: the so-called cantankerous, obstinate and ubiquitous press that must be suffered by those in authority. To the extent it is not, it is CNN: a de facto organ of the state that regurgitates government spokespeople, reads government press releases, and never produces or commissions investigative pieces.

--
Faster, liberalists, Parent ]

Well, yeah. (4.00 / 1) (#131)
by fenix down on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 05:26:15 PM EST

Maybe I'm just more liberal than any news outlet, but I've really never seen any liberal inclination in my news.  The big three prime-time news anchors are liberals, moderate liberals, but liberals, but I've never seen them really pushing anything in that direction.  At least not on the level of cable news guys (I include everybody there, not just Fox).  I think that alignment is more because of the pressure for young anchors when Cronkite left, and up until a few years ago people under 30 were generally pretty liberal.

I agree with you that some bias is inherent, but news is for information.  I don't want you to have the option of hearing nothing but what you already know.  I see my grandparents (who have pictures of Reagan, both Bushes and a Hilary Clinton dartboard on their wall and who I can't believe have given less than a million to the Republican Party over the course of their lives) watching nothing but Fox News all day and thinking the NYC protest Saturday only had 10,000 people at it.

Hell.  I want socialized healthcare and federal support for college education, and look at me.  I'm saying left-wing bias is bad, I'm desperately trying to resist saying that conservatives by definition resist change and as such would be less willing to tolerate a challege to their worldview, so liberal media is better because liberals are more willing to listen to conservative views than the other way around.  I don't even mind conservative news.  I only start to mind when I see it actually affecting people's perception of the world around them.  No wonder the Democrats are getting so conservative.  We really are a bunch of pussies.

Anyway, what we need is a Gonzo channel.  Rabid liberals, rabid conservatives, each with their own news feed and switching off every 15 minuites.  Now that's TV.

[ Parent ]

fox is crap. (none / 0) (#139)
by Work on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 07:31:11 PM EST

everything fox does is for ratings. In order to address the whole silly 'the media is left biased' accusations that have floated around for years, they decided to unabashedly go the other way and have a rightish news organization.

Funny thing is, some of their stuff is so ridiculous, you cant stop watching it. Every car chase anywhere in america - fox news has it. Anything just utterly ridiculous - fox news has it. So even though you hate the clear bias, you keep tuning in.

Clever bastards, they are. I hate fox. But tonight, i'll be watching joe millionaire and rooting for zora. Sigh.

[ Parent ]

And rightly they did (5.00 / 1) (#153)
by RyoCokey on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 11:58:44 PM EST

Did one expect either of those speeches to go anywhere near fact or truth? The Iraqi's said little but to deny in the face of bald evidence that they were complying. They weren't edited as pro-war propaganda, they were edited because they were unimportant.



Pacifism in this poor world in which we live -- this lost world -- means that we desert the people who need our greatest help.
-- Francis Schaeffer,
[ Parent ]
So if they're cutting for truth, (none / 0) (#190)
by rodgerd on Wed Feb 19, 2003 at 03:06:49 AM EST

are they dropping Colin Powell, Rummy, or Bush whenever their lips move?

[ Parent ]
Funny (5.00 / 2) (#61)
by vile on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 10:32:48 AM EST

You can't very well start a war without tactics like this, now can you?

The more interesting part is protesting and how many people disagree with our administration.

The most interesting part is how many people that do -- and why.

~
The money is in the treatment, not the cure.
And the most interesting part of that... (none / 0) (#211)
by davincarten on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 12:18:52 PM EST

The more interesting part is protesting and how many people disagree with our administration.

What seems interesting to me is that so much protesting is happening and there isn't even a war yet. I'm not so naive though to think that the protests in Europe aren't being inspired by bias in their press as well, but I don't see many successful war rallies around the world.

Invasion of Iraq isn't a grassroots movement, it's definitely something that's been marketed from the top down as a "good idea". This seems to be the case with most wars. They never benefit those who fight them, but amazingly those who fought in them like to convince themselves it did.

How many times have we heard vets of various wars say "I was over there defending your freedom to [insert right here]". I have yet to see anyone paint a picture where isolationism on the part of the US would have actually resulted in a loss of freedom. Certainly no more than the loss of freedom we have seen since the creation of the Fed, the pentagon, the 1933 emergency act, the draft, the IRS, corporatism, etc...

I find the groundswell of anti-war sentiment ahead of an actual conflict to be a pleasant surprise



[ Parent ]
Listen once again. (none / 0) (#221)
by vile on Thu Jun 26, 2003 at 05:02:33 AM EST

:) From 100 years.. if you can.. ignoring is always easier.

~
The money is in the treatment, not the cure.
[ Parent ]
Allow me to present another conspiracy theory: (4.33 / 6) (#62)
by xtermz on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 10:37:33 AM EST

Instead of the usual "CNN is predominantly <insert political philosophy of current administration> " rants, how about another theory: CNN wants a war. No, not because they support Bush ( a couple years ago they were called the clinton news network by some folks, make up your mind on who cnn favors ) , but because it boosts ratings.

When Persion Gulf War v1.0 broke out, CNN was on the frontlines. Everybody praised them as being the "leaders" and that they finally "came into their own". Hell, they even made a movie about it. But 12 years has passed, CNN is getting stomped by FOX News Network, etc etc, and jobs are getting cut. So do you think that CNN wont jump on a chance to get their name out in front again?....

Like I said, just another theory..

This makes sense... (4.66 / 3) (#69)
by rdmiller3 on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 10:53:04 AM EST

The media corporations want war. They'll always have something to report on the news. I've already seen advertisements for a new series on ABC featuring coverage of US troops acting all patriotic in some vague foreign location.

The US government wants war. It gives them more power to command, regulate, and borrow ...all with much less accountability than during peacetime.

Other nations want the US at war. That might get us out of their hair or out of their way for a while.

None of these organizations has the interests of the American people at heart.

[ Parent ]

Media lost money in the gulf war (none / 0) (#79)
by shellac on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 11:15:52 AM EST

Matt Drudge linked this nytimes article a little while back. It is no longer available for free, but basically it stated that all the networks and news organizations lost money on the gulf war. While it brought CNN in the spotlight, I believe they lost money as well.

[ Parent ]

Found the full artice (none / 0) (#82)
by shellac on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 11:19:44 AM EST

Here is a better link. So it appears that while CNN might have a vested interest in this war, that is if you are an extremely cynical person and believe that they would stoop to that level of evil, it is clear that other media outlets might even be dreading this.

[ Parent ]
CNN wants a War?? (5.00 / 1) (#83)
by michaelp on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 11:22:38 AM EST

My god man, how can you say that??? Why that would be positively yellow journalism!

Starting a war just to sell some air time, my goodness, Hearst must be rolling in his grave at what has become of his noble profession!


"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

[ Parent ]
And here is the carrot (none / 0) (#100)
by salsaman on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 12:50:41 PM EST

http://www.google.com/search?q=embedded+troops+iraq

[ Parent ]
mystical guess question (5.00 / 3) (#107)
by scruffyMark on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 01:29:54 PM EST

...CNN is predominantly <insert political philosophy of current administration>...

And the options would be
(A)conservative
(B)conservative (the other ones)

That's certainly the impression I get - Republicans are conservatives that with conservative speechwriters, while Democrats are conservatives with liberal speechwriters...

[ Parent ]

CNN vs Clinton (none / 0) (#184)
by jbuck on Tue Feb 18, 2003 at 08:00:13 PM EST

CNN was as much all-Monica-all-the-time as anyone else, just not as rabid as Fox. Their "Crossfire" show used to pair rather timid "liberals" with far-right conservatives, though the current version has more aggression on the "left" side with Carville.

Clinton's only defender on the cable news channels was Geraldo Rivera, then on MSNBC.

[ Parent ]

Something odd. (5.00 / 12) (#64)
by sonovel on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 10:38:30 AM EST

It looks to me that many many sites have the
"edited" version.

Do a google search for the CNN "wording" where they disagree.

I found other sites without the "edited" section.

Could this be a "transcript" provided by the UN before the speech?

Note that the UN's transcript prominantly features "As Delivered" at the top. Note also that the title still refers to this as a draft.

Draft? (none / 0) (#72)
by vile on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 11:02:07 AM EST

The UN's transcript mentions nothing about it being a draft.

~
The money is in the treatment, not the cure.
[ Parent ]
HBx/Draft 3 (5.00 / 1) (#87)
by corian on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 11:35:19 AM EST

The UN's transcript mentions nothing about it being a draft

go back to your link, and check the page title.

[ Parent ]

Ohhh (none / 0) (#89)
by vile on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 11:40:32 AM EST

good point. I didn't even see that. Respect.

~
The money is in the treatment, not the cure.
[ Parent ]
actually... (5.00 / 2) (#91)
by corian on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 11:46:18 AM EST

I'd guess that this explains most of the problem. Some news organizations got ahold of a preliminary version of the talk (before it was given). Blix made a few changes when he gave the speech out loud, which are reflected in a later version of the speech put out to the media. Other media organizations tried to transcribe what they heard directly -- this would explain soundalike confusion like the "15 vs. 50" in some transcriptions.

There may be some inaccuracy, but I don't think there is specific intent to deceive on either CNN or the BBC's part.

[ Parent ]

Good point (none / 0) (#95)
by vile on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 12:27:13 PM EST

CNN and Fox news are totally pro-war, however. It is very easy to see that. Totally. And, for the most part, to take another perspective into account, both sources provide very reliable news, despite however one-sided it may be, it is none the less still reliable. For more rounded news, you are still allowed to research each presentation with your available resources. Right? But, that's just my opinion.

I hadn't even considered translation/mis-interpretations issues until now. Good thought. Awesome thought.

~
The money is in the treatment, not the cure.
[ Parent ]
As delivered. (5.00 / 3) (#90)
by sonovel on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 11:44:44 AM EST

I think the as delivered means this is not a draft, but the page title still says draft.

Since CNN fixed it, it could have been a screw up, or it could have been an initial revision, awaiting the "as delivered" version. Perhaps the holiday weekend intruded, perhaps CNN is incompetent.

And maybe they did it for nefarious purposes.

However, given the real number of errors in every topic, I lean towards almost all media being mostly incompetent.

Want an illustration? If you have more than a casual knowledge of any field, ask yourself this:

Do I catch many errors in the reporting of the fields of knowledge where I am an expert?


[ Parent ]

Interesting (none / 0) (#98)
by vile on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 12:38:19 PM EST

Do I catch many errors in the reporting of the fields of knowledge where I am an expert?

Actually, yes. Entirely. In my fields.

I'm not sure about you, however, if that was how the question was posed -- as I don't even know you, nor your profession, nor your background -- and I most certainly do not know your capabilities.

However, good call on the draft thing. I did not look at the title -- which was entirely different from how the document was presented. "AS DELIVERED," to be more specific, which I took an assumptive stance to believe that the document was, in fact, a final copy and not a draft. Hence, my comment.

Additionally, I was corrected, saw my error, and stated as such in the thread above/below this conversation thread. ;)

You did, however, give me a good thought. It's not CNN nor any other media source that is incompetant. It would be interesting to note *where* the UN's transcript is being served from -- as the U.N. is most certainly not the mainstream media source you mentioned. ;)

~
The money is in the treatment, not the cure.
[ Parent ]
the question (5.00 / 2) (#99)
by sonovel on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 12:49:38 PM EST

I said "ask yourself", so the I is you. And the yourself is you. But the first I in this message and this I (<- and that one too) are me.

I don't really follow how the UN screwed up. CNN posted something as a transcript that wasn't. They later fixed this, but it took a couple of days. Even if they started with a UN not final version, they should have fixed it quicker.

So how did the UN screw up?

[ Parent ]

CNN/UN (none / 0) (#102)
by vile on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 12:59:55 PM EST

Actually, I was about to write (and, started on it .. but my words just felt the wrath of my shift-arrow-delete combo) something in regards to how the UN screwed up by publishing a final inspection document as a draft instead of as a final document. I assume the UN link provided is not a draft (despite the title), as I have been convinced of that by the wording within the document. I can, however, almost see what you are saying. If you give me a minute + a little more insight, I can probably see entirely where you are coming from.

~
The money is in the treatment, not the cure.
[ Parent ]
Additionally (none / 0) (#104)
by vile on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 01:09:26 PM EST

I stated that It's not CNN nor any other media source that is incompetant. .. I have to disagree with that, too.. for obvious reasons.. I wasn't thinking about that when I wrote it.

~
The money is in the treatment, not the cure.
[ Parent ]
Right (none / 0) (#112)
by Bob Abooey on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 02:15:41 PM EST

Today's media and it's ease of immediate access by Joe Sixpack on the Internet makes it very difficult for them to get away with any sort of intentional mis-representation. That's not to say they still don't have any bias, but rather that they have to know they won't be able to get away with deceit.


-------
Everything that is wrong with the Internet all on one page
[ Parent ]
Paris on the Tigris? (3.50 / 4) (#75)
by zyzzyva on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 11:09:03 AM EST

The more I look at what is happening in Iraq, the more it's becoming clear to me that there are some real parallels between Saddam and other leaders who have stood up to American aggression; the one that comes most immediately to mind is Che Guevera.

Now, to call Saddam a "hero" might be too strong a term in light of some of the propaganda we've been hearing about him from the CIA, but it wouldn't surprise me if most of these so-called crimes against humanity weren't just fabrications.

There is a great article in The Nation that shows Baghdad to be not the city in fear that we're led to believe, but a living, dynamic almost joyful city. Construction is going on everywhere and people are generally very happy.

Why is America intent on extinguishing the flame from this City of Light?

they are not fabrications... (5.00 / 1) (#94)
by RelliK on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 12:13:30 PM EST

Now, to call Saddam a "hero" might be too strong a term in light of some of the propaganda we've been hearing about him from the CIA, but it wouldn't surprise me if most of these so-called crimes against humanity weren't just fabrications.

They are not fabrications, but they occurred with US's support and cooperation. Where do you thing Saddam got his chemical weapons? For that matter, who put him in power in the first place?
---
Under capitalism man exploits man, under communism it's just the opposite.
[ Parent ]

Agree with the weapons bit, but his rise to power? (none / 0) (#157)
by kcbrown on Tue Feb 18, 2003 at 02:25:42 AM EST

They are not fabrications, but they occurred with US's support and cooperation. Where do you thing Saddam got his chemical weapons? For that matter, who put him in power in the first place?
I've a number of sources indicating that the weapons in question were supplied by the U.S. But I've never seen a source indicating that Hussein got his position of power with the help of the U.S. Could you cite references for the latter? I can't seem to find any through Google.

[ Parent ]
Saddam is not a nice person... (none / 0) (#130)
by hughk on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 05:04:25 PM EST

He is not at all a nice person. He kills his own people in large numbers and many of his government are in fear of hime. We have enough correlation of this that it is probably true. The Iraqi people though are a warm and hospitable people. They are relatively secular, and more open to foreigners than others, say the Saudis. he is certainly not in the same league as Fidel who has been relatively benign. Perhaps if Che had survived, he would have been as bad.

The problem is that in any war, the politicians are the last to suffer. It is the Iraqi people who will suffer, most of which would be happy to see Saddam go - but they do not want war. They will fight for Saddam. They have no choice.

[ Parent ]

What is disturbing to me is ... (5.00 / 1) (#135)
by tilly on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 06:24:34 PM EST

the presence of a comment like this here. The way to undermine a just cause that is gaining momentum is by pushing it to an unacceptable extreme. This is what this comment seems to be doing, conciously or unconsciously. Those of us who are against the war are not advocates for Saddam. Was the invasion of Kuwait a CIA fabrication? Was the gassing of Kurdish villages a CIA fabrication? Put all that aside and consider the following: Is there a single voice raised inside Iraq against Saddam? What does that tell you about this regime?

[ Parent ]
The Nation supported Stalin, too. (none / 0) (#137)
by Anatta on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 06:52:45 PM EST

And wrote similar accounts of life in the Soviet Union under him, how everybody had jobs, how the trains all ran on time, etc.

I don't doubt the accuracy of the claims... I think there's just a slight, well, willful ignorance of all the murdered people and all those languishing in horrid prison camps, and all that stuff.


My Music
[ Parent ]

USA is like that, too. (none / 0) (#142)
by dark on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 07:59:40 PM EST

The cities all have pretty lights, and there's lots of places to party... but polite people don't discuss the vast numbers of people in prison, or the rapes and abuse that are normal there.

[ Parent ]
All I can say is (none / 0) (#149)
by Anatta on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 10:09:19 PM EST

read The Gulag Archipelago by Solzhenitsyn. I just finished it a few weeks ago. It is quite profound.

I guess you could compare the (clearly nasty) results of the drug war, for example, with what the Soviets did, but I'm not sure the comparison would hold up under scrutiny.


My Music
[ Parent ]

So is Pyongyang. (none / 0) (#140)
by Work on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 07:33:58 PM EST

In fact, Pyongyang is so young and vibrant, the crippled and elderly are shipped elsewhere in the country.

Just because a dictatorship spends all its money and resources on making its capitol nice and pretty, doesnt mean the dictatorship is nice and pretty.

[ Parent ]

A great article indeed (none / 0) (#150)
by mayo on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 10:23:30 PM EST

But did you actually read it? I am quoting directly here:
The tension and fears in Basra and elsewhere in the south, with its overwhelming Shiite population, are clearer than in Baghdad. Already the region suffers like no other in Iraq. People are caught between government repression and a deadly US-led policy of sanctions and regular bombing.
...
The hatred of the government in the south is clear, and there is little question that a change of government would be welcomed.
...
There are rumors that Iraqi generals in the south are waiting for the right moment to rise up
The article is fairly even-handed insamuch as it shows that there are factions both for and against Saddam. The fact that a large number of Iraqi citizens do feel oppressed though hardly indicates a modern day joyful utopian country on par with the picture you paint of its capital, "Baghdad ... City of Light".

[ Parent ]
MHT of the unedit page can be found here (5.00 / 3) (#85)
by llamasex on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 11:28:26 AM EST

http://216.117.167.183/CNN.mht

Howard Dean punched me in the face
wouldn't be the first time (4.23 / 13) (#92)
by RelliK on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 11:48:00 AM EST

compare these transcripts:

CBC

CNN

While CBC's transcript is clear and coherent, CNN went out of their way to present it as some unintelligible gibberish. On top of that CNN omitted some information that was at odds with US's self-righteous position. Consider this paragraph, for example:

When people at the ends of the earth, Japan, were killed by their hundreds of thousands, young and old, it was not considered a war crime, it is something that has justification. Millions of children in Iraq is something that has justification...

So yeah, CNN is Washington's propaganda machine. What else is new?
---
Under capitalism man exploits man, under communism it's just the opposite.

Also (4.50 / 2) (#103)
by Eloquence on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 01:03:48 PM EST

The mysterious Bush abortion allegations.
--
Copyright law is bad: infoAnarchy Pleasure is good: Origins of Violence
spread the word!
[ Parent ]
i've noted that cbc (none / 0) (#116)
by burntfriedman on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 02:41:34 PM EST

...tends to displays the american war effort as a distraction from the growing domestic problems as well as many other foreign relations with the u.s. go further a stray...

[ Parent ]
How does it work? (4.00 / 2) (#101)
by the on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 12:52:04 PM EST

Do Washington have paid operatives working in CNN offices or is it done through favors i.e. we'll let you have the scoop on this story if you report that story this way? Does someone advise CNN what to do or is it so obvious that there is no need for overt communication?

--
The Definite Article
Simpler than that! (5.00 / 2) (#114)
by seer on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 02:33:40 PM EST

It's not money.  It's ideals.  The people that have power at CNN have internalized the values that the government hold high:  American power over everything, economic force, and "America the great and only true moral force".  Because of that, they edit and filter as _they_themselves_ see fit.  

Read the Ed Herman and Noam Chomsky book "Manufacturing Concent" for many many other examples, or for a lighter read and less examples, read "Necessary Illusions".

[ Parent ]

yes (5.00 / 4) (#115)
by akb on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 02:38:39 PM EST

Why Were Government Propaganda Experts Working On News At CNN?

Collaborative Video Blog demandmedia.net
[ Parent ]

Link (none / 0) (#158)
by Gromit on Tue Feb 18, 2003 at 03:52:52 AM EST

Excellent link. The fair.org article links to the Alexander Cockburn story, but indirectly (just takes you to his front page). His is a very bandwidth-intensive site and you have to go digging through the archives for the relevant story, so to save y'all bother: http://www.counterpunch.org/cnnpsyops.html

--
"The noble art of losing face will one day save the human race." - Hans Blix

[ Parent ]
As a matter of fact... (none / 0) (#174)
by rantweasel on Tue Feb 18, 2003 at 03:16:49 PM EST

Carl Bernstein wrote an article on the topic for Rolling Stone, officials at the CIA admitted that they use journalists on occasion, it's been an issue for years andTerry Anderson was belived to be a CIA operative by his kidnappers, and the CIA may be doing it again in Afghanistan.  That's all on the first page of Googling.  Several reporters, including Bernstein and Andrew Cockburn, have written articles on CIA agents getting cover jobs as journalists as well as journalists friendly to the CIA submitting articles to the agency for "spin".

mathias

[ Parent ]

disinformation (4.40 / 5) (#105)
by ibbie on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 01:20:37 PM EST

i'm of the opinion that any major news site is subject to the government's triple-ply style of disinformation.

but if that's the case, how does one ever know what is really happening?

blargh.

--
george washington not only chopped down his father's cherry tree, but he also admitted doing it. now, do you know why his father didn't punish him? because george still had the axe in his hand.
Re: disinformation (none / 0) (#148)
by mayor on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 09:48:42 PM EST

if that's the case, how does one ever know what is really happening? blargh.

Every news outlet (read propaganda) beats their own drum. Such has always been the nature of news media in each and every country. It is not farfetched to assume that by default all of them all liars.

It is impossible for the layman to know the "truth" -- and is in quotes because I don't believe there is such thing as THE truth, but that is another subject altogether. Lets only concentrate only on blunt, intentional misinformation. How does a layman spot misinformation?. He cannot.

The only way to become better informed about politics is to become a diplomat; similarly, to become better informed about computers you must first become a computer scientist, or to become better informed about medicine you must become a physician. There is no easy way, for the layman is not able to decide even the most trivial issues.

[ Parent ]

news sources (none / 0) (#215)
by kpeerless on Mon Feb 24, 2003 at 09:02:19 AM EST

try www.newsfromtheedge.org

[ Parent ]
Credit where credit is due (4.00 / 2) (#106)
by The Lord of Chaos on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 01:24:30 PM EST

Hey llamasex. You didn't happen to find this story here and forget to post a link to it?

Two people... (4.00 / 1) (#110)
by MyrddinE on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 02:03:33 PM EST

... can find the same two obvious problems. For one thing, the article you mentioned specifically says that the author 'heard there was a 750 word discrepancy' and investigated. So he heard it from somewhere else as well. Obviously, he is not a cut rate investigative reporter discovering new data that nobody else has heard of. Another story discussing the same discrepancy is not indication of plagarism.

So get your panties out of a bind.

[ Parent ]

Here is his story... (none / 0) (#111)
by lurker4hire on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 02:08:47 PM EST

Editorial comment, maybe he should repost this as topical?

http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2003/2/16/211910/416/8#8

[ Parent ]

my favorite CNN moment (4.33 / 9) (#108)
by gmp on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 01:36:25 PM EST

My favorite recent CNN moment is their coverage of the peace protests: neutrally titled Iraqi government praises rallies. Rather than actually go to the protests to cover them directly, they simply quote the "tightly controlled" Iraqi news media. What a joke.

Really disturbing (4.50 / 2) (#143)
by A Trickster Imp on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 08:42:18 PM EST

On my local news channel, Iraqi anti-war "protests" were shown ahead of a larger, pro-war "if it happens" protest near my home city of Detroit.

I also notice that last year, a 900 person pro-Saddam removal protest by Iraqis living in Detroit went unnoticed nationally.

[ Parent ]

So you saying... (none / 0) (#199)
by DDS3 on Wed Feb 19, 2003 at 10:06:50 AM EST

...we can expect a news release from a non-government owned and non-tightly controlled Iraqi news outlet.

Hey...I'm all for it.  I suspect this exciting news release will be post Saddam rule.  In the mean time, the statement seems fairly accurate.

Very enlightening.


[ Parent ]

It looks fixed now (3.00 / 1) (#120)
by izogi on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 03:14:48 PM EST

I've just read through and compared both transcripts, and apart from the occasional minor syntactic difference they both look very similar.

Has CNN fixed it?


- izogi


Lack of time (1.00 / 1) (#126)
by VivianC on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 04:24:36 PM EST

They must have had an intern working it over quickly since they were full of wall to wall coverage of war protests this weekend.

2 disturbing things about this (4.71 / 7) (#129)
by pyramid termite on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 05:03:03 PM EST

1. CNN chose to correct this silently. I looked for a corrections page ...

2. ... which interestingly enough, isn't available from their front page, if there is one. ABC, CBS, MSNBC and FOXnews don't have a link for one on their front pages either. But the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune all have one in their menus. (The Detroit News and the LA Times didn't.)

So, I guess I'll be watching TV news or visiting TV news websites from now on as they obviously don't make mistakes, do they? Isn't there a certain subliminal arrogance about a TV news site not having a corrections page?

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
Interesting but... (none / 0) (#156)
by Skywise on Tue Feb 18, 2003 at 12:46:48 AM EST

How many newspapers do you see that publish their "corrections" section on the front page index?  They're typically buried randomly throughout the paper.  (Except the obituary corrections...)

Not that I'm disagreeing with your position, but I don't think its as uncommon as you think it is.

Incidentally, the NYTimes doesn't publish their corrections on the corrections page.  They only give you an *unlinked* email address or phone number to call with suggestions or corrections.

The Washington Post and the Tribune all have plenty of corrections listed... (which obviously means they must suck and the others are perfect... :) )

[ Parent ]

Vast conservative conspiracy (3.33 / 3) (#151)
by michaelp on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 11:14:09 PM EST

not to go to war with Iraq, but to oust Tony Blair, and prevent the consolidation of the EU!

Blair's popularity plummets

Think about it, Blair had the neo-liberal lock on Britain, was capable of carrying it into the EU (albeit kicking and screaming). Bush gets Tony to back him 100% on an invasion of Iraq, then Bush and co. disparage France and Germany. This drives a wedge between the major powers of Europe, and slices away significant internationalist/socialist/liberal support for Blair.

All we need next is for Blair to fall to a Thatcher type anti-EU conservative, and a major challenge to US dominance of the next century, a unified Europe, falls apart.

And all along Bush goofs about doing his subgenius routine, when he is actually the brilliant master strategist behind the final victory of the vast conservative conspiracy!

Now if he can just get China to take the US on in a budget breaking space race...


"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

I'm not justifying anything here... (3.50 / 2) (#152)
by Lord Snott on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 11:48:17 PM EST

...but I don't think CNN has a government backed agenda, they're just making money.

If you vote more leftist, are you going to watch a right-wing news channel? CNN is just after ratings, people like what they see on CNN, so they watch.

"Yeah! Those towel-heads are gonna pay! I saw it on CNN!"

Unfortunately, you can't judge the masses by what you read on Kuro5hin (or even by your own group of friends), people associate with others of the same mindset. CNN is just trying to cash in on the biggest market.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This sig in violation of U.S. trademark
registration number 2,347,676.
Bummer :-(

Making money is a sufficient motive (none / 0) (#183)
by jbuck on Tue Feb 18, 2003 at 07:55:33 PM EST

If and when war breaks out, CNN's viewership, and therefore its ad revenue, will at least double, and possibly triple. Therefore war is in their financial interest.

[ Parent ]

Rush to be first ... (4.66 / 3) (#154)
by woliver on Tue Feb 18, 2003 at 12:15:29 AM EST

This is a problem with all big news networks but I have seen it more with CNN than others, the rush to be first with a story often leads to poor fact checking and sloppy reporting. During the previous war with Iraq I remember that CNN got almost all its figures and facts wrong as the story broke. As the hours went past the numbers slowly corrected themselves. I don't necessarily believe that this was deliberate propaganda, just their over zealous need to be first to report news meant they did not have time to check. They often reported military press releases (which are often very conservative for security reasons) as fact with no checking.

Commercialisation of information can corrupt it, there is not always a guiding conspiracy.



I did a thorough check of the latest version (4.80 / 10) (#161)
by Gromit on Tue Feb 18, 2003 at 05:56:22 AM EST

I've thoroughly checked the most recent version (as of this writing!) of the transcript on the CNN website against the UN webcast. (Kudos to Crusader for pointing out the webcast in this comment.) The text I checked is the one you get when you click the link for the "printed" form ('cause it's easier to read that way). It's now both correct and complete. There's a copy-edit error (it should probably say "re-baselining" where it says "rebase lining") but other than that, what you read is what Dr. Blix said. [Unless one wants to get into Rising Sun-style conspiracy theories about the UN webcast having been digitally manipulated! ;-) ]

CNN's having posted the wrong text, and then updating it without a correction notice, is quite simply unforgiveable. People here seem to be willing to forgive it as a formatting error, publishing an earlier draft, etc., but they really shouldn't: It's either politically-motivated Orwellian revisionism to keep in good with the U.S. administration (which seems unlikely), or incredibly bad news reporting of an extremely important issue. It's not hard to have realtime court reporters (high-grade stenographers, sometimes called stenocaptioners) transcribing the speech as it is being delivered and simultaneously having it cleaned up by someone called a "scoper" (yes, I used to work in the field -- in fact, I wrote some of the software that does it), so that within minutes of the end of the speech, you have an accurate, edited transcript for publication. I can see CNN not going to the expense of something like that for just any speech, but for the report from weapons inspectors to the UN that might make or break the case for war? Give me an effing break and spend a couple of grand to get it right (or accept not being the first to publish). Getting it wrong was just plain piss-poor journalism, high-school-newspaper stuff. Covering it up with a silent correction was shameful and shoddy.



--
"The noble art of losing face will one day save the human race." - Hans Blix

Except in a post dot com (none / 0) (#200)
by DDS3 on Wed Feb 19, 2003 at 10:10:49 AM EST

...world, this is the way the world works.  It's more important to get the scoop than it is to be right...or so says EVERY news media that I'm aware of.  It's better to be first and get the following of the masses.  It's easy to simply make corrections later.

Point a finger at CNN, you're pointing a finger at  almost every news outlet in the world.


[ Parent ]

Read again (none / 0) (#208)
by Gromit on Thu Feb 20, 2003 at 03:04:04 AM EST

(s/except/accept that/, I think you meant.)

My point was that they can be both first and accurate, for not very much effort. (In fact, thanks to the U.S.'s ADA law [disabilities access stuff], I'm pretty sure they already have captioners on contract anyway.) And when inaccurate, they can acknowledge their errors in a corrections page. They don't have to trumpet their flaws, just acknowledge them.

Further, I don't have to accept shoddy news reportage as inevitable in the global information age. People seem willing to accept all sorts of things under that umbrella -- invasion of privacy, limits on fair use, and such -- and it's foolishness. These things are only as inevitable as our willingness to accept them makes them.



--
"The noble art of losing face will one day save the human race." - Hans Blix

[ Parent ]
This is the second time I know about (4.33 / 3) (#167)
by jet_silver on Tue Feb 18, 2003 at 11:20:25 AM EST

There was an irc "log" posted as the true account on CNN whose content I no longer remember, but it was a conference with some mucky-muck - during the session I logged it and a couple pointed questions were removed from the log CNN posted.

I sent CNN a notice of the error and, of course, nothing happened.

Whether CNN has an agenda or not, they do persist in removing uncomfortable facts from the news. I read CNN sometimes but don't believe what they say any more. I believe Le Figaro, the Guardian, and Auntie Beeb, but not CNN.


"What they really fear is machine-gunning politicians becoming a popular sport, like skate-boarding." -Nicolas Freeling

try this (none / 0) (#214)
by kpeerless on Mon Feb 24, 2003 at 08:56:28 AM EST

www.newsfromtheedge.org

[ Parent ]
Ted Rall's Latest Column is On Topic Here... (4.75 / 4) (#168)
by weave on Tue Feb 18, 2003 at 11:25:11 AM EST

Ted Rall covers this apparently common ommission of little facts that color a story differently in latest column. titled "WHAT THEY DON'T TELL US."

If that was an accident... (2.50 / 2) (#169)
by Niha on Tue Feb 18, 2003 at 11:47:54 AM EST

 ...CNN should be more careful next time,or I could think they are really pityful....

Biased news media (4.60 / 5) (#170)
by jd on Tue Feb 18, 2003 at 11:49:33 AM EST

You have to remember that organizations such as CNN are paid for by advertizers and also have to appease Government regulators.

This is true of all countries, not just the US. The difference with the US is that enough outsiders are looking in for it to be blatantly obvious and pathetically pointless.

The US notion of a "free press" does not exist. An unbiased, impartial, self-sacrificing news service is theoretically possible, but so far only exists in the world of Citizen Kane.

Were any real-world news organizations to attempt what the fictional Kane did, they'd be broke by the end of week 1, licence-less by the end of week 2, and international fugitives by the end of week 3. There wouldn't be a book, there certainly wouldn't be any appreciation, but there might be some bullet holes.

The sad truth is that self-preservation is much higher on the pecking order than honesty. The BBC, over the Thatcher regime, did a fair amount of self-censoring of reports on CND, and nobody should need reminding of the farcical attempts at silencing the British media's reporting of Northern Ireland.

Right now, CNN is in a decent position to get reporters on the front-line when (not if) war breaks out. They start reporting "inconvenient" facts that could dampen Resident Bush's war efforts, or even his popularity, and there may well be a few "friendly fire" statistics to report with the rest of the news. Who would really notice? Happens all the time.

Or, worse (from CNN's perspective), they could be declared persona non-grata by the forces on the ground, which would mean no scoops and all second-hand news. It would kill their ratings, and may cause advertizers to dump them. In the current economy, that would be damn close to suicide.

The BBC is a news organization I'll trust only so far. They do make a damn good effort at being as impartial as they can, and their reporters are some of the most human I've seen.

In the Bosnian crisis, at least one BBC war correspondant adopted a war orphan on the battlefield, because there was no way on earth they'd leave a kid in that kind of situation. Sure, "getting involved" is a breach of Journalistic ethics, but if it's going to happen, then saving lives would seem a good place for it to happen.

In contrast, the most "daring" thing I saw a US reporter do in the last Gulf War was stay outside after the Air Raid sirens went off. Yeah - real guts, that took. He was probably safer standing in the streets there than he would be crossing the streets in most US cities.

What I would hope for (but will never happen), is for a Kuro5hin/Slashdot-type organization to start up, with its own reporters, doing real on-the-scene reporting, with nobody to answer to, and no paymaster to appease.

It won't happen, because:

  • Internet connections of the sort needed wouldn't be cheap (you'd need a T1 to T3, if you're going to do this properly)
  • Nobody is going to walk into a war-zone uninvited, knowing they could be shot as a spy by anyone and everyone, with no "officially recognized" media organization to back them if they get into a corner, and on a pure volunteer basis, just to inform others of what's going on
  • Not enough people care about the facts to put everything on the line to run such a site
  • People do need to eat, and if you're busy chasing wars or running a news site, full-time, you're not going to be making the money for food, shelter and other minor necessities like that
  • Even if you could find a billionaire webmaster and some lunatics for reporters, how long before the site was hacked, the survivors were arrested for treason, and the reports were discredited by plausible denial?

No, "the truth" will have to stay out there, in the cold, because it is in nobody's interests (including the general populace) to know what it is.

Rediculous (none / 0) (#178)
by gengis on Tue Feb 18, 2003 at 05:21:17 PM EST

Were any real-world news organizations to attempt what the fictional Kane did, they'd be broke by the end of week 1, licence-less by the end of week 2, and international fugitives by the end of week 3. There wouldn't be a book, there certainly wouldn't be any appreciation, but there might be some bullet holes.


I'm hoping you don't live in the States. If you're not a resident, your ignorance of our laws and regulations is certainly okay.

First - CNN doesn't need, nor do they have, any license from the government. The only thing you need a license for is /broadcasting/. CNN is the /Cable/ News Network. Hence, no license needed.

Second - While the U.S. does have some pretty draconian censorship laws wrt nudity and adult language, that is the -ONLY- thing the government censors. And even then, it only censors content on public networks (re: radio/tv broadcast) between the hours of 6am and 10pm. These powers were granted by act of Congress.

The third point, I'm not sure what to say - Other than to point out that, despite many, many government controversies exposed by the media (Watergate, Monicagate, etc, etc) in the U.S., no such thing has happened. (well, unless you believe in the Clinton Death Squads).

What's happening w/ CNN, Fox News and others is mostly not a direct result of pressure from the gov't - (I recall Ms. Rice calling the news networks, and requesting they not show video of Osama bin Laden anymore) - but rather is a result of the U.S. proletariat moving to the right and the (Corporate) news media moving right along with them. The position of the Born Again-Right in the U.S. is that we should attack Iraq. CNN is pandering to that demographic - not to the administration.

[ Parent ]
My favorite American war correspondant story (none / 0) (#193)
by shinshin on Wed Feb 19, 2003 at 04:09:36 AM EST

In contrast, the most "daring" thing I saw a US reporter do in the last Gulf War was stay outside after the Air Raid sirens went off.

Fox's Geraldo Rivera was right in the midst of some of the heaviest fighting in the Afghanistan conflict. At least, so he claimed; he was later exposed to having been hundreds of miles away. CNN's Aaron Brown took great glee in reporting this fact. When Bill O'Reilly asked Riveria about Brown's mention of this, Riveria said: "Aaron Brown, at CNN, went out of his way to make a story about this, out of his way. This is a guy who would poop in his pants if he was anywhere near what I was near in Afghanistan".



____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]
Citizen Kane & Yellow Journalism (none / 0) (#201)
by condour on Wed Feb 19, 2003 at 10:19:24 AM EST

Actually, CF Kane was based on William Randolph Hearst. In 1898 America decided it needed colonies. Hearst became a vocal supporter of the "Cuba Libre" movement, villifying the Spanish and supporting a war against Spain. I quote from this site:
A minor revolt in Cuba against the Spanish colonial government provided a colorful topic. For months now the papers had been painting in lurid detail the horrors of Cuban life under oppressive Spanish rule. The Spanish had confined many Cubans to concentration camps. The press called them "death camps." Wild stories with screaming headlines -- Spanish Cannibalism, Inhuman Torture, Amazon Warriors Fight For Rebels -- flooded the newsstands. Newspapers sent hundreds of reporters, artists, and photographers south to recount Spanish atrocities. The correspondents, including such notables as author Stephen Crane and artist Frederick Remington, found little to report on when they arrived. "There is no war," Remington wrote to his boss. "Request to be recalled." Cartoon representing Cuba's uneasy situation in the 1890s Remington's boss, William Randolph Hearst, sent a cable in reply: "Please remain. You furnish the pictures, I'll furnish the war." Hearst was true to his word. For weeks after the Maine disaster, the Journal devoted more than eight pages a day to the story. Not to be outdone, other papers followed Hearst's lead. Hundreds of editorials demanded that the Maine and American honor be avenged. Many Americans agreed. Soon a rallying cry could be heard everywhere -- in the papers, on the streets, and in the halls of Congress: "Remember the Maine! To hell with Spain."
The date of the Maine incident? February 15, 1898.

[ Parent ]
Not a conspiracy (5.00 / 4) (#171)
by pupdog on Tue Feb 18, 2003 at 11:57:28 AM EST

The transcripts that CNN uses are prepared by an outside company called eMediaMillworks. CNN doesn't have anyone listening to or watching broadcasts and transcribing them, they pay an outside source to do it. The other major news networks do the same thing. Several use the same company in fact. Often there are errors that the speech-recognition software pics up, or that the steno's type in (if it's done by a human). Then the transcripts are basically ftp'd over to CNN and posted. No one takes the time to re-type them, if anything is done, it's a cut and paste job to a different template. Sometimes a transcript may come from a document that was presented before the speech (or whatever). If there's going to be remarks, the press often gets a copy beforehand, which may or may not jibe perfectly with what is delivered...

Anyway,truth ends up winning (4.00 / 1) (#173)
by Niha on Tue Feb 18, 2003 at 12:31:48 PM EST

(According to Googlefight)

Speaking of dodgy reporting from CNN.com (3.00 / 2) (#182)
by caradea on Tue Feb 18, 2003 at 07:45:31 PM EST

Has anyone else noticed this artical on CNN.com? What a load of crap! Picking this artical apart:
- Germany is seen as dancing about, celebrating the fact that they're no longer seen as horrible nazi protagonists
- No backing up of the Channel 4 poll saying the USA is more of a threat to the world than North Korea or Iraq.
- so-called "vilification" of Dubya in the UK.
- poor use of statistics of religion to further USA racist propaganda that all muslims are anti-American and European is becoming increasingly Muslim and that's the reason why europe is "anti-American"
- America is the only superpower in the world; Europe is weak. yet quote someone saying America is the land of arrogance. Irony? :)

When I came across this, I really could not believe it was on cnn.com. I remember back in the day when I actually *trusted* them for news. "Accidental" indeed. *hmmph*

UK Perspective (3.50 / 2) (#185)
by sgp on Tue Feb 18, 2003 at 08:23:18 PM EST

Dubya is strongly resented in the UK, as is Blair for backing him. The article you linked to "expects" 0.5m people on the march; the actual figures (UK alone) were between 0.75m-2m, depending on who you believe. Let's say 1m, out of a population of 60m. That's "only" 1 in 60, but if I was not 5h from London, I'd have been there too - I suspect that others were in the same situation.

The vilifcation of Dubya is not "so-called" - he is seen as a war-monger. Erm, and why not? He is after a war.

As you mention Channel 4, they also broadcast Bremner, Bird and Fortune, some (IMHO) excellent satirists/impersonators; watch their "Between Iraq and a Hard Place" (http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/special_reports/iraq_hard_place.html, RealPlayer, approx 1 hour) for an excellent (albeit by now about 1 month old) review of the history of Iraq, and the West's influence. Just small details, like we created Iraq, effectively put Saddam in power, and, of course, funded him massively when it suited our aims.

As you say, America is the only superpower in the world. Is it not, then, the ultimate arrogance to go around accusing lesser powers of being in posession of WMD? An interesting (but brief) mention of a DARPA document is at http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/29366.html:
"harness the insights and power of biology to make US warfighters and their equipment stronger, safer, and more effective..." to quote just a snippet. Oh yes, I trust America. Especially now that the StarWars early detection system is 20m from my home town. First target? Me. Glad it makes you feel safe in the "Land of the Free"

Many Americans seem surprised that the rest of the world is against them on this campaign; I can't really see why they are surprised.

There are 10 types of people in the world:
Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

[ Parent ]

I think you were missing my point :) (4.00 / 2) (#195)
by caradea on Wed Feb 19, 2003 at 05:40:48 AM EST

1) Note, the artical date is 14 February. March had not taken place yet and that was a fair estimate at the time, no?

2) I would have gone there too but with my legal immigrant status, I didn't want to end up deported if the march turned out unpeaceful, nor did I want to end up like the May Day protesters a few years back, stuck in oxford circus for 8 hours. (Very good, you picked up I'm an American, but I've been living abroad in the UK on and off for the past 3 years)

3) my arguement/bee-in-bonnet was they're saying that the rest of the world is vilifying (sp) Dubya as an equal to Saddam. Which isn't quite true, Saddam doesn't go looking for wars/countries to pick on.

4) Yes I saw the Bremner, Bird & Fortune special on Iraq. I've also seen the more recent episodes :) I was annoyed at the artical's feigned innocence - most Americans in the USA would take that to mean vilification of America as a whole as Britons had voted the USA as more dangerous to the world than North Korea and Iraq. There are reasons behind picking the US over Iraq and North Korea - I will assume you already know them.

5) Another bee-in-bonnet, I was ticked off at the arrogance of "USA=strong, Europe=weak", yeah the USA has lots of WMD, but there are still strong european and asian countries on the UN, ones that are "old" and getting in the way of the world (germany, france, hey france has nukes, maybe the US should just invade them and take Chriac out of power, eh?)

And I'm not in "The Land of the Free" and I'm getting quite ticked off with my freedoms being trampled by the Bush administration.

And yes most Americans don't realise why they're being hated because the likes of CNN shield them from the actual reasons behind the behaviour of the outside world, beyond the throws of USA. I'm not one of those Americans; I'm not surprised at all either.

[ Parent ]

Try Another News Agency (4.00 / 1) (#188)
by Enlightened1 on Tue Feb 18, 2003 at 11:57:10 PM EST

Another wonderful example of why CNN is a bad source for news. Even MSNBC is less biased and more factual.
www.intellnet.org Open Source Intelligence


IDIOCY. Never Underestimate the Power of Stupid People in Large Groups.

I would expect no less... (4.00 / 1) (#192)
by Nesian on Wed Feb 19, 2003 at 04:02:01 AM EST

Of the american government media
~After all, if you stockpile a massive nuclear arsenal, it's only natural that people are going to want to go in and have a look around, maybe see what all those buttons marked 'detonate' and 'code red' mean.~
Ted Turner (1.00 / 3) (#196)
by Quila on Wed Feb 19, 2003 at 07:34:01 AM EST

Ted Turner is still a large owner of CNN, and undoubtedly has some amount of influence still (it's rumored he may get it back completely soon).  Ted Turner is about as "flaming liberal" and anti-Bush as you can get.

If anything, CNN has a very liberal bias.  Now if Fox News had posted something like this I might start thinking conspiracy.

Never attribute conspiracy to something that can be easily explained by incompetence (bad paraphrase).

turner (4.00 / 1) (#213)
by kpeerless on Mon Feb 24, 2003 at 08:53:26 AM EST

Turner has resigned his board seat and when it was suggested that he would no longer have any influence he replied, "I didn't have any when I sat on the board."

He did suggest that he wouldn't mind buying it back abd turning it back into a news channel again.

As for it being liberal... get real. It's owned by AOL-Time-Warner for crissake. Big Biz. Spare me liberal. It's a joke. Right?

kp

www.newsfromtheedge.org

[ Parent ]

It's still liberal (none / 0) (#216)
by Quila on Tue Feb 25, 2003 at 04:36:34 AM EST

And, from personal experience, VERY prone to misreporting facts.

Actually, I would like to know if anyone out there knows of an unbiased TV news source.

[ Parent ]

unbiased is an illusion (none / 0) (#217)
by smidge on Wed Feb 26, 2003 at 11:27:51 AM EST

of course there are no unbiased news sources. if you think cnn is liberal, you've been had. as a component of a large media conglomerate, cnn is de facto mainstream, which in our current socio-historical context equates to relative conservatism. =====================================================

Through the mythology of Einstein, the world blissfully regained the image of knowledge reduced to a formula. - Barthes
[ Parent ]
They are biased (none / 0) (#218)
by Quila on Thu Feb 27, 2003 at 04:48:32 AM EST

Fox is also owned by a media conglomerate and is mainstream, but comparing Fox and CNN side by side shows a very apparent difference in biases.

[ Parent ]
difference between Fox and CNN (none / 0) (#219)
by smidge on Thu Feb 27, 2003 at 10:15:06 AM EST

Fox is shamelessly ultra-conservative. They pride themselves on putting the rhetoric right in your face with shows featuring ultra-conservatives like O'Reilly and Hannidy. CNN, in contrast, attempts to appear unbiased. The conservative slant of CNN is much more subtle, but can easily be discerned if one takes a closer look at their news selection trends. Rather than having Bill O'Reilly preach the conservative on the air, CNN's gatekeepers choose what you will and will not see, and these choices reflect a very mainstream, conservative, and profit-driven motivation. One must not forget that CNN would not exist if not for the need to sell consumer products. Our social climate is very conservative. CNN won't be portraying anything that will cause the average American to enter a state of cognitive dissonance, and therefore the slant of CNN is toward that which average viewers will agree with. The same is true of MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC. It's not necessarily their 'fault'. They're just trying to sell you cornflakes.

Through the mythology of Einstein, the world blissfully regained the image of knowledge reduced to a formula. - Barthes
[ Parent ]
New CNN Theme Song (1.00 / 3) (#202)
by mmsmatt on Wed Feb 19, 2003 at 12:04:10 PM EST

I'm waiting for CNN to play the French national anthem after every commercial break. Why are you still trying to cover up your anti-Bush sentiments, Mr. Turner?

Tracers and flak over Baghdad (5.00 / 4) (#203)
by lurch on Wed Feb 19, 2003 at 01:13:30 PM EST

Does it really matter whether CNN is pro or anti Bush? In any case they are pro war.
Nothing like a few live pictures of smart missiles blowing people to bits to increase your ad revenues.

Which goes along nicely with the general theme of the war: Oil, Money and Power.

Sometimes I really wonder how Bush can get away with this. And UN or no, I dont doubt that he will.

His familiy for generations in the oil business and most of his fellow war mongers (except for his minister of overseas provinces, Tony Blair) working most of their life for one or another oil company and then he tries to wage war on the country with the second biggest oil reserves on a rather flimsy pretext.

If this was a comedy show, I'd be laughing my butt off.

What happend to the war on terrorism? Top terrorist #1 Osama bin L. is still running around free. US troops are withdrawing from Afganhistan this very minute and the much ridiculed UN can now take care of the shit left behind by the american military.

State of the Union (5.00 / 3) (#204)
by phlux on Wed Feb 19, 2003 at 01:42:03 PM EST

I went online looking for transcripts of the State of the Union address given by Bush, and I found that most "Transcripts" (including CNN and many many other "news" sources) were missing vast portions of the speech - even though they explicitly stated that they were the full text of the speech. I was amazed that they would put up a partial transcript and STATE that it was the whole thing. US Media makes me sick - and if I saw ted turner in person I would break his nose for being so fucking biased and full of bullshit.

Don't forget Rupert Murdoch (1.00 / 1) (#210)
by davincarten on Sat Feb 22, 2003 at 12:06:00 PM EST

Their master's voice
Rupert Murdoch argued strongly for a war with Iraq in an interview this week. Which might explain why his 175 editors around the world are backing it too, writes Roy Greenslade


[ Parent ]
maybe they've changed it. (none / 0) (#209)
by nutate on Thu Feb 20, 2003 at 11:16:22 AM EST

But as of yesterday, the differences between the two are one's of spelling and punctuation as far as I can see. But they clearly aren't from the same transcription source due to some slight differences in phraseology, none as severe as this article claims.

I'd like to see if anyone else noticed a change, or if everyone was just using this as an opportunity to expound their opinions on the media, foreign policy, etc. ad nauseam.



changes (none / 0) (#212)
by kpeerless on Mon Feb 24, 2003 at 08:46:49 AM EST

These changes have been noted by many sources, some of which may be found, along with other interesting news, at...

www.newsfromtheedge.org

CNN transcript is cut a bit short | 221 comments (212 topical, 9 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!