You know how there's been all these recent Pakistan/India threads recently? And lots of you saying that war will break out any time between these two nations (I can't blame those of you who have never been overseas for believing everything the U.S. media tells you b/c they do sound pretty convincing). I remember before I left for Pakistan on June 15, 2002 people were telling me I was crazy for going because it's "so dangerous over there", but as soon as I got to Pakistan, I realized that all the newsmedia and government officials in the U.S. (including GDub) are bull$hitting like crazy. Not only is war no where close to occuring, but relations between the two countries are no where different than they have been for the last fifteen years. My mom's first cousin is Chief Colonel in the Pakistani Army, and on the third day of my visit, he took me to "offlimits" area where the Army makes all of its decisions (this place was pretty much like the U.S. Pentagon, since the army in Pakistan makes all the decisions). My uncle meets with Gen. Musharaaf pretty often and is in the know of the current status of everything that's going on (so I trust this information a lot more concerning the Pakistan/India conflicts, than what the U.S. media has to say about it). Well anyways, it's mind-boggling the way the U.S. depicts 'war conditions' over there when nothing noteworthy is really happening (ie: I remember going to CNN.com about a week before I left and the top headline was: Between 5 to 7 million to die in the Indian/Pakistan region within the next few weeks from radiation.) As I said in another post, after coming back from Pakistan, I went to London and the media over there gives a MUCH more accurate report of the real conditions regarding the area than does the U.S. You know how you always hear, "Don't believe everything the media says."...well in this case, "Don't believe anything the media says." (the U.S. media in regard to the Pakistan/Indian conflicts, at least.) I'm out...
That's a good rule to live by. However, I would trust our media over the media of other countries. Sometimes, the media is the only way some people can get their information. It's a good place to start. However, you should always question it. If you can't travel to learn more, pick up a book written from their point of view.
Why? You think we are less propaganda driven? I don't I will admit . . . we are more prone to overload. . . so many points of view .. that you don't know which to beleive which in some cases . . is just as bad as plain ole misinformation Rocket RIver
Actually, I think the most balanced media may be the BBC and The Christian Science Monitor. The Monitor is in Boston but the BBC is obviously in England. My wife and I were talking about this recently. To me, there are really three kinds of bias: 1. Political/Ideological bias in reporting. 2. Political/Ideological bias in choosing stories. 3. Corporate bias. IMO, Fox News and Pacifica are good examples of #1. They obviously slant many of their stories for their reasons and that's fine - Fox to the right, Pacifica to the left. We all kinda know that. Frontline is an example, IMO, of #2. They tend to choose more left-leaning topics, but their reporting is almost always very sound. They choose a topic they think will lead them a certain direction, but they almost always report it fairly and accurately. Pretty much the majority of the national broadcast news has reached #3. They do what are nearly ads for pharmaceutical industry companies. Ever wonder why everyone seems to have a "medical correspondent" doing stories on new drugs nearly every night? To me, I don't really worry about #1 or #2. If you want to slant stories, go ahead. We all can tell what is aimed at whom fairly easily at this point. And, with #2, you still get fair and accurate reporting even if the concept going in is slanted. But #3 bugs me because it is more concerned with dollars and cents than getting the news right. It is mostly "theory" news where they don't talk about facts but about "what if's" and that concerns me the most. It is also really worrisome because it is harder to detect the corporate influence. It is often extremely subtle because they are really smart about it. Political bias is pretty easy to spot, but corporate bias is getting tougher and tougher.
Sorry Slandballa, but I think you were the one subjected to a media blackout while you were in Pakistan. I can't think of any other reason for the content of your post. General Musharaf threatened to use nuclear weapons against India, and troops from both countries massed near the Kashmir region. I think these past few months represent the closest the world has come to seeing a nuclear war since the 1960s. If you don't trust the U.S. press, go read the BBC online, or any major world news service. Try to stay away from the news services based in countries that don't respect a free press though (like Pakistan)- you will only read what the General and the ISI want you to read. btw, I have a friend in India who I talk to every week. He was close to tears when we talked for weeks on end over this episode. I am so glad for his family, and your family, that this situation has been defused.
Our media is free. Our media is not run by a dictator. Like I said, the media is the only information source some people have. The media gives us one point of view. In America, we have a right to listen to or ignore or consider that point of view. You form your own beliefs. And if some people in our country DO only listen to our media then good for them. At least they're on our side!
Yeah, as of 9-11 I quit watching American media and use BBC world. The BBC is the most unbiased news source out there. Period.
Unless you consider corporate America a dictator. Our press is HARDLY free. Weeks and weeks of stories about Enron and not one in-depth story from the Chronicle, the only daily in Houston. Why? Well, surprise, surprise, members of Enron's board sit on the Chron board. Every time you see a story on the news about some new product, tv show, movie, etc. etc, it is all a paid set up by the network to influence you. It's called corporate sponsorship. Many journalists believe that broadcast journalism died when they allowed commercials during the news. They haven't always done that for fear of the corporate influence. They were right.
Jeff- Very good points about our media being free. I do agree that ours is not totally free, but I believe in ours over others still (with the exception of the BBC perhaps). However, all media is still biased.
CNN is good if you want endless, repetitive, not very insightful commentary on what this all *means*. If you just want to find out what the hell happened, the BBC is much better.
