Yeah, but your idea of more balanced is gonna come off like pro western propoganda to them. They will reject that faster than you can say jihad. That's why you have to go through what already exists. Al Jazeera isn't spewing out things to influence people, the people who run those networks are not much different than the average Joe in the ME. What they show is what those people already think. Also, no matter how balanced a "pro western" arabic network is, if it is a tool of the US govt, then nobody over there is gonna believe what is said.
Here's an interesting thought: As we are discussing the media, and it's bias, where do those in here making comments of Al Jazeera's broadcast bias get their information on it, if not from US media sources?
Speaking of bias, I keep wondering where's the uproar over the close up pictures of the faces of Iraq POW's hogtied and in their skivvies in the LA Times, Washington Post, Sydney Morning Herald (and every other news site I looked at) being called a violation of the Geneva convention...
Here's another bias, Iraqis and other Arabs in civilian clothing are terrorists, but Specials Ops soldiers in civilian clothing have "gone native". But to show two sides of a story: American's feeling a little bit bad about the onesidedness of the war http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0411/p03s01-woiq.html American's showing bloodthirsty attitude http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12812671&method=full&siteid=50143 http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,930916,00.html
That's what I'm wondering. I don't watch a lot of TV, but I generally watch the news for almost an hour in the morning and about half an hour before I go to bed. I know my cable provider doesn't give us Al-Jazeera. I've seen bits and pieces of rebroadcasts on CNN and MSNBC, but nothing substantial enough that would give me a real picture of what they show. Of course I know they show the Bin Laden tapes. Hell, all the American networks showed the first one before the US govt told them it could contain hidden messages. They air it because he's a newsworthy figure. He's an evil, disgusting piece of crap, but he's a major world figure. They are justified in airing it. Everyone is justified in being angry that they showed the POW tapes. That was disgusting and entirely inappropriate. But is that representative of their broadcasts? (as I said, I don't know what they bbroadcast day in and day out, so that's an honest question) They show civilian tragedies much more than American news channels. Are you surprised? Arab audiences relate with the plight of Arab people. They want to know about that. Why would you expect them to broadcast the same stuff that American channels show? They don't really care about the interviews with family members of soldiers. They care about interviews with the family members of Arab civilians. They don't care about what a retired American General has to say about the war strategy (frankly nethier do I). They care about the protests on the streets of Arab countries. They represent and reinforce the views of their viewers. Not ours. I would expect nothing different.
* So you argue that the media should ignore facts and balance to just show it's patrons what they want to see? * Chicken or egg?
I saw several reports on it during this war, inlcuding translations. One where a media viewer said it was quite clear that the first checkpoint suicide bombers were being hailed as heros by the network. That did not really suprise me, though. Particularly with some of the things our networks were doing.
Our expectations for the media appear too low, eh? If it's true that some non-representative governments in the region intentionally foment hatred of the US, then al jazeera's purpose is to 'represent and reinforce the views of their viewers' as you stated, what function is it serving? If it does not report on the murders and torture of the saddam regime, what function is it serving?
My expectations for the media *are* extremely low. But, I'm a pretty cynical person overall, so that doesn't mean much... If it's true that some non-representative governments in the region intentionally foment hatred of the US, then al jazeera's purpose is to 'represent and reinforce the views of their viewers' as you stated, what function is it serving? If it does not report on the murders and torture of the saddam regime, what function is it serving? [/QUOTE] I expect they didn't report it because people didn't have the freedom to discuss it and there wouldn't have been much on the air except for reporters talking about what they know from American reporters or exiles living in the West - neither of which may have much credibility over there. That's one of the beautiful things about our free society. Our reporters have much more freedom to investigate and get to the truth because of our open society. So I guess I agree with you in that Al-J doesn't serve the purpose we would want by getting out the whole truth. They only get out the portions of the truth that they believe their viewers want to hear. What they believe viewers want to hear and what viewers *actually* want to hear may be very different. But, until there is a free society over there, they wouldn't know. They can't have a truly free press. A free press springs out of a free society. I don't believe it works the other way around.
