Is the US media giving us disinformation to aid the US war effort? Should it?

THere are several levles of journalistic decision making, and the question could only be addressed by splitting it up.

I would say that, on the basic reporter level, there might be personal biases, but by and large these people are in it to further thier own careers, and the best way to do that is to scopp or shock, ie to write a story that will be read/circulated. I don't see a lot of potential for a conspiracy at this level.

On the political beat reporter level, such as a Whote House reporter, absolutely, as has been addressed in a previous thread. The WHite House has carried the practice of 'editing' quotes to an extreme, and has gone so far as to intentionally sit 'critics' at the back of press conferences, thereby making it much harder for their 'critical' questions to be heard, or have to be answered. Add to that the fact that the 'friendlier' you are with a source in your articles, the better your future relationship will be, and thereby the better your future livelihood, and it's pretty clear.

On the editorial and/or publisher level, it has and will be done often, particularly in the case of television news. Examples include the fact that several of the biggest blows to the current administration, such as Bush Sr.'s criticism and the admission of faked evidence in the UN reports were very, very slow to appear in US news as opposed to even the UK despite originating from the US, and even then received very little coverage. For stories as potentially huge and newsworthy as those, that was remarkable, and showed one of three things: A bias, a belief that the US population wasn't interested in reading anything not in support of the US' position, or a message delivered from the White House, as has been reported at lower levels.

 

This is the U.S. media here. These are the same people that was giving away U.S. military positions on CNN during the Gulf War, what makes people think they would give misinformation to aid the war effort? The journalist are making honest mistakes, there is so much going on in a country the size of Iraq that I'm pretty sure they're getting their signals crossed.

 

I think the media has given out some disinformation but I don't think it was anything they were actively trying to do. I think that they pick up a lot of what is given to them through embedded reporters, which get their info from rumors running through the troops. A lot of it is just the fog of war making things be hard to determine, yet the press is trying to get the story the fastest so they'll report as soon as they get anything. Also, I think some of the things you think are wrong are in fact still correct. I believe Basra was always meant to be bypassed by the 3rd Inf Div, while a second unit of Marines drives slowly through Umm Quasr and Basra (with the British). Also, the reports a few days ago were always (at least what I saw) was the the PORT of Umm Quasr was under control, which I believe is still the case. The CITY of Umm Quasr is where the problems are.

As far as the newsworthiness of some things the media reports, I don't buy that Bush Sr's remarks were any more newsworthy than pro-war rallies, both of which are largely neglected by the media. As far as faked UN evidence, it seems like it was kinda swept under the rug. What I mean is that while the source of the fakes should have been investigated more (as I think they should have and hopefully are), I have not seen the media play that up as irrefutable evidence of WMD, either.

 

The media is getting used. No doubt about it. Have you really seen anything yet? Not really. We are all being taken for the ride. But that's ok. Because any reporter in the thick of things is risking their lives. And there no need for that.

 

Every news agency wants to be the first to break a story so there is bound to be misinformation. Most of these stories are honest mistakes from reporters on the scene.

Anyone know where Newsworld International is from? I'm trying to watch war coverage from international sources. BBC America is also a good alternative. CNNFN turns into CNNI at night but it usually carries the live CNN America broadcast. I wish I could get ITN or Sky TV.

 

To answer the thread question: Yes and yes.

Agreed. The main goal of the US military is win the war. They know that whatever they tell the US and international press will make its way back to the Iraqi people and government. I expect the US military to be quick to report the good US news and maybe even overstate it a bit. And I expect the US military to be slow to report the bad US news and maybe even understate it a bit.

 

I think the media is being used, and I think it should be.

Whatever it takes to win the war, and have as few casualties as possible.

DD

 

the whole media is controlled by Jews who also work for Halliburton.

 

This is the same media that "called" the 2000 elections over and over on Election night. They screw up more than anyone else I have ever seen. They change the details of a story over and over.

I think CNN is losing a lot of face in this war, much different than the first Gulf War that actually made them.

 

Good point Sonny...that sums up any argument against a conspiracy. The media is all hype and trying to get the biggest story out there 1st. There is no conspiracy only idiocy. Conspiracy would imply that the whole entire media would be coordinating with the military and US government somehow and I seriously doubt that any organization, especially a government organization working with the fragmented media could pull that off.

However, the military could be and likely is using the media by giving it exaggerated figures and quite frankly I don't think there is anything wrong with it. This is a time of war and the American media is probably one of the best ways of communicating with the Iraqis right now. If the Iraqis think that more of their troops are surrendering then that may cause other Iraqis to be more willing to surrender, meaning less lives lost on both sides.

 

Come on now! Everyone knows that Haliburton doesn't hire Jews!

 

Halliburton Zionist Oil Mafia!

 

check this out www.indymedia.org

 

First, I think that the media is reporting what info the military is giving them. They really don't have a way to cooberate it. I also don't necessarily think the military is giving disinformation to the media about the things you said (i.e. when the cities fall or how many surrender). I think war is a dynamic and unpredictable environment and what you believe true today may be wrong tomorrow.

For example, the leader of the 51st surrended and he was in control of 8,000 or so men. But I think it was also reported that he surrendered because most of his men deserted. So, the exact truth is a little different from the initially reported truth.

Also, while I believe that the military felt like the south of Iraq was under control, now they realize it's not as much under their control as they thought. Remember they are not technically occupying the city. The surrounded it, put men in key places but have left the civilian population alone. There could be a ton of militia/republican guard/regular military/pissed off Iraqis in the civilian population waiting for opportune moments to strike.

One last thing... what a person chooses to believe about what the media is saying is going to be colored by his/her world view (i.e. political motovations). Think of all the concervatives who think the media has a libera bias but the "peace" protesters are complaining that the medis is pro-war! I think it's pretty safe to say that Glynch is a pretty liberal guy. It's no wonder that he's questioning the reports of surrenders or Iraqis dancing in the street celebrating the U.S. invasion as it goes against his view of the situation. If those things were true then Glynch would have to admit he's (at least a little) wrong. It's very hard for people to do that. This is not aimed at Glynch necessarily. It's human nature.

If you show a protester all the evil that Saddam has done and all the people he's murdered he/she will still find a way to rationalize keeping Saddam in power. Because admitting that war is the only way to remove Saddam would mean they would have to admit they were wrong.

 

I think you guys hit the nail on the head, I think the military is using and feeding the media bad info or manipulated info more then the media is plotting to give out bad info to help the war. I don't think the media could get together long enough for chips and beer let alone plot together to feed bad info to the American people.

 

About the 51st, I heard a news blurb but can't find a web source that says the *general* was actually a lower echelon officer posing as the leader, so as to get better treatment.

I posted this in another thread, so forgive me for repeating:
from www.imdb.com.
Partisans on Both Sides Denounce TV Coverage


As the war in Iraq moved into its fifth day, criticism of television's coverage has escalated from both the right and the left. Saturday's New York Times quoted Eric Alterman, author of What Liberal Media? as charging that public "support for this war is in part a reflection that the media has allowed the Bush administration to get away with misleading the American people." At the same time, the conservative Media Research Center posted a summary of ABC's war coverage on its website titled "Peter's [Jennings] Peace Platoon: ABC's Crusade Against 'Arrogant' American Power." But Conrad Smith, chairman of the Department of Communications and Mass Media at the University of Wyoming, told the Casper Star-Tribune: "Certainly, when a war starts, to my dismay, it becomes unpatriotic to make any criticism of any decisions about war. But I don't think that's a media bias -- I think that's a cultural bias. ... I guess everybody thinks that a report that doesn't include their viewpoint is on the other side of the political spectrum, but I think it's a crock. Most news organizations, I think, are very mainstream and very centrist." Nevertheless, they appear not to be clarifying the issues of the war adequately to the American public, the Times suggested on Saturday, pointing out that a recent New York Times/CBS News Poll showed that nearly half of Americans wrongly believe that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks and a poll taken by Knight Ridder indicates that half the public believes that Iraqis were among the hijackers.

 

The Internet Movie Database has political articles???

 

The exact link, but the data changes every day, so after today, one would have to look into the archives. Movie/TV News section.
http://us.imdb.com/StudioBrief/

 

Who would have thunk it? Not I.