Speaking of the Media's Liberal Bias

[Universe Prince]

I just think that perhaps the lack of graphic depictions of war in American media is a result of something besides political bias.

I read your most recent post on the topic, but jumping back one and regarding the quoted statement, what do you think the reason is?

I think it stems mostly from our culture. I am not sure how this issue plays out overseas, but I know here in the U.S. there is a sort of "don't show me what I don't want to see" attitude in our culture. Nudity, violence, "revisionist" history, any number of other areas, are treated by various groups as taboos, something not to be seen. We have homeschooling on the rise here because some parents don't want their children exposed to being taught evolution or sex ed, or whatever. We have even generally liberal folks like Senator Clinton arguing for clamping down on violence in video games. In the case of showing war corpses in the media, it tends to be about not offending the viewers. Media outlets, rightly or wrongly, believe that to show too much graphic violence from a war would result in unfavorable controversy and lost revenue. We are not shown it because we don't want to see it.

I should add that I think there is another factor. No one, I think, wants to be seen as the newspaper or the news channel that starts to try to benefit from sensationalizing war. There has been a lot of criticism of the media sensationalizing various events. The phrase "if it bleeds, it leads" is sometimes held up as a description of the callousness of news reporting that attempt to gain viewers/readers by being shocking. I realize this seems to contradict what I said above, but I think they go together in the media's attempt to retain an image of respectability and yet to give the public what it wants.

[sirs]

So does militant islam and Islamofascism.

 

Wanting it and invading a country to do it are two different things that require two totally different responses.

If we were to accept your premise.  I don't

And the point remains, if 24/7 viewing of the carnage of war were broadcast, including daily reports of the thousands of our soldiers, being lost DAILY, "support for the war" would have certainly degraded

That's conjecture at this point.  Seeing tanks roll down the Champs de Ellyse (sp?) as men weep is a surefire sign that the US needs to be involved and invested in stopping the spread of Nazism. 

But watching homicide bombers kill inocent men women & children, in the thousands to this point, beheading some on the internet, Isreal is to cease to exist, & pledging that everyone is to either convert to Islam, be subjugated to it, or die.....that spread Islamofascism is no biggie.  No need for American intervention there

 

[sirs]

So, from that perspective, it would seem that bias here leans right.....IN COMPARISON. ... Yet, in comparison to the foreign news you've described, it would be perceived as leaning right.  I suppose it's no shocker then when you have such international polls stating how negative they view America & Bush. 

Sirs, from this perspective, all of America leans right. 

That's kinda my point   

As for a Democrat being in the WH making things better... piffle. Perhaps different foreign policy from any president at any time could make things better. And maybe that is in the works right now, but people are having "growing pains."

alas, it's always easier from the back seat.

I thought I should mention that not everything is only critical of Bush. While inside Iraq there is an obvious... ummm... resistance to our forces and it may APPEAR that more troops are not wanted there, the countries bordering Iraq, in public opinion polls, would prefer Bush's agenda of sending in more troops to clean up the mess. Why? A sincere fear that the chaos is going to spill over the borders into other countries. So in that regard, you see "people" upset about some of the actions of the majority of Dems.

Interesting.  Hopefully you'll also note (since you haven't been around a whole heck of a lot) that not "everything" I opine is pro-Bush either.  Many errors in naivete, and likely stubborness, as it relates to the war in Iraq.  Grossly wrong on immigration issues, and I won't even go into his massive increase in domestic spending & increased size in the Federal Government, that would make a liberal jealous.  But he has been an excellent leader, IMHO, and appropriately pro-active in dealing with this growing threat of militant Islam.  I had been giving him a marginal thumbs-up, with his leadership on the war and tax rate reforms, but his positions on immigration & complete lack of a vetoing over inflated domestic spending bills is tipping that thumb now in the southern position, I'm afraid

[Michael Tee]

Israeli demolitions of Palestinian homes are not shown in the U.S. because of a very powerful Zionist lobby that funds both political parties and packs an enormous economic punch as well.  There is a prevailing myth about Israel being the good guy in the Middle East, surrounded by bad guys, and that's a priceless asset, because it's what permits the AIPAC bribery of the legislature to work as expected - - as long as the American sheeple see the Israelis as the good guys, it doesn't matter that the legislators protect Israel in return for campaign contributions because they aren't doing anything that violates the sheeple's sense of right and wrong.  BUT:  fuck with the myth and you could inject a new element of tension into the equation - - the legislators still accept the AIPAC funding but the people get increasingly upset about what "their" representatives are doing, or not doing.  At some point, all the campaign funds, perks and freebies won't produce the desired effect because the legislators won't want to stick their necks out and incur the wrath of their constituents.  Showing the demolition of people's homes by giant Israeli bulldozers is dynamite - - even the dumbest of the sheeple can understand what it means to have your family home bulldozed to the ground and everybody knows that collective punishment is just plain wrong.  This is bad for the myth, bad for Israel and therefore is just NOT going to be shown more than once every couple of years.

As for a failure to show the gore of war, this obviously benefits conservatives because conservatives support wars against Third World countries, any Third World country, and they can only get support for this by denying simple basic reality.  Most normal, sane, decent people are NOT in favour of blowing up families, tearing children's bodies to pieces, roasting people to death in napalm or white phosphorus, etc.  But unfortunately that is exactly what U.S. wars against the Third World are - - and in massive proportions since the cowardly U.S. military, afraid to engage the enemy in small-unit combat operations, prefers massive air support to keep down its own casualties.  So hence the restrictions on reporting, unprecedented in the history of warfare - - embedded reporters, pool reports, etc.  As long as they can control the flow of news to purple-ink-stained fingers, "elections," etc., they can cloak the talk of casualties in carefully manufactured language ("collateral damage," "friendly fire," and similar garbage) and all the morons can rush to justify the carnage cuz nobody actually sees the carnage and most of the morons who buy into it chatter away without real regard to the human costs.  Actual images of what is happening will force people into a valule judgment:  Hey it's nice if these guys can finally vote but that doesn't seem to be solving too many of their problems and here's what it really is costing; or is ANY form of government worth this kind of carnag? etc.  Thoughts will develop based on actual reality (not neocon BS) and that will not work to the advantage of the Republocrat War Party.

[Plane]

Graphic footage is availible .

It is not enjoyable .


If this stuff was on CBS all the time people would watch ABC more.

http://www.thenausea.com/


Do not go to this website unwarned , it presents the uglyest war footage that they could find from all sorces includeing tortue , exicution and dismemberment.

[Amianthus]

Israeli demolitions of Palestinian homes are not shown in the U.S. because of a very powerful Zionist lobby that funds both political parties and packs an enormous economic punch as well.

And with all that, I have still seen the footage. It wasn't in the first five minutes of the newscast, but I saw it.

Saw Saddam's hanging as well.

Must be because I usually watch the cable news channels - they seem to show more. No FCC must have something to do with it.

[_JS]

But watching homicide bombers kill inocent men women & children, in the thousands to this point, beheading some on the internet, Isreal is to cease to exist, & pledging that everyone is to either convert to Islam, be subjugated to it, or die.....that spread Islamofascism is no biggie.  No need for American intervention there

That does not translate into invading Iraq. You've moved from point A to point Z without taking the necessary steps in between. Furthermore, there have always been nutters in every part of the world, the evidence of "spreading" Islamic militancy is slim. Moreover, the trend of those killed in international terrorism has not shown any major significant increase. All in all it is a minor, nearly insignificant means of death amongst the many other methods of homicide.

[Michael Tee]

<<And with all that, I have still seen the footage. >>

You've seen it because nobody is so dumb as to impose a total media ban on it and justify cries of censorship.  The real trick in controlling the news is in managing the relative flow, so that the official story gets the most play and the opposition the least.  How often you hear the official version, versus how often you hear the truth.

[Amianthus]

How often you hear the official version, versus how often you hear the truth.

Except, of course, when the official version is the truth.

[_JS]

First, I like Ami's approach to the media. I also draw information from numerous sources. It really helps if you can read in another language, the more you can do that the more possibilities you have. Still, there are a great number of media outlets available in English. Certainly enough to keep one occupied for a great deal of time. You can get vantage points from all across the globe, relatively easy thanks to the internet.

I like to read a smattering of the British papers (both left and right). I generally stick to the ones with more quality journalism (The Guardian, Telegraph, Independent, or Times come to mind). Occasionally I'll delve into the muck of the Mirror, Sun or Mail (very rarely the Express) just to remember why I read the others . Actually, on occasion one of those papers will get a high quality scoop, but one has to always consider the source. It also helps to know just a little about the culture (e.g. a "public school" in Britain is not the same as a "public school" here in the states).

I also check out the BBC, news from Australia, New Zealand, all across Germany, Israel, Russia, Ireland, on and on. It depends how much time I have. The Christian Science Monitor is a good source as well, in my opinion.

Secondly, aren't a lot of people in this thread glancing over the glaringly obvious? While a great number of people chase down rather complex theories of media bias, is it so easy to dismiss America's system of economics? I mean, when it comes down to it don't newspapers need to sell copies? Doesn't the nightly news need to sell advertising space? Don't Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc need to sell advertising space and therefore need to increase viewership?

I'm not theorizing on some wild political bias, but instead saying that all of these media require viewers or subscribers. They need people to watch, listen, or read. For television that means shows have to be shows! Americans want to see conflict, arguing, sensationalism, excitement. I mean, are there reality TV shows about old balding bastards sitting around having sensible discussions and reaching a consensus? No. People want to see conflict and action. It isn't new. PT Barnum knew how to please an audience, the technology is just different now.

Bild is the best-selling newspaper in Germany. The Sun is the best selling newspaper in Britain. Look at the Bild and then find The Sun and turn to page three. Do you think if USA Today could get away with that they wouldn't? That's your media bias! That's how you sell copy. That's how you attract advertisers. Simple capitalism ladies and gentlemen. It isn't about political affiliations at all.

[Amianthus]

Bild is the best-selling newspaper in Germany. The Sun is the best selling newspaper in Britain. Look at the Bild and then find The Sun and turn to page three. Do you think if USA Today could get away with that they wouldn't? That's your media bias! That's how you sell copy. That's how you attract advertisers. Simple capitalism ladies and gentlemen. It isn't about political affiliations at all.

Actually, page two in Bild, IIRC. Been a while since I picked one up.

Either way, it's got more to do with government censorship anyway. Most locations in the US have blue laws that restrict stuff like that, and the FCC controls broadcast television. Note that those rules don't apply to cable tv, which is more purely based on capitalism.

[_JS]

Yes, it is Page 3 of The Sun.

Though I thought it was the cover of the Bild. Been quite some time since I've picked one up as well.

[Amianthus]

Though I thought it was the cover of the Bild. Been quite some time since I've picked one up as well.

Yeah, it could have been the cover. I just remember my father saying once "German girls are better looking than British girls, so we don't have to bury their pictures so far down in the paper."