Slashdot Mirror
Looking for Unbiased War News?
AlexisKai asks: "With the forecast for tomorrow being sunny with a 90% chance of airstrikes, the US government will be clamping down on unpatriotic stories and the rest will be self-censored by the major media anyway. Where are Slashdot readers planning to look for reliable, disinterested reports as events in Iraq unfold?"
And we are involved in the war.
For a fairly neutral, balanced view, try the Sydney Morning Herald.
I have actually heard a high placed member of the Bush administration threaten to attack 'un-authorized' satelite links. If you're a war reporter in Baghdad, that pretty much means you're a target unless you conform to the Bush propaganda. There currently is no independent journalist in Baghdad. My guess is that it will take years before we hear about the real collateral damage, just like with the previous gulf war.
Jilles
As found in the news.google.com "about page":
How does Google decide what stories are published on the Google News homepage?
The headlines on the Google News homepage are selected entirely by a computer algorithm, based on many factors including how often and on what sites a story appears elsewhere on the web. This is very much in the tradition of Google's web search, which relies heavily on the collective judgment of web publishers to determine which sites offer the most valuable and relevant information. Google News relies in a similar fashion on the editorial judgment of online news organizations to determine which stories are most deserving of inclusion and prominence on the Google News page.
I sympathize with your arguments, and am deeply disappointed with the Bush administration--its existence, its policies, you name it.
But I have to say, I find your arguments completely irresponsible and the source of numerous difficulties in the world today.
For example, 3000000 people killed by US bombing in the past 35 years? What exactly are you referring to? Would you care to elaborate? Where are your sources on that figure?
As for Israel: what about the money funneled illegally (according to international law) to purchase weaponry for Palestinian terrorism? What about intentional killing of innocent Israeli civilians? I'm not about to suggest that Palestinians are solely at fault--far from it--but I'm not about to sit and listen to someone try and pin the Israel-Palestine problem solely on Israel.
And about Saudi Arabia: yes, the Saudi government is a massive problem. Yes, the US isn't doing much to address it. But no one else is either. So I have little sympathy with suggestions that terrorism--against anyone, to say the least of foreign citizenry--is somehow condonable because of what the Saudi government is doing.
I consider myself a very liberal individual, and usually find myself defending liberal positions whereever I am. I find statements such as those you're making incredibly irresponsible, however, especially because they make it more difficult to reason with individuals who are opposed to liberal ideals to begin with. How can someone move closer to convincing another individual that Bush is acting completely irresponsibly in the middle east when fodder such as this is provided to those who say "the only people who oppose US military policy are those who oppose the US irrationally for its own sake"?
This is the same sort of nonsense that led to ridiculous claims that the genocide and exodus in Kosovo was a media scam perpetrated by conservative US media.
As much as I detest the naive corporate conservative religious ideology represented by the current administration, I equally detest opposition that exists for its own sake, based on lies and lacking reason.
The best probe is that in most issues the BBC is accussed of bias by all the different people holding different opinions about the same issue.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Every country has its trailer trash, but having lived in both Britain and America, I can attest to the fact that the trailer trash in England is more aware of world events and politics in general than US trailer trash. English also lack the self-centered arrogance and parochial viewpoint that Americans regard as a virtue, for the most part.
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=4116
Start at number 1 and work your way down.
I suggest consulting several sources with a broad range of perspectives. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Guardian Unlimited's World News Guide is a good starting point. It contains pointers to international sources for news from every region of the world.
The worst source for information is the American electronic media. They are obsessed with breaking the newest little piece of news, ignoring normal journalist practices of verifying information before going live with it. They focus on areas and events where they have reporter who can transmit live, and give little time to anything else. I watched CNN for half an hour this morning, and not even once did they slow down long enough to provide a summary of what was happening. FOX, CBS, etc. are just as bad. ABC is a little better, but only when Peter Jennings the anchor.
Well, having served in the Army and having been in situations where one may be inclined to think "the military tries very hard to prevent soldiers from assembling any clear picture of the latest world news," I have to disagree.
The military does not have much of a problem with its soldiers forming their own opinions. I have been in quite a few facilities where CNN and other news feeds are piped in. Post exchange facilities, even those in theatre, have access to Newsweek and Time.
The reason why the military does not care is because it really does not need to. Discipline, integrity and professionalism are typically motivation enough for a soldier to serve in combat. Comradery is another. There are some who do serve because--well, because they're crazy. Those in the latter category consider it the ultimate X-sport, or just like the thought of killing. Regardless of the cause, the Army does not need to misinform its personnel because there are factors other than one's opinion of contemporary events that compels one to serve.
My point that you contend with is that when one is an eye witness, then the source of bias is oneself. To illustrate my point, seeing Auswitz first-hand did a lot to convince those present that they were fighting the Germans for all the right reasons. The fact that Saddam commits attrocities will be aparent most to those who witnessed first hand. The fact that Saddam has weapons he recently said he didn't will be aparent to those who have to react to them.
The only time in my years of service where I was out of touch was when I was in Basic Training--and that was because there's really too much going on to muck with TV. Oddly enouch, that was during the last Gulf War.
Besides, who's to say that those who don't support the war aren't being brainwashed? Afterall, my key point is all news is biased, and if one gets his opinions from what is gleaned from the media, then is that not brainwashing?
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
Compare the news in european (or eastern) papers with the headlines of the american news.
Anything you can't find in the american news has been censored and must therefore be true.
Example: US veto against productioncost medecins to third world countries. This news was not covered by any major US newspaper. However it was frontpage news in about every european paper.