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?"

3 of 423 comments (clear)

  1. Try Australia by candiman · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Despite the fact most people can't find it on a map, Australia actually has one of the strongest democracies in the world.

    And we are involved in the war.

    For a fairly neutral, balanced view, try the Sydney Morning Herald.

  2. They are desinterested. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
  3. Re:Might I suggest by Dausha · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.