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?"
It might be worth while to try checking google news since they pull from many different sites. This seems like best choice.
the best source I've been able to find is Guerrilla News Network (gnn.tv)
Ain't no such animal. Imho the closest thing online is BBCi and that's where I'll be spending my bandwidth over the next (hopefully very) few weeks.
Life is like surrealism: if you have to have it explained to you, you can't afford it.
Canada is not participating in the attack against Iraq and therefore any news reported out of Canada will be unbiased. CBC is the Canadian government owned national broadcaster. Click here for a direct link.
I read em all and then believe 1% of all of what I read. I love the BBC, the Brits are always interesting, polite, and just damn cool.
Zed's dead baby. Zed's dead.
The sooner you realize that all media is slanted, intentionally or otherwise, the sooner you'll accept that fact and move on. Its just how the nature of media (ALL media, not just news) is.
My advice? Get your news from a variety of different sources, and then check on who THEIR sources are. At least then you'll be somewhat more informed than the average (dumb) Joe who recites facts (or "facts" if we're talking about Fox) without knowing anything about the situation.
And we are involved in the war.
For a fairly neutral, balanced view, try the Sydney Morning Herald.
The news will not cover the war. You won't learn what it was like for some Iraqi soldier to get carbonized instantly by a gunship (because his country's despot ruler is a punk). Why bother? Read an AP or Reuters report and get on with your life, the one with your $3 latte on the way to work tomorrow morning, because your life ain't the one those Iraqis are living, and it sure as hell isn't anything like what FoxCNNMSNBC is gonna show you.
For links to stories about how hidden elements of the U.S. government sell everyone else on war, see What should be the Response to Violence?
U.S. government agencies like the NSA, CIA, and FBI function as a world-wide secret police force. If they make trouble, they get more attention and funding. There is a huge conflict of interest.
Big weapons makers in the U.S. like GE own media companies, so they can make sure that war is seen as necessary and even interesting and fun. For many people in the U.S. war is an adult video game. They don't really think of the pain and suffering the U.S. government has caused. The U.S. government has bombed 14 countries in 35 years and killed more than 3,000,000 people.
U.S. taxpayers pay Israel $900 per year for every man woman and child in Israel. That money must be used to buy weapons from U.S. weapons makers. So much money for war tends to prevent peace.
The U.S. interferes with needed governmental change in Saudia Arabia. I don't think violence is justified. However, Saudi friends have told me that Osama bin Laden's complaints about the U.S. government are justified.
I find it deeply painful to realize that the government of the U.S. is partly corrupt.
I have found that in such situations, the best that one can do is look for news sources which you expect to be biased towards both sides of the issue. I mean, read BBC and, say, DAWN, a pakistani newspaper (a rather respectable newspaper, very balanced, relative to most others that i have found from islamic countries).
So both of these are mostly very unbiased, but on such a issue, probably leaning to opposite sides. one can expect them to report pretty much all relevant points to the issue between them, and then, once u have all the information, build your own opinion...no, not as easy as getting your opinion ready made for you by a single source, but i think the only way one has any chance at knowing even a part of the truth. I know this is what i am going to do.
One thing i am not going to do is read CNN, though. CNN has recently been a major dissapointment in its over all coverage of ALL issues, from the ENRON and co. scams, to the IRAQ issue. I think they are guilty of fraud, the way they omit an anti-goverment viewpoint, eg in the case of the hugely edited UN weapons inspector transscript posted on CNN (read about it on that other site )...thats just one example. Their coverage of the worldwide anti-war protests could have made one feel that it was just a dozen hippies who made a bit of noise, not the 10 million plus who marched all over the world. What good is the guarentee of freedom of press when the press is unwilling to use that freedom? Its weird that a govt. owned news channel (BBC) manages a much more balanced reporting that a completely independent and very powerfull entity like CNN. The irony get worse when you consider that CNN gained most of its worldwide popularity during operation desert storm, when it was the only international news network allowed to operate from inside iraq by saddam, because, as the iraqi govt put it: "they are the only ones we trust to objectively report the truth".
Its a weird world.
Ghoul2
Sigura Non Grata
Go find whoever taught you what "bias" means and ask for your money back. Bias isn't about whether "facts" presented are "actual"; bias is about which facts are presented. (And if you really think Fox is unbiased news--which is what the question asks for--then you are willfully ignorant.)
__
Choose mnemonic identifiers. If you can't remember what mnemonic means, you've got a problem. - Larry Wall
Shoot, take a course in Latin America's history and the idea that the government of the U.S. is partily corrupt will seem like a gross understatement.
The U.S. government's foreign policy is in no way dictated or influenced by the opinions or needs of American citizens (or any other world citizen, for that matter) or moral imperatives. U.S. foreign policy decisions are made entirely on the basis of economic interest, Cold War style paranoia, or both.
& a quick look at the financial profiles of Bush & a large number of Congress members makes it fairly obvious that U.S. politics has reached a state where lawmakers and U.S. government leaders don't really even need to be bribed by interest groups, they can bribe themselves. For example, Bush's oil-industry stock is going to skyrocket if the U.S. can take control of the Iraqi oil fields for a multitude of reasons. On the domestic side of things, that same oil-industry stock portfolio also discourages him from enacting good environmental policies such as a push for more fuel-efficient automobiles or programs to encourage the development of the United States's public transportation infrastructure.
Slashdot.org?
Oh wait... reliable
Radio Netherlands
Guardian
Messages to/for me ( in me journal )
I'm not suggesting BBC coverage is terrible - it is very good in fact, just that any suggestions it is unbiased are exagerated.
Also, the BBC, especially on TV, has a nasty habit of wildly speculating about things. More than once I have seen them suggest that something is certainly going to happen, only for it to later not happen. Quire often the truth gets less coverage than the original incorrect speculation.
I think this is one of the nastier symptoms of "I WANT NEWS NOW!" syndrome. The media is so eager to report news the instant it happens (and public demand drives this) that by the time something has actually happened people are already moving on to speculating what will happen next.
Heresay of the worst kind. A reporter says that she was told something that was obviously misunderstood, if it was ever said at all. Why obviously? Because that is the exact opposite of the Pentagon's oft-repeated policy.
Hell, controls on reporters are so lax right now that a journalist speaking on Liddy's radio show today revealed operational details of the unit in which he is-- or maybe was-- embedded. He said, live and over the air, where they were staging, what their target was, and what kind of resistance they expected to meet, leaving no detail out. Hardly the iron-fist approach that Ms. Adie claimed.
Probably what happened is this: a Pentagon official, speaking on background, told her about one of the weapons in our arsenal, a radiation-seeking missile called HARM. Fire one of those and it homes in on the strongest radio source it can find. We use those missiles primarily to take out radar facilities, but we can also use them to sever wireless communications links. She probably misunderstood and asked, "What if it's a journalist broadcasting on television?" To which the Pentagon official replied, "Well... they've been warned." Or something like that.
That's a much more likely scenario than the thought that there's a secret plan to kill unruly journos and only Ms. Adie knows about it. Occam's Razor, don't you know.
I write in my journal
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.
ALL news will be censored since the pentegon have said unauthoriesd satellie broadcasts (including those from journalists) will be targets. Read this from Kate Adie. (Kate Adie is a BBC reporter who covered the last gulf war and is regared very highly in the UK)
If the US blocks all outside broardcasts we can only wait until after the war to see anything like the truth. Censorship sucks.
Anyone quoted by a reporter knows how little they understand
Don't believe what you read is the truth.
Calling Indymedia unbiased is the height of telling lies.
Tim
Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
Kate Adie is probably one of the most experienced and well-respected war reporters in the world. She has an outstanding reputation, earned the hard way by telling it how it is, and not necessarily by telling it by how certain Western governments would have you believe.
She's covered just about every conflict - major and minor - of the last 20 years, and she didn't make it this long by being dumb, so when she says that unathorised transmissions are considered to be legitimate targets by the US forces, it's because she's been told so, and having been told so she double-checked with her sources to verify what she was reporting was accurate.
I find it far more plausible to believe that the Pentagon was trying to spin this story back their way than to believe that Adie misrepresented the facts - either intentionally or unintentionally.
Besides, I've heard the same story being reported by several other news sources and agencies. I find it hard to believe that they've all got it wrong.
Please, let's not make the truth any more a casualty of this war/invasion than it already is.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
"Unbiased media" is an oxymoron.
All media is biased, one way or another; the only difference is the direction of that bias. The most dangerous media outlets are the ones who claim to be unbiased, because they've lost sight of their bias in their arrogance.
So if you want a balanced view of the war, looking for a single source will do you no good, because no single source exists. Instead, get your news from multiple sources, always aware of each source's bias, and then think for yourself. The classic "CNN and the BBC" may not work well in this particular case, given that they're both located in nations with a direct hand in the attack. If you really want to walk on the wild side you could use Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore, but many people can't stomach either of them, much less both.
Look around, and you'll find something. Just remember this rule: don't let anyone do your thinking for you.
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.
I recommend looking to The Onion. It is, after all, America's Finest News Source.
In all seriousness, I shall probably be checking the BBC's web site regularly (News Ticker (Win32) | RSS), as well as buying a decent newspaper for greater depth and insight.
Of course, for those committed to both sides of the argument, I recommend visiting Al-Jazeera with the use of a Arabic-English translator. Apparently, Al-Jazeera will soon be launching an English language service (e.g. the end of March).
This thread hits close to home for me because I work in the newsroom of a major metropolitan newspaper, and a good friend of mine is in Kuwait right now on assignment.
After reading many of the comments in this thread, it's clear there is a lot of skepticism and mistrust toward how the US media will cover the war with Iraq, and I would heartily encourage this.
The biggest reason to take everything you hear with a grain of salt is because of how the US media is approaching this conflict. Essentially, the US press is beholden to the military in every way, shape and form in trying to cover this war.
Most of the information you will read in the newspaper or see on TV is from "imbedded journalists," who are reporters who have been officially credentialed and assigned to particular US military groups around Iraq. As you might expect, they have no freedom or initiative to actually go out and obtain first-hand observations. They are spoon fed information from official government press conferences. Although one argument to justify this situation could be is that it's to protect the journalists, in reality it's one big spin-control session.
It's hard to fault the journalists parroting our government's propaganda right now. They are strongly influenced by their environment and the pressure to produce some sort of story, whether or not it is fair, accurate and responsible. Personally, I doubt we will vitness any true "front-line" journalism for quite a while, but I know there are reporters wandering in the war zone who will publish pieces free of the yoke of our government's influence. These stories (and photos) will appear in newspapers -- not on TV where there pressure for "up to the minute" news is too great. Just be patient.
In a past life I was one of the guys who tested these puppies (Shrikes, HARMS, Cruise Missles, Mavericks, Smart Bomb guidance systems, etc.) at China Lake NWC. For Shrikes and HARMS we would setup dozens of "threat" simulators, each with slightly different modulation (CW, PRF, PW, jitter, spread codes, etc.) to simulate particular makes and models of radar, and each at different location to simulate real life deployment. You don't want to be near any source that is on a target signal profile list. One of my other duties included measuring the distance between the boresite and the missle's impact crater after a test. Often enough my simulators were damaged or destroyed by inert warheads alone :-). Let's just say the 100-hour 1st Gulf War wasn't much of a surprise - China Lake has geography a lot like Kuwait and Iraq.
It's certainly possible to discriminate targets well enough to avoid targetting TV satellite uplinks. It's even possible that journalist's military-supplied uplinks are provided with known spread code signals that are put on an avoid list. A warning and insistence on "equipment registration" may be CYA - unless they know the equipment's signature, there's still a small chance of a "mishap". However, unless they choose to target TV stations it would still probably be pretty safe (How many TV broadcasters does Iraq really have? Ah, maybe one? Compared to simply being shot by accident?) The spectral signatures of analog or digital TV are pretty different from radar (even spread spectrum radar).
<OffTopicWarning KarmaLock="disabled">
Despite my experience with this stuff, I'm still against this war and the facile justifications pathetically provided for it. If you don't see a patriot described above, you need to get your head examined!
This war is about extension of the Monroe Doctrine to the entire world and Manifest Destiny as a world hyperpower. It's spelled out on the PNAC web site. Note the founders include Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and other major hawks in the Bush Adminstration. Also note that the entire obsession with regime change and axis of evil predates 9-11 back to when Clinton was approached by PNAC with essentially the same Iraq/Axis of Evil plan. Clinton rejected it. Bush has embraced it. Linkage between Al Qaida and Iraq? Machiavelian fiction, nothing more. Weapons of Mass Destruction (worked on those too ;-| )? Doesn't add up in the context of post-War Iraqi infrastructure and economics, and especially not with forged documentery evidence provided by the US and UK intelligence agencies.
Creating a hegemon might not even seem so bad if you happen to be an American, but this type of foreign policy is certain to be mirrored in domestic policy: the beginning is Patriot I, Patriot II, TIA, CAPP and other recent laws and proposals.
For those who have read Linked, consider what a Bose-Einstein condensation of a geopolitical social network is in comparison to what it is for an economic social network. Consider that one of the desires of PNAC is to assure that the relationship between the US and each other country shall be stronger than the relationships between any pair of countries. What social network topology is that? Can you say: "All Roads Lead to Washington".
There are many active and reserve duty officers with similar concerns. I recently gave a speech about this subject where an officer I know, who is now serving in the Middle East, was in attendence. I was concerned about his reaction - these are scary ideas most people would prefer to ignore - but he approached me after the speech and was my stron