Im not going to appologize for being away so long. Life seems to be in Emeril Lagasse mode...up a notch. Regardless. GrannySmith asked where I'd been and my thoughts about this Palestine Isreal thing. Ladies and Gentleman, start your engines. (A side note, I have massive amounts of homework due tomorrow and shouldn't be typing this.)
Every damn news outfit, excluding Fox, seems to be covering the story one sided. I won't call it antisemitism, but I just kinda did I guess. What really astonishes me is the complete and utter lack of full unbalanced information. The press seems to be backing the stance of Lebanon, which is that Isreal is killing innocent civilians on purpose and that they are on an unprovoked crusade. To himhaa about the press is becoming a worthless endevor, but the stance of Lebanon flat pisses me off.
How many rockets have been fired from their country to Isreal? Answer: Over 2000 and you don't think one innocent citizen from Isreal has been killed.
What stirred up Isreal? Answer: Hezbollah (which sounds kinda like a word Snoop would use)grabbed a soldier from Isreal (actually two eventually), and took him to Lebanon. Guess what Lebanon didn't do anything about it.
Not suprisingly, everybody is pissed at the US (and at Britian too but not as much because they are not the US). Why? Because we are supporting Isreal?
Simple solution kids, it will stop...when those captured soldiers go back. That's it. It's that easy. Condi Rice was right when she said that a different type of arrangement must be decided for the long term, but if you want bullets and missles and rockets to stop flying...give the soldiers back.
And for God's sake, would someone call Kofi of at the UN and tell him that. Jeez, you'd think these guys don't even listen to Isreal.
This conflict is one for the ages, and something I should do a little more reseach on. I know it's about the holy land. But that doesn't make sense to me either.
I am reminded of a joke I heard one time:
A few years ago, Arial Sharon and Yasser Arafat were talking in peace negotiations concerning this land they both believe is holy. Arial said:
"Now Yasser, before we started I would like to tell you a story. You see, many years ago Moses was with his people in the holy land where they were resting on a long journey. One day Moses decided he wanted to take a swim. So he stripped down to his altogher and jumped in for a refreshing dip. An hour or so later, he swam over to the shore to the spot were he had left his clothes...But they were gone. So he asked a few of his people who were near by who had taken his clothes. They said the palestines did and..."
Just then Yasser sprang up and said:
"Wait a minute there were no palastinians there to take them!!!"
Sharon said:
"Good, now we agree on that, we can negotiate."
On older maps, there is an area (the majority of the middle east) that is labeled as palistine. But so what. It wasn't a soverign state or anything. It was just the name of an area, like The Great Plains or something.
Anyway, Im rambling.
Cheers...now rack of naughty.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
A) Yes, you are rambling
B) The day Fox is the pillar of balanced news coverage in our world, I'll choke.
C) Speaking of bombing countries and killing (whether accident or purpose) innocent people... do you still think we should be in Iraq?!
For Granny Smith: It is awfully easy to throw around weight and blame when we as a country are not and have not been invaded or fought a war on our own soil since our own internal turmoils (Excluding Hawaii, of course). However, we are not fighting our own war anymore. We have taken issue in another land over what I hope is obviously now different pretense than originally planned.
We are tired. We are tired of sending our men to another world to bomb people over what we think is right. Especially since Iraq's inner turmoils are no longer our concern. We have had our revenge and then some. Let that country fight for its own government as we did ours. Trust me, it will carry more weight once finally in place.
What up, blog peeps? Phil, I must offer you a wholehearted welcome back! Not that I post much more often than you do. But good to see you back and hear that life has kicked it up a notch.
Granny, I agree that Mossad is generally regarded as an elite secret unit. But I don't agree that Munich was a celebration of their tactics, or a celebration of anything really. Munich was a preachy "violence begets violence so let's all put down our guns" waste of 2.5 hours. Not that I don't agree with the message, but I agree with most math, and it doesn't mean that I want to watch math for 2.5 hours. Blah.
Anyway, I digress. You (Granny) asked a very specific question - why is 80% of the coverage showing innocent civilians killed in Lebanon, and not equal time spent showing those killed in Israel?
I think the answer is two fold.
One is that Isreal does a much better job of separating the military from the innocent. Most Israelis that have been killed are military, and in our cynical world - that's not news. As in a "they are paid to fight, so getting killed is just a job hazard" kind of thing. Innocent death is much more exciting/interesting, to put it very crassly.
Two, the vast majority of death has occurred on the Lebanon side. According to a 8/7/06 CNN article, the death toll stands at 813. 98 Israelis and 715 Lebanese. That means that only 12.05% of the death is in Isreal, and Lebanon is wallowing in 87.95% of the death. So from a purely mathematical standpoint, a "skewed" coverage would be in order. Besides, despite who has the right to defend or to bomb, or who is right and who is wrong, a strong case can be made that the reporters will (will, not should) cover wherever there is the most action.
Combine fold number one with fold number two, and you've got far more dead bodies in Lebanon, many of which it is tough to tell who is a combatant and who is an innocent. That's a recipe for journalism gold!
It's kind of like Rupert Murdoch's recipe, only his is more like a recipe for journalism pyrite.
To address your core issue: journalists strive for objectivity like Christians strive to be like their Christ: you see a model of perfection, and aim to imitate and reach that level, knowing you will never achieve the same perfection.
Any journalist worth his/her salt, admits his/her biases and tries to be aware of them when taking stories into stride. Any story is told from a frame of reference.
The fact that we are seeing a more "skewed" or opinionated coverage of the events goes back to what Brendan is saying: you cover the stories that get attention. Not only to "make the bottom dollar," i.e. sell newspapers and drive ratings but *also* because people as a species are apathetic. We are surrounded by things vying for our attention: from news to ads to friends and family. We don't pay attention unless it's astonishing. Them's the facts.
So if you ever want people to care about what they *should* care about, you have to shock them into reality, and out of apathy. Maybe you're seeing a lot of bloodshed, from whatever side it may be, but at least that holds our attention and we give a damn. Whether it's saying "give 'em hell" or "bring our boys home."
Lastly, I'd like to address the notion that Granny brings to the table that war is "necessary" in our world today. We are each human. Every last person on this planet. Innately, nobody wants war (to die, or kill). But we use it as a viable way to negotiate and decide who's right. If we collectively decided that that wasn't how we were going to solve our problems any more, war would no longer exist.
To quote a bumper sticker: War doesn't decide who's right... only who's left.
Ok fine, journalists are supposed to police their own bias admit to and move on...but to many are not. When these large media outfits hold the line on an issue, it is beyond just a little bias, it could almost be described as an agenda. What baffles me is people don't think about Fox News from a diffent angle. IF 90% of the time they come at news stories from a different perspective, they can't just be making it up or spinning it. Nobody is that good.
The other thing about his issue that is ticking me off is that people continue to complain that Israel is using a disproportionate amout of force...Well Yeah!?! Im not really sure why they wouldn't. How goes into a sitiuation that is win lose and thinks "well im only going to use the same they are im really not going to gain an advantage." That's about the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Every person reading this blog has used a disproportionate amount of something to gain or win or succeed at something. If not we would all be average.
In regard to Jess's comments about war...please. Lets break out the tiedye and sing while snapping and playing bongos. You are correct, war sucks. But force is in and of it self a form of diplomacy. There are groups out there who won't drink the koolaid and sing kum by ya (sp?) around the peace fire. These groups only respond to one thing...a show of force. Hezbola(cheese...his bowl a cheese...I know it isnt' funny when you have to explain it but oh well) is a great example.
To Intel Cit: Why can't you see that Fox has its biases just as much if not more than the "left leaning" journalists you shake your fists at?
Oh yeah, because you agree with them.
And to Granny: I have never wanted to pick up a stick and throw it at someone, no matter how heated the argument we were having got. So perhaps it is only a sign of male nature, rather than all humans?
And perhaps you forget, Granny, that I don't believe in judging whether or not a person is living "right." So your argument not only is irrelevent but incomprehensible to the likes of me.
As for biased reporting being a disgrace to journalism as a whole, perhaps I need to offer up a history lesson: the birth of journalism in this country was based on political commentary. If it wasn't skewed, it wasn't read and didn't matter. The first newspapers in America were ALL either leftist or rightist. Much like the French are now: if you don't have an opinion on the topic, it's quite the crime.
To circle back around, do I think that both sides are skewed, absolutely. I think the only reason that Phil can't see that Fox is uber biased and why I don't think that CNN is biased is because we AGREE with the frames from which they are reporting. If we don't have multiple viewpoints, then perhaps reporting can be taken as fact and truth, as is. Then were would be, but at the true mercy of the journalists.
I personally would like to hear a newscast that is as opinion-free as possible, so I might form my own. And I would rather not confuse the already moronic mass public by facts shown in a certain light, getting them all riled up before they know what they agree with. You'll never find me arguing that I wish people would put out more political propaganda, and I'm in sales, so I know how deep the "skewing" can run.
And I never thought my opinion on something would be in such high demand... I usually offer it too frequently.
I am not suggesting that fox is not bias. What I am suggesting is that with such a difference in perspective at all times, they must have it correct when the other channels have it wrong. Reverse it and you get the same concept.
What I am trying to get across is that Fox News seems to have a different side on about every single story the other guys put out. If playing by the odds, there is no way that all those stories have two sides. Fox has to be covering some of them correctly and the others have to be covering it incorrectly. Reverse it and say that the other guys have it correct, and Fox News is wrong. It's just the law of averages.
To Intel Cit: the idea that if Fox is the only reporting a certain viewpoint then it must be right is downright ludacris and I have no idea how to follow that logic... And EVERY story has two sides, if not fifteen... It's not a matter of "getting it right."
To Granny: I don't have a problem with being "predictable." And I won't explain again the difference between an opinion and a judgement. It's getting to be a tired argument.
Also, I don't believe I "defended" CNN, I merely used it as a news example that is typically viewed as liberal. If I didn't make that clear, apologies. I have no real loyalty to any one news source. I believe the only way to be truly informed is to get multiple versions of the same story.
But that might be a bit more than most Americans are willing to devote to the art of staying up-to-date.
Jess, if you would listen I am actually agreeing with you somewhat. I am not saying fox news is right all the time what i am saying is that fox news has to be right some of the time just as the other networks have to right some of the time as well. As much as I like or dislike it, I have to agree that it is the truth. Can you muster up the courage to do the same? And...thems are the facts?
Let's not get confused: I sell radio air time to reach the massive, stupid American public. And for the record, I hate my job.
Yes, I think that the majority of America is uneducated and gets more stupid the more of them get together.
Secondly, my radio station is a far cry from news media -- we play Top 40 songs and talk about who's boob job looks bad. I don't think our station has ONCE mentioned anything political unless you count Mel Gibson's recent slip up.
I would have more patience teaching the American public the ways of the world if they were more open and interested.
BTW: Phil, I get it now. But I still don't think either is right or wrong. Which, I believe, we will never see eye to eye on.
Post a Comment