War Coverage

[Kess]

Here in the UK we seem to be getting reasonably balanced TV coverage - reporters are treating US/UK claims with almost as much skepticism as Iraqi claims, politicians are given a hard time, tragedies like "friendly fire" and the recent Baghdad market bombings are highlighted.

But I took a look at the CNN web site and found a very simplistic, "here's the latest stories of our boys heroically killing the scum!", "here are photos of our fallen heroes", "here are the wonderful families back home waiting/watching/mourning", type of thing. There seemed to be no mention of the market bombings (are Americans even aware of these incidents?), or any such negative news, at all.

Is all US coverage like this?

[Reginald]

Originally posted by Kess
Here in the UK we seem to be getting reasonably balanced TV coverage - reporters are treating US/UK claims with almost as much skepticism as Iraqi claims, politicians are given a hard time, tragedies like "friendly fire" and the recent Baghdad market bombings are highlighted.

But I took a look at the CNN web site and found a very simplistic, "here's the latest stories of our boys heroically killing the scum!", "here are photos of our fallen heroes", "here are the wonderful families back home waiting/watching/mourning", type of thing. There seemed to be no mention of the market bombings (are Americans even aware of these incidents?), or any such negative news, at all.

Is all US coverage like this?

Im not sure about The BBC on this one.

For once I Think That ITN are providing a much more varied supply of news in the UK than the BBC. I've not been at all impressed by the BBC's Correspondent in Baghdad. I know that he opperates under Iraqi restriction, however he is prone to emotionalize rather than presenting facts. On the flip side of it, if you take a well worn Journo Like Simpson, his presentation does fall as close to centre as I think is possible.

I guess that would be down to greater experience though.

[EvilYeti]

The problem with the market bombing footage is that it is all taken from Iraqi TV, which is government run. I don't see how replaying propaganda from a terrorist regime equates to "fair and balanced reporting".

The CNN front page is reserved for big, verified stories. Friendly fire (always happens in war) and questionable reports from the Iraqi ministry of information don't (and shouldn't) make the cut.

Right now there is a breaking headline on CNN that five U.S. soldiers were killed by a suicide bomber in Najaf. Not exactly postive news for us.

The best reporting I've seen so far has been from the "non-embedded" reporters. ABC had a great report last night that showed Iraqi civillians complaining about the "american invaders" after all the troops had passed through. It also showed the iraqis mobbing the reporters truck and stealing a bunch of their gear.

Its been my experience that Euro media have much lower standards of journalistic integrity than US media and the Euro poplace much more accepting of it than Americans.

[Smalso]

No matter which coverage one watches, whether or not it is fair and unbiased often depends on what is being reported, how it is being reported and what one's politics and personal view of the war are.

[Reginald]

Originally posted by Smalso
No matter which coverage one watches, whether or not it is fair and unbiased often depends on what is being reported, how it is being reported and what one's politics and personal view of the war are.

I think that is the best possible answer here.

[Kess]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
The problem with the market bombing footage is that it is all taken from Iraqi TV, which is government run. I don't see how replaying propaganda from a terrorist regime equates to "fair and balanced reporting".
Hmm, I'd disagree in that I've seen several extremely graphic reports by UK reporters who made it into the market area shortly after the incident (e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2890225.stm) - it's not just all made up by Iraqi TV.
Right now there is a breaking headline on CNN that five U.S. soldiers were killed by a suicide bomber in Najaf. Not exactly postive news for us.
This is bad, but by negative news I meant news that showed the US military in a bad light. (For instance, another piece of breaking news here is that a 5th British soldier has just been killed by "friendly fire" from a US plane. Is this reported in the US? I suspect if would if US troops were on the receiving end of a UK military cock-up).

I accept that mistakes happen, but hate to see US military dismissing it as "collateral damage" or trying to blame it on other unlikely things like Iraqi anti-aircraft fire falling into the market(which sounded feasible until one reporter pointed out that there was no anti-aircraft fire going on at the time!). And the media shouldn't just go along with this and try to pretend it didn't happen.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Kess

I accept that mistakes happen, but hate to see US military dismissing it as "collateral damage" or trying to blame it on other unlikely things like Iraqi anti-aircraft fire falling into the market(which sounded feasible until one reporter pointed out that there was no anti-aircraft fire going on at the time!).

I believe that the reporter said that he hadn't heard any anti-aircraft fire at the time. It could still have been a surface-to-air missile that had been launched some distance away from central Baghdad.

Although the American leadership doesn't want to draw attention to the fact that civilians too are killed by their fire, I can't say that they've ever appeared to try to actively hide such incidents when they have occured. So I'm inclined to accept at the least that they are uncertain of wether or not it was coallition ordinance that caused the first explosion.

With that said, I'd still like to point out that wether the civilian deaths were due to the attacker's weapons, or to "friendly" anti-aircraft fire, they are still the attacker's responsibility, even if not directly his error.

[EvilYeti]

Iraq expelled all the CNN reporters from Baghdad, so I'm not surprised they are not reporting it. What are they supposed to do, cut and paste info from the bbc?

How is showing the US military in a "bad light" anything but anti-american propaganda? Again, friendly fire happens and as we are firing orders of magnitude more ordinace than anyone else, so such incidents are not surprising. It gets reported, its just not front page news, unless your newspaper is blatantly anti-american.

Looking at the BBC front page I don't see any mention of Iraq's recent atrocities, such as firing missles at civilian targets in Kuwait, or recruiting children to fight.

Why the double standard?

Originally posted by Kess
Hmm, I'd disagree in that I've seen several extremely graphic reports by UK reporters who made it into the market area shortly after the incident (e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2890225.stm) - it's not just all made up by Iraqi TV.

This is bad, but by negative news I meant news that showed the US military in a bad light. (For instance, another piece of breaking news here is that a 5th British soldier has just been killed by "friendly fire" from a US plane. Is this reported in the US? I suspect if would if US troops were on the receiving end of a UK military cock-up).

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Iraq expelled all the CNN reporters from Baghdad, so I'm not surprised they are not reporting it. What are they supposed to do, cut and paste info from the bbc?

Err, that's what news services normally do when they don't have a man on the scene - they borrow/buy footage and reports from each other and from news-services.


How is showing the US military in a "bad light" anything but anti-american propaganda?

In the same way that showing the US military in a good light is not necessarily pro-american propaganda?

[Elektrix]

Originally posted by Leif Roar


Err, that's what news services normally do when they don't have a man on the scene - they borrow/buy footage and reports from each other and from news-services.



In the same way that showing the US military in a good light is not necessarily pro-american propaganda?

For some reason you conveniently snipped out and ignored EvilYeti's last question to you.... how come?

"Looking at the BBC front page I don't see any mention of Iraq's recent atrocities, such as firing missles at civilian targets in Kuwait, or recruiting children to fight.

Why the double standard?"

-Elektrix

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Elektrix


For some reason you conveniently snipped out and ignored EvilYeti's last question to you.... how come?

-Elektrix

For two reasons - I wasn't sure what double standard he was talking about, wether he meant a double standard of BBC's or of Kess', and because it wasn't a question to me or a response to a post of mine, so I didn't feel obligated to comment on it.

[Kiwi9]

Our TV3 news on Friday night had an item which claimed that TV news in the U.S. is heavily sanitised. We saw clips from CNN and ABC news that were similar to those we had seen, and the corpses and blood which we saw weren't shown. It claimed that U.S. news is much more gung ho and doesn't show as much about civilian deaths and friendly fire incidents as we see here.

The ABC World News Tonight is shown here around midnight Monday to Friday, but I haven't watched it in the last week to see if it differs much from our own news.

Our Dominion Post newspaper carries articles from Robert Frisk in Baghdad. In yesterday's issue (Saturday 29 March) he wrote about seeing unedited al-Jazeera videotapes from Basra showing mutilated civilians, and he says that they are "the first vivid proof that Basra remains totally outside British control... These unedited reports provide damaging proof that Anglo-American spokesmen have not been telling the truth about the battle for Basra."

[Smalso]

Hi, Kiwi. Welcome to the Forum.

One of the advantages of reading and posting here is that you get a lot of different perspectives on a topic. It is often how much difference there is among them. Your opinions and input will be much welcomed.

I am much concerned that, although it seems that the U.S. military is ostensibly allowing the press free access to the campaign, it is being manipulated by the military. I have been much interested in how the press in countries other than the U.S. have been reporting this war. I know nothing of New Zealand's political situation and views on the war. Any enlightment and/or information will be welcomed and appreciated.

[Kiwi9]

Thanks for the welcome, Smalso. I've spent a long time searching for a forum which covers many subjects and has plenty of robust debate, but not the childish name-calling that goes on in so many fora. Have always enjoyed the Bad Astronomy Bulletin Board for its politeness.

Back to the subject, New Zealand decided to go with the U.N. regarding Iraq. I'll dig around to see if there's a link which explains more. We've contributed heavily to most big conflicts in the past 100 years or so -- Boer Wars, WWs 1 and 2, Korea, Vietnam, and recently East Timor -- in some cases having greater casualties per head of population than our allies.


http://www.trademe.co.nz/structure/messageboard/show_threads.asp?topic=7
has a debate going on at the moment about whether the U.S. underestimated Iraqi troops.

Edited to add: Oops, I'll have to read more on inserting links. Three tries didn't work.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Kiwi9
...I've spent a long time searching for a forum which covers many subjects and has plenty of robust debate, but not the childish name-calling that goes on in so many fora. Have always enjoyed the Bad Astronomy Bulletin Board for its politeness.


[

welcome Kiwi, hope you find the robust debate:)


There is a fair amount of childish name calling here:(

For the most part I have had a pleasant experience here. Many perspectives, which I find great!

[Kess]

Originally posted by Leif Roar

For two reasons - I wasn't sure what double standard he was talking about, wether he meant a double standard of BBC's or of Kess', and because it wasn't a question to me or a response to a post of mine, so I didn't feel obligated to comment on it.
I hope I'm not engaging in double-standards or appearing anti-American - I just appreciate seeing both sides of the story and would hope that US news does not simply act like part of a state-run propaganda machine. (I'm in the UK and can't get any US news channels, but it was the impression given by the CNN web site that sparked off my question. It was interesting to see EvilYeti's comment that CNN had been expelled from Baghdad - I didn't realise that. This may explain some of their reporting.)

I agree that even the BBC will tend to lean towards the US/UK side, but at least it seems to try to maintain some independence and balance, and other UK news channels (like Channel 4) are arguably even better (by the way, if anyone's interested the BBC's official guidelines for war reporting have been published at http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/editorial/prodgl/war_guidelines.shtml).

On a lighter note, it's a shame, once the war is over, some of the critical journalism now being displayed in the UK will probably vanish and psychics, mediums, spoonbenders etc. will once again be free to ply their trade on daytime TV...

[Kiwi9]

I wonder if the following has been adequately reported in the U.K. and the U.S.:

The first ship to bring humanitarian aid to Iraq since the start of the US-led invasion was British ship Sir Galahad, which docked at the port of Umm Qasr yesterday. But its cargo is only a fraction of the aid provided under the oil-for-food programme.

"We have been waiting for the Sir Galahad, with its 200 tonnes of food, for days. But under the oil-for-food programme ...
16,000 tonnes a day were supplied. So you are looking at 80 Sir Galahads a day just to restore the normal supply," Christian Aid spokesman John Davison said.
Manawatu Evening Standard, Saturday 29 March 2003, p. 1

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Kess
There seemed to be no mention of the market bombings (are Americans even aware of these incidents?), or any such negative news, at all.


I have seen the market bombings covered extensively on FoxNews (channel and website). No idea why CNN didn't cover it.

[a_unique_person]

here is an excellent article on the topic.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/29/1048653900462.html




The fogs of war roll in

March 30 2003
By Stuart Millar, Michael White

The Pentagon had long predicted that the confrontation with Iraq would be unlike any other war in history. That claim has been proved correct, although not for the reasons the US top brass may have been thinking of.

For the first time, the public at home has had access to round-the-clock reports, many of them supplied by the 750-strong army of correspondents "embedded" with US and British military units in the thick of the action.

From live television pictures of battles through up-to-the-minute internet headlines to acres of newspaper coverage, this has become the fastest, most extensively scrutinised war ever. But in such a rapidly changing environment, the sheer volume of information has at times made it almost impossible to establish what is true and, just as importantly, how that affects the big picture.

With just 10 days of the conflict passed, there have already been a series of apparently critical developments, all of them beamed instantly on to television screens and reported as fact in a blaze of newspaper headlines, that have subsequently turned out to be inaccurate.

[Smalso]

MSNBC reported this morning (Sunday morning on the U.S. east coast) that a recent poll indicates that New Zealanders are about 50-50 in support of the war.

[Supercharts]

In GW1 the media gave us "Highway of Death".
So far in GW2 we have
"Shock & Awe" and a new one today "Ambush Alley"

[Smalso]

...and it won't be long until Clint Eastwood makes a movie about it. He made one about the Grenada operation.

[EvilYeti]

Both actually.

Why should there be the need to portray any country in a "bad light"? Shouldnt the media just report what happened and not try and put spin on it?

I think what we are seeing is the US providing fair reporting and the European news sources providing biased anti-American views. If you hold them as the standard than any fair reporting is going to look biased towards the US.

CNN just flashed a front-page story that bloody US cammies, with the name tags ripped off, have been found in a hospital in Nasiriya. An improvised torture device consisting of a bed frame and car battery was also found. No mention on the BBC.

Why is that?

Originally posted by Leif Roar


For two reasons - I wasn't sure what double standard he was talking about, wether he meant a double standard of BBC's or of Kess', and because it wasn't a question to me or a response to a post of mine, so I didn't feel obligated to comment on it.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Both actually.

Why should there be the need to portray any country in a "bad light"? Shouldnt the media just report what happened and not try and put spin on it?

I think what we are seeing is the US providing fair reporting and the European news sources providing biased anti-American views. If you hold them as the standard than any fair reporting is going to look biased towards the US.

CNN just flashed a front-page story that bloody US cammies, with the name tags ripped off, have been found in a hospital in Nasiriya. An improvised torture device consisting of a bed frame and car battery was also found. No mention on the BBC.

Why is that?




Maybe because they won't jump on anything that is reported?

For example, lots of places were reporting last week that a chemical weapons plant was found, based on some sort of reports. Of course, it was wrong. Perhaps the BBC doesn't want to make the mistake of reporting poorly confirmed data?

[Kess]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
For example, lots of places were reporting last week that a chemical weapons plant was found, based on some sort of reports. Of course, it was wrong.
I was wondering about that alleged "chemical plant" earlier, as I hadn't heard anything since the initial discovery (I assume you're referring to the complex that had elaborate sand-colored rooves, was meant to be invisible to satellite photos, etc. etc.). So what did it turn out to be then?

[a_unique_person]

A picture, sourced, as you can see, from al jazeera. Now, click on the properties for the picture to see which site it is being shown on.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2003/WORLD/meast/03/30/sprj.irq.war.main/top.baghdad.smoke.alj.jpg

And al jazeera has been banned form the NYSE.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Kess

I was wondering about that alleged "chemical plant" earlier, as I hadn't heard anything since the initial discovery (I assume you're referring to the complex that had elaborate sand-colored rooves, was meant to be invisible to satellite photos, etc. etc.). So what did it turn out to be then?

from the link i provided earlier



3. Chemical weapons factory

The news story that politicians and media alike had been waiting for broke late on Sunday evening: the apparent discovery of an Iraqi chemical weapons factory and, with it, vindication of the coalition assault.

The story came from a correspondent for the Jerusalem Post who was travelling with the US 3rd Infantry. The plant, the paper said, had been discovered by American troops at Najaf. US television network Fox immediately began running the story, which also quoted Pentagon officials.

On Monday, much of the British press treated the discovery with some caution. Within 24 hours, US General Tommy Franks was cautioning that most claims about weapons of mass destruction finds were "based on speculation".

4. Executions

A series of images broadcast on the Arabic television channel al-Jazeera ignited one of the biggest controversies of the war. The channel showed pictures of the bodies of two British soldiers who had been caught in an ambush. The Sun claimed the "sickening" al-Jazeera film showed the two men had been executed. "Both men's faces were clearly visible on the film - shot at close range in the border town of Safwan," the report said.

During a press conference with George Bush at Camp David on Thursday evening, Tony Blair claimed the soldiers were the victims of "an act of cruelty beyond all human comprehension". But the prime minister's official spokesman later began backtracking, saying there was no "absolute evidence" that they had been executed. On Friday, the Daily Mirror led with the sister of one of the victims emphatically denying that he had been executed. She said his colonel had told the family he had died instantly when the vehicle was ambushed.

[mickky]

Originally posted by Kess

I was wondering about that alleged "chemical plant" earlier, as I hadn't heard anything since the initial discovery (I assume you're referring to the complex that had elaborate sand-colored rooves, was meant to be invisible to satellite photos, etc. etc.). So what did it turn out to be then?

It turned out to be a facility of some kind-probably chemical-but evidently not in use for some years
(I can't find the reference for this info right now, but it was reported by several sources.)