Was watching an interesting program "Counterspin" on CBC newsworld last night. The topic is how US media affected public opinion to start the war and is one of the big reason that other countries like Germany, France, Russia were publicly opposed to this war. The guest speakers were from New York and Washington. The people in New York said that at first they were surprised by the Canadian reaction of not supporting the war in Iraq (before war started) because the news they were getting in the US was "WE MUST ATTACK", "WE MUST ATTACK", especially the further south you went. The evidence presented for the case against the war was it was hard absolute proof while up here it was presented as a good case but the evidence was circumstantial. Then when they had travelled to Canada on a business trip they noted the coverage was totally different and they started to feel that well maybe there were alternative to war. Then they started to look at other countries news sources which showed even slightly different outlook so they became opposed to starting the war. The guys from Washington were pro Bush and said we know very little about other media sources so we have no comment but we do believe the media is a large influence in the public opinion of all countries.

I believe that if fox and CNN provided more neutral coverage we may not actually be in this war at least not yet. Now during the war even the war coverage as been different. The recent bombing of a market place was covered in US news as it was likely that an Iraqi missile had fired on there own people. In Canada it was, It is likely that a US bomb accidentally fell on a market place, in Russia it was, a US bomb as hit a market place and killed so many people. What are your views of media on its influence on a countries population with respect to the war? We can blame the Iraqis supporting Saddham that they are brain washed but isn't the same true for us if we don't get various sources of news media from around the word so as to make an unbiased decision for ourselves.

[ 03-27-2003, 01:04 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

Hey Pritchke!

i watched that Counterspin last night as well. Great Show, lots of interesting points were raised.

There is a hazy line between propaganda and journalism and if you are only getting one viewpoint from your local medias then you don't have much choice but to believe what they show you. Getting information from more than one source, one preferably being an outside source, is essential in determining any paths of action imo.

I usually try to watch that show when I can Djinn. They usually have controversial topics with intelligent people from both sides of the fence, as well the audience participation is usually very good with people arguing for both sides.

Much better than Jerry Springer. :D

Here in the Netherlands, the most "Sensational" and populistic (and rightwing, though they don't seem to support the war) newspaper had a huge picture on the front cover of the newspaper with angry Iraqi citizens who, according to the subscript, "were crying out in helpless frustration after a US bomb accidently hit the market and killed 15 people" (roughly giving an impression now, I don't have that newspaper here myself but read the front page at the local cafeteria, where I was hunting for ice-cream ;) ). Just to give an impression. But that's most likely the most extreme way this news was presented in our country by any of the national newspapers.

[ 03-27-2003, 01:55 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

You know what makes media types happy? NEWS, and the more dirt involved the better.

If the war hadn't happened do you think they'd have been happy?

Now that the war is going, do you think they're going to avoid that which makes them happy? ("digging up the dirt")

Heck, if I was the conspiracy theory type I might even suggest that the media would be tempted to TRY to get the war going just so they'd have lots of dirt to dig, and "indepth reports" to make. :D

Did you see that fairly recent James Bond movie where a media mogul attempts to manipulate a war between China and the west? Good plot.. if you into James Bond..

We've had quite a spread of media opinions here in the UK, though they tend to be more anti-war at the moment. The one thing they all agree on is "support our troops", though.

Both sides use fairly strong tactics. Pro-war publications tend to outline the brutal viciousness of Saddam's regime, and espouse the view that no matter the motivations, getting rid of him is a good thing so long as proper precautions are taken to avoid slaughtering thousands of innocent and opressed Iraqis. I tend to support this side.

The most anti-war of them all, the Daily Mirror, tends to include articles by John Pilger, focus on the fact that (according to them), the USA is fighting this war purely for economic reasons, and lately seems to have focusses on personal attacks on George Bush. While I certainly sympathise with all of the things it says (especially everything is says about Bush, which it hates), I do tend to think they overlook the big picture in terms of removing a harsh regime. They do, however, raise valid points about the increase in terrorism that will result.

There you go - the briefest of the brief sum-ups of the British media ;)

Knowing that your media is slanted is half the battle.

I listen to several sources - but I get real tired of the anti-war, anti-US protests that the media covers ad nauseum. I feel bashed after listening to the news.

I listen to National Public Radio, World News with the BBC, International Public Radio, and CBS on occasion (they are the local news channel). I also comb the internet for whatever looks interesting - and whatever will print in English, no matter what country.

I wonder about Bush's agenda in going to war now, but I support the troops. I had hoped we would have gathered a bigger coalition like in Desert Storm - with our NATO allies.

Anyone who thinks we get propaganda hasn't heard about the MULTITUDE of protests - but then, that could be a form of propoganda ... I feel helpless and depressed about this.

I thought this was worth digging out again. An interesting article written by an American journalist on the bias of US news reports.

http://www.macleans.ca/xta-doc2/2003...QA/57595.shtml

Here in the Netherlands, the most "Sensational" and populistic (and rightwing, though they don't seem to support the war) newspaper had a huge picture on the front cover of the newspaper with angry Iraqi citizens who, according to the subscript, "were crying out in helpless frustration after a US bomb accidently hit the market and killed 15 people" (roughly giving an impression now, I don't have that newspaper here myself but read the front page at the local cafeteria, where I was hunting for ice-cream ;) ). Just to give an impression. But that's most likely the most extreme way this news was presented in our country by any of the national newspapers.</font>[/QUOTE]You know that story, told through media sources who are outrightly pro-war or claim no bias, was reported as the missle could have come from either side and that no one really knows since the U.S. isn't far enough into Baghdad to be able to investigate the site. Every anti-war paper/station has given blame for the incident to the U.S.

pritchke,
I've never seen Counter-Spin, I'll have to check it out and see if it compares to SNL's Point-Counter Point. ;) j/k, I'll check it out.
I live in one of the southernmost regions of the U.S. (southwest Texas) and locally there was more of a cry for more diplomacy than there was "WE MUST ATTACK"...could be though that it is because a lot of the troops in Iraq right now are out of Ft. Hood Texas. Our local news broadcasts seem split between war, no war, and no opinion just so long as it goes our way. :shrug: