What should the media’s role been in the war on terror?

Should the media be reporting stories that they have no true evidence on, when they know it would only incite violence across the world, with certain stories, causing deaths, and helping terrorist with their cause, putting everything into complete chaos. Should the reporters reporting these stories use moral judgment? Or should they just go ahead and report these things on hearsay with out any credible facts to go on? I want to read all the stories they have but I also want the truth based on facts.

I definately think that the media is a major tool that terrorists use. But as far as what they report, I think that they should base the story more on facts than what will give them ratings. Look at what newsweek did. That was the most idiotic event that the media has done in a while. And not just that, but the issue that is also present is the rights that the media has according to the constitution. It's also what will let the media continue to do what they are currently doing. God bless America.....

[edit on 6/6/2005 by neosnightmare]

I think the biggest problem in the media is that the news gets cancelled everyday for nonstories like the Jackson trial. All this talk about "deepthroat" but no talk about the downing street memo.

As for Newsweek,

While it is bad that they used a crappy source, the story was a real one.

I think that those riots in Afghanistan and Pakistan had more to do with our presence than with the abuse of the Quran.

Why exactly should the media be held to a higher standard than the U.S. military that began these wars? Facts are that lies and abuses by the military are taking place. If the Newsweek story was the only media lie that ever took place on the wars, information which we knew from back in mid-2004 from other sources and even now the Pentagon is admitting to similar abuses that have been alleged to be causing problems in the occupied territories, then I can say with certainty that this is much ado about nothing. Considering the cloudy nature of the reasons for invading Afghanistan and the now fully known lies of invading Iraq, the U.S. military and the U.S. government itself have far more to answer for with getting people killed in foreign lands over lies.

Looks like Newsweek was right after all.

observer.guardian.co.uk...

The US military has admitted to the abuses of the Quran.

Now I'm waiting for someone to cover the Downing street memo.

BTW If you want to sign a petition supporting an inquiry into the lies told by the Bush administration click here

It is hosted by Congressman John Conyers. A member of the house Judiciary committee.

[edit on 26/6/05 by JAK]

The biggest problem with most Western media is the complete lack of objectivity - although we tout our free press, the reality appears to be quite, quite different.

When presenting (as a loose example) the Israel/Palestine situation, we're shown horrifying images and facts of Israeli victims, who are often named with bio information present. But we're very, very rarely shown the details of Palestinian victims. We're given numbers on page 14 as a two-inch byline, perhaps. It's an appalling inequity.

The role of the media should be to present an unbiased account of the situation on which they're reporting.

This doesn't happen - and as a result, the US in particular is feeding and nurturing a state of misinformation, bias and ignorance.

(Though the US is by no means the only guilty party in this situation)

I thought this old thread might be of interest here, it is addressing the use of the media by terrorist groups and the possible benefits and concerns that any censorship might hold.

Kenneth Bigley and Censorship

Jak

I can't help but feel that sometimes, the media actually worsens the situation, particularly when we're talking about hostages and terrorists. If for no other reason than we're encouraged to view the kidnappers as subhuman, not human at all, that they're animals, somehow alien to our own selves...when the reality is quite different. It's that perception - that they're *not* human, that actually adds more fuel to the fire. Of course, I'm not suggesting that their actions should be condoned; but if we refuse to humanise them, then we'll never, ever understand what they're trying to attain, and there will never, ever be any resolution.

It's misguided to assume that we're dealing with a bunch of subhuman animals who have nothing better to do than behead hostages. Sadly though, our media does nothing to try and change that perception.

But from the way the media is reporting on a lot of these issues’s we don’t know truth from fiction, who’s the reliable source. Who’s telling a fib just to make the headlines for a day or two? And will the story the source tells help the terrorist with their agenda. A lot of you have good opinions on this subject and it’s not only western media, its media in general. No one really knows what’s going on out there unless we see it live on TV ourselves.

The biggest thing the news needs to do, is become news again - So much of the news today is just opinion - none of it is objective... News is supposed to report facts, facts and facts only - and then it is up to the viewer to make the decision of what their feelings are...

But instead we have people like FoxNews who claim they are are; "The Most Powerful Name in News" and the most "Fair and Balanced" - and they have people like Oreily claiming to have no spin - but hes a fxxxing facist, basically out-right racist...

BBC is about the only respectable main-stream news station... I seriously think anyone who has the FoxNews channel should get it blocked - your life will be that much better off without it...

The job of the complicit U.S. media for the Bush administration is to confuse and obfuscate when it is clear that the administration has done wrong, and to glorify and applaud when the administration has had an average day and done nothing of use, and to promote the general atmosphere of divisiveness, xenophobia and part-time terror.

Media achieve these tasks quite well in general.

Originally posted by finnman68
Should the media be reporting stories that they have no true evidence on, when they know it would only incite violence across the world, with certain stories, causing deaths,

I agree that their reporting led to violence and turmoil as it led the population to support the war in Iraq, even though many of their stories turned out to be false.
Like the stories on WMDs, shredders that were used for killing people, some of the stories of rape etc...

As a member of the media I feel obligated to say...

YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!

The media is only supposed to report what they know is factual? Well then it wouldn't be news would it? FACT: The sky is blue. Does that make it news?

How would we have ever found out Nixon was a lyin', cheatin', CRIMINAL sack of %$&# if Woodward and Bernstein had refused to pursue it, because it was "just a rumor"?? We either have freedom of speech, or we don't. We either have freedom of the press, or we don't.

If you want fair and balanced news at all times, lobby your elected officials to repeal the Telecommunications act of 1996. It was that act that consolidated radio and TV under the umbrellas of a few corporations, and basically turned them loose to pursue riches in the name of stockholders. Since then, the tabloid journalism has gotten worse and worse, because they only pursue what will "sell". Re-regulate the industry, take it out of the hands of the corporations, and put broadcasting back in the hands of the people. That will go a long way toward cleaning up the dirt.

Some of the things that the Telecom Act changed:

Unattended operation - Radio and TV station owners are now allowed to let their stations run overnight with no operator at the controls. What do you think would happen if a terrorist attack took place in a small to medium market along the Canuck border during the overnight hours? A lot of people would die because nobody was around to warn them.

Total market share - Radio groups are now allowed to own an unlimited number of stations, and up to eight in any given market. Think that helps the reporting? No, it hurts diversity, and hurts the quality of the broadcasting product you receive.

And in closing, let me ask you this... if you start putting controls on the news media and what they can report, what do you think is going to happen to a site like this, where people post outlandish claims about the Government as though they're fact????

Hmmmmm.....

There's a marked difference between media reporting and an individual voicing an opinion on a message board, surely?

The media is obliged to report fairly, and state when rumour is rumour, when a fact is unchecked, when conjecture is conjecture. Message boards have no such obligation, as they are meant to contain opinion pieces alongside fact-based pieces.

The media is not meant to be a collection of voiced opinions, is it? - surely that's such an obvious difference that it renders the analogy used as pretty redundant?

With regards to hurting diversity - it's almost tragically funny to read that and then realise that the majority of US-based news media can be traced to the ownership of only a few major parties. That hurts diversity even more and makes "fair reporting" even more difficult.

I don't think people are shouting for "only factual" news - the situation isn't so black and white to begin with. There are many, many stages between "only factual" and "outright misrepresentation of facts or situations"....neither extreme is good in the realistic sense, although admittedly "factual" has a much better sound to it, to me.

The problem as I see it isn't with factual vs. conjecture, but in the methods of reporting contained therein. If something is only rumour - then it needs to be displayed as such. If something has been confirmed, then let us see the sources. But even allowing for this, how are we to respect a media which chooses to downplay or outright ignore one side of a story with an alarming frequency?

Isn't that worse than simple rumour-based reporting?

And surely it's a huge leap to imply that our freedom of speech would be forever ruined if the media had checks in place to ensure "fairness" when reporting on a situation?

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
There's a marked difference between media reporting and an individual voicing an opinion on a message board, surely?

The media is obliged to report fairly, and state when rumour is rumour, when a fact is unchecked, when conjecture is conjecture. Message boards have no such obligation, as they are meant to contain opinion pieces alongside fact-based pieces.

Just exactly what is that difference Tinkle? Please explain it to me, because that's where you're wrong. When Dan Rather reported that Bush was AWOL from the Guard, he was an individual reporting a story. The woman he interviewed claimed it was FACT that Bush got preferential treatment, but in reality that was her individual opinion. Presented as fact however. So then when the story blew up, Rather lost his gig. How is that different than half the nuts who come on here and say "Bush Blew Up The Trade Center". No disclaimer. No label that says "opinion" or "editorial". My point is, if you're going to put controls on the media, and what they can and can't report, you're treading on dangerous ground and creating a place of shelter for those who are corrupt and dishonest. As soon as you limit the media's ability to report, the politicians will figure out how to use that limitation to hide what they're doing and prevent the media from reporting it.

You may make a distinction between news media and internet discussion, but if you start giving the government the power to restrict the media, I guarantee you, they won't make that same distinction. The FCC is already considering regulating the internet (which would be a huge power grab but not a hot enough issue to get people to care).

The problem as I see it isn't with factual vs. conjecture, but in the methods of reporting contained therein. If something is only rumour - then it needs to be displayed as such. If something has been confirmed, then let us see the sources.

That is an absolutely ignorant statement. Let you see the sources???? Please address the Deep Throat situation as if it happened in your rosy world. Woodward and Bernstein say the President is a crook, and that's a fact. Now they have to reveal their sources? You don't think that would have been SLIGHTLY dangerous to W Mark Felt's life???? Sources MUST remain confidential.

And surely it's a huge leap to imply that our freedom of speech would be forever ruined if the media had checks in place to ensure "fairness" when reporting on a situation?

No, but our freedom of the press WOULD be forever ruined and politicians would be running amok with nobody to challenge them. If the media isn't keeping an eye on the government, who's going to? You? All those Americans who are so interested in Politics and what's going on? Gimme a break. Most Americans think about the Government twice a year... on tax day, and on election day. You restrict the media and you're gonna create the worst nightmare America has ever known.

Interesting that a conspiracy website would have such hostile opinions toward the media considering the media is more your ally than your enemy.

[edit on 6/7/2005 by AlphaMail]

"You may make a distinction between news media and internet discussion, but if you start giving the government the power to restrict the media, I guarantee you, they won't make that same distinction. The FCC is already considering regulating the internet (which would be a huge power grab but not a hot enough issue to get people to care). "

That's absolutely right - I do make a distinction between news media and internet discussion. If only because of the very, very simple reason that the former has the ability to reach over 200 million Americans in one foul swoop - I'd be surprised to hear of even one message board with the same readership. We both know that the public in general believe what they read and hear on the news. And we both know that this same public wouldn't believe the same stories if they came from Joe Message Board. Why would this even be disputed? Public perception is perhaps the most important factor here, and to pretend it's not would be foolish. We've created a society where the general public DO believe what the news media tells them, and sadly too many will simply believe what they're told without question. Why? Because that's what we've been taught.

My "ignorant" statement might be better rephrased. If I implied that ALL sources for ALL stories would need to be reported, then that was my error. I'm neither naive nor foolish enough to go with that premise. Having said that - that's not what would be required if the media was obliged to report both sides of a particular issue. All that's been asked for here is fairness. Give us both sides of the story, then let us decide.

Since you're a resident member of The Media, how do you explain the overwhelming tendency to report only one side of a given story? Examples would be Palestine/Israeli victims of violence; US versus Iraqi death counts, etc. What governs these decisions?

America is pretty much alone in the "freedom of the press" thing to begin with. I'm not American. Lived here for over 8 years, but I'm European by birth and upbringing, and in some parts of Europe there are checks in place to ensure onesided reporting is minimalised (via laws prohibiting any single organisation from owning more than 30% of readership for example, minority shareholders being allowed to vote on content, etc etc) .....and it's widely perceived as being a positive thing. The government don't control the content, but rather the fairness therein. Sure, it's easy to perceive that as a grey line - and it probably is. So, is there a middle ground? Could we have it both ways? Could it be possible for the media to report fairly, but without government interference?

Originally posted by LeftBehind
I think the biggest problem in the media is that the news gets cancelled everyday for nonstories like the Jackson trial. All this talk about "deepthroat" but no talk about the downing street memo.

As for Newsweek,

While it is bad that they used a crappy source, the story was a real one.

I think that those riots in Afghanistan and Pakistan had more to do with our presence than with the abuse of the Quran.

Newsweek: I think it is a great magazine but for that Quaran thing, I think they retracted the story because they didn't want to ruin anymore relations with the Middle East.

You are right about the riots about the presence of America in Afganistan and Pakistan. There is this really good book called "Dying to Win."
Here's a link to read more about it: www.amazon.com...=pd_sxp_f /102-5340353-9827331

Originally posted by TinkleflowerSince you're a resident member of The Media, how do you explain the overwhelming tendency to report only one side of a given story? Examples would be Palestine/Israeli victims of violence; US versus Iraqi death counts, etc. What governs these decisions?

Simple logic would say US vs. Iraqi death counts are reported the way they are because the US casualties are the ones we care about since they're our citizens. Do you think Iraqi tv is reporting all the names of the American soldiers who die?

I don't see the discrepancy really with the Palestinian/Israeli victims of violence... I could easily name five occasions in the last six months where I saw either a news story, a news magazine, or a documentary with the story of a Palestinian/Muslim travesty or tragedy. I'm totally sympathetic. But you speak of the media as if it's one huge entity. For there to be a bias against these souls as you claim, that means we all have to be huddling together and conspiring, and it's just not so.

Since you're not an American, it's clear we'll just have to agree to disagree.

The one thing that pisses me off about he media is their reporting on every tape, statement or comment, from any terrorist. Example, a tape come out from Zarqawi saying his usual BS and then the news media has to play it 30billion items a day, and they always say after they play it. “And well be right back to discuss what this means, are the terrorist getting stronger or weaker?. Who gives a... if we stopped playing their BS on every channel all the time then they would get weaker this is what they want exposure and to frighten people with their PR. If we don't give a damn about their tapes and BS then they would stop making them.

I've been distracted by real life for far too long, but there have been some developments, so I thought I'd come back and mention...

The FCC has just issued a warning to Satellite TV, Cable TV, and Satellite Radio operators on decency issues. They've been warned to clean up their act, or the FCC will be forced to take action against them.

The following article deals primarily with the indecency issues...

post-gazette.com...

The full FCC press release mention these issues and goes into further detail regarding issues like "Does my monthly payment to Sirius exempt them from decency regulations?" Up until recently the answer has been "Yes", just like HBO is allowed to show nekkidness because it's a service you're willing to pay for; you're "inviting it into your home".

The FCC is now saying, paying a monthly fee for your service DOES NOT exempt the service provider from decency regulations. In other words, you could buy Sirius Satellite radio and find Howard Stern is still not free to say what he wants. Sex-Ed shows with an educational bent could also be restricted. And cable TV providers could find themselves subject to broadcasting standards despite the fact that consumers could easily rid themselves of "the filth" by cancelling their cable subscription.

Keep in mind, this is despite the fact that THE FCC DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER CABLE TV, SATELLITE TV, OR SATELLITE RADIO. They have issued a warning without even having the authority to enforce the mandate. Trust me friends, the FCC is getting ready to make a power-grab, and nobody is going to do anything about it because Americans like being able to use the media as a babysitter.

Once they have control over all of it, it won't be long before you start seeing more and more meddling with the media. It's already begun. Less than a year ago, Armed Forces radio signed a liberal talk show hosted by Ed Schultz. Then, weeks before the show was to begin airing, the show was suddenly yanked from the lineup with no explanation as to why. When Schultz started talking to other press outlets about the cancellation, and alleging that the powers-that-be just didn't want dissenting voices on the radio (they run Rush and other conservative shows on the Armed Forces network regularly), the man relented and started running the Ed Schultz Show just to avoid a public relations disaster. If they had thought they could get away with it, they would have.

And fifty years from now, when people don't remember the days when cable and satellite could broadcast whatever they wanted, they won't think it's such a bad thing to limit "politically volatile" speech in the media (and the internet), and that will happen too. And then in another fifty years, when people have forgotten the days when you could be inflammatory and revolutionary on the airwaves, they'll suggest another limit, and then another. And pretty soon your media will be a neutered entity with no power to entertain or inform whatsoever, except in a bland family-friendly manner, with no edge, and no daring, and no drive.

As a consumer, do I not have the right to purchase entertainment and news offerings which are absolutely uncensored? If I wanted to listen to Howard Stern's Show (I don't), should I not have the right to purchase a subscription knowing his speech will be uncensored and unfiltered? Not subject to someone else's view of what is "appropriate"?

And if I don't have that right, then what happened to one of America's most sacred principles - a nation without a state censor? If the FCC regulates all TV and all radio regardless of whether it's a subscription service or not, regardless of whether it's satellite or terrestrial, WE WILL HAVE A STATE CENSOR. And God help us all.