TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- French War Coverage Criticized

French War Coverage Criticized

quote:

War Coverage Tue Dec 30, 5:52 AM ET By ELAINE GANLEY, Associated Press Writer PARIS - Reporter Alain Hertoghe's book accused the French press of not being objective in its coverage of the U.S.-led war in Iraq (news - web sites). His newspaper fired him. The book, "La Guerre a Outrances" (The War of Outrages), criticizes the French reporting for continually predicting the war would end badly for the U.S.-led coalition. "Readers can't understand why the Americans won the war," Hertoghe said in a telephone interview. "The French press wasn't neutral." The book, published Oct. 15, charges French reporters were more patriotic than journalistic and what was written amounted to disinformation. It examines daily coverage by five major French dailies, including Hertoghe's own La Croix, in the three weeks from the first strikes on Baghdad on March 20 to April 9 when Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s regime fell. "As soon as there were a couple of wounded, of dead, they were talking about Vietnam, Stalingrad," Hertoghe said. In contrast, work by journalists traveling with U.S. troops indicated that "the war was advancing well," he said. Hertoghe, a 44-year-old Belgian, said reporters reflected the emotional high in France more than realities on the battlefield, becoming caught up in France's central role in leading the opposition to the war at the United Nations (news - web sites). "The French public was so carried away," he said. The journalists, he wrote in the book, "dreamed of an American defeat." Hertoghe, who covered the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites) and the presidential campaign that put President Bush (news - web sites) in the White House, was assistant editor-in-chief of La Croix's online version during the Iraq war. Besides war coverage in La Croix, the book examines that of the independent Le Monde, the conservative Le Figaro, the leftist Liberation and the regional daily Ouest-France, which has the largest circulation in France. Over three weeks, the five papers carried 29 headlines condemning Saddam's dictatorship and 135 blaming Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites). Hertoghe was fired on Dec.15 for a "loss of confidence" following publication of the book. La Croix, in a letter, cited four points, including damaging the newspaper's reputation, Hertoghe said. La Croix refused to comment. Efforts for comment from Le Monde � the paper Hertoghe targeted most severely � also were unsuccessful, with the international editor away on vacation. A Paris-based reporter cited in the book did not answer his phone. Only a free newspaper handed out in the Metro, "20 Minutes," has so far reviewed Hertoghe's book. "The silence is deafening" in France, although there have been rave reviews in Belgium, said Ronald Blunden, editorial director at Hertoghe's publishing house, Calmann-Levy.

Am I supposed to be surprised?...not to say that we had that kind of journalism here in the U.S. *cough*

Would anyone be surprised by this, its the age old adage at play. The French seem to have an infatuation with being seen as a great and central power in dealing with America. This is just a reflection of overall social P.O.Vs as far as I am concerned. Anyone who believes this is off base I have two words for you, Core Europe, if you kept up with the latest news from Europe as I do ask France, Belgium, Luxembourg, and oh Germany. Everyone knows their goal is the creation of a European Superstate, and then we wonder why Poland wants to make sure its voice is heard in any decision making in the E.U. I am puzzled as to why the masses of this great bastion of democratic principles (E.U.) isn't upset when they hear the concept of a Core Europe put forth by Monsieur Chirac and Herr Schroeder. Apparently dissenting voices have begun to be shown in violent ways. 4 letter bombs sent to members of the E.U. Parliament including Signor Romano Prodi.

whats the big deal?

you seen *any* American media taking the Iraqi side?

Certainly its not a big deal, I feel the original post however demonstrated more of a Comical Ali approach to the war coverage by some well known French media outlets, as opposed to responsible journalism but who cares now, we know what happened in some form or another in Iraq.

quote:

you seen *any* American media taking the Iraqi side?

I have seen American media take the Iraqi *peoples* side on numerous occasions, not the Iraqi *governments* side. There is a subtle yet huge difference there.

It unfortunatly was the Iraqi people who have had to deal with the actions of "their" government throughout the past decades. Since the people of Iraq have had little say in the course of their "leaders," I do tend to empathize with the wrath they have had to bear. However, I find no reason to support the actions of, or sympathize with the government previously found in Iraq. How the French media could possibly could twist and distort the actions of the Saddam regime to support their anti-American sentiments is laughable and dispicable, in my opinion. It's good to know that France has totally forgot about World War II.

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan Would anyone be surprised by this, its the age old adage at play. The French seem to have an infatuation with being seen as a great and central power in dealing with America. This is just a reflection of overall social P.O.Vs as far as I am concerned. Anyone who believes this is off base I have two words for you, Core Europe, if you kept up with the latest news from Europe as I do ask France, Belgium, Luxembourg, and oh Germany. Everyone knows their goal is the creation of a European Superstate, and then we wonder why Poland wants to make sure its voice is heard in any decision making in the E.U. I am puzzled as to why the masses of this great bastion of democratic principles (E.U.) isn't upset when they hear the concept of a Core Europe put forth by Monsieur Chirac and Herr Schroeder. Apparently dissenting voices have begun to be shown in violent ways. 4 letter bombs sent to members of the E.U. Parliament including Signor Romano Prodi.

I don't see what is wrong with creating the european superstate, or the Core Europe in the first place. If countries want to do so, there is no reason to stop them, especially since the majority of germans and french support the stronger EU. Now, as for poland, they are demanding to have almost the same amount of votes in the EU council as the germans, although their population is half that of Germany. Infact, I see Poland as one of the countries that is preventing the turning of the EU into a real democratic establishment, where the votes of every person will have the same value. Instead they insist on the indirect making of decisions, where it is a government's decision that matters, instead that of the people. Besides, the current EU model is really incapable of handling 25 states. Everything has to be decided by a consensus of votes, and it's hardly believable that the 25 different countries will all agree on any matter at hand. The increase of members coupled with the old system of making decisions has turned EU into a loose association once again. Therefore it is perfectly normal and acceptable that some countries who desire stronger integration are considering to form a core union.

First of all, if anyone thinks it's only Americans who are puppets of the media, you need only look at the French example. I'm also as unsurprised to read this as anyone else.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I have seen American media take the Iraqi *peoples* side on numerous occasions, not the Iraqi *governments* side. There is a subtle yet huge difference there.[quote] For the most part, during the war, it was only print media. [quote]It unfortunatly was the Iraqi people who have had to deal with the actions of "their" government throughout the past decades. Since the people of Iraq have had little say in the course of their "leaders," I do tend to empathize with the wrath they have had to bear. However, I find no reason to support the actions of, or sympathize with the government previously found in Iraq.

Same here. But, while we're on the subject of the media, I'd also like to see more of those chickenhawk reporters in the mainstream media discuss the past US involvement in Saddam's regime. Perhaps I'll get my wish when the big Saddam trial starts. :P

quote:

How the French media could possibly could twist and distort the actions of the Saddam regime to support their anti-American sentiments is laughable and dispicable, in my opinion.[quote] Agreed. If you were consistent though, you'd also find Fox News' and MSNBC's jingoistic war coverage similarly "laughable and dispicable." CNN at least remained somewhat moderate during the war. The PBS news shows continued to present both sides, as they always have. [quote] It's good to know that France has totally forgot about World War II.

The fact that we saved their asses in WWII does not mean they have to agree with all of our policy decisions. Furthermore, most of the people who lived through, and remember, that era are probably now dead.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 I don't see what is wrong with creating the european superstate, or the Core Europe in the first place. If countries want to do so, there is no reason to stop them, especially since the majority of germans and french support the stronger EU. Now, as for poland, they are demanding to have almost the same amount of votes in the EU council as the germans, although their population is half that of Germany. Infact, I see Poland as one of the countries that is preventing the turning of the EU into a real democratic establishment, where the votes of every person will have the same value. Instead they insist on the indirect making of decisions, where it is a government's decision that matters, instead that of the people. Besides, the current EU model is really incapable of handling 25 states. Everything has to be decided by a consensus of votes, and it's hardly believable that the 25 different countries will all agree on any matter at hand. The increase of members coupled with the old system of making decisions has turned EU into a loose association once again. Therefore it is perfectly normal and acceptable that some countries who desire stronger integration are considering to form a core union.

Hey guess what you Europeans???? Welcome to the problems of founding a federalist union of "states"!!! The next time you bitch at concepts such as electoral colleges, the constant conflict between state rights vs. federal rights, and party divisions between whether more power should go locally to the states or centrally to the government, merely look at the nonexistence of an EU superstate (much less a constitution) as for why things are the way they are here.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Hey guess what you Europeans???? Welcome to the problems of founding a federalist union of "states"!!! The next time you bitch at concepts such as electoral colleges, the constant conflict between state rights vs. federal rights, and party divisions between whether more power should go locally to the states or centrally to the government, merely look at the nonexistence of an EU superstate (much less a constitution) as for why things are the way they are here.

I do know why things are the way they are. Still, they are not the way they should be, so we have the right to complain about it. If it makes you happier, I admit that the current US system of government is much better than the EU one. But you're 250 years ahead on that matter, so you've definitely had more time to improve.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 we have the right to complain

I wonder why the founding fathers didn't include that in the bill of rights .

I mean it probably falls under the first admendment, but I think it's important enough to warrant an amendment dedicated to it alone.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 I don't see what is wrong with creating the european superstate, or the Core Europe in the first place. If countries want to do so, there is no reason to stop them, especially since the majority of germans and french support the stronger EU. Now, as for poland, they are demanding to have almost the same amount of votes in the EU council as the germans, although their population is half that of Germany. Infact, I see Poland as one of the countries that is preventing the turning of the EU into a real democratic establishment, where the votes of every person will have the same value. Instead they insist on the indirect making of decisions, where it is a government's decision that matters, instead that of the people. Besides, the current EU model is really incapable of handling 25 states. Everything has to be decided by a consensus of votes, and it's hardly believable that the 25 different countries will all agree on any matter at hand. The increase of members coupled with the old system of making decisions has turned EU into a loose association once again. Therefore it is perfectly normal and acceptable that some countries who desire stronger integration are considering to form a core union.

Therefore we are not looking at a representation of democratic ideals and statutes, so much so as the big boys ala France, Germany, U.K will get their voices heard the loudest while the rest of the nations must tow in line with their agendas as deemed fit by them. Rember Mr. Chirac telling the Eastern Europeans that they missed a great opportunity to keep quiet when they signed a letter in support of America. If Europe wants to be led by France and Germany that is their position, I am in America. However where does the line between national interest and this allegiance to a European state exist. How can the voice of Malta, Estonia, Latvia and Luxembourg be heard against those of the larger nations. This concept of an E.U. represents to me idealism at its best once the realm of (politics) is entered into, however I realise that nationalism in Europe failed to bring security in the past, but rather wars. My problem with the concept of a Core Europe is that the democratic ideals of inclusion, representation and consensus on all important issues seem to be driven by French and German desires, unless you want to include Belgium and Luxembourg. A consensus must be reached with Poland and Spain. I can see no nation in Europe short of those that have proposed the concept of a Core Europe that would support such an idea. Maybe Europeans on this board can enlighten me as to the sentiments in their respective nations. Ireland is the next president of the European Union and Bertie Ahern has already said that he saw no way that Core Europe served the interest of Europe as a whole, that is the key it serves the interest of a few nations, not all current and future members with expansion coming soon.

i should've been a bit more precise... of course american media was on the the iraqi people side... so they can excuse the war on them.

let me rephrase myself.


with the hundred of radio and tv channels, and written media that there is in the US. How many were categoricaly against the war on Iraq?

if the american democratic media represented the Americans opinion, shouldn't there be a good proportion of media against the war? let say in the range of 25% of them. In reality, the real score was around 1% at most.

if you studied a bit of statistics you would know that its almost impossible to have a score of less than 1% of "antiwar coverage" when the population was divided anywhere from 25/75 to 50/50 with hundreds of media voices.

My statistic teacher would says that when you get these kind of numbers, the most probable explanation is that the game is rigged.

Rigged as in, unfree press because concentrated in very few hands and opinion direction is dictated by the owners.


if we get back to the France issue, 85% minimum of the French people were against the war.

quote:

i should've been a bit more precise... of course american media was on the the iraqi people side... so they can excuse the war on them.

You're going to have to give me some links on this one. I can't remember a single instance where the American media blamed the war on the Iraqi people. Saddam and his government yes, the American government yes, but the everyday people of either country no. If you can show me that the American media somehow did try to blame the Iraqi people, I'd love to see it.

If you remember at the time of war, the majority of Americans were for the war. During that time, the majority of media coverage was "pro-war," but only in the sense that there was not much anti-war sentiment on TV. Coverage basically consisted of following reporters in Iraq or updates on current skirmishes. I should also add I didn't see a whole lot of pro-war propaganda either from mainstream media. I'm not going to say it was totally neutral, but except for talk shows and the like, most of the coverage was fairly benign in nature.

If you were expecting the American media to try to bash its own country's action, during the war, it wasn't going to happen. America has proven in most circumstances that when it is at war or tragedy it really doesn't tolerate much "non-patriotic" reporting from its media or anywhere else (see Dixie Chicks). France however was outside the confines of war and was free to bash away, without worrying about public outcry.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono You're going to have to give me some links on this one. I can't remember a single instance where the American media blamed the war on the Iraqi people. Saddam and his government yes, the American government yes, but the everyday people of either country no. If you can show me that the American media somehow did try to blame the Iraqi people, I'd love to see it.

you are right Neo, but between you and me, when the US attacks Iraq to take down the regigme, its the Iraqi people who suffers from it.

look even today, there's no power nor running water in most of urban Iraq.

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=151225

Of course it will be rough for the people of a country who just had their leadership overthrown and bombs dropped on their cities. However, if even half of the stuff in that link is true, I think they're well on the way to getting back to where they were, and hopefully achieving things not possible under Saddam.

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan Therefore we are not looking at a representation of democratic ideals and statutes, so much so as the big boys ala France, Germany, U.K will get their voices heard the loudest while the rest of the nations must tow in line with their agendas as deemed fit by them. Rember Mr. Chirac telling the Eastern Europeans that they missed a great opportunity to keep quiet when they signed a letter in support of America. If Europe wants to be led by France and Germany that is their position, I am in America. However where does the line between national interest and this allegiance to a European state exist. How can the voice of Malta, Estonia, Latvia and Luxembourg be heard against those of the larger nations. This concept of an E.U. represents to me idealism at its best once the realm of (politics) is entered into, however I realise that nationalism in Europe failed to bring security in the past, but rather wars. My problem with the concept of a Core Europe is that the democratic ideals of inclusion, representation and consensus on all important issues seem to be driven by French and German desires, unless you want to include Belgium and Luxembourg. A consensus must be reached with Poland and Spain. I can see no nation in Europe short of those that have proposed the concept of a Core Europe that would support such an idea. Maybe Europeans on this board can enlighten me as to the sentiments in their respective nations. Ireland is the next president of the European Union and Bertie Ahern has already said that he saw no way that Core Europe served the interest of Europe as a whole, that is the key it serves the interest of a few nations, not all current and future members with expansion coming soon.

Well, at this state you have 4 options.

1) The current model. Every country has the right of veto, and the amounts of votes a country has are equal for all countries. With 25 members, and more to follow soon, it will be impossible to reach any decision since they all have to agree. This will most certainly turn EU into nothing more than a loose monetary association whose power is about the same as that of the European Council (negligible), and will cause the countries which desire a stronger union to make the Core Europe concept a reality.

2) The model where the right of veto is abandoned, but the countries still have about equal amount of votes. Aside from the obvious unsatisfaction of larger members, this also ensures an electorial-like system, one for which the US has been often criticized.

3) A fully democratic model, where nations give up their sovereignity to the EU central body and where every inhabitant's votes is worth the same. Not likely due to the national pride of governments, as well as because of the vast differences of regions.

4) A mixed model, one where countries don't have vetoes anymore, and where the votes of Germany and Malta are not quite equal, but are tilted a bit in favor of the smaller countries. This would ensure the further tightening of the union, while at the same time it would not upset neither small nor big members too much.

Currently, the option 4) might infact be the best model in my opinion (wait to see occrider be happy and say "told you so" ) considering all the problems EU is facing.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Hey guess what you Europeans???? Welcome to the problems of founding a federalist union of "states"!!! The next time you bitch at concepts such as electoral colleges, the constant conflict between state rights vs. federal rights, and party divisions between whether more power should go locally to the states or centrally to the government, merely look at the nonexistence of an EU superstate (much less a constitution) as for why things are the way they are here.

Yes, I see your point. But just because your union are more tightly integrated than ours, why should we not be allowed to comment on the flaws in yours?
And, to me you are comparing apples and oranges: The US consists of much more homogeneous states than those of the EU, and you have only had some 2-300 years of getting angry with each other, whereas we have had thousand of years doing that.

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan Would anyone be surprised by this, its the age old adage at play. The French seem to have an infatuation with being seen as a great and central power in dealing with America. This is just a reflection of overall social P.O.Vs as far as I am concerned. Anyone who believes this is off base I have two words for you, Core Europe, if you kept up with the latest news from Europe as I do ask France, Belgium, Luxembourg, and oh Germany. Everyone knows their goal is the creation of a European Superstate, and then we wonder why Poland wants to make sure its voice is heard in any decision making in the E.U. I am puzzled as to why the masses of this great bastion of democratic principles (E.U.) isn't upset when they hear the concept of a Core Europe put forth by Monsieur Chirac and Herr Schroeder. Apparently dissenting voices have begun to be shown in violent ways. 4 letter bombs sent to members of the E.U. Parliament including Signor Romano Prodi.

Well, I'm a European and I loathe the french foreign politics (and despise some of their domestic ones at that). Furthermore, I cannot wait to see a center right government in Germany - both Schroeder and Chirac seem to be way to caught up in pleasing their spin-doctors than presenting an honest vision of the future.
Before writing this post I took a moment to reflect on the people I know and what their position on this is, and I can honestly say that no matter if they are pro/anti Israel/US/EU, they all hate the French government and its arrogant approach to unification of EU states. Even our prime minister, who chaired the negotiations leading to the enlargement of the EU, has publicly disagreed with the 2-speed Europe ideas of France and Germany.
The reasons why I dislike the superstate idea is mainly that the biggest proponent of it, France, are a centralistic country (and has been for ages) and consequently sees itself as a natural leader of such a superstate. As a member of a culture very different to that of France, I fear that my interests would be down-prioritized. Not until Britain, which resembles Denmark to a much higher degree, devotes itself to the superstate will I endorse its creation.

Drug_Tito: I agree that option 4 (why only four, btw?) is the best one, and I think most politicians in the EU agree as well. The problem is, however, to determine the exact ratio of weight of votes between countries.

Who cares, every country is entitled to their opinion to the predicted outcome of a war. France is no exception...soo boo hoo.

quote:

Originally posted by Psygnosis Who cares, every country is entitled to their opinion to the predicted outcome of a war. France is no exception...soo boo hoo.

Hey if you have nothing bad to say about the French don't say it at all!

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Yes, I see your point. But just because your union are more tightly integrated than ours, why should we not be allowed to comment on the flaws in yours? And, to me you are comparing apples and oranges: The US consists of much more homogeneous states than those of the EU, and you have only had some 2-300 years of getting angry with each other, whereas we have had thousand of years doing that.

I was speaking tongue in cheek ... as I often do

quote:

The US consists of much more homogeneous states than those of the EU

thats why the EU cant work imo. Cultures are so different , plus language isnt the same in every country as it is in the US.
But i dont think if it happens that France & Germany will automaticly be the boss of the EU in terms of political decision cuz if the constitution is well done then we would have a representation for the states in a senate (number of senators are equal in each states) & a people representation in a congress that doesnt represent France or Germany or another country but a political opinion (which can be the same in different states) as in the US.
The power of large countries might in this way only be an economical power (California vs Alabama for example). You cant say in the US that the most powerful state is driving the whole union isnt it?
Anyway this cant work in the EU cuz of there is no european patriotic feeling that mainly due to the different languages imo.

sorry for not speaking so well English

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.