TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- US and independent media

US and independent media

quote:

New York, October 4, 2001�The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) is deeply concerned by reports that U.S. officials pressured Qatar in an attempt to influence the news coverage of the Qatar-based Al-Jazeera satellite channel. Following a meeting yesterday in Washington, D.C., with U.S. secretary of state Colin Powell, Qatari ruler Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani acknowledged that U.S. officials had asked him to use his influence to rein in Al-Jazeera's news coverage. The U.S. government apparently feels that Al-Jazeera's programming has been unbalanced and anti-American, particularly in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington, D.C. "We heard from the U.S. administration, and also from the previous administration," the emir was quoted as saying by CNN. "Naturally we take these things as a kind of advice." A State Department official told CNN that Secretary Powell and the emir "had a frank exchange" on the issue and "there should have been no mistake of where we are coming from." On October 2, the, U.S. Embassy in Qatar filed a formal diplomatic complaint with Qatari authorities regarding Al-Jazeera's coverage. Founded in 1996, Al-Jazeera is the most widely watched news channel in the Arab world. The 24-hour channel has revolutionized the Arabic news industry through uncensored news programs and open debates. Although the Qatari government subsidizes Al-Jazeera, the station has been widely praised for its editorial independence. Over the years, Al-Jazeera has drawn a steady stream of complaints from Arab governments angered by its reporting. "The U.S. administration is effectively urging Qatari authorities to interfere with what is essentially an independent news station," said CPJ executive director Ann Cooper. "Arab government attempts to influence Al-Jazeera have garnered widespread attention over the years. We are disheartened to see U.S. officials adopting similar tactics." CPJ sources and press reports indicate that U.S. officials were particularly disturbed by Al-Jazeera's frequent airings of its exclusive December 1998 interview with Osama bin Laden. The U.S. government was also irked by airtime given to analysts who expressed anti-American views and by an unconfirmed Al-Jazeera report that Taliban forces recently captured U.S. Special Forces troops inside Afghanistan.

http://www.cpj.org/news/2001/US04oct01na.html

Heh, so much for the US supporting freedom of speech. Also add to that BBC and CNN shots taken from Al Jazeera are regularly censored and edited in order to "prevent the public from seeing gruesome images" or in other words, to prevent the general public have second oppinions on the war when they see american marines with heads blown off.

Here's a list of countries around the world and how censored their media is. It won't surprise you that the USA aren't number one.

Go here.

wow, i'm very impressed to see Canada ranked 5th. Seriously, the french version of Radio-Canada has been very harsh toward american govt and media on their own coverage. Showing what Al Jazeera showed, showing press conferences from both sides (not like CNN who likes to cut short Iraqi conferences), dozen or so experts from around the world where everyone is specialized in his own domain debating american strategies, etc etc...

edit: my point is that a small channel like french radio-canada with little resources can do lots when informing people. All it needs is the right people at the top. CNN and the others who have incredible means and people all around are so partial, and that's because the owner decides to bow down to the Pentagone.

Very true. Problem is that those small media outlets usually do not get the coverage the big boys can afford. Even if you're independent, you still rely on someone's money to stay on the air or keep publishing, so you can't insult your sponsors. No news can be 100% unbiased.

Read the reasons for the US's low scores

quote:

The poor ranking of the United States (17th) is mainly because of the number of journalists arrested or imprisoned there. Arrests are often because they refuse to reveal their sources in court. Also, since the 11 September attacks, several journalists have been arrested for crossing security lines at some official buildings.

Two reasons that make sense. Another one is media outlets being owned by large corporations that serve other's interests and can't disseminate information that's harmful to current policies. In short, propaganda.

Blatant Proof that US Media is Biased

For Broadcast Media, Patriotism Pays
By Paul Farhi
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 28, 2003; Page C01

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2003Mar27.html

I just got through this article and it only confirms much of what I already knew about the media. The article discusses how the mighty dollar and ratings control the type of coverage that is given to the war. Essentially, since dissent and opposition views toward the war get low ratings, many media outlets are pushing pro-war sentiment inorder to get higher ratings. But wait, I thought journalist were supposed to present a balanced portrayal of what is happening?

If you want balanced reports as a journalist, you might as well clean off your desk at the big corporations. They're not in business to inform people, but to make money.

Netherlands #1

That's definitely not acceptable. Unfortunately, it doesn't really surprise me.

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