Friday, January 12, 2007

What is the media reporting on now?

     Most days I check out the mainstream media and see what they're reporting on, just for shits and giggles. Today I wanted to see how the media was responding to Bush's call for an escalation in Iraq (20,000 more troops for the slaughter), the fact that polls show that 71% of Americans are opposed to Bush's plan, and also Bush's aggressive statements towards Iran and Syria. I remember back in high school we were told that we needed a President to make decisions because the process of democracy is often too slow to react quickly if the need arises. I don't remember the part where the the President gets to do whatever the fuck he wants, especially if public opinion is directly opposed to it. Withdrawal from Iraq? No, silly citizens, we're sending in more troops. Going to recall me? Too bad, you can't. Impeach me? Too bad, you don't control the Congress or House, and in half of the states you can't recall them. In fact, most of you didn't even have a choice to elect a peace candidate in November to begin with! As always, direct action is the only way to control our lives and our world. I may talk about this later, especially if a war with Iran starts to look imminent.

    Anyway, I just downloaded this great extension for Firefox which lets me save screenshots of the web pages I go to. I made some comments on the news websites I visited. As you'll see, the US media is utter bullshit. Al Jazeera, however, was quite impressive. You may want to click on the photo to make it larger and easier to read. Am I the only one who thinks that ongoing, escalating, and upcoming war is something that should be the focus of reporting in a civilized society?



CNN (morning)

CNN (hour later)

Fox "News"

Al Jazeera (my new mainstream news source)


Aerik said...

Whoa. Now if only when I allow Google to link to other news search sites it'd link to Al Jezeera.

purpleXed said...

I wonder if media observers are inviting professional and academic attention over the irresponsible treatment of the way saddam's last moments have been commented upon.
These issues bear a direct impact on all future efforts in the cause of justice.

Perhaps the way Saddam's last moments have been commented about on other news channels leaves many viewers wondering about a just treatment to such issues.

Well-established media outlets who tend to lecture about decency in standards were expected to demonstrate a cautious approach to execution of justice in troubled circumstances. In fact media watch dogs like "Accuracy in Media", "Honest Reporting" and Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) proved quite soft over the insensitive way some US channels
ignore the implications on future efforts to promote justice in Iraq and elsewhere.

Mookie said...

Ha! Faux Nooz is blatant propaganda. I know why people watch it, though. They want to be told these things. Comforting and reassuring, and with the least amount of concern and mental participation on their part.

vjack said...

I'd never heard of that Firefox extension, but I think I'll have to check it out. Thanks for the tip.

Tanooki Joe said...

I always thought there was something to the argument that the invention of 24-hour news services actually makes it harder to get real information, since the news carries so much filler now that genuine reporting is buried under all the crap.

Delta said...


It's too bad that it doesn't. Not that Al-Jazeera doesn't have the same forces on it that bias it the way our media is, but since it's more foreign it cares less about our celebrities and more on actual news.


I don't usually watch the mainsteam media, but from what I've heard Saddam's execution was in rather poor taste (as if executions are ever in good taste).


Have you read "What's the Matter With Kansas?". It's actually a pretty good book about why people buy the whole BS conservative outlook and culture war mentality.

tanooki joe,

That's a good point. Perhaps it would be better if the news stations dedicated 23 hours of their programming to celebrity worship, but let us know that that's what they were going to be covering. Then, at 6 pm, they could have an hour of hard-hitting, actual news. I think that would be an improvement. Unfortunately media companies don't make money by making the news, they make money from advertisers, and they get more advertising dollars by keeping a large audience that isn't upset about world events and is ready to purchase products.

d said...

nice comparisons. i'd always considered most of those sites "pop news" anyway, favoring the new york times, washington post, or bbc sites (or NPR while driving) for the real, meaty info. thanks for alerting me to al-jazeera though...i'll have to check it out