Originally Posted By crapshoot <a href="http://www.mrc.org/SpecialReports/2005/sum/sum101405.asp" target="_blank">http://www.mrc.org/SpecialRepo rts/2005/sum/sum101405.asp</a> Quote: But are network reporters giving the public an inordinately gloomy portrait of the situation, as some critics charge? Are the positive accomplishments of U.S. soldiers and Iraq¡¯s new democratic leaders being lost in a news agenda dominated by assassinations, car bombings and casualty reports? The answer to both questions is: Yes. This conclusion is based on a Media Research Center study of broadcast network news coverage of the Iraq war so far this year. MRC analysts reviewed all 1,388 Iraq stories broadcast on ABC¡¯s World News Tonight, the CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News from January 1 through September 30. (In 2006, the MRC will release a similar analysis of cable news coverage of Iraq.) Among the key findings: ¡ö Network coverage has been overwhelmingly pessimistic. More than half of all stories (848, or 61%) focused on negative topics or presented a pessimistic analysis of the situation, four times as many as featured U.S. or Iraqi achievements or offered an optimistic assessment (just 211 stories, or 15%). ¡ö News about the war has grown increasingly negative. In January and February, about a fifth of all network stories (21%) struck a hopeful note, while just over half presented a negative slant on the situation. By August and September, positive stories had fallen to a measly seven percent and the percentage of bad news stories swelled to 73 percent of all Iraq news, a ten-to-one disparity. ¡ö Terrorist attacks are the centerpiece of TV¡¯s war news. Two out of every five network evening news stories (564) featured car bombings, assassinations, kidnappings or other attacks launched by the terrorists against the Iraqi people or coalition forces, more than any other topic. ¡ö Even coverage of the Iraqi political process has been negative. More stories (124) focused on shortcomings in Iraq¡¯s political process ¡ª the danger of bloodshed during the January elections, political infighting among politicians, and fears that the new Iraqi constitution might spur more civil strife ¡ª than found optimism in the Iraqi people¡¯s historic march to democracy (92 stories). One-third of those optimistic stories (32) appeared on just two nights ¡ª January 30 and 31, just after Iraq¡¯s first successful elections. ¡ö Few stories focused on the heroism or generous actions of American soldiers. Just eight stories were devoted to recounting episodes of heroism or valor by U.S. troops, and another nine stories featured instances when soldiers reached out to help the Iraqi people. In contrast, 79 stories focused on allegations of combat mistakes or outright misconduct on the part of U.S. military personnel. ¡ö It¡¯s not as if there was no ¡°good news¡± to report. NBC¡¯s cameras found a bullish stock market and a hiring boom in Baghdad¡¯s business district, ABC showcased the coalition¡¯s successful effort to bring peace to a Baghdad thoroughfare once branded ¡°Death Street,¡± and CBS documented how the one-time battleground of Sadr City is now quiet and citizens are beginning to benefit from improved public services. Stories describing U.S. and Iraqi achievements provided essential context to the discouraging drumbeat of daily news, but were unfortunately just a small sliver of TV¡¯s Iraq news. It is probably predictable that journalists would emphasize bad news, but network TV¡¯s profoundly pessimistic coverage has shortchanged the accomplishments of both the U.S. military and Iraq¡¯s new leaders and has certainly contributed to the public¡¯s growing discontent with the war. Just as it would be wrong for reporters to conceal any bad news, it is wrong for journalists to downplay the good news that is being made in Iraq. Reporters have the responsibility to fully inform citizens about progress that is being made amid great sacrifice, and they are not doing so. Unquote And that's my opinion too. In no way do we get balanced and unbiased news reports from the main stream media on the war in Iraq. They may report truthfully, but they certainly don't report the whole story of Iraq. And that's the story I want. That way I can make informed opinions, not echo one sided stories with misdirected agendas.
Originally Posted By peeaanuut i like the series Off To War. it followed the guys around from day 1. If they sat around and talked, it showed them sitting around and talking. If they were filling sand bags, it showed them filling sandbags. The show didnt make up any drama. It simply showed what these soldiers were doing. Whether it be fighting or sitting.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>That way I can make informed opinions, not echo one sided stories with misdirected agendas.<< Sure, that's fair enough, but for what it's worth: "The mission of the Media Research Center is to bring balance and responsibility to the news media. Leaders of America's conservative movement have long believed that within the national news media a strident liberal bias existed that influenced the public's understanding of critical issues. On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove - through sound scientific research - that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene. What they launched that fall is the now acclaimed Media Research Center (MRC)." So they may or may not be painting a complete picture either. Certainley they're coming to the subject with an agenda, at the very least.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< And that's my opinion too. In no way do we get balanced and unbiased news reports from the main stream media on the war in Iraq. >>> That may be true, but it's far more balanced and far less unbiased than the so-called "fair and balanced" news that some people claim to deliver. <<< They may report truthfully, but they certainly don't report the whole story of Iraq. >>> You're talking about FOX News right? <<< ¡ö Few stories focused on the heroism or generous actions of American soldiers. Just eight stories were devoted to recounting episodes of heroism or valor by U.S. troops, and another nine stories featured instances when soldiers reached out to help the Iraqi people. >>> Who is saying that US troops are not heroic or generous? There may be some, but they are a tiny minority of those opposed to US action in Iraq. This stuff isn't emphasized in the media because it doesn't have any bering one way or the other on the essential mission in Iraq.
Originally Posted By peeaanuut its not saying they are not heroic, its saying that noone is showing that.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<This stuff isn't emphasized in the media because it doesn't have any bering one way or the other on the essential mission in Iraq.>> You say this while our media clearly under reported the importance of the previous two Iraqi elections and the upcoming 12/15 election will most likely generate the same level of response? Sorry, I don't buy these claims. Any other Administration would have gotten huge coverage and national cudos for these amazing steps that a Middle Eastern country was working diligently towards a lasting peace and a funcional democratic government. Not so with the Bush Administration. This Admin is so clearly hated by the Media, as it is by the Left side of the Aisle. That even some of the most important occurances are swept under the carpet so we can, not hear of a formerly oppressed nation voting in overwhelming numbers, but another sucide bomber blew something up. To watch Democracy in action, which started from less than nothing, should be the most important news story of the day. And I am so eagerly anticipating the 12/15 election. This must be one of the most apathetic periods in our Nation's history. Makes me sick.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan It's not that people are apathetic, it's that people are weary of all the back and forth spin 24/7.
Originally Posted By itsme Anyone ever notice how if someone critizes Walmart or some other big business for what or how it sells stuff they are wrong, cause they should be allowed to do business how they want to, and of course that gets them "libed". So why is it wrong that some news paper or station is not allowed to report the news they want. If we use the same model, as long as they dont break any laws or force anyone into something and they are not telling outright lies whats wrong with that? People who rip the Walmart haters should fully support them.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Because the news profession...at least in theory...should be impartial. That is how journalists are taught and that is the way it used to be. But now, news departments are being run by entertainment gurus and what is more important is... A. What the weather girl wears...not what she says. B. How many adjectives the sports guy can use to describe a slam dunk. (The sports, by the way...is about 3 minutes of the 1/2 local news these days...maybe less than that.) C. Which station can get the story first at the expense of the facts. D. Who can sell the most newspapers. The list goes on and on. I saw this in college and it is the biggest reason I dropped my media major.
Originally Posted By itsme Media is a business, they are in it to make money. Right or wrong as far as beliefs thats what they must do, report/print whatever sells to allow them to make the most money. The problem today is that no one knows how to change the channel if they dont like what hear. Its easier to whine and complain and try to change them, then it is to ignore.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Right or wrong as far as beliefs thats what they must do, report/print whatever sells to allow them to make the most money.> Then they're doing a terrible job. Circulation for newspapers are falling, as are ratings for network news. People are tired of the liberal slant to news from most outlets, and so they're turning it off.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Business didn't drive the media in yesteryear to the extent it does today. And why? Because these big entertainment conglomerates are buying up the news divisions and have placed an expectation that they should bring in the same kind of revenue as your Desparate Housewives and so forth. When Congress gave access to the electronic media to the news stations it was with the understanding that they would be providing a public service. I'm not sure that we are getting the kind of service Congress expected.
Originally Posted By itsme Im not sure it is just that people are getting sick of what they are saying. I think all the places today that one can get news have hurt everybody. As for papers, why buy one when you can go online and read most of the same stuff thats in the paper plus all the other options/outlets. Same for tv, before cable started to take off you bascalliy had 3 choices if you wanted to see news. Now you have at least 7. Take anything else, lets say you put one football game on, it will get big ratings, put another game on at the same time and the ratings will not be the same. As for the old days, yea not much is the same now as it was then. The media today is nothing like the media of old. Anyone who feels that its about anything other then the money is a fool.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Circulation for newspapers are falling, as are ratings for network news. People are tired of the liberal slant to news from most outlets, and so they're turning it off. << Falling circulation has far more to do with the internet and cable news outlets than it does with media bias.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy << Media is a business, they are in it to make money. >> Exactly, and FOX news is making the most money along with Rush Limbaugh. Why is this?? People don't buy the liberal slant that comes from a media that is 80% or more liberal. When we are clearly winning the war in Iraq ( according to the troops on the ground and the Iraqis themselves ) and amazing things are happening in the middle East, only to be told by the left wing media that the world is about to end and " holiday " shoppers are not spending much money.... people know it's BS. This is the reason CNN and the NY Times just for starters, are losing readers and viewers and are going into the tank.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper The day Phil Donahue put on a dress to boost ratings was the day everything started going in the tank. That proved that America was gullible and now everyone tries to one-up the next guy and it has filtered into news programming. A Current Affair and other fringe news programs were derided by the "mainstream media" for their unorthodox and some would say unscrupulous approach and now the mainstream is just as bad...if not worse...than those programs were in the early 90's. Hey...we, as a society, eat that crap up so we have only ourselves to blame.
Originally Posted By itsme >><< Media is a business, they are in it to make money. >> Exactly, and FOX news is making the most money along with Rush Limbaugh. ------ So you admit its all about the money and not so much reporting the truth. :} Phil looked nice but his legs were not so hot.
Originally Posted By itsme >>A Current Affair and other fringe news programs were derided by the "mainstream media" for their unorthodox and some would say unscrupulous approach and now the mainstream is just as bad...if not worse...than those programs were in the early 90's. ------- Hey if not for A Current affair we might not have O'Reily.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy I think media keeps their numbers up by reporting news that isn't slanted so far one direction that the viewers get to the point where they can't trust the reports. Fox news is down the middle but appears right compared to the HEAVY left leaning MSM. Rush is # 1 because he is A) Optimistic and pro America. B) He can back up what he says and usually is right after the fact.
