OT: Another reason I don't care for modern journalism

[Dutch]

U.S. Lawmakers Tour Guantanamo Bay Prison
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor.../us_guantanamo

By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer
28 minutes ago

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba - American lawmakers on Saturday were touring the U.S. prison for suspected terrorists for the first time since recent harsh condemnation of Guantanamo detainees' treatment and renewed demands that the camp close.

"Guantanamo has become a lightening rod," said Rep. Ellen Tauscher (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif.

She was one of 16 members of the House Armed Services Committee who were on a one-day fact-finding trip. Sens Ben Nelson, D-Neb., and Ron Wyden, D-Ore., were visiting the prison separately.

Lawmakers from both parties fear that the prison at the U.S. Navy base has become an image problem because of claims that U.S. interrogators abuse and torture inmates.

It seems reasonable that the media could use their "investigative journalism" to verify whether or not this image is fair or not? Instead, all they do is keep pushing the image and creating division.

The chairman of the House committee, Rep. Duncan Hunter (news, bio, voting record), said such criticism amounted to "wild accusations." Hunter, R-Calif., blamed "propagandists" for spreading "rumor and innuendo" to hurt the U.S.

Those wacky Republicans!

Under increasing attacks over conditions at the prison, the White House and Pentagon have defended almost daily the conditions and treatment of detainees at Guantanamo.

At a recent news conference, President Bush went so far as to invite journalists to see the prison and see that the allegations were false.

Sounds reasonable as well, is the media ever going to accept this invitation and find out for themselves? Don't we all want to know more fact and less "rumor", "innuendo" and "propaganda"?

Just last week, human rights investigators for the United Nations urged the U.S. to allow them inside to inspect the facility. They cited "persistent and credible" reports of "serious allegations of torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees" as well as arbitrary detentions and violations of rights.

In response, Vice President Dick Cheney told CNN on Thursday that the detainees are well treated, well fed and "living in the tropics."

In response to what? Human Rights investigators? That doesn't make any sense. The UN asked for permission, did Cheney say "yes" or "no"? Is Cheney responsable for granting permission? What's the real story? And can the Vice-President of the United States be afforded at least one complete sentence in quotations like the good Democrat from California?

The prison on the base in eastern Cuba opened in January 2002 to house foreigners believed to be linked to the ousted Taliban in Afghanistan or al-Qaida. U.S. officials hoped to gather intelligence from the detainees after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001.

I don't know I agree with the wording here either. This seems to suggests they could have been picked up on the streets of New York. Is it so hard to also mention that they were picked up on battlegrounds in Afghanistan and later Iraq? If we can repeat "Axis of Evil" ad naseaum, can we not also repeat, "picked up on a battlefield" Otherwise this really just provides ammo for those who believe all these probable terrorists are "victims".

Bush declared the detainees "enemy combatants," affording them fewer rights than prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions. Some detainees have been held for three years without being charged with any crimes even though the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled they have some rights.

How about, "Bush, citing the US approved 'Law of Armed Conflict', has agreed with the military classification of detainees being "unlawful enemy combatants". This casts doubt on their standing under Geneva Convention rules and guidelines.

An FBI report last year cited cases of aggressive interrogation techniques and detainee mistreatment.

Condemnation of Guantanamo intensified this spring after Newsweek magazine published — and later retracted — a story that claimed interrogators flushed the Muslim holy book down a toilet.

It may be false, but let's just call the story "retracted" and repeat the flushing of the Muslim holy book down the toilet over and over again.

The Bush administration condemned the report and blamed it for deadly demonstrations in Afghanistan and protests throughout the Middle East. A Pentagon investigation later disclosed five instances of U.S. guards' mishandling the Quran.

Well, I guess we could find it important to note that Bush blamed Newsweek. But what really happened is that Afghans and Middle Easterners blamed the USA, causing much unrest and discontent and even death and severely hurt the image of the US in the Middle East.

Amnesty International then branded Guantanamo "the gulag of our time," compared it with the Soviet work camps where thousands of people perished, and alleged a pattern of mistreatment similar to that at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.

Nobody agrees with this. So why is it important to continue to post this nonsense?

The administration says any proven infractions were isolated.

The debate about Guantanamo's role has taken center stage in Washington.

Presidents Carter and Clinton joined fellow Democrats in saying that it should be shot down. Even some Republicans have questioned whether it should stay open.

Why does Carter and Clinton say it should be (shut) down? Did they find some proof of wrong-doing? Or was this simply suggested due to the accumulation of "rumor and innuendo" that's taken it's toll on Guantanamo?

White House officials say there are no plans to close the facility because the detainees are too dangerous to release while the fight against terrorism continues.

This was probably a fair time to mention that some who have been released have returned to fighting US Soldiers.

About 520 prisoners are held at Guantanamo. Already, $110 million has been spent on construction at the base. The prison costs about $95 million a year to operate.

Lawmakers in both parties want Congress to take a stand on the legal rights of detainees. Other lawmakers are pushing for an independent commission to investigate abuse allegations. The White House objects and says the Pentagon already has investigated.

The last lawmaker to visit the prison was Rep. Vito Fossella (news, bio, voting record), R-N.Y., in March. Not including Saturday's trip, 11 senators and 77 representatives have toured the prison.

I rate the story as not so much a "Liberal Slanted" story (although I can assure you the writer would vote left by my assessment of the writing style.) but a partisan hack job to stir controversy--and this is an Associated Press source journalist. It provided very little supporting evidence, very little fairness to both sides of the debate, and definately was fixated more on the partisanship of Guantanamo than the facts of Guantanamo.

That's my Weekend Rant on the State of our Media. Thanks for reading and to be fair, please post your own article showing right-slanted articles that stir controversy. The truth is knowing both sides of a story.

[st.cronin]

Nice de-construction. My own feelings are that Guantanamo should be shut down, or at least have it's mission radically reshaped. You just can't lock people up indefinitely today; I think there needs to be some sort of trial function, even a military tribunal.

But, yeah, the media can be farcical at times. If your 'independent thinking' chops aren't up to speed, they press will have it's way with you.

[Greyroofoo]

whats a "lawful enemy combatant?"

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

whats a "lawful enemy combatant?"

Here are the Geneva Convention Definitions.

Combatants
The Geneva Conventions distinguish between lawful combatants, noncombatants, and unlawful combatants.

Lawful Combatants. A lawful combatant is an individual authorized by governmental authority or the LOAC to engage in hostilities. A lawful combatant may be a member of a regular armed force or an irregular force. In either case, the lawful combatant must be commanded by a person responsible for subordinates; have fixed distinctive emblems recognizable at a distance, such as uniforms; carry arms openly; and conduct his or her combat operations according to the LOAC. The LOAC applies to lawful combatants who engage in the hostilities of armed conflict and provides combatant immunity for their lawful warlike acts during conflict, except for LOAC violations.

Noncombatants. These individuals are not authorized by overnmental authority or the LOAC to engage in hostilities. In fact, they do not engage in hostilities. This category includes civilians accompanying the Armed Forces; combatants who are out of combat, such as POWs and the wounded, and certain military personnel who are members of the Armed Forces not authorized to engage in combatant activities, such as medical personnel and chaplains. Noncombatants may not be made the object of direct attack. They may, however, suffer injury or death incident to a direct attack on a military objective without such an attack violating the LOAC, if such attack is on a lawful target by lawful means.

Unlawful Combatants. Unlawful combatants are individuals who directly participate in hostilities without being authorized by governmental authority or under international law to do so. For example, bandits who rob and plunder and civilians who attack a downed airman are unlawful combatants. Unlawful combatants who engage in hostilities violate LOAC and become lawful targets. They may be killed or wounded and, if captured, may be tried as war criminals for their LOAC violations.

Undetermined Status. Should doubt exist as to whether an individual is a lawful combatant, noncombatant, or an unlawful combatant, such person shall be extended the protections of the Geneva Prisoner of War Convention until status is determined. The capturing nation must convene a competent tribunal to determine the detained person’s status.

Under conventional situations, all combatants are restrained until peace-time. As long as there is a "Global War on Terrorism" or even a "War in Iraq" which seems fair to say is part of the defined GWOT, it is our military's determination that these guys will have to wait for a tribunal unless those detained are proven to not be guilty of being belligerant.

Also - A legitimate "insurgency" for instance would also follow LOAC and only attack Military/Governmental forces. An illegitimate "insurgency" such as the terrorists in Iraq today would tend to disregard LOAC and bomb mosque's and civilians. Hence my wish that the media would call them terrorists, or at least a "terror-insurgency" instead of the mis-understood legal term "insurgent".

[MrBigglesworth]

Here is my wacky right-wing hack job deconstruction for the week:

Originally Posted by Dutch

It seems reasonable that the media could use their "investigative journalism" to verify whether or not this image is fair or not? Instead, all they do is keep pushing the image and creating division.

Are you completely discounting the FBI report? The report alleging torture that Durbin quoted on the Senate floor came from the FBI, who has always had more access to the detainees than the media.

Originally Posted by Dutch

Sounds reasonable as well, is the media ever going to accept this invitation and find out for themselves? Don't we all want to know more fact and less "rumor", "innuendo" and "propaganda"?

You obviously have proof that the media has NOT accepted this invitation, don't you? As well as proof that they are given full access? Or is this just an empty claim that you are throwing out?

Originally Posted by Dutch

The UN asked for permission, did Cheney say "yes" or "no"? Is Cheney responsable for granting permission? What's the real story? And can the Vice-President of the United States be afforded at least one complete sentence in quotations like the good Democrat from California?

Chenet et al said no: hxxp://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0506/S00404.htm. How not mentioning this is a sign of lefty bias (accusations which the rest of your paragraph drips with), I cannot fathom. And here is Cheney's full quote:

They’re very well treated down there. They’re living in the tropics. They’re well fed. They’ve got everything they could possibly want. There isn’t any other nation in the world that would treat people who were determined to kill Americans the way we’re treating these people.

How leaving the whole thing out for space reasons is a sign of liberalism, I cannot fathom. It seems like just an empty attack.

Originally Posted by Dutch

I don't know I agree with the wording here either. This seems to suggests they could have been picked up on the streets of New York. Is it so hard to also mention that they were picked up on battlegrounds in Afghanistan and later Iraq? If we can repeat "Axis of Evil" ad naseaum, can we not also repeat, "picked up on a battlefield" Otherwise this really just provides ammo for those who believe all these probable terrorists are "victims".

We might be able to repeat that, if "picked up on a battlefield" wouldn't be just completely horseshit. Prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay have been picked up in many different countries, including. Furthermore, to say they were picked up on a 'battlefield' would imply that they are prisoners of war, and the Bush administration has refused to grant them that status.

Originally Posted by Dutch

How about, "Bush, citing the US approved 'Law of Armed Conflict', has agreed with the military classification of detainees being "unlawful enemy combatants". This casts doubt on their standing under Geneva Convention rules and guidelines.

Geneva requires a trial to make that determination:

Originally Posted by Conv. III Art. 5

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

The author could have just as easily said flat out that Bush is violating the Geneva convention.

Originally Posted by Dutch

[COLOR=Royal Blue]Well, I guess we could find it important to note that Bush blamed Newsweek. But what really happened is that Afghans and Middle Easterners blamed the USA, causing much unrest and discontent and even death and severely hurt the image of the US in the Middle East.[/color]

That's incorrect, the riots had nothing to do with Koran abuse stories. Any blaming of the US was because we invaded their countries.

Originally Posted by Dutch

Nobody agrees with this. So why is it important to continue to post this nonsense?

Nobody agrees with what, that Amnesty said that? I disagree, Amnesty did say that. The right wing is attempting to make the debate about what it is ok to compare Gitmo to instead of whether the actions are being conducted under our name are correct.

Originally Posted by Dutch

Why does Carter and Clinton say it should be (shut) down? Did they find some proof of wrong-doing? Or was this simply suggested due to the accumulation of "rumor and innuendo" taken it's toll on Guantanamo?

The author of the article assumes that the reader hasn't been living on Mars for the past couple months, and assumes the reader does not consider the FBI a bastion of 'rumor and innuendo', which all goes to explain why that paragraph wasn't explained further.

Originally Posted by Dutch

This was probably a fair time to mention that some who have been released have returned to fighting US Soldiers.

Or to mention that they have no plans to try the detainees in court.

In summary, just your typical right wing attack on the media, complete with empty attacks, incorrect facts, and outrage at the article not being more partisan in favor of the Bush administration.

[Dutch]

MrBigglesworth,

I asked for a "lightning rod" issue to be written about with fairness. I did not ask for the Bill O'Reilly cliff-notes, nor the Michael Moore cliff-notes on the issue. But since we are getting the Michael Moore cliff-notes, give me Bill's also, so I can be better informed.

Why are you so afraid of having both sides accounted for in a news article?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Why are you so afraid of having both sides accounted for in a news article?

Because both sides WERE accounted for and the media has been right of center since the 2000 election, at least. The right is, at this time, saying things that are completely batshit insane and demanding equal time. For example, Rove said that the motivation of all liberals is to kill our troops. Durbin said that if you were to read the FBI agent's account at Gitmo, you'd think that some crazy regime were conducting this torture. And the right is demanding, at best, that they be treated as equal by the media. Even if the Dem's take a moderate position (for instance, that torture is bad), the GOP will take a hard line position and demand the media coverage be in the middle, so that the coverage ends up being to the right.

I pointed out obvious lies and empty attacks in your 'analysis', so please tell me where I entered crazy liberal land.

[jeff061]

The media has been scared to take anything near a liberal stance since 9/11, lest all the jackasses come out and brand them unamerican or non patriotic.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by jeff061

The media has been scared to take anything near a liberal stance since 9/11, lest all the jackasses come out and brand them unamerican or non patriotic.

I disagree.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Dutch

MrBigglesworth,

I asked for a "lightning rod" issue to be written about with fairness. I did not ask for the Bill O'Reilly cliff-notes, nor the Michael Moore cliff-notes on the issue. But since we are getting the Michael Moore cliff-notes, give me Bill's also, so I can be better informed.

Why are you so afraid of having both sides accounted for in a news article?

Roffle- he just deconstructed your attempt to highlight every news article as "liberal", and you dodge it with a "why are you afraid" ? Classic Dutch.

[Honolulu_Blue]

You wanna know my reason for not caring for modern "news" media. Here's item #1:

Huffington says that on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox News and MSNBC combined, there were 56 segments on the [Downing Street] memo, 646 on Natalee [missing Aruba girl] and 1,490 on [Michael] Jackson.

That liberal media is OUT OF CONTROL!

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Roffle- he just deconstructed your attempt to highlight every news article as "liberal", and you dodge it with a "why are you afraid" ? Classic Dutch.

He simply reapplied the liberal slant. I'd say he reconstructed the article.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

He simply reapplied the liberal slant. I'd say he reconstructed the article.

What liberal slant? You started pulling out accusations out of your backside with no proof, calling it liberal for omitting information damaging to the administration, and saying the article should have included things that are false. If that is what you think a 'balanced' article is, then no wonder you feel the media is so liberal. You could say my last point ("Or to mention that they have no plans to try the detainees in court.") had a liberal slant (assuming, of course, that due process is a liberal concept), but that was only offered to contrast your conservative point that you made, to show that the author was being somewhat balanced by not including either point.

In short, that is just a typical AP article trying to get through the facts in as short a space as possible. There is no evidence for it being any kind of partisan hack job.

[ISiddiqui]

Now, I consider the media to have a slight liberal bias, but I really didn't see it in that article. To paint it as a 'partizan hackjob' is pulling the wool over your eyes, frankly.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Now, I consider the media to have a slight liberal bias, but I really didn't see it in that article. To paint it as a 'partizan hackjob' is pulling the wool over your eyes, frankly.

I could be wrong, that's fair to say, I think.

It is my perception (as somebody on the right) that my logic and reasoning is not be given a fair shake of things in the mainstream media. It is also my perception that the left is getting fair treatment in the media. And that is as simple as it gets to explaining the conflict.

[Greyroofoo]

Personally with the likes of Bill O' Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage I fail to see how the media is liberal

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

Personally with the likes of Bill O' Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage I fail to see how the media is liberal

I agree those guys are not liberal! But they are not providing us news. They are interpreting the news by editorializing it.

If we would rather call the AP, Rueters, AFP, Nightly News casts, Cable News "editorials" then I wouldn't have much to say about the news being misrepresented. But they are not "editorial" pieces. They are supposed to tell us what's going on in the world.

The newspapers and news sources have constitutional protection to protect all Americans. Not just liberals. I am insistant that they tell us all the facts, not just the one's that their writers feel are important to their political party.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I am insistant that they tell us all the facts, not just the one's that their writers feel are important to their political party.

Too bad you don't hold our government to the same standards.

[jeff061]

??

The terrorists hate our freedom and we went into Iraq to get rid of WMD's and free the Iraqis right? What are you getting at blue?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Too bad you don't hold our government to the same standards.

That is a very wrong interpretation of my views. I absolutley insist our government is held accountable.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

It is my perception (as somebody on the right) that my logic and reasoning is not be given a fair shake of things in the mainstream media. It is also my perception that the left is getting fair treatment in the media. And that is as simple as it gets to explaining the conflict.

So, you are on the right, and the media is to the left of you, therefore they are liberal? If you are going to define 'liberal' as anything to the right of you, then I am not going to argue with you that the media is liberal. In recent memory, what exactly has the media not given the right a fair shake on?

Originally Posted by Dutch

That is a very wrong interpretation of my views. I absolutley insist our government is held accountable.

So who should be held accountable in the current administration, and for what? Just a couple of examples...

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I agree those guys are not liberal! But they are not providing us news. They are interpreting the news by editorializing it.

Never-the-less these guys are a huge part of the media (how much does Rush make?) and most of the time they are partaking in liberal bashing propaganda

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

Never-the-less these guys are a huge part of the media (how much does Rush make?) and most of the time they are partaking in liberal bashing propaganda

Actually, all of the time. I'm not sure about "huge part of the media". I always thought radio (and AM in particular) was dwarfed by national TV and major newspapers?

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

Never-the-less these guys are a huge part of the media (how much does Rush make?) and most of the time they are partaking in liberal bashing propaganda

I'm not really sure those guys are even technically part of the media. They are entertainers moseso than anything, but they aren't Journalists. It is really Journalism that most conservatives have issue with being slanted. This is, in my opinion, because most journalists find their political homeland somewhere left of center. Dutch's point, or part of it I believe, is that the guy mentioned salacious items just to sling a bit of mud at the administration. From my perspective, it was a wholly worthless article, and a pretty shoddy piece of journalism. It offered little if any original information, and gave no dpeth to that which it referrenced. So in my opinion it was crap moreso than liberal crap.

The media is also, as referenced above, anti-establishment. That is why they ran Clinton through the ringer to the degree they did his second term.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

So, you are on the right, and the media is to the left of you, therefore they are liberal? If you are going to define 'liberal' as anything to the right of you, then I am not going to argue with you that the media is liberal. In recent memory, what exactly has the media not given the right a fair shake on?

This article in particular. It's hardly a very good interpretation of what Cheney had said and Cheney isn't even the authority on the matter. He's the Vice-President.

Oh, and likewise, if you would describe the mainstream media as center from your vantage point, I'll think you understand why I see it as so liberal in it's stance.

So who should be held accountable in the current administration, and for what? Just a couple of examples...

President Bush - He should be protecting our borders. There is a GWOT and it is real. People do want to kill us and they do want to humiliate us or embarrass us. They will find easy ways to get into this country again one day and blow things up. That's what terrorists do. Our borders, both Canada and Mexico are ill-equipped to verify who is coming in and out of our country and Bush is not going to touch it for fear he will lose votes.

President Bush/Colin Powell (previous) failed to put proper emphasis on all aspects of Saddam Hussein's belligerence. Iraq failed the UN on 17 different counts and failed the US on the 1991 cease-fire agreement. The failure to find the whereabouts of Iraq's WMD's has put egg on the USA's face that would otherwise have been unwarranted provided they spent more time highlighting the less-glamorous ways of Saddam Hussein.

The Intelligence Community - They have been in shambles since HUMINT was shelved. Holding Iraq as evidence, we simply cannot take snapshots of the ground and expect to know everything. We need to reform the intelligence community and grant them the power to find out what's going on behind enemy lines. I honestly believe that "It's a slam dunk" was the operative phrase in the intel community prior to Gulf War II and nobody questioned it. That's a serious problem. We need guys on the ground that can tell us what's really going on so our administrations (current and future) can make informed decisions based on real information.

The US Military - We have to be perfect in everything we do. We cannot be renegades, we cannot lose discipline, we cannot loosen up for one minute when we are deployed in a combat/hostile zone. We need to be professionals. There is no doubt in my mind that those idiots in Abu Graib were left to their own devices and were just having fun. But what they failed to comprehend was the gravity of what they were doing if caught. I was bitterly upset at the sight of those pictures and knew that terrorist recruiting numbers would go up and US soldiers would die at their hands because of those pictures. When our military members fuck up, it changes peoples minds. We have so few friends as it is, we have no time for dumb-asses like that bringing the wrath of even more suicide bombers and protestors.

How do you hold them accountable? There are checks and balances built in to the American system. Executive-->Legistlative-->Judicial. If there is real cause for alarm, you may impeach the President at any time. Failing confidence in our American Democratic system, there is the free constitutionaly protected and unchecked media that is supposed to tell us all the facts so we can be informed enough to be able to make an informed vote come election day.

As for those that are not elected officials? You hold inquiries and investigate them. When they have done something wrong? You punish them via military or civilian court, dependent on their status.

[Radii]

Dutch,

I was pretty hard on some of your views in the "death throes" thread so I thought I should come on over to this one and agree wholeheardetly with most of your statements in your original post. Much of the article you posted here is riddled with buzzwords and a dumbed down version of facts.

Without getting into personal politics b/c this thread *could* be a pretty interesting discussion of the biases, dumbing down, and sensationalism of the media, I have a question for you. What do you think of NPR? The reason I jumped on the "death throes" thread was because I had heard one of the best NPR presentations on this story that same day on my way home. An excellent description of the facts of the story, with the views of both sides presented without emotion or editorial. While some people hold that NPR is an extrodinarily liberal organization, I have always found that their presentation of stories (specificlaly in this case on "All Things Considered", the show I listen to primarily) is very often as unbiased as I can find anywhere. One of their commentators(Daniel Shore) I have a very very strong dislike for, he comes across as a liberal nutjob every time he comments on a story. But when presenting their news stories, I find them to be the only place I can go for news and only receive a minimal amount of bias.

I still read CNN and Foxnews just to get the different perspectives, but doing either one is painful.


Any Daily Show fans still reading in here? There was a journalist on the show last week(I think last week...) who had a pretty good interview, and one of his main points was about a lack of solid investigative journalism... seems pretty appropriate based on the first post in this thread. Sorry to see I didn't get in here before it devolved into the inevitable.

[st.cronin]

I love "All Things Considered." I don't think the show (or NPR) is particularly liberal; I think the hosts and producers are almost certainly left-leaning, but their guests are as likely to be conservative as liberal, and it's just not useful to think about the show in terms of liberal-conservative bias.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Radii

...

Without getting into personal politics b/c this thread *could* be a pretty interesting discussion of the biases, dumbing down, and sensationalism of the media, I have a question for you. What do you think of NPR? The reason I jumped on the "death throes" thread was because I had heard one of the best NPR presentations on this story that same day on my way home. An excellent description of the facts of the story, with the views of both sides presented without emotion or editorial. While some people hold that NPR is an extrodinarily liberal organization, I have always found that their presentation of stories (specificlaly in this case on "All Things Considered", the show I listen to primarily) is very often as unbiased as I can find anywhere. One of their commentators(Daniel Shore) I have a very very strong dislike for, he comes across as a liberal nutjob every time he comments on a story. But when presenting their news stories, I find them to be the only place I can go for news and only receive a minimal amount of bias.
...

I am a big NPR/All Things Considered fan myself, and for the most part I agree with Radii's assessment. For the most part, they do a very good job of at least presenting both sides of a story. There are occasions when I detect a definite left spin, but there are also rare occasions when there is story with a bit of a Conservative agenda. I still think they lean a bit to the left, but they are much more middle of the road than CNN and occasionally the AP.

[Arles]

Comparing the world news AP (and esp Reuters) to NPR is like comparing Rush Limbaugh to the Wall Street Journal. While there is a certain lean to the left on NPR, most of their shows (esp All Things Considered) are done in a responsible manner. The global news AP is simply a group of anti-establishment bleeding hearts that entered journalism to "save the world" and view their job as more of a "crusade against the powerful" than to accurately report the news.

[CamEdwards]

I've noticed some awfully shoddy and one-sided reporting from AP lately. The day after the first round of elections in Iran, when virtually every other media outlet was reporting the fact that moderate candidates were declaring the election wrought with fraud, that newspapers had been shut down as a result of candidates speaking out, etc... AP runs a story about how Bush is responsible for the hard-liner's victory.

Apparently Bush got moderates to switch to vote for the hard-liner candidate after he said Iran's elections were not going to be fair, based on the actions of that country's Governning Council.

It was odd to say the least.

[Dutch]

Rep. Duncan Hunter described conditions at Gitmo on FoxNews. He described the meal of the day was Chicken in Orange Sauce and the politicians ate the same thing the prisoners did. He said this was not something prepared special for the politicians, but was on the weekly menu.

He noted that there are arrows all over camp that point towards Mecca and 5 times per day at the designated Islamic times, the whole camp stops to allow the prisoners time to pray. They pray on US Tax Dollar funded prayer rugs.

He said the military medical facilities rival that of any HMO. That unlike American soldiers who are POW's, these detainees are allowed lawyers and over 100 of them do have lawyers.

No mention of it being a Soviet Gulag or Nazi Holocaust from him.

Senators from Congress will be next to visit Gitmo. I will be interested to see what they say.

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by Dutch

FoxNews

I imagine Foxnews is the bastion of unbiased reporting for you.

[jeff061]

By the way, this should be pretty obvious. Out of the thousands of prisoners at Gitmo 95% are treated relativley well, most likely because a good number of them were baking bread in their homes when they got picked up and nearly all of them are of no benefit to us. So nothing but bad press comes out of treating them anything less than good.

The other 5% are being tortured viciously. Which, quite frankly, I'm fine with. However no one is going to witness this other than those doing the torturing. This is, however what, gets reported on. Single bad wipes away a thousand goods. That applies to about everything in life.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Rep. ... No mention of it being a Soviet Gulag or Nazi Holocaust from him.

Shocking.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by jeff061

By the way, this should be pretty obvious. Out of the thousands of prisoners at Gitmo 95% are treated relativley well, most likely because a good number of them were baking bread in their homes when they got picked up and nearly all of them are of no benefit to us. So nothing but bad press comes out of treating them anything less than good.

The other 5% are being tortured viciously. Which, quite frankly, I'm fine with. However no one is going to witness this other than those doing the torturing. This is, however what, gets reported on. Single bad wipes away a thousand goods. That applies to about everything in life.

This is exactly right! This is why Dutch is completely missing the point when he talks about their meals or whatever. Torture does NOT get balanced out by having arrows pointing to Mecca! If we chain people to the ceiling and make it so hot in their cell that they pull their own hair out during the night, we can't give them a nice chicken dinner and call it even!

Now, you may be fine with viciously torturing them, I am not, and I bet a majority of the American people are not, which is why Dutch has to do these rediculous spin jobs.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I've noticed some awfully shoddy and one-sided reporting from AP lately. The day after the first round of elections in Iran, when virtually every other media outlet was reporting the fact that moderate candidates were declaring the election wrought with fraud, that newspapers had been shut down as a result of candidates speaking out, etc... AP runs a story about how Bush is responsible for the hard-liner's victory.

Apparently Bush got moderates to switch to vote for the hard-liner candidate after he said Iran's elections were not going to be fair, based on the actions of that country's Governning Council.

It was odd to say the least.

Actually, that sounds about right... and is a point I've made. Americans engage in a rally around the government when some foriegner criticizes our system. Why should Iran be any different? Based on Iran's history, I thought it was VERY poor form for Bush to be blasting the election before it happened. If you want to blast it, do it afterwards, so people don't rally around the hardliners (remember Iranians rallied around the clerics after the whole "Axis of Evil" thing) right before the freaking election!

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Actually, that sounds about right... and is a point I've made. Americans engage in a rally around the government when some foriegner criticizes our system. Why should Iran be any different? Based on Iran's history, I thought it was VERY poor form for Bush to be blasting the election before it happened. If you want to blast it, do it afterwards, so people don't rally around the hardliners (remember Iranians rallied around the clerics after the whole "Axis of Evil" thing) right before the freaking election!

It's a bad idea, unless that is what you WANT to happen.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

This is exactly right! This is why Dutch is completely missing the point when he talks about their meals or whatever. Torture does NOT get balanced out by having arrows pointing to Mecca! If we chain people to the ceiling and make it so hot in their cell that they pull their own hair out during the night, we can't give them a nice chicken dinner and call it even!

Now, you may be fine with viciously torturing them, I am not, and I bet a majority of the American people are not, which is why Dutch has to do these rediculous spin jobs.

If you think what I wrote there is spin, you simply don't understand what fair journalism is all about. I'm sorry if you think the left-wing should get their viewpoints made and the Republicans should be shrouded in one-word or two word-quotables. That's completely off the mark for respectable journalism. Especially in a case where thare are clearly two-sides to this conflict.

[jeff061]

Of course there is two sides. But one side is describing it like it's a friggen paradise in the tropics. It's a prison. They are trying to extract information from these guys, that means making them very uncomfortable. You think they just make fun of their moms there? No, they treat them like dirt til they talk. There's a reason why they don't report on everything the right says, it's propaganda. Poorly thought out at that.

Liberty Liberty Freedom, Terrorists Freedom Liberty.

Christ I used to take pride in the fact that I couldn't class myself politically. This administration ruined that.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by jeff061

Of course there is two sides. But one side is describing it like it's a friggen paradise in the tropics. It's a prison. They are trying to extract information from these guys, that means making them very uncomfortable. You think they just make fun of their moms there? No, they treat them like dirt til they talk. There's a reason why they don't report on everything the right says, it's propaganda. Poorly thought out at that.

Liberty Liberty Freedom, Terrorists Freedom Liberty.

Christ I used to take pride in the fact that I couldn't class myself politically. This administration ruined that.

So you are suggesting that knowing the details of Gitmo are to be banned from AP news stories and only "rumor and innuendo" should be presented?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

If you think what I wrote there is spin, you simply don't understand what fair journalism is all about.

Dutch, try to stay with me here. The other side of "we should stop torturing these prisoners" is not "they eat chicken dinners and live in the tropics". If the democrats were saying, "they eat gruel", the other side would be, "they eat chicken dinners". If the Democrats side was "they live in the snowy tundra", the other side would be, "they live in the tropics". But the GOP 'side' that you are trying to pimp here does nothing to address the actual side of the Democrats, hence it is nothing but spin. If I said, "this guy has a blue hat on," and you pointed to 5 other guys that have red hats on, that does not address nor disprove the fact that the guy I pointed to has a blue hat on. Similarly, if I say, "these people are being tortured", and you point to a bunch of other guys that are being treated well, that does nothing to address nor disprove that anyone is being tortured. It's just spin.

And spare me the 'rumor and innuendo'. The FBI report that Durbin read has not been challenged to my knowledge. And let's not forget that much, much worse stuff that is going on around the world in places such as Abu Ghraib and Bagram.

[Dutch]

You are missing the point. Without those chicken dinners with orange sauce, the place is a 'Russian Gulag' according to the newstory. The actual living conditions of these people are paramount to the true story of Guantanamo Bay Prison.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The actual living conditions of these people are paramount to the true story of Guantanamo Bay Prison.

No, the true story is the detentions without trial (or is that rumor or innuendo?) and the (hopefully) small minority that are being tortured. THAT is what drew the gulag comparison. Not the dinners being served.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Dutch

You are missing the point. Without those chicken dinners with orange sauce, the place is a 'Russian Gulag' according to the newstory. The actual living conditions of these people are paramount to the true story of Guantanamo Bay Prison.

This is why spin-meisters get so excited to jump on isolated statements like the one made by the London Amnesty International bureau chief or Sen. Durbin or Karl Rove. They can then spend the next month arguing against some nonsensical extremist position while ignoring real issues... It's a get out of jail card for poltical flim-flammers.

There was a good deal of substance raised in the recent Gitmo hearings in the Senate, and the actual body of the Amnesty International annual report (which, by the way, never mentions the word "gulag") has some very substantive complaints as well. The chicken with orange sauce has nothing to do with any of the substantive complaints about events at Gitmo. It's just so much spin.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

and the actual body of the Amnesty International annual report (which, by the way, never mentions the word "gulag")

Amnesty International Report 2005
Speech by Irene Khan
at Foreign Press Association

"Guantanamo has become the gulag our times..."

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGPOL100142005

That's probably the report everybody is referring to.

[Dutch]

Yahoo! News/Associated Press:
Bush: Bloodshed in Iraq Is 'Worth It'
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050628/...NlYwMlJVRPUCUl

FoxNews:
Bush: Iraq War 'Is Worth It'
http://www.foxnews.com/ (HomePage Headline)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160958,00.html (article)

Both have a particular bias associated with them. One appeals to the right and one to the left. See if you can guess whose title the left supports and which title the right supports.

[ISiddiqui]

I'd say the Yahoo report is more accurate, since in the quote, Bush says he's seen the "violence and bloodshed" and says it is worth it.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I'd say the Yahoo report is more accurate, since in the quote, Bush says he's seen the "violence and bloodshed" and says it is worth it.

Reality has been a 'left appealing bias' for a few years now.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I'd say the Yahoo report is more accurate, since in the quote, Bush says he's seen the "violence and bloodshed" and says it is worth it.

It appeals to you moreso? I think it's not fair to plaster "Bloodshed is Worth It" as a headline. It offers no bearing or relationship and makes Bush look bad. The FoxNews headline is much more proffessional, however, less appealing to the left.

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by Dutch

It appeals to you moreso? I think it's not fair to plaster "Bloodshed is Worth It" as a headline. It offers no bearing or relationship and makes Bush look bad. The FoxNews headline is much more proffessional, however, less appealing to the left.

Here is the transcript of the main point of the speech:

Like most Americans, I see the images of violence and bloodshed. Every picture is horrifying, and the suffering is real. Amid all this violence, I know Americans ask the question: Is the sacrifice worth it?

Bush answers his rhetorical question in the affirmative, the headline quotes him, and you say the headline has "no bearing or relationship" and are upset that it's not fair and makes him look bad