OT: Is the media trying to promote a fight?

[Dutch]

Talk of Military Action in Iran Standoff
By JOSEF FEDERMAN, Associated Press Writer
59 minutes ago

JERUSALEM - Israel's defense minister hinted Saturday that the Jewish state is preparing for military action to stop Iran's nuclear program, but said international diplomacy must be the first course of action.

"Israel will not be able to accept an Iranian nuclear capability and it must have the capability to defend itself, with all that that implies, and this we are preparing," Shaul Mofaz said.

His comments at an academic conference stopped short of overtly threatening a military strike but were likely to add to growing tensions with Iran.

Germany's defense minister said in an interview published Saturday that he is hopeful of a diplomatic solution to the impasse over Iran's nuclear program, but argued that "all options" should remain open.

Asked by the Bild am Sonntag weekly whether the threat of a military solution should remain in place, Franz Josef Jung was quoted as responding: "Yes, we need all options."

French President Jacques Chirac said Thursday that France could respond with nuclear weapons against any state-sponsored terrorist attack.

Obviously this is just reporting the news, but does it need it's own headline. Obviously military action to defend against an aggressor is going to happen. Why is that news?

The media should not be asking, "Are you willing to attack Iran?"

(Israeli, American, German, French) leader responds, "We leave all our options open and prepare for all situations."

And then the media then runs back to it's office to print, "World Leaders ready to attack Iran."

Then Al Jazeera--no doubt--will read this article and surely trumps it up even more in their translation back in the Arab world. And the next thing you know, the "He Said/She Said" bullshit print of our has everybody up in arms ready to fight.

I've said it before and I'll say it again and again if I have to. The major media outlets should really consider a policy of being more insightful and less inciteful.

[NoMyths]

I've said it before and I'll say it again and again if I have to. The major media outlets should really consider a policy of being more insightful and less inciteful.So should the governments involved, Dutch. So should the governments involved.

[Arctus]

the media shouldn't promote fights; that's what we have Don King for.

[Dutch]

the media shouldn't promote fights; that's what we have Don King for.

I believe the media has taken the role of Don King.

[Dutch]

So should the governments involved, Dutch. So should the governments involved.

Agreed. So why doesn't the media act as a counter and be more insightful? Why has the media abandoned the masses? I understand the concept of making money, but journalists are thought of for their integrity, are they not?

[NoMyths]

Agreed. So why doesn't the media act as a counter and be more insightful? Why has the media abandoned the masses? I understand the concept of making money, but journalists are thought of for their integrity, are they not?I would argue that if the media were to abandon the masses, they wouldn't have advertisers and wouldn't be in business. Rather, the media have embraced the masses and what the masses want: conflict. We cannot blame "the media" for the failings of the people to demand better. You need go no farther than the media outlets which pander most savagely to a core demographic to witness this principle in action.

On the level of individual journalists it gets better. But when you're talking about the mega-corporations and their news outlets, it becomes a much more problematic situation.

[Dutch]

I would argue that if the media were to abandon the masses, they wouldn't have advertisers and wouldn't be in business. Rather, the media have embraced the masses and what the masses want: conflict. We cannot blame "the media" for the failings of the people to demand better. You need go no farther than the media outlets which pander most savagely to a core demographic to witness this principle in action.

On the level of individual journalists it gets better. But when you're talking about the mega-corporations and their news outlets, it becomes a much more problematic situation.

People do like conflict, but I think that's selling the masses short. For instance, people flock to movies to see conflict, but they also demand a follow up in the form of a happy ending. If the mega-corporations were embracing what the people want, they would tell them some good news.

It seems like the media is poking for that next blockbuster ratings bonaza. Particularly with the wording of articles such as this one.

[biological warrior]

People do like conflict, but I think that's selling the masses short. For instance, people flock to movies to see conflict, but they also demand a follow up in the form of a happy ending. If the mega-corporations were embracing what the people want, they would tell them some good news.

It seems like the media is poking for that next blockbuster ratings bonaza. Particularly with the wording of articles such as this one. Just out of curiousity, what were the ratings for Operation Iraqi Freedom (March 2003 Invasion?) Seems to me that the media tried to do so much with the graphics and their talking heads that most of the ground campaign was missed. I would assume that the same would imply to the next conflict.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Agreed. So why doesn't the media act as a counter and be more insightful? Why has the media abandoned the masses? I understand the concept of making money, but journalists are thought of for their integrity, are they not?

The media has gone corporate. Integrity doesn't show up on the quarterly reports...

[Tekneek]

Wait a minute. If word is getting out that a government may be prepared to take military action against another nation, it is not a worthy of being reported? Just what purpose do you think the news media is supposed to serve?

Would you have been happy if it said those nations were keeping a military option open for Iran?

[Dutch]

Wait a minute. If word is getting out that a government may be prepared to take military action against another nation, it is not a worthy of being reported? Just what purpose do you think the news media is supposed to serve?

Would you have been happy if it said those nations were keeping a military option open for Iran?

I think this particular article is making you confuse Israel/US/France/Germany "wanting to pick a fight" with basic military doctrine of every country to prepare for as many situations as possible.

The last time I checked, this sort of military doctrine has been around for centuries. Not exactly news that would be covered up.

In this particular article, there were no revelations about an impending attack, just country leaders expressing that they are prepared (vs unprepared) for an external threat.

While I never suggest the media should not report (and haven't here), I do suggest that the media shouldn't be trying to act as the instigating middle-man in this situation.

And our constitution (and many constitutions around the world I would guess) protects the freedom of the press. Why? Certainly it's not mentioned in our constitution for economical reasons.

The point being is the press--like the military--has a certain obligation to our country, and when that obligation isn't being met, they need to be scrutinized. But they aren't. They are getting a free ride and nobody can say anything about it. And they could very well be pushing us closer to war when they have absolutely no right to do so.

[Tekneek]

In terms of this article, the AP acts rather like an international organization, rather than someone that has any obligation to the United States. At least that is my take.

If the article is only covering things that everyone expects to be true anyway, why does it bother you? If the presumption around the world is that every nation is always entertaining all options, including military ones, to deal with disputes that come up with other countries, why would this incite anything unexpected from Iran?

[Dutch]

In terms of this article, the AP acts rather like an international organization, rather than someone that has any obligation to the United States. At least that is my take.

If the article is only covering things that everyone expects to be true anyway, why does it bother you? If the presumption around the world is that every nation is always entertaining all options, including military ones, to deal with disputes that come up with other countries, why would this incite anything unexpected from Iran?

Not to be a smartass, but I guess it's just in my nature... :)

But...from my initial post.

Obviously this is just reporting the news, but does it need it's own headline. Obviously military action to defend against an aggressor is going to happen. Why is that news?

The media should not be asking, "Are you willing to attack Iran?"

(Israeli, American, German, French) leader responds, "We leave all our options open and prepare for all situations."

And then the media then runs back to it's office to print, "World Leaders ready to attack Iran."

Then Al Jazeera--no doubt--will read this article and surely trumps it up even more in their translation back in the Arab world. And the next thing you know, the "He Said/She Said" bullshit print of our has everybody up in arms ready to fight.

I've said it before and I'll say it again and again if I have to. The major media outlets should really consider a policy of being more insightful and less inciteful.

[sterlingice]

French President Jacques Chirac said Thursday that France could respond with nuclear weapons against any state-sponsored terrorist attack."Our words are backed by nuclear weapons! (and little white flags)"

SI

[fantastic flying froggies]

"Our words are backed by nuclear weapons! (and little white flags)"

SI
Actually, to put things in perspective, that particular press conference by Chirac was directed mainly at French citizens, who are slightly peeved at a huge budget spent on nukes, with no clear use of them anymore since the end of the cold war.

[clintl]

It seems to me that a) what was being reported in that article was newsworthy, and b) the headline was a reasonable description of the article's content. I don't see what the problem is.

[Dutch]

It seems to me that a) what was being reported in that article was newsworthy, and b) the headline was a reasonable description of the article's content. I don't see what the problem is.

The article also reports that diplomacy will come before any military action. But that's not mentioned in the title.

The article also says that Israel was avoiding being so blunt and overt about the use of military action, but I guess that meaning is lost with the headline as it is as well.

Germany's leader hoped diplomacy would resolve the crisis rather than military action. That's not mentioned in the title of the article.

It seems obvious to me that the article was going to report about western threats unless all these people said military action was out of the question. Which is rather unrealistic considering the situation (Iran restarting it's work on a nuclear weapons program).

In my estimation it seems harder to be diplomatic when both sides are accused of saber-rattling when the lost reality is that nobody is saber-rattling.

[MrBigglesworth]

Dutch approved headline:

Talk of Military Action in Iran Standoff But Diplomacy Will Come Before Any Military Action and Israel Is Avoiding Being So Blunt and Overt About the Use of Military Action and Germany's Leader Hopes Diplomacy Would Resolve the Crisis Rather Than Military Action and the MSM Is Evil

I don't know why they just didn't print that, liberal bastards.

[Dutch]

I think "Western Leaders Dismiss Military Action As First Step" or "Western Leaders Insist on Diplomacy in Iran Crisis" is more appropriate based on their responses than "Western Leaders Prepare for War."

[ice4277]

"Western Leaders Prepare for War."
To be fair, I don't really read the title as being this extreme.

[Tekneek]

I do understand your complaining about the headline based on the content, but I am having a difficult time believing that Iran is making any crucial decisions based on the headlines coming across the AP wire... The nit you are picking could be done with any number of articles in newspapers across the globe on any given day, regarding any number of topics. More than anything, I think the headline is only there to get you to read the article...and it worked.

[MrBigglesworth]

I think "Western Leaders Dismiss Military Action As First Step" or "Western Leaders Insist on Diplomacy in Iran Crisis" is more appropriate based on their responses than "Western Leaders Prepare for War."
If this was the only story in the history of the media written about this topic, you may be correct. However, this link (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&q=iran+ap+diplomacy&btnG=Search+News) shows that there have been dozens of news articles talking about a democratic solution in Iran just in the past few weeks. The new piece of information that the article is reporting on is the insinuation of the Isreali defense minister that they will take a militaristic route, hence the title.

[Tekneek]

I don't know why they just didn't print that, liberal bastards.

Indeed. They are clearly trying to start a war.

[Dutch]

I do understand your complaining about the headline based on the content, but I am having a difficult time believing that Iran is making any crucial decisions based on the headlines coming across the AP wire... The nit you are picking could be done with any number of articles in newspapers across the globe on any given day, regarding any number of topics. More than anything, I think the headline is only there to get you to read the article...and it worked.

I guess I am failing to get my point across, and I understand that that is my deficiency, not yours. When I suggest that 'Al Jazeera will take Western Articles and re-dramatize them for Arab populations', I mean that they will make them worse and will be more than happy to drive that wedge into the ability for large portions of the population to think clearly and rationaly about this affair. I do not mean that Iran leadership is reading AP headlines and giving a crap one way or the other. Again, if that is what you are reading, I am not being very articulate. I blame myself and the fact that we are on a message board for the message being miscommunicated.

[Dutch]

If this was the only story in the history of the media written about this topic, you may be correct. However, this link (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&q=iran+ap+diplomacy&btnG=Search+News) shows that there have been dozens of news articles talking about a democratic solution in Iran just in the past few weeks. The new piece of information that the article is reporting on is the insinuation of the Isreali defense minister that they will take a militaristic route, hence the title.

Forgive me, the article I cited is the one I read on the Yahoo! New ticker, which gets millions of hits a day.

[MrBigglesworth]

I guess I am failing to get my point across, and I understand that that is my deficiency, not yours. When I suggest that 'Al Jazeera will take Western Articles and re-dramatize them for Arab populations', I mean that they will make them worse and will be more than happy to drive that wedge into the ability for large portions of the population to think clearly and rationaly about this affair. I do not mean that Iran leadership is reading AP headlines and giving a crap one way or the other. Again, if that is what you are reading, I am not being very articulate. I blame myself and the fact that we are on a message board for the message being miscommunicated.
Al Jazeera is seen in the Muslim world as a liberal news organization that has sold out to the West. They aren't hardliners that incite wars and purposefully inflame Arab public opinion.

[clintl]

Forgive me, the article I cited is the one I read on the Yahoo! New ticker, which gets millions of hits a day.

And someone at Yahoo!, rather than AP, probably wrote the headline. I bet you could find dozens of publications printing that exact same AP article, and each one would have a different headline.

[Dutch]

And someone at Yahoo!, rather than AP, probably wrote the headline. I bet you could find dozens of publications printing that exact same AP article, and each one would have a different headline.

Well, I didn't hyperlink it (I almost always hyperlink news stories).

So I went back to find it and indeed the title has changed now to this.

Israeli Hints at Preparation to Stop Iran
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060122/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear_4;_ylt=Au08YrJBJ40hM5qCtuUOS3tSw60A;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

I guess the AP doesn't provide titles for articles.