Pacifier

First of all please answer the question for yourself.
do you trust what is reported in the media, be it newspapers or TV?

I guess everyone heard something about the Oscar sppech of michael moore. It was not liked by everyone, some people booed at the speech. But how many?
This sites compares the broadcast of CNN and ABC: http://www.lisarein.com/michaelmoore...recompare.html
as you can hear the boos on CNN are much louder, some sound like they were some sort of looped.

As for pictures, this was printed by the Los Angeles Times:

http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/speci...26/14526_3.jpg
but it was photoshopped to make it look better, to make it look like the the iraqi is looking toward the soldier who gives him orders.

the two original pictures:
http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/speci...26/14526_1.jpg
http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/speci...26/14526_2.jpg

http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/s...te_blurb.blurb

Now, how much can do you trust the media?

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

The_Dude

all the pics look fake to me

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

Mr. Mojo

Like CNN lying about Saddam for the last 12 years?
Eason Johnson (sp) in the NY Times on April 18 admitted his station has been lying and reading Saddams propaganda all this time...

I think Fox has only been lying for 5 years, since their a newer station…

__________________
When I jerk off I feel good for about twenty seconds and then WHAM it's right back into suicidal depression

sixate

If you don't believe the news what do you think? By the sounds of it it would seem as though you are a supporter os Saddam.

A comment on that pile of trash Moore. If you watched it live it was obvious that the boos where very loud and only about 10 people actually cheered for a few seconds.

I for once agree with Dude. They all looked fake to me also.

SniperGuy

nope. The media is completly biased at times. I plan on being a journalist of some sort to attempt to help, but they defenitly aren't always truthfull.

__________________
I can't belive you read this.

TaLoN

in order for me to trust someone, they have to prove to me that they can be trusted. i don't like the media one bit. they exploit others problems so the can make $$. they should have never been allowed in iraq

Macheath

This is why I want to learn photoshop and sound editing in my spare time. To have just an amateur knowledge of these things would allow you to have some small idea of what a professional would be able to do.

I see the media in general as a kind of white noise - I cross reference and filter different sources to decide what is real and meaningful in the news.

ARTelevision

in general, the media should never be trusted. period.

__________________
create evolution

Sun Tzu

Thanks for providing links such as this. In the moore incident that could have been a sound foley issue. In other words while the possibility exsists that volume was adjusted in editing, CNN could have had different mic placement than ABCs kind of like watching a boxing match and hearing the corner bitch out a boxer in one moment and the back audience in another. I dont see how intentionly raising the volume served any purpose as he is clearly booed in both clips.
I dont see how altering the photograph served any purpose either, one gives me no different impression than the other. The guy was an idiot (my humble opinion) I dont trust the media, but unfortunatley its the only means I have to get some kind of grasp of what is happening on a global scale.

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

sapiens

Is he a supporter of Saddam because he doesn't trust the news?

Pile of trash moore? This is kind of mixing threads, but it seems to me that Moore and O'Reilly are very similar in their extremes.

boatin

Can't trust the media. I don't know if TV news was ever unbiased, but now it is clearly about slogans and ratings.

My biggest peeve right now is that when mistakes are reported, retractions don't get equal time. Scuds, chemical plants and WMD finds are the recent examples. It creates the "boy that cried wolf" syndrome. If they ever really find something, many will not believe it...

frenik

You can only trust the media as much as you can trust any stranger. I always get my news from multiple sources, and I try to find sources that have a clear bias. It may sound odd saying that I look for sources with a stated bias, but this way I at least know which side of the story I'm getting, and it's a lot easier to sort out fact from opinion. As long as you balance it out with the other side's story, everything works out.

I think it's impossible for news reporters to be unbiased, unless they are listing carefully worded facts on paper. Even then some bias can shine through. The key is to be able to recognize it.

__________________
I don't know what's worse, that I dreamed about putting my ex-girlfriend in a woodchipper, or that I woke up with an erection. - jim norton

KillerYoda

After the "we found a chemical weapons plant, not wait, nevermind" for the millionth time, I read the Guardian UK now.

__________________
"So you're Chekov, huh? Well, this here's McCoy. Find a Spock, we got us an away team."

Pacifier

CNNs report is a re-broadcast of the the ABC material, so it should sound identical.

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

Dragonlich

Look, I trust the media. I see that they're trying to influence me, and might gloss things over a bit, but that doesn't mean they're *always* wrong. Just like they're not *always* right.

I look up multiple sources, and generally try to find some background news. Of course, my good memory also helps a lot. I don't expect the media to be unbiased, just as I don't expect *anyone* to be unbiased. We're only humans, after all.

By the way... suppose that picture was indeed photoshopped, as it appears to have been. Does that change the reality? The Iraqi guy was coming towards the soldier looking for help. The photoshoppers merely accentuated the message, to make it look prettier.

Pacifier

it is not about right or wrong, it is about this influence. Thinnk about moore what you like, but this speech whould had a different impact on the public if all the people were cheering or all the people were booing. The public would feel different about it. and that kind of manipulation is a big "no-no" for me.

Like western media showed very little war casualties to make the war look prettier?

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

Dragonlich

You *assume* that the public would have reacted differently. You also *assume* that a lot of people cheered. If I am to believe some of the other posters here, that wasn't the case.
Besides, Moore is just as manipulative as you say the media is; he highlights only what he wants to say, and disregards the rest.

Yeah, and like the Arab media showed only the casualties and Iraqi propaganda to make the US look bad. Even though the casualty level was *extremely* low...

If showing Iraqi casualties would stop the US public from supporting the war, even though that would leave Saddam in power, and lead to more casualties in the end... I don't blame the US media for not showing those casualties.

We all know that there were casualties - we heard the (inflated) numbers from the Iraqi propaganda minister, after all. Filling the TV screens with amputated limbs all day isn't going to change the reality: US forces tried to prevent hitting civilians, while the Iraqi regime did their best to kill (or have the US kill) as many of them as they could.

And I'll say it again: the casualty level was *low*, by any historical standard. Even worse, if the experience of the last gulf war can be applied here, most of those casualties were the result of *Iraqi* anti-aircraft fire... Oops. (Yes, those bullets do eventually come falling down again!)

Pacifier

nope, from what I heard the reaction was quite mixed.
But I assume that you can manipulate the public with editing the reaction of the crowd:

-if all people would have booed, people, who watch it in TV would think "moore is obviously an idiot"
-if all people would have cheered, people would think "maybe he has a point"

thats how the public works, and thats how CNN tries to manipulate.

Sure

Sorry, but people need to see those picture, cause next time they start calling for a war or to "kill em all" they need to know what war is about, they need to now the war is not a video game. Which all those nice pictures people tend to forget that.

Yes, but I also think there were couple a misguided US missiles, anti-aircraft guns don't make such a big explosion. But truth about that will never be presented, the Iraqi goverment is no more and the US Goverment has no interest in doing so.

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

Dragonlich

Ah, you think that the cynical humans of today are that gullible? Interesting...

That's a fact, dude. Many Arab TV stations showed pictures of dead and wounded Iraqi civilians all the time, blaming every one of them on US troops. They also reported each and every claim by that Iraqi info minister as a fact. To prove my statement, one only has to look at the disappointed reactions after the war: many Arabs said they really thought the Iraqis were winning the war...

And I have seen those broadcasts, I have seen the Al-Jazeera "discussion programs", I have seen the comments made. What I said is what happened. Do not forget that most Arab TV stations are controlled by the governments there, and they'll only show what the government wants to show. With many of those governments decidedly anti-war and anti-American, it is no wonder they focus on the negative side of war.

Like some other people, you assume that the general population does not know what war is, and does not know that war causes deaths and injuries. That is just silly. People know full well that innocent people will die in a war. Showing dead and injured civilians on the telly does not change that.

Besides, you seem to advocate that we show the "real" side of war, which to you is the suffering. This in itself is a manipulative tactic, which the pro-war side isn't allowed to use. This war also led to scenes of jubilation; do you agree they should be shown as well? What about US troops helping Iraqi people? Or would these scenes be incompatible with the "reality" of war?

If we're going to show everything, we should also show the Iraqi brutality: shooting at their own civilians, executing Iraqi soldiers who want to give up, hiding inside hospitals, mosques, schools... Perhaps even highlight the many things the Iraqi regime did to their own population before the war: torture, random executions, etc. Those images would encourage people to support the war, now wouldn't they?

Iraqi SAMs would certainly create such big explosions, as would trucks filled with explosives, or mortars fired at your own population. We don't know (and might never know) who is responsible for some "massacres". Assuming the US did it (as many Arabs seem to do) is just as bad as assuming the Iraqis did it.

Pacifier

Yes, a human tend to belive what the masses are beliving, if the masses seem to like a statment (cheer at a speech!) more people will follow

It was a honest "sure" not a ironical "sure..."

People know and belive what the see in TV and they see pretty pictures.

suffering is a part of war, a big part. Buit you're right you should show all parts af war.

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

Dragonlich

I am not as pessimistic as you. A lot of my friends are pro-war, and they know that war is a nasty business. In fact, I'd say most of them are more educated on the subject than a lot of anti-war people. If my friends know this, I'd say there's a fair share of the population that knows it.

When I look back at the recent months, I see a lot of anti-war marches, and hardly any pro-war marches... if your statements are true, this would mean that there'd be a massive anti-war media campaign, instead of the pro-war campaign that you claim to have seen. The fact that there were this many marches against the war (even in the US!) would indicate to me, that a lot of people either know that war is bad (in spite of all the media influence) and are anti-war because of it, or... that a lot of anti-war people are sheep, mindlessly following the anti-war slogans of their leaders.

Now... where does this leave your claim that the pro-war media somehow influences the people into being pro-war? Or would that influence be selective? Are only stupid people pro-war, because they're easily influenced? (and as a consequence: are anti-war people somehow more intelligent, and in some way immune to media influence?)

Or could it be that the media influence isn't nearly as effective as you think it is; that most people are perfectly capable of recognizing bullshit when they see it; and that the pro-war masses are (in general) as knowledgable and educated as the anti-war masses?

Heh, I thought as much after posting it... wouldn't it look stupid if he actually meant that "sure"?

splck

I don't trust the media to bring me un-biased reporting. I try to get several views on a particular issue.

Except for FOX news of course, because they are "fair and balanced"....LOL, what a load of shit

__________________
nice line eh?

rogue49

I take everything with a grain of salt
I consider the source
And I get as many sources and viewpoints as possible.

It's the only way to get a real perspective on the "facts".
Trust yourself, no one else.

maximusveritas

The problem, of course, is that the average person watching the news is not going to get as many sources and viewpoints as possible. They will watch the nightly news and maybe the morning paper and thats it. While the media's lies and distortions may not affect you personally, they do have a large effect on the population as a whole.

Prophecy

I have to agree with ARTelevision. I never have completely trusted the news, So may things shown locally in city seem one sided or biased. I thought the news was supposed to be objective, you know tell me facts, not your opinon. Because of this I try my best to read news papers from all sort of different places. Although I may not agree what everyone says its nice to know the different points of view.

__________________
La Disciplina È La Mia Spada,
La Fede È Il Mio Schermo,
Non salti Ciecamente In Incertezza,
E Potete Raccogliere Le Ricompense.

blkdmnd

Its all biased. The fact that it is a human giving the information automatically means that it will be biased in some form or another. I think even the most even keeled professional broadcasters put their own 'touch' on each story. It's just that the good ones are adept at hiding it.

Lets face CNN presents a liberal view and FOX presents a conservative view. You just have to understand that when you watch the different broadcasts. The best way to get the whole picture is to listen to both. I don't think either network is guilty of lying to the public. Just a little spinning going on.

Besides, the fact that there are multiple opinions on all this stuff is what makes boards and threads like this interesting.

__________________
I blow my nose at you. Now go away before I taunt you a second time.

Mad_Gecko

Spin, propaganda, "editorial license", etc...
Very much the same in all media to a greater and lesser degree.

Like a lot of the people on this thread I try to get as many sources of info as poss. and draw my own conclusions with *gasp* my own spin on things. I can be as guilty as the mass media for taking editorial license (esp. if you read my performance reviews ) when I want to get my point across.

I do find that BBC world news, reuters, and bloomberg are ok, but I wouldn't base everything on those three sources.

__________________
[color=bright blue]W[/color]e Stick To Glass

"If three of us travel together, I shall find two teachers."
Confucious

gibber71

I don't trust the media one bit. As a matter of fact,the level of biased,subjective reporting is insulting to the point where I really don't know if the media outlets know what the truth is anymore.It doesn't matter if the topic is Iraq,North Korea,China,Isreal or the U.S,you can guarantee that the propagandist spin,the changing and omitting of facts and general revisionists are acting very irresponsibly to the point where the media has lost almost all integrity.Unfortunately most people who have an opinion are arguing something that may not be based on fact,but rather the personal opinion of some writer who is abusing the forum that is supposed to be rooted in professional journalistic conduct.There are three sides to every story;one side,the other side and the truth.Sadly the latter of the three is on the endangered list.

Sun Tzu

Pacificer your right, it was obviously an editing variation, with everythng digital these days it makes it pretty easy. A little sound forge and its good to go.

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

Miranda

I tip my hat to Michael Moore. That took guts. Although you can question countless elements of every broadcast, the point is; he took a chance and said what many people have wanted to say. He got it out there.
With trusting the media - there's so many issues it's not black and white (like everything of course).
I'm in Australia so it was slightly different. I have cable so we got fox news and heaps of people here - alot of whom work in the media industry - are calling it the "Propaganda Channel". What do you think? I was kind of shocked when they stopped broadcasting about the war!
But with newspapers - I get the Herald every day - I remember one day in the middle of the conflict turning to the 2nd page and every single article was exactly the same! Literally! In some they cut and pasted exact same phrases into other ones! Different headlines! It was ridiculous!
The media is always a source to question. A friend of mine who works for SBS here in Australia said that they had to edit hours and hours of footage unsuitable for broadcast. Makes me wonder what we didn't see...
Reuters isn't too bad a source, same with BBC and CNN. The Australian free-to-air channels link from Fox/BBC/CNN so can't really say much about them.
Ah well - what kind of choice do we have but to take what we can get from the very limited sources (as in views) we have?

duckduck

I believe that everyone has a bias and, therefore, trying to discredit someone because of their bias is almost pointless. However, I often take the news with a grain of salt when I realize that they're not actually trying to inform me, but rather, just sell advertising. Essentially, while not practical, when I want the news, I get involved with that subject to the point I can draw my own conclusions rather than just stomach someone elses.

__________________
Lead me, follow me, or get out of my way!

bundy

perhaps it can be summed up by saying that you can only trust the media to be the media.

Chomsky put this very well in his (and Herman) Propaganda model.

__________________
Ohayo!!!

Dragonlich

Just like you can only trust writers to be writers...

guthmund

__________________
No signature. None. Seriously.

Dragonlich

Gothmund, a lot of pictures are photoshopped. I need only point at Playboy.

But, as I already stated... Did this photoshop alter the message, or even the whole situation? Nope. It made the picture more dramatic, but it still captured the reality: "US soldier is being approached by Iraqi man with child".

I trust the media to be reasonable in their editing, precisely because there are other media outlets that have different points of view, and might expose deception. Think about it: suppose CNN showed doctored footage of Iraqi troops executing innocent civilians, to make the Iraqis look bad. The very next day, you'd see an exclusive on BBC World showing the real deal. CNN would lose all credibility, and would lose loads of money...

No news outlet is "fair, honest and unbiased", that's just a myth. Journalists have egos, commercial news has a bottom line, government news has a message to spread. I trust other media (with opposite views) to keep the balance. No media source can go too far, because losing your credibility kills you: it's all you have.

Liquor Dealer

It is a shame when media has to sell the news. It is a shame when they feel that their market wants its news to lean one direction or another. What ever happend to the simple truth? The politics of local papers are usually quite obvious - in your face blatant obvious. Perhaps that cannot be helped - it is no different from celebrities expressing their political opinions from the stage. I want my news to be the news - they can express their opinions on the editorial page - where it belongs. Far too often editorial opinion is presented as the news. iIt isn't ! I pay for news. Put it on the front page - clear and unadulterated. The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Put their opinons in the editoral pages and on the opinion pages and make it obvious that it is that and nothing more. As for the celebrities - tell the bitch to sing - that is what I paid the big bucks to hear! I do not care about her politics, her family problems, her sex life (unless I am personally involved in it), or her opinions.

Dragonlich

BastardStepChild, in theory, it's possible to write the truth, without any personal bias. However, I think you'd find the resulting stories to be dull and quite unreadable. Usually, there's also insufficient data to back up certain stories, which would mean they would not be printed. The end result would be a dull, one-page piece of crap that nobody would want to read.

magic_hat

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bundy
perhaps it can be summed up by saying that you can only trust the media to be the media.
QUOTE] -this is true, but a good portion of the U.S is too ignorant to actually see this.


first you must look back at to the 20th century and see how much of a joke the media has been in relation to war time journalism. WWI- reporters basically worked for the government, they censored themselves, and were heavily censored by the Committee on Public Information or CPI.
WWII- the same type of government agencies censored every letter, telegram, and report that came across the border.
jump to:
Vietnam- the american public was lied to from the start, if you disagree with that please go and do some reading.

Present day: The government has become very skilled in the art of propaganda. We get more information than we have ever gotten in the past, but if you think about all the information that gets censored and left out.....its scary! If people are not getting ALL the information, their views and judgments of other people and other nations are skewed...and thats exactly what the supporters of war desire.

If the media picks and chooses what they want to show, and if the administration picks and chooses what they want to release....there is no way in hell that people are going to have a clear picture of what is going on. As for saying "If you don't believe the news what do you think? By the sounds of it it would seem as though you are a supporter of Saddam"......thats just rediculous.

oldtimer

HELL NO! The only thing I can trust these days is the Weatherman but even he predicts the opposite every once in a while.......

__________________
Slowly but surely getting over the loss of TFP v. 3.0.
Where the hell am I?....
Showering once a month does not make you a better person.

"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."
Martin Luther King, Jr.

bingle

Actually, it's amazing what most people these days believe. More than 80% of Americans believe at least one Iraqi was a hijacker in the attacks of Sept. 11, for example. Another poll, several years ago, revealed that 23% of people think we should invade Sweden, "but only if the current sanctions aren't working." So basically, people are pretty clueless, sometimes.



True! Now, look at who controls the media in the US. It's not the government directly, to be sure, but all of the news companies have profit to worry about. In some cases, this is as simple as not showing controversial images or news, to increase ratings directly. In other cases, parent corporations are defense contractors or are otherwise tied to the administration and the successful selling of certain ideas. So, with so many corporations pro-war and pro-Bush administration, is it any wonder they focus on the positive side of war?

I don't think you can trust corporate news media any more than government-controlled media. So, like someone above suggested, the best solution is to get a broad survey of information. Look at sources that do not have as much at stake: If you read British and Australian news, for example, as well as CNN, you'll start to notice really weird disrepancies. They'll generally report the same thing, but emphasise different points. If anything, this has led me to really appreciate the amount of manipulation going on in media. It might do the same for you! Try the Guardian, the BBC, and the Sydney Morning Herald.

Bingle