Media exaggerates bad news in Iraq

[Sasquatch]

No s***, huh?

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/sto...tm&floc=NW_1-T

For the past few years, most Republicans will tell you that the mainstream media has let their liberal bias infect their reporting of the situation in Iraq. Most of us know that the mainstream media has held a liberal bias for decades (documented very well here), we just didn't know how far they are willing to go with it. They are so intent on making Bush look bad -- and the worse the war looks, the worse Bush looks -- they're willing to report whatever they can, which includes information that puts more American and civilian lives at risk.

Personally, I came home from Iraq on leave in September of 2004, and I was appalled at what was -- and what wasn't -- shown on the news. We discussed this shortly in the American TFF thread. The truth is, there is much more good than bad going on in Iraq right now. More people have electricity, clean water, phones, sanitation systems, hospitals, and schools than at any time in the past thirty years. Coalition Forces are killing or detaining more insurgents every day. But you wouldn't know any of that, listening to CNN or NBC or CBS, or even FOX News, which has been shown recently to be about as center as center can get. (Please, if you disagree, show some credible evidence of FOX's bias in reporting.)

Their latest? This is what I've heard over the past couple days. I'm sure most of us have heard of the United Arab Emirates ports deal -- partial control of the security of six of America's east coast ports will be sold to Dubai Ports World, a state-run company from the UAE. The UAE is, and has been, involved in terrorism. They don't recognize Israel. At least one of the 9/11 terrorists is from there. But, for some reason, Bush is going to let this state-run company from the UAE have partial control of some of our ports. I disagree with this, and very much so. While it could be said that it won't affect much, it's still not only funding an Islamic Extremist state, but giving them some control in America -- get a container ship from one Islamic Extremist country (say, Iran?) to an American port run by an Islamic Extremist country, and there's no telling what they could sneak in. The Democrats, of course, are having a field day with this. For obvious reasons -- security. Now, whether they actually feel that it would endanger our security, or whether they're just doing it to go after Bush as the mid-term elections are nearing, I don't know. But their reasons, obviously, are security reasons. We don't want to hand partial control of six major ports to a country that meddles in terrorism. But wait -- according to their accusations upon the Republicans, that's xenophobic! They're intolerant! Racists! Islamophobes! Racial profiling! So why does it work against Republicans in all cases, but not Democrats? Why, because Bush and his evil minions have instilled America with such hate over the past few years, that's why! They've taught us to hate! They've taught us to fear! It has nothing to do with the fact that they are finally seeing where we eeeevil "xenophobic" Republicans have been coming from for the past five years -- it's still Bush's fault. You know, for somebody the media tried to paint as "stupid", Bush is pretty damn good at manipulating, isn't he? Intelligence systems around the world, the media, and now all of the American people?

[Chez Daja]

Oh believe me, this sounds a lot like the bullshit going on in England -- the part of Bush's studity.

Tony Blair said just lately that God told him to attack Iraq -- and then tried to cover that up by talking about it differently, as if trying to deny the stupid thing he said.

The problem is, our country leaders are ****tards, and for some ****ed up reason, they keep getting re-elected and getting to keep their position in the political world.

You hear on the news how much England and America are giving to Iraq, etc... and how rebels are still killing off our soliders. I personally think our soliders and American solider should just getthe **** out of there and stop "helping" ...

We've helped to give them a lot of this luxury shit they have at the moment, apparently, yet killing us off? You've got to be kidding me.

Now that Iraq is managing fine without the rebel country leaders causing grief amongst the ... majority ... of the innocent Iraqi civilians, we should just leave before we cause any suspicion or harm, or start something again.

I think the media just want something juicy such as exaggerating the Iraq situation. Call that stupid, but the media are greedy and they'll take anything and twist, exaggerate and **** it up.

[Grizzly]

And my parents told me that watching the news was GOOD for me when I was young, it's a good thing I never listened to them, lawl. But if anything the media is extremely pathetic, cowardly, and too powerful for their own ****ing good. Like if I became a celebrity some chick could tell them she's pregnant with my child and that would completely ruin my life, BECAUSE OF A RUMOR! Rumors are powerful when told through the media. Sure some times it can help some thing, but I've always hated the media and what they all do. In fact I only watch maybe 5 hours a week tops, and that's IF I get bored.

Anyway I think I understand what Bush is trying to do. He may act like an idiot some times, but he's not a bad person. But as for this passing of control in the ports was a good and bad idea. For one, if he would've gone against it, it WOULD some what screw terrorist over considering if ports can transport anything, they could transport "people" that could get into America and start some stupid shit, so that would stop that. However, if you try stopping the ports it's not going to do a damn thing. I'm sure there are many rich people who support Muslims and such that could PAY for them to get over here and get through security very easily.

And then there are so many easy ways to make bombs that any basic store would have the parts you need to do so, so these terrorist don't need to bring their own bombs over. If Bush has any brains though, by letting it pass he can give an advantage to himself and his directors so that the terrorist can feel "safer" that he might've shown is idiocy and passed up something they would ruin their plans. Therefore, they would work without knowing if a sniper is already on their tail. But we are not certain of this.

On the main subject though, as I said before the media should be stripped of all "factual" rights. Since they love making up tall-tales about bullshit none of it should be shown. The only difficulty is the fact these companies are RICH beyond all things and could probably buy someone off to keep any heat off their backs. So it's basically like the government, as much as you hate them you can't sue or do anything to them at all. When there is control over the people there is no such thing as innocence, greed is the source of all evil, (in all terms).

[Sasquatch]

While I would definitely disagree with Chez on our country leaders being "****tards", I do disagree with the ports deal. However, it came to me the other day that this might be a "ploy" -- everybody knows Bush is on his way out anyway, so if the Republicans have him do something stupid, and everybody backs away from it, it sets the stage for Congressmen (or Presidential hopefuls) that "aren't afraid" to go against Bush. But now, Congress is f***ing it up -- included with the Dubai Ports World ban is a section for more funding of the war in Iraq and a section for more money to be poured into the "victims" of Katrina. So if Bush vetoes it to let the ports deal go through, he vetoes it all -- and he should veto the Katrina stuff, but that's another story. (That's a common tactic in Congress -- bills usually include things that aren't related. If I make a good bill and put my own little piece of funding in it, you still have to vote for it because it's a good bill. If I make a bill I know you won't vote for and put something good in it, you can either vote for it and have the vote for something bad on your record, or vote against it and also be voting against the good thing in it. For example, if there's an Education bill going through, and I add to it something about public funding for all sports stadiums (as I'm a sports fan), you still have to vote for it because people will say you voted against the bill that would fund our schools and educate our children. Many Congressmen put in their own little pieces of funding.)

And while Chez has a good point that we should get out of Iraq, I highly doubt she fully understands the complexity of the situation (no offense meant there). If we pull out of Iraq, it'll collapse. We must wait until they're stable enough to take over and run the country without our presense before we just up and leave.

And while Griffith has a good point as well, that terrorists could still get into the country, or get funding and materials for their "operations", it might be much, much easier with the ports controlled by an Islamic Extremist country. I mean, how much would it really take for a couple inspectors to look over the one conex box (railroad container) with the nuclear weapon in it? Hell, you could fit quite a few into one conex box. (EDIT: You could also, quite easily, hide some enriched Uranium used to make a "dirty bomb". Enriched Uranium, like the kind Iran -- another Islamic Extremist country -- is pursuing?)

[OnOneRyder]

Now that Iraq is managing fine without the rebel country leaders causing grief amongst the ... majority ... of the innocent Iraqi civilians, we should just leave before we cause any suspicion or harm, or start something again.

While they're doing better, they're far from fine. There are still a lot of people who want to regain control and untill there is a stable government AND a reliable military america owes it to them to stick it out. It's like the Canadians in Afghanistan, we're still there training hundreds of soldiers daily. You can't just take out the voice for all the bad guys and then leave. You've got to get rid of them all, and give the people an hand up.

[Grizzly]

You think they'd actually come out and say, "Hey my fellow Americans...we were wrong, I'm sorry I caused you so much bullshit. We can now change the world!"

[TomStrife]

Okay so far I can agree with ONE thing in this thread.

The title.

That`s it.

Maybe whoever said Bush wasn`t a bad person was on the right line.

Considering George W. Bush is being persecuted justl ike every other Christian. What would you do in that position?

He`s trying to make this nation a safer place and that involves more money and people just sit around bashing him all day.
It is really pathetic.

I`m guessing you guys voted for John Kerry. *laughs*

Many Ortiz! XD

[fragdemon]

Most of us know that the mainstream media has held a liberal bias for decades (documented very well here), we just didn't know how far they are willing to go with it.

Media does not have a liberal bias, it has a sensationalism bias.

Think about how much power the media has, if the media had a liberal bias, liberal politicians would have won every election. Both sides use their own channels for their own stuff. It's a pretty complex thing.

The fact is that the media is pretty evenly split down the middle. Certain stations may have biases, but for every station upholding one idea, there's another station upholding another. In the end, it just about balances out, and if you want to get a good idea of the news, you can just watch both the liberal media and the .

As a general rule, you can also expect a bit less sensationalized reports in a newspaper than on TV news, so if you're looking for less bias, read.

But yeah, the Iraq war wouldn't be sensational unless it was intense. It wouldn't be an intense war unless it was gritty and people were dying and whatnot.

[Sasquatch]

The liberal media and the ... ? The what? There is nothing that "balances out" the liberal media. Even if you think FOX News is biased to the right -- which it's not -- then that might "balance out" CNN. Then there's NBC and CBS. Unless you want to bring talk radio into it, and then you would include people like Rush Limbaugh, but also Air America, the liberal talk radio network, that's completely bombing, and for good reason. (And newspapers can be just as biased as television news -- just look at the New York Times or Washington Post. However, it's easier for newspapers to "balance out".)

The mainstream media has a liberal bias. It's a pretty simple concept to understand. Bernard Goldberg, a former CBS reporter, wrote a book after he retired (fittingly, named Bias) detailing some of the liberal spin most of the mainstream media puts on their reporting.

The liberal bias is shown in elections, but not to such an extent that it gets liberal politicians elected. It plays quite a role. You must be forgetting Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the group of Vietnam veterans that served with Kerry that came out and detailed how much of a conniving coward he was (is). While that got a lot of play time because it was a pressing issue, it still didn't get as much as the Bush's fake Air National Guard memo -- and when that was proven to be fabricated, which made for a whole nother big story, that didn't get much play time, either. You're also forgetting Exit Polls -- the polls taken immediately before and during voting times that "predict" who'll come out on top. Exit Polls always, always show the Democrat with more support than they actually have.