Dean
1st June 2010, 05:57
When you start to judge a system in terms of its political character, the first question you will probably ask is this:
What message is being sent?
But that's unreliable. Ehud Barack claimed that if he were born in Palestine, he would have "joined one of the terrorist groups." Does he therefore support Palestinian "terror" groups?
http://www.ojr.org/ojr/people/davidwestphal/200911/1801/
The reality is in the details, of course. The real question to ask is,
Who funds the media? Who benefits from its particular news stories?
Well, the short answer is "the government":
The pressure to create a stable, profitable business invariably distorts the kinds of news items reported, as well as the manner and emphasis in which they are reported, according to Professors Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman in their book "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent:_The_Political_Economy_of_th e_Mass_Media)."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States
The government has always subsidized media: (hmm, a for-profit entity towing the line of the highest bidder...)http://www.ojr.org/ojr/people/davidwestphal/200911/1801/
FAIR: Government has complete control over negative Iraq war coverage: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1167
Maybe that's why AJE's Kabul facilities were bombed in November '03:
While prior to 11 September 2001, the United States government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_government) had lauded Al Jazeera for its role as an independent media outlet in the Middle East, US officials have since claimed an anti-American bias to Al Jazeera's news coverage.[43] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aljazeera#cite_note-iraqwar-42)[84] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aljazeera#cite_note-differentwars-83)
The station first gained widespread attention in the West following the September 11, 2001 attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks), when it broadcast videos in which Osama bin Laden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden) and Sulaiman Abu Ghaith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulaiman_Abu_Ghaith) defended and justified the attacks. This led to significant controversy and accusations by the United States government that Al Jazeera was engaging in propaganda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda) on behalf of terrorists. Al Jazeera countered that it was merely making information available without comment, and several western television channels later followed suit in broadcasting portions of the tapes. Analyst James Dunnigan assigns al Jazeera a primary role in the rise of religious hatred and terrorism in the modern Moslem world.[85] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aljazeera#cite_note-84)
On November 13, during the US invasion of Afghanistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29), 2001, a U.S. missile strike destroyed Al Jazeera's office in Kabul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabul). There were no casualties.[41] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aljazeera#cite_note-news.bbc.co.uk-40)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aljazeera
The result? Crap like this:
Israel’s urgent need to deter the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah alliance was demonstrated last month. Ehud Barak, the defence minister, was said to have shown President Barack Obama classified satellite images of a convoy of ballistic missiles leaving Syria on the way to Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Binyamin Netanyahu, the prime minister, will emphasise the danger to Obama in Washington this week.
Tel Aviv, Israel’s business and defence centre, remains the most threatened city in the world, said one expert. “There are more missiles per square foot targeting Tel Aviv than any other city,” he said.
Three paragraphs seeking to justify obvious nuclear threats against Iran are really just honest, informative media, right? It couldn't be Rupert Murdoch, the British & US government's pro-Israeli pressure. Nah.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article7140282.ece
Even Al Jazeera, typically very informative and trustworthy, is notably quiet on the issue of migrant workers' rights in Qatar. Why? Because it is owned by the Qatari royal family.
In addition, the media has an interesting way of seeking out information supportive of negative coverage for "national enemies." (http://brewerstroupe.blogspot.com/2010/05/blog-post.html)
Who would have thought that we couldn't trust reports on the most recent "terrorist threat!" Huh!
The facts are there, and it is capitalist business sense driving this "artificially biased" coverage (lol! I didn't know that paying for good coverage was an "artificial market condition," sure to be the defense of the market propertarians). You're a tool if you read the likes of NBC and CNN and take that shit at face value.
What message is being sent?
But that's unreliable. Ehud Barack claimed that if he were born in Palestine, he would have "joined one of the terrorist groups." Does he therefore support Palestinian "terror" groups?
http://www.ojr.org/ojr/people/davidwestphal/200911/1801/
The reality is in the details, of course. The real question to ask is,
Who funds the media? Who benefits from its particular news stories?
Well, the short answer is "the government":
The pressure to create a stable, profitable business invariably distorts the kinds of news items reported, as well as the manner and emphasis in which they are reported, according to Professors Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman in their book "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent:_The_Political_Economy_of_th e_Mass_Media)."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States
The government has always subsidized media: (hmm, a for-profit entity towing the line of the highest bidder...)http://www.ojr.org/ojr/people/davidwestphal/200911/1801/
FAIR: Government has complete control over negative Iraq war coverage: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1167
Maybe that's why AJE's Kabul facilities were bombed in November '03:
While prior to 11 September 2001, the United States government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_government) had lauded Al Jazeera for its role as an independent media outlet in the Middle East, US officials have since claimed an anti-American bias to Al Jazeera's news coverage.[43] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aljazeera#cite_note-iraqwar-42)[84] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aljazeera#cite_note-differentwars-83)
The station first gained widespread attention in the West following the September 11, 2001 attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks), when it broadcast videos in which Osama bin Laden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden) and Sulaiman Abu Ghaith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulaiman_Abu_Ghaith) defended and justified the attacks. This led to significant controversy and accusations by the United States government that Al Jazeera was engaging in propaganda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda) on behalf of terrorists. Al Jazeera countered that it was merely making information available without comment, and several western television channels later followed suit in broadcasting portions of the tapes. Analyst James Dunnigan assigns al Jazeera a primary role in the rise of religious hatred and terrorism in the modern Moslem world.[85] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aljazeera#cite_note-84)
On November 13, during the US invasion of Afghanistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29), 2001, a U.S. missile strike destroyed Al Jazeera's office in Kabul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabul). There were no casualties.[41] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aljazeera#cite_note-news.bbc.co.uk-40)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aljazeera
The result? Crap like this:
Israel’s urgent need to deter the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah alliance was demonstrated last month. Ehud Barak, the defence minister, was said to have shown President Barack Obama classified satellite images of a convoy of ballistic missiles leaving Syria on the way to Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Binyamin Netanyahu, the prime minister, will emphasise the danger to Obama in Washington this week.
Tel Aviv, Israel’s business and defence centre, remains the most threatened city in the world, said one expert. “There are more missiles per square foot targeting Tel Aviv than any other city,” he said.
Three paragraphs seeking to justify obvious nuclear threats against Iran are really just honest, informative media, right? It couldn't be Rupert Murdoch, the British & US government's pro-Israeli pressure. Nah.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article7140282.ece
Even Al Jazeera, typically very informative and trustworthy, is notably quiet on the issue of migrant workers' rights in Qatar. Why? Because it is owned by the Qatari royal family.
In addition, the media has an interesting way of seeking out information supportive of negative coverage for "national enemies." (http://brewerstroupe.blogspot.com/2010/05/blog-post.html)
Who would have thought that we couldn't trust reports on the most recent "terrorist threat!" Huh!
The facts are there, and it is capitalist business sense driving this "artificially biased" coverage (lol! I didn't know that paying for good coverage was an "artificial market condition," sure to be the defense of the market propertarians). You're a tool if you read the likes of NBC and CNN and take that shit at face value.