Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Media

Looking for Unbiased War News? 426

Posted by Cliff from the getting-the-info-before-the-applied-spin dept.
AlexisKai asks: "With the forecast for tomorrow being sunny with a 90% chance of airstrikes, the US government will be clamping down on unpatriotic stories and the rest will be self-censored by the major media anyway. Where are Slashdot readers planning to look for reliable, disinterested reports as events in Iraq unfold?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Looking for Unbiased War News? More

Looking for Unbiased War News?

Comments Filter:

  • Google (Score:5, Insightful)

    by stang7423 ( 601640 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @02:57AM (#5552552)
    It might be worth while to try checking google news since they pull from many different sites. This seems like best choice.

    • Re:Google (Score:4, Informative)

      by jilles ( 20976 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @03:23AM (#5552741) Homepage
      google bases itself mostly on news sources from the US and US allies. Hardly unbiased.

      • Re:Google (Score:2, Interesting)

        by p2sam ( 139950 )
        As found in the news.google.com "about page":

        How does Google decide what stories are published on the Google News homepage?

        The headlines on the Google News homepage are selected entirely by a computer algorithm, based on many factors including how often and on what sites a story appears elsewhere on the web. This is very much in the tradition of Google's web search, which relies heavily on the collective judgment of web publishers to determine which sites offer the most valuable and relevant informat

        • GO KGO! (Score:5, Funny)

          by phyxeld ( 558628 ) <phyxNO@SPAMlostinthenoise.net> on Thursday March 20, 2003 @03:48AM (#5552893) Journal
          I like to get my unbiased news from a source I can trust, like My Local ABC Affiliate [go.com]. They break the issue down for me in a simple way I can understand:
          'That bad man is threatening our safety and so our good president [who is the paternal image for our country], is going to protect us," she added.
          ...
          By assuring children that the war is not happening in their neighborhood, parents can help them feel safe.
          ...
          Whether they disagree with it or not, if war proves to be imminent, they [parents] should be sure to explain there is a positive side to the war effort.
          I especially like how ABC presents the war in the TV-special commercial format we're all familiar with. Why, they've even got a banner ad [go.com] cooked up for this sucker already! I love those guys!

        • Re:Google (Score:3, Insightful)

          by pruneau ( 208454 )
          Since our dear Google friend samples mainly english-speaking sites, we have mainly:
          • the brits
          • the us's
          • well, the aussies are OK

          ER, again, Unbiased , you said ?

          I'm afraid you'll have to talk another language than english if you want to have Real Unbiased (tm) news.

          Now, everybody, including me, has its own agenda, so you'd better be your 0wn Google news, and sample differents opinions to try and have a kind of "better picture". But that's true even outside war time, hmmm ?

          Now look at the discussion, t

          • Re:Google (Score:3, Informative)

            by aat ( 106366 )
            Uhhh, India.

            3 of the 10 daily English language newspapers with the largest circulation are in India (The Times Of India [timesofindia.com] is the most circulated English language newspaper _worldwide_, and oh about 10% of India's population understand it reasonably well. They're not particularly pro-war.

            And there's good ol' Canada up to the north. I hear that they have a lot of English speakers.

            And there's also South Africa, the Phillipines, Pakistan, Ireland, and New Zealand if you want other countries with sizable Englis

    • Re:Google (Score:5, Insightful)

      by oroshana ( 588230 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @03:24AM (#5552749) Journal
      The way I like to look at things is that no one source will ever be the actual truth. "Actual truth" probably can't be written down anyways. I will be looking at sites that are at total opposites of the spectrum. Check out the following eclectic list:

      Iran [irna.com]
      India [hinduonnet.com]
      Switzerland [swissinfo.org]
      Russia [themoscowtimes.com]
      Saudi Arabia [arabnews.com]

  • The Best you'll find (Score:5, Informative)

    by tpearson ( 621275 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @02:57AM (#5552554)
    the best source I've been able to find is Guerrilla News Network [www.gnn.tv] (gnn.tv)

  • 'Reliable, disinterested reports'... (Score:5, Informative)

    by DuckDuckBOOM! ( 535473 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @02:57AM (#5552556)
    Ain't no such animal. Imho the closest thing online is BBCi [bbc.co.uk] and that's where I'll be spending my bandwidth over the next (hopefully very) few weeks.
    • If they were disinterested, the reports wouldn't be reliable (in terms of either timely or well researched).

      The best you can ask for is a reasonably eclectic set of news sources, from which you can, hopefully, synthesize a picture with a reasonably low signal-to-noise ratio. -- rather like the work they do with long baseline radio telescope arrays.

      (One thing I like about news sources like the "Marxist Workers Journal" is that it's pretty easy to see where their bias lies. Newspapers like The National Post, on the other hand, tend to have reporters and editors who are reasonably good at hiding their bias. This requires a bit more effort on the part of the sceptical reader).

      • They are desinterested. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by jotaeleemeese ( 303437 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @05:31AM (#5553438) Homepage Journal
        The best probe is that in most issues the BBC is accussed of bias by all the different people holding different opinions about the same issue.
        • The BBC is where I've been heading. My local NPR station has been running BBC radio reports, and my local PBS TV station is running BBCWorld Service on TV after the PBS news programs.

          I think two things are worth noting. The BBC aren't afraid to note that a column of American troops are in fast retreat (wording unheard by my ears on American broadcasts by any network, yet apparently the first column heading into Basra met with stiff enough resistance a retreat was ordered until air support could arrive).

          Al

      • Re:'Reliable, disinterested reports'... (Score:4, Informative)

        by david duncan scott ( 206421 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @09:29AM (#5554575)
        If they were disinterested, the reports wouldn't be reliable (in terms of either timely or well researched).

        I don't follow, unless you misread "disinterested" as "uninterested".

        "Disinterested" simply means that they don't have an interest or agenda themselves, that they have nothing to gain. It's not that they're bored, but rather impartial.

        Mind you, since the UK is an interested party in the war, I'm not sure that the BBC is neccesarily the best way to go. I've been looking at the CBC page [www.cbc.ca] as well -- Canada is of course a US ally, but they're not happy with this whole thing and they don't mind saying so.

  • I would suggest cbc.ca (Score:5, Informative)

    by Tim_F ( 12524 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @02:58AM (#5552561)
    Canada is not participating in the attack against Iraq and therefore any news reported out of Canada will be unbiased. CBC is the Canadian government owned national broadcaster. Click here [cbc.ca] for a direct link.

    • Re:I would suggest cbc.ca (Score:5, Informative)

      by Screaming Lunatic ( 526975 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @05:09AM (#5553345) Homepage
      Yup. Gonna have to ditto on that one.

      CBC chose not to "embed" reporters in the warzone and instead decided to focus on other angles. A pretty good choice since what they would be able to report would have been strictly limited by the military and CNN, FOX, NBC, would be reporting the same thing anyway.

      My other choices are the BBC and Google News since it surveys US newscasters.

      Don't forget CBC Radio. http://www.rcinet.ca/

    • Re:I would suggest cbc.ca (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Mr.Ned ( 79679 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @07:40AM (#5553917)
      Canada is not participating in the attack against Iraq and therefore any news reported out of Canada will be unbiased.

      Sorry, but there's no such thing as 'unbiased' news. Everyone has their slant and their agenda, and no matter how fairly they treat the subject matter bias will always be there. One must read multiple news sources from around the world, ones that don't just copy Reuters, and decide for himself what's going on. Hear all sides of the argument and form a conclusion on what's really going on.

      No one's going to spoonfeed this to you - do it yourself.
    • I'm sorry to burst your bubble but there are far more factors to weigh than participation.

  • All of em (Score:5, Insightful)

    by btlzu2 ( 99039 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @03:06AM (#5552619) Homepage Journal
    I read em all and then believe 1% of all of what I read. I love the BBC, the Brits are always interesting, polite, and just damn cool.
  • Wow. Someone who uses 'disinterested' correctly. AlexeisKai, you're my new best friend. =)

    As for news sources... thank God we have the Internet. I'm willing to bet some European or South American news sites ought to have a fairly unbiased coverage.

  • There is none (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 20, 2003 @03:09AM (#5552646)
    The sooner you realize that all media is slanted, intentionally or otherwise, the sooner you'll accept that fact and move on. Its just how the nature of media (ALL media, not just news) is.

    My advice? Get your news from a variety of different sources, and then check on who THEIR sources are. At least then you'll be somewhat more informed than the average (dumb) Joe who recites facts (or "facts" if we're talking about Fox) without knowing anything about the situation.

    • Probably a fair point. As another poster suggested, try finding an alternative site like a Pakistani newspaper. If you can read French or German, try their news sites, since they are against the war.

      Read all the viewpoints, filter out the hyperbole and crap and whatever's left should be relatively useful.

  • Try Australia (Score:4, Interesting)

    by candiman ( 629910 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @03:13AM (#5552668)
    Despite the fact most people can't find it on a map, Australia actually has one of the strongest democracies in the world.

    And we are involved in the war.

    For a fairly neutral, balanced view, try the Sydney Morning Herald [smh.com.au].

    • Re:Try Australia (Score:2, Insightful)

      by dpash ( 5685 )
      Except that the SMH is owned by Murdock. He also owns Fox in the US, Sky, The Sun, The Times and various other media in the UK. I would not trust anything owned by Murdock.
    • Nearly everyone can find it in 7 tries or less...

  • Ignore the news (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Fastball ( 91927 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @03:15AM (#5552687) Journal
    I knew the branding of the war was imminent. All of the news stations have been doing it since we've begun banging the war drums. I'm surprised to see it to such sickening lengths. It sucks journalists down a few fathoms below lawyers in my book. What are these fucking people thinking splashing "Showdown with Saddam" all over the tube? Good God, these people need to get a fucking life.

    The news will not cover the war. You won't learn what it was like for some Iraqi soldier to get carbonized instantly by a gunship (because his country's despot ruler is a punk). Why bother? Read an AP or Reuters report and get on with your life, the one with your $3 latte on the way to work tomorrow morning, because your life ain't the one those Iraqis are living, and it sure as hell isn't anything like what FoxCNNMSNBC is gonna show you.

  • Fox news (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by xagon7 ( 530399 )
    I like their non-liberal bullshit slant on things.

  • Hidden elements of the U.S. government sell war. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Futurepower(R) ( 558542 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @03:20AM (#5552721) Homepage

    For links to stories about how hidden elements of the U.S. government sell everyone else on war, see What should be the Response to Violence? [hevanet.com]

    U.S. government agencies like the NSA, CIA, and FBI function as a world-wide secret police force. If they make trouble, they get more attention and funding. There is a huge conflict of interest.

    Big weapons makers in the U.S. like GE own media companies, so they can make sure that war is seen as necessary and even interesting and fun. For many people in the U.S. war is an adult video game. They don't really think of the pain and suffering the U.S. government has caused. The U.S. government has bombed 14 countries in 35 years and killed more than 3,000,000 people.

    U.S. taxpayers pay Israel $900 per year for every man woman and child in Israel. That money must be used to buy weapons from U.S. weapons makers. So much money for war tends to prevent peace.

    The U.S. interferes with needed governmental change in Saudia Arabia. I don't think violence is justified. However, Saudi friends have told me that Osama bin Laden's complaints about the U.S. government are justified.

    I find it deeply painful to realize that the government of the U.S. is partly corrupt.

    • Re:PARTLY corrupt? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Bastian ( 66383 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @03:54AM (#5552921)
      Shoot, take a course in Latin America's history and the idea that the government of the U.S. is partily corrupt will seem like a gross understatement.

      The U.S. government's foreign policy is in no way dictated or influenced by the opinions or needs of American citizens (or any other world citizen, for that matter) or moral imperatives. U.S. foreign policy decisions are made entirely on the basis of economic interest, Cold War style paranoia, or both.

      & a quick look at the financial profiles of Bush & a large number of Congress members makes it fairly obvious that U.S. politics has reached a state where lawmakers and U.S. government leaders don't really even need to be bribed by interest groups, they can bribe themselves. For example, Bush's oil-industry stock is going to skyrocket if the U.S. can take control of the Iraqi oil fields for a multitude of reasons. On the domestic side of things, that same oil-industry stock portfolio also discourages him from enacting good environmental policies such as a push for more fuel-efficient automobiles or programs to encourage the development of the United States's public transportation infrastructure.

  • Think for yourself... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by linuxghoul ( 16059 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @03:31AM (#5552794) Journal
    I have found that in such situations, the best that one can do is look for news sources which you expect to be biased towards both sides of the issue. I mean, read BBC [bbc.co.uk] and, say, DAWN [dawn.com], a pakistani newspaper (a rather respectable newspaper, very balanced, relative to most others that i have found from islamic countries).

    So both of these are mostly very unbiased, but on such a issue, probably leaning to opposite sides. one can expect them to report pretty much all relevant points to the issue between them, and then, once u have all the information, build your own opinion...no, not as easy as getting your opinion ready made for you by a single source, but i think the only way one has any chance at knowing even a part of the truth. I know this is what i am going to do.

    One thing i am not going to do is read CNN, though. CNN has recently been a major dissapointment in its over all coverage of ALL issues, from the ENRON and co. scams, to the IRAQ issue. I think they are guilty of fraud, the way they omit an anti-goverment viewpoint, eg in the case of the hugely edited UN weapons inspector transscript posted on CNN (read about it on that other site [kuro5hin.org] )...thats just one example. Their coverage of the worldwide anti-war protests could have made one feel that it was just a dozen hippies who made a bit of noise, not the 10 million plus who marched all over the world. What good is the guarentee of freedom of press when the press is unwilling to use that freedom? Its weird that a govt. owned news channel (BBC) manages a much more balanced reporting that a completely independent and very powerfull entity like CNN. The irony get worse when you consider that CNN gained most of its worldwide popularity during operation desert storm, when it was the only international news network allowed to operate from inside iraq by saddam, because, as the iraqi govt put it: "they are the only ones we trust to objectively report the truth".

    Its a weird world.

    Ghoul2
    • During the Britain v Argentina war, Thacher (The PM at the time) was complaining that the BBC were not reporting the news as "us vs them" but reather refeared to the british forces as "the british forces".
      I love the fact that the BBC dont have to listen to anyone else but themselves (Not to the government, investors, advertisers etc.)

  • How about? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Red Pointy Tail ( 127601 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @03:58AM (#5552945)
    Slashdot.org?

    Oh wait... reliable

  • Radio Netherlands, and the GuardianUnlimited (Score:3, Informative)

    by DancingSword ( 412552 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @03:59AM (#5552953) Homepage Journal

    Radio Netherlands [www.rnw.nl]

    Guardian [guardian.co.uk]

  • alternet.org (Score:2, Informative)

    by poppen_fresh ( 65995 )
    Here's a website, but it's interesting not because it's unbiased, but because it's biased *against* Bush and the govt in general.

    http://www.alternet.org [alternet.org]

  • Unbiased news source (Score:2, Informative)

    by Ashka ( 660412 )
    Independant Media Center http://www.indymedia.org/ Indymedia is a collective of independent media organizations and hundreds of journalists offering grassroots, non-corporate coverage. Indymedia is a democratic media outlet for the creation of radical, accurate, and passionate tellings of truth.

  • Not BBC (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jarran ( 91204 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @04:45AM (#5553222)
    I expect people will suggest the BBC. They are unbiased compared to a lot of media (especially more US centric outlets) but they are not by any means unbiased. I can't find links any more, but for example, university studies have shown that their reporting of the Israel-Palestine conflict is often very biased in favour if Israel. Of course, this doesn't mean coverage of the war is/isn't biased, it's just something to bear in mind.

    I'm not suggesting BBC coverage is terrible - it is very good in fact, just that any suggestions it is unbiased are exagerated.

    Also, the BBC, especially on TV, has a nasty habit of wildly speculating about things. More than once I have seen them suggest that something is certainly going to happen, only for it to later not happen. Quire often the truth gets less coverage than the original incorrect speculation.

    I think this is one of the nastier symptoms of "I WANT NEWS NOW!" syndrome. The media is so eager to report news the instant it happens (and public demand drives this) that by the time something has actually happened people are already moving on to speculating what will happen next.

    • The best sections of the BBC (read Radio 4) are good not because they are unbiased, but because they wear their bias on their sleeves.

      Its pointless trying to get unbiased reporting. Everyone has a opinion, a point of view. Even if everything that is said is true, there is still the issue of what is not said. You can not cover everything.

      News is at it's best where alternative view points are presented, discussed and argued out. The BBC does quite a lot of this, and it's for this that I like to listen to it
  • ...and then read about what really happened in the history books. This doesn't always work -- the Japanese are still claiming that they just had to attack the U.S. out of self-defense -- but it is a lot better than the current "fog of reporting" that we will have for the next weeks.

    • read about what really happened in the history books

      Sorry dude
      History books are written by the winners (and those who want to influance the young) and can be very biased.
      eg Many history books fail to mention the staggering numbers of civilians killed when allies carpet bombed German cities in WW2.
      You certainly wont find a US history book that mentions Regans bombing of Tripolli in the 80's [obs-us.com] nor will kids be tought about the US embarasment in Somallia. Simerly, here in Britain very little is tought to c

    • the Japanese are still claiming that they just had to attack the U.S. out of self-defense

      Hey, attacking someone in advance out of self defense ... this sounds very very familiar to me for some reason ....
  • ABC News [abc.net.au].

    Nothing to do with the compliant US ABC ... the ABC in Australia does its best in most cases to report fairly and accurately.

    In particular, Max Uechtritz - one of Australia's most respected war correspondents - is currently the head of news and current affairs at the ABC.
  • Since NZ isn't in this war either, I can usually use http://www.nzoom.com/ (which covers our major news network there). Probably http://www.bbc.co.uk (as well as many other of the great bbc sites)

  • Some Arab links (Score:3, Informative)

    by RobotWisdom ( 25776 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @06:29AM (#5553660) Homepage
    These were useful during the Afghan invasion: Lebanon [dailystar.com.lb], Jordan [jordantimes.com], Arab News [arabnews.com], Gulf News [gulf-news.com]

  • Pentegon TARGETS independent reporters (Score:5, Informative)

    by SomethingOrOther ( 521702 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @06:38AM (#5553690) Homepage

    ALL news will be censored since the pentegon have said unauthoriesd satellie broadcasts (including those from journalists) will be targets. Read this [gulufuture.com] from Kate Adie. (Kate Adie is a BBC reporter who covered the last gulf war and is regared very highly in the UK)

    If the US blocks all outside broardcasts we can only wait until after the war to see anything like the truth. Censorship sucks.

    • From the article:

      "I was told by a senior officer in the Pentagon, that if uplinks --that is the television signals out of... Bhagdad, for example-- were detected by any planes ... they'd be fired down on... they've been warned."

      Again, it was not a threat, it was a warning. We are using RADAR-seeking missiles to disable Iraqi intelligence and communications, and those missiles have no way of telling what they are going to hit--only that it is a strong radio source. Thus journalists have been duly warned o

  • BBC News (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by Martin Spamer ( 244245 )
    You will struggle to beat the BBC coverage from any other single source, their coverage is extensive and impartial.

    BBC News Online [bbc.co.uk].

    The BBC World Service [bbc.co.uk] is available on both online and Radio [slashdot.org]World-Wide.

    BBC News 24 [bbc.co.uk] is available on Digital Satellite thought the world.

  • Press Freedom Index (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Reality_X ( 23422 )
    http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=4116

    Start at number 1 and work your way down.
  • I tend to get most of my "reliable" news from NPR [npr.org](National Public Radio). My local NPR station also broadcasts PRI [pri.org] (Public Radio International) in the afternoon.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Slashdot comments at -1, of course. They're the most reliable source of information on the web!

  • World News Guide (Score:3, Interesting)

    by north.coaster ( 136450 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @09:20AM (#5554504) Homepage

    I suggest consulting several sources with a broad range of perspectives. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Guardian Unlimited's World News Guide [guardian.co.uk] is a good starting point. It contains pointers to international sources for news from every region of the world.

    The worst source for information is the American electronic media. They are obsessed with breaking the newest little piece of news, ignoring normal journalist practices of verifying information before going live with it. They focus on areas and events where they have reporter who can transmit live, and give little time to anything else. I watched CNN for half an hour this morning, and not even once did they slow down long enough to provide a summary of what was happening. FOX, CBS, etc. are just as bad. ABC is a little better, but only when Peter Jennings the anchor.

  • Give up now. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Millennium ( 2451 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @09:29AM (#5554570)
    "Unbiased media" is an oxymoron.

    All media is biased, one way or another; the only difference is the direction of that bias. The most dangerous media outlets are the ones who claim to be unbiased, because they've lost sight of their bias in their arrogance.

    So if you want a balanced view of the war, looking for a single source will do you no good, because no single source exists. Instead, get your news from multiple sources, always aware of each source's bias, and then think for yourself. The classic "CNN and the BBC" may not work well in this particular case, given that they're both located in nations with a direct hand in the attack. If you really want to walk on the wild side you could use Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore, but many people can't stomach either of them, much less both.

    Look around, and you'll find something. Just remember this rule: don't let anyone do your thinking for you.

  • US Military? (Score:3)

    by Bazzargh ( 39195 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @09:39AM (#5554661)
    If you can't get unbiased media, you can try to read all sides and make your own mind up. A key part of that is getting at the data the press are filtering for you.

    http://www.centcom.mil/ [centcom.mil] is where the US military distribute their news, eg transcripts of press briefings, images of leaflets they've been dropping on Iraq, that kind of thing. Unfortunately they seem to be running it off a teeny weeny server so its always on the brink of falling over.

    The BBC's John Simpson was going to be crossing the border into Iraq from the Kurdish side as soon as possible, and is not travelling with Army units (he says "the army - anybody's army - gets in the way of reporting"). His reports can be interesting if a little self-aggrandizing (if you heard his reports when he arrived in Kabul last year you'll know what I mean). Anyway, unlike most of the press, he won't just be reporting what he's been briefed by the military.
  • What is this a post by the FBI to gather a list of unpatriotic geeks??

    If not, well Ive found the Observer, the UK Independent, russian interfax, Pakistans dawn.com to be nice and unbiased. Ever BBC is pretty objective with not overflowing opinions like the CNN or NYTimes.

    A smart person would gather objective data from these and form his own opinion rather than sucking up the world's opinion.

  • The Christian Science Monitor (Score:3, Informative)

    by ReidMaynard ( 161608 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @12:43PM (#5556312) Homepage
    The Christian Science Monitor [csmonitor.com] is an excellent new source.

    They have won many awards, respected by the industry, and are very neutral. They do have points of view, but are expressed in op/ed type sections, not news stories.
  • I couldn't believe the details that the newscasters were pushing for this morning. Norman Schwarzkopf was asked how involved the Special Forces were in this campaign. He simply laughed and said "Even if I knew I probably wouldn't be able to discuss that."

    I know the media wants to be there for every shot and get incredible footage of things blowing up. I'm sure we'd have cameras broadcasting footage from each bomb, plane, tank, and rifle if the media had their way. They would receive advance notice, so they could go in and set up cameras to get the best angles on the attack.

    What the hell is wrong with the media? As early at 10:00 EST they were doing estimates on how much money the strike cost. At 9:45 they were speculating on what had been bombed and why.

    I think the Daily Show last night had the best coverage - it was taped before the deadline and aired after. They cut to a segment where Steven said "If we have not bombed them, I disagree with this war with every fiber of my being, but if we have, then I have been behind this effort wholeheartedly the entire time."

  • Unbiased War News? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Captain Large Face ( 559804 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @12:56PM (#5556417) Homepage

    I recommend looking to The Onion [theonion.com]. It is, after all, America's [theonion.com] Finest [theonion.com] News [theonion.com] Source [theonion.com].

    In all seriousness, I shall probably be checking the BBC's web site regularly (News Ticker [bbc.co.uk] (Win32) | RSS [bbc.co.uk]), as well as buying a decent newspaper [independent.co.uk] for greater depth and insight.

    Of course, for those committed to both sides of the argument, I recommend visiting Al-Jazeera [aljazeera.net] with the use of a Arabic-English [ajeeb.com] translator. Apparently, Al-Jazeera will soon be launching an English language service (e.g. the end of March).

  • One journalist's perspective. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Stanl ( 646331 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @02:13PM (#5557200) Journal
    This thread hits close to home for me because I work in the newsroom of a major metropolitan newspaper, and a good friend of mine is in Kuwait right now on assignment.

    After reading many of the comments in this thread, it's clear there is a lot of skepticism and mistrust toward how the US media will cover the war with Iraq, and I would heartily encourage this.

    The biggest reason to take everything you hear with a grain of salt is because of how the US media is approaching this conflict. Essentially, the US press is beholden to the military in every way, shape and form in trying to cover this war.

    Most of the information you will read in the newspaper or see on TV is from "imbedded journalists," who are reporters who have been officially credentialed and assigned to particular US military groups around Iraq. As you might expect, they have no freedom or initiative to actually go out and obtain first-hand observations. They are spoon fed information from official government press conferences. Although one argument to justify this situation could be is that it's to protect the journalists, in reality it's one big spin-control session.

    It's hard to fault the journalists parroting our government's propaganda right now. They are strongly influenced by their environment and the pressure to produce some sort of story, whether or not it is fair, accurate and responsible. Personally, I doubt we will vitness any true "front-line" journalism for quite a while, but I know there are reporters wandering in the war zone who will publish pieces free of the yoke of our government's influence. These stories (and photos) will appear in newspapers -- not on TV where there pressure for "up to the minute" news is too great. Just be patient.

Slashdot Top Deals

One way to make your old car run better is to look up the price of a new model.

Close