sondance
Member
Here is a post I made on a news blog in the US. I am interested in how Europeans see this issue of credibilty by news reporters.
Do they use polls there to tell you how you think?
Ken
=================================================
Is it just me or have "news" articles become more rife with editorial statements which have no connection with the facts presented in the specific article and which are obviously intended to persuade me to "adopt a view". The latest being that we are failing in Iraq, the world hates us for being there and that we believe we should pull out.
Wouldn't it be nice if faith were this easy - let me tell you what you believe. None of that messy responsibility to think things through required.
Here is an example of what I see. On Dec. 1 this story appeared in the headliner section of the AP articles found on worldmag.com (and I suspect any other site using AP reporting). "Two U.S. allies leaving Iraq, more may go", By WILLIAM J. KOLE Associated Press Writer. It contained the following paragraph:
"In the months after the March 2003 invasion, the multinational force numbered about 300,000 soldiers from 38 countries. That figure is now just under 24,000 mostly non-combat personnel from 27 countries. The coalition has steadily unraveled as the death toll rises and angry publics clamor for troops to leave."
This cannot possibly be an ethical representation of the facts.
1. It compares 300,000 soldiers of unstated purpose against 24,000 "mostly" non-combat personnel. Does that mean that the 300,000 does not include American soldiers? Who knows? But I think it does, in which case it has compared completely different numbers.
2.The coalition has decreased due to A) countries that elected to remove troops because they objected to (... what exactly, other than Spain suffering terrible bombing on their own turf?) and B) countries whose commitment had come to its originally given end, apparently like Bulgaria. How does that constitute a "steady unraveling"?
Well the story does not end there. Friday, another article appeared in the headlines by the same writer, "Dec 2, 7:44 AM EST U.S.-Led Iraq Coalition Steadily Eroding", By WILLIAM J. KOLE Associated Press Writer
"In the months after the March 2003 invasion, the multinational force numbered about 300,000 soldiers from 38 countries - 250,000 from the U.S. and 50,000 from other countries. The coalition has steadily unraveled as the death toll rises and angry publics clamor for troops to leave.
Now the nearly 160,000-member U.S. force in Iraq is supported by just under 24,000 mostly non-combat personnel from 27 countries. Britain has the second-largest contingent with 8,000 in Iraq and 2,000 elsewhere in the Gulf region."
You can see he corrects the misrepresentation found in the earlier article, mostly. It is still important to him to tell us that most of the remaining non-US forces are non-combat personnel. Still for this to support his spin it should mean that a majority of non-combat personnel is unusual. Actually it is quite normal that most personnel are "non-combat personnel" who take of transportation, equipment and supplies, etc. (except for the US Marines and Special Forces).
His spin is that "the coalition is steadily unraveling". He uses the opportunity provided by the Bulgarian and Ukrainian pullouts to trump this claim. The phrase was in his first article and he used it as the title for his second. The reporter is on a campaign. I read elsewhere that the Bulgarians are pulling out because they have reached the end of their year long commitment. That is not the same as becoming scared and running for your life. It is not the same as deciding Iraq is a failure or that President Bush is a megalomaniac which is what the media constantly tells us.
My last point in this little tirade is how these spins then become our reality. First they tell us what we believe with out providing any evidence, because they do not have any. Then the polls reflect what they have told us because we do not know the difference between what we believe and what they tell us we believe. Then they cite the polls as evidence that their spin is real. So in the media our reality is pre-determined by their bias and completely fabricated.
Do they use polls there to tell you how you think?
Ken
=================================================
Is it just me or have "news" articles become more rife with editorial statements which have no connection with the facts presented in the specific article and which are obviously intended to persuade me to "adopt a view". The latest being that we are failing in Iraq, the world hates us for being there and that we believe we should pull out.
Wouldn't it be nice if faith were this easy - let me tell you what you believe. None of that messy responsibility to think things through required.
Here is an example of what I see. On Dec. 1 this story appeared in the headliner section of the AP articles found on worldmag.com (and I suspect any other site using AP reporting). "Two U.S. allies leaving Iraq, more may go", By WILLIAM J. KOLE Associated Press Writer. It contained the following paragraph:
"In the months after the March 2003 invasion, the multinational force numbered about 300,000 soldiers from 38 countries. That figure is now just under 24,000 mostly non-combat personnel from 27 countries. The coalition has steadily unraveled as the death toll rises and angry publics clamor for troops to leave."
This cannot possibly be an ethical representation of the facts.
1. It compares 300,000 soldiers of unstated purpose against 24,000 "mostly" non-combat personnel. Does that mean that the 300,000 does not include American soldiers? Who knows? But I think it does, in which case it has compared completely different numbers.
2.The coalition has decreased due to A) countries that elected to remove troops because they objected to (... what exactly, other than Spain suffering terrible bombing on their own turf?) and B) countries whose commitment had come to its originally given end, apparently like Bulgaria. How does that constitute a "steady unraveling"?
Well the story does not end there. Friday, another article appeared in the headlines by the same writer, "Dec 2, 7:44 AM EST U.S.-Led Iraq Coalition Steadily Eroding", By WILLIAM J. KOLE Associated Press Writer
"In the months after the March 2003 invasion, the multinational force numbered about 300,000 soldiers from 38 countries - 250,000 from the U.S. and 50,000 from other countries. The coalition has steadily unraveled as the death toll rises and angry publics clamor for troops to leave.
Now the nearly 160,000-member U.S. force in Iraq is supported by just under 24,000 mostly non-combat personnel from 27 countries. Britain has the second-largest contingent with 8,000 in Iraq and 2,000 elsewhere in the Gulf region."
You can see he corrects the misrepresentation found in the earlier article, mostly. It is still important to him to tell us that most of the remaining non-US forces are non-combat personnel. Still for this to support his spin it should mean that a majority of non-combat personnel is unusual. Actually it is quite normal that most personnel are "non-combat personnel" who take of transportation, equipment and supplies, etc. (except for the US Marines and Special Forces).
His spin is that "the coalition is steadily unraveling". He uses the opportunity provided by the Bulgarian and Ukrainian pullouts to trump this claim. The phrase was in his first article and he used it as the title for his second. The reporter is on a campaign. I read elsewhere that the Bulgarians are pulling out because they have reached the end of their year long commitment. That is not the same as becoming scared and running for your life. It is not the same as deciding Iraq is a failure or that President Bush is a megalomaniac which is what the media constantly tells us.
My last point in this little tirade is how these spins then become our reality. First they tell us what we believe with out providing any evidence, because they do not have any. Then the polls reflect what they have told us because we do not know the difference between what we believe and what they tell us we believe. Then they cite the polls as evidence that their spin is real. So in the media our reality is pre-determined by their bias and completely fabricated.
