The W
Views: 179011153
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
28.3.17 1017
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Why I don't trust Fox News Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2(2147 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (26 total)
drjayphd
Scrapple
Moderator
Level: 126

Posts: 1175/4035
EXP: 22940483
For next: 143684

Since: 22.4.02
From: New Hampshire

Since last post: 766 days
Last activity: 350 days
ICQ:  
Y!:
#21 Posted on 10.4.03 1957.01
Reposted on: 10.4.10 1959.01

    Originally posted by cranlsn

      Originally posted by dMr

        Originally posted by rockstar
        I think his point was "al-Jazeera sucks, so YAY for bombing it!" Not that I agree whole-heartedly, but that's what I got from him linking it.


      Its a pretty popular misconception over here that al-Jazeera is some sort of joint venture of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

      It's not. It's a television network like any other which employs many well educated and well respected (in media circles) journalists, a large number of whom originally worked for western networks.

      Oh, and the reason I wouldn't trust Fox News is that they broke the news that "a strike was made on a building in Baghdad, possibly holding Saddam Hussein and the rest of the al Qaeda leadership"

      To have someone that ill informed reporting on the war is bad enough but to allow her to go uncorrected is pretty shocking.



    That seems to be a case of simply mis-speaking, it does happen. Do we really want to start me, and others (Pool Boy I'm looking at you) digging up every verbal screw up CNN, MSNBC, or for that matter Dan Rather have made?

    If you want to choose another news source because you like their reporting, great! But don't blanket them with "They can't be trusted", because of a verbal gaff.



Well, there's screwing up, and being completely off. Associating Saddam with al Qaeda (when at least there hasn't been much evidence linking him in particular with al Qaeda, if any) isn't even close to a minor screwup.
Cerebus
Scrapple
Level: 119

Posts: 692/3558
EXP: 18745602
For next: 183744

Since: 17.11.02

Since last post: 2460 days
Last activity: 2182 days
#22 Posted on 10.4.03 2112.47
Reposted on: 10.4.10 2119.02
Reason 507 for not trusting Fox News: Geraldo Rivera giving away the location of our troops on the air while he is with them and telling the iraqis what we are planning to do.

The fuckhead got himself booted from the country like a dumbass that he is... That was so funny!
cranlsn
Toulouse
Level: 76

Posts: 396/1231
EXP: 3874240
For next: 131839

Since: 18.3.02
From: Hartland, WI

Since last post: 1964 days
Last activity: 66 days
#23 Posted on 10.4.03 2121.20
Reposted on: 10.4.10 2122.25

    Originally posted by Cerebus
    Reason 507 for not trusting Fox News: Geraldo Rivera giving away the location of our troops on the air while he is with them and telling the iraqis what we are planning to do.

    The fuckhead got himself booted from the country like a dumbass that he is... That was so funny!



This one I'll give you...Geraldo's an idiot...Fox's only mistake was hiring this dolt.

PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 83

Posts: 627/1528
EXP: 5382463
For next: 49781

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 6274 days
Last activity: 6116 days
#24 Posted on 10.4.03 2306.42
Reposted on: 10.4.10 2308.51
    Originally posted by Guru Zim
    The explanation that I heard was that it was OK for a hard news report of soldiers surrendering, but it was not OK to show POWS being interrogated. I believe that the confusion has to do with the latter being simplified as "It is wrong to show POWS".


And would the Geneva Convention even apply to TIME, or only to governments?

(edited by PalpatineW on 11.4.03 0006)
dMr
Andouille
Level: 97

Posts: 580/2229
EXP: 9304279
For next: 13079

Since: 2.11.02
From: Edinburgh, Scotland

Since last post: 2852 days
Last activity: 1198 days
#25 Posted on 11.4.03 0546.57
Reposted on: 11.4.10 0547.13

    Originally posted by PalpatineW
      Originally posted by Guru Zim
      The explanation that I heard was that it was OK for a hard news report of soldiers surrendering, but it was not OK to show POWS being interrogated. I believe that the confusion has to do with the latter being simplified as "It is wrong to show POWS".


    And would the Geneva Convention even apply to TIME, or only to governments?

    (edited by PalpatineW on 11.4.03 0006)



My understanding was that it was OK to show them as long as it wasn't done in a manner intended to humiliate them.

Hence it was all right to show a long line of Iraqi POW's briefly but not acceptable to show individual prisoners being questioned.

But then on BBC last night I saw some Iraqis who had literally just been captured being interviewed by news-crews, and frankly if that doesnt cause them embarassment I dont know what would.
Nate The Snake
Liverwurst
Level: 73

Posts: 429/1136
EXP: 3448860
For next: 37025

Since: 9.1.02
From: Wichita, Ks

Since last post: 7192 days
Last activity: 6662 days
#26 Posted on 11.4.03 1013.57
Reposted on: 11.4.10 1014.07

    Originally posted by PalpatineW
    And would the Geneva Convention even apply to TIME, or only to governments?


It only applies to governments, and government-controlled agencies. The media is concerned with reporting facts, free of bias, so they wouldn't be showing things like that for propaganda purposes.

BWAHAHAHAAAAHAHAHA. Sorry, I tried to get that out with a straight face, but... anyway, that's the idea, as I understand it. A bit naive, perhaps, but still a decent idea.
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Pages: Prev 1 2Thread ahead: So whose the "Best Dictator" now?
Next thread: Well Janeane?
Previous thread: Amidst the "Euphoria"
(2147 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Why I don't trust Fox NewsRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2024 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.187 seconds.