The W
Views: 99860904
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
20.10.14 1759
The W - Current Events & Politics - Why I don't trust Fox News
This thread has 9 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(2127 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (26 total)
godking
Chourico








Since: 20.10.02
From: Toronto

Since last post: 3903 days
Last activity: 3848 days
#1 Posted on
Al-Jazeera's outpost in Iraq was hit by two US missiles today. That much is not in dispute.

The reason I don't trust Fox News is their spin on it is

A) the targeting was likely deliberate
B) this is a good thing.

Now, yes, the targeting may have been deliberate. I certainly don't think it's impossible. But attacking media is a direct violation of the Geneva Conventions, and the Faux News crowd are cheering this on.

That goes beyond stupid to an entirely new word meaning "more stupid than stupid."

Also, because I know everybody likes links:

I feel nothing but pity for this soldier
Promote this thread!
Scott Summets
Sujuk








Since: 27.6.02

Since last post: 3903 days
Last activity: 3871 days
#2 Posted on
http://media.guardian.co.uk/iraqandthemedia/story/0,12823,921487,00.html

That link shows that hitting Al-Jazeera is ok.

(edited by Scott Summets on 8.4.03 0750)


Rorschach: "None of you understand. I'm not locked up in here with you. You're locked up in here with me."
The Thrill
Banger








Since: 16.4.02
From: Green Bay, WI

Since last post: 186 days
Last activity: 33 days
#3 Posted on

"America may have some problems, but it's our home. Our team. And if you don't wanna root for your team...then you should get the hell out of the stadium. Go America." --Stan Marsh, South Park

CentCom's GEN Brooks said this morning that journalists are not targeted by the coalition, be they Al-Jazeera or otherwise.

If they were...d'ya think Geraldo would've lived long enough to get kicked out of Iraq? :-)



Star wipe, and...we're out.
Thrillin' ain't easy.

.
.
THE THRILL
All-Star Championship Wrestling Home Video Technical Director...& A2NWO 4 Life!

All-Star Championship Wrestling!

Nate The Snake
Liverwurst








Since: 9.1.02
From: Wichita, Ks

Since last post: 3746 days
Last activity: 3215 days
AIM:  
#4 Posted on

    Originally posted by Scott Summets

    (Link deleted to keep the tables unbroken)


    That link shows that hitting Al-Jazeera is ok.




...did you actually read that article? There wasn't a single sentence that justified the attack of the media by the armed forces. It stated, basically, that the media wasn't bound by the Geneva Convention's article 13 (which states that POWs must be protected against violence, humiliation, etcetera) because it only applies to states involved in hostilities, not to news organizations.

That being said, is anyone particularly surprised at yet another violation of the Geneva Convention by our side OR theirs? It's practically become a rule.

(edited by Nate The Snake on 8.4.03 0921)


Kansas-born and deeply ashamed
The last living La Parka Marka

"They that can give up essential liberty to gain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 28 days
Last activity: 2 days
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.28
Did you actually read that story, or just link based on the headline?

Read the story. It's about showing prisoners of war on TV. The "Geneva Convention does not apply to media" is about how the media is not held responsible for showing POW's. It has nothing to do with targeting media outlets.

Honestly.



It seems that I am - in no particular order - Zack Morris, John Adams, a Siren, Michael Novotny, Janeane Garofalo, Cheer Bear, Aphrodite, a Chihuahua, Data, Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel, Amy-Wynn Pastor, Hydrogen, Bjork, Spider-Man, Tom Daschle, Boston, and a Chaotic Good Elvin Bard-Mage.
rockstar
Salami








Since: 2.1.02
From: East TN

Since last post: 3566 days
Last activity: 3443 days
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.22
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.



"Life is tough. Life is tougher if you're stupid."
--John Wayne

"If I can't dazzle you with brilliance, then I'll befuddle you with bullshit."
--"Dirty" Dutch Mantel

Or it's like you lost your keys in the garage, but you look for them in the living room because you know there's another set of keys in there that you need to find anyway.
cranlsn
Liverwurst








Since: 18.3.02
From: Sussex, WI

Since last post: 11 days
Last activity: 1 hour
#7 Posted on

    Originally posted by godking
    Al-Jazeera's outpost in Iraq was hit by two US missiles today. That much is not in dispute.

    The reason I don't trust Fox News is their spin on it is

    A) the targeting was likely deliberate
    B) this is a good thing.

    Now, yes, the targeting may have been deliberate. I certainly don't think it's impossible. But attacking media is a direct violation of the Geneva Conventions, and the Faux News crowd are cheering this on.

    That goes beyond stupid to an entirely new word meaning "more stupid than stupid."

    Also, because I know everybody likes links:

    I feel nothing but pity for this soldier



I looked for something on the website to indicate that Fox News approved of this...and didn't immediately see it. So...I'm assuming you're talking about the on-air talent? If so, can you give an example? I'm not being a jerk, I just didn't see anything like that.






When all else fails, there's always the Simpsons.

The 5th Horseman
Kolbasz








Since: 23.10.02
From: Myrtle Beach, South Carolina

Since last post: 3001 days
Last activity: 2990 days
#8 Posted on

    Originally posted by cranlsn

      Originally posted by godking
      Al-Jazeera's outpost in Iraq was hit by two US missiles today. That much is not in dispute.

      The reason I don't trust Fox News is their spin on it is

      A) the targeting was likely deliberate
      B) this is a good thing.

      Now, yes, the targeting may have been deliberate. I certainly don't think it's impossible. But attacking media is a direct violation of the Geneva Conventions, and the Faux News crowd are cheering this on.

      That goes beyond stupid to an entirely new word meaning "more stupid than stupid."

      Also, because I know everybody likes links:

      I feel nothing but pity for this soldier



    I looked for something on the website to indicate that Fox News approved of this...and didn't immediately see it. So...I'm assuming you're talking about the on-air talent? If so, can you give an example? I'm not being a jerk, I just didn't see anything like that.



No, he can't. He's just exagerrating to fit his own obvious bias against Fox. I was watching last night when this was first reported and the military experts in the studio immediately said the only explanation they could think of is if the Iraqi Soldiers were using the building as a place to shoot at U.S. Troops. None of the people on the show ever said it was good to attack members of the media. As a matter of fact, they mentioned that the guy killed was a former employee of FoxNews and they had one of their reporters that travelled with him talk about what a good guy he was and how he was fun to travel with.



I'm not telling you anything you don't already know.
Leroy
Boudin blanc








Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 4 days
#9 Posted on
The more things change, the more they stay the same...

NATO defends bombing of Serbia's state television station

Why anyone thought we wouldn't be targeting civilians in this war is beyond me.... just imagine the outcry if Iraq would have bombed Fox News.



"It's hard to be a prophet and still make a profit."
- Da Bush Babees
Jaguar
Knackwurst








Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 196 days
Last activity: 196 days
#10 Posted on
So what the hell is up with 'Showing POWs' on TV or in the news. A whole bunch of people get in an uproar over our POWs being shown on TV, and yet today, I open up TIME Magazine and there's a two page spread of an Iraqi POW down on the ground being covered by US troops.

So why aren't we throwing a fit at our own media?

-Jag



From the mouth of my uncle Jim, the Republican banker:
"I regret voting for Bush."
"We need to vote him out of office."

I am in Shock. I am in Awe.
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 4 hours
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.05

    Originally posted by Jaguar
    So what the hell is up with 'Showing POWs' on TV or in the news. A whole bunch of people get in an uproar over our POWs being shown on TV, and yet today, I open up TIME Magazine and there's a two page spread of an Iraqi POW down on the ground being covered by US troops.

    So why aren't we throwing a fit at our own media?

    -Jag



we, and our media, are upset at AMERICAN POWs being shown on TV. Therefore, we, and our media, would not be upset at iraqi POWs being shown on our media.



"Grabbin your butt? That's not very lady-like."
"I'm not a lady."
"Oh. Whatever."
力堵山
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1313 days
Last activity: 79 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#12 Posted on
I will admit that I have NOT seen the TIME spread myself, so if I am wrong, please let me know, but I think the issue is the specifics of the images. You ARE allowed to have pictures of POWs, but you are not allowed to show their faces (or anything else that might positively identify them), and you are not allowed to interrogate them OR publicly humiliate them.

Nondescript photos of Iraqi POWs are ok, because they cannot be identified, and we are in no way actively humiliating them (or beating the living hell out of, or torturing for that matter).

Now if TIME DID show their faces, or something along those lines, I think they should have to answer for that...





Still on the Shelf #2
Jaguar
Knackwurst








Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 196 days
Last activity: 196 days
#13 Posted on
The soldier's face was pretty visible as it was in the foreground of the picture. I couldn't find it on TIME's website, but I'll see if I can describe it in more detail once I get the issue back from my friend. The only pictures up on TIME's site either showed
A) Iraqi soldiers getting medical aid
B) Iraqi civilians being held prisoner
C) Dead Iraqi soldiers face down

Or D) This picture of three 'suspected' Iraqi Soldiers (or at least that's how it reads from the captions).



-Jag



From the mouth of my uncle Jim, the Republican banker:
"I regret voting for Bush."
"We need to vote him out of office."

I am in Shock. I am in Awe.
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 3 hours
AIM:  
#14 Posted on
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".



Willful ignorance of science is not commendable. Refusing to learn the difference between a credible source and a shill is criminally stupid.
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 3 days
AIM:  
#15 Posted on
Has anyone ever pointed out the notion of rules regarding what is ok and what is not in an exercise where the basic notion is to kill everyone on the opposite side of you is one of the goofiest things ever? It's WAR! The whole point is to destroy the lives of those attacking you. Ooooh, one side showed pictures of POW's. Well those POW's on both sides were captured while trying to kill the people on the side who captured them. We attempt to create ground rules to make the notion of warfare more palatable to the people so it can be more easily sold as an option, and so it does not look as if we are betraying our civilized nature, but in the end such things are just foolish. War is not football, you can't throw a penalty flag for clipping, and you're just as dead whether you're killed by a cruise missile, a rifle, or sarin gas.



"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it." - Robert E. Lee

For anyone who thinks that Booker will be going over HHH at Backlash, feel free to PM me about the HHH Challenge.
dMr
Andouille








Since: 2.11.02
From: Edinburgh, Scotland

Since last post: 42 days
Last activity: 1 day
#16 Posted on

    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.



"People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard
cranlsn
Liverwurst








Since: 18.3.02
From: Sussex, WI

Since last post: 11 days
Last activity: 1 hour
#17 Posted on

    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.





When all else fails, there's always the Simpsons.

redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 476 days
Last activity: 476 days
#18 Posted on
Back to Fox News for a moment: On Monday Night in the 10 PM Eastern Hour, they pulled a 6.3 rating. Gee, remember when another show on Monday Nights on Cable would pull a 6.3?



There is only one man left to save Vince McMahon and the WWF/E. Where have you gone Greg Gagne, a nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
dMr
Andouille








Since: 2.11.02
From: Edinburgh, Scotland

Since last post: 42 days
Last activity: 1 day
#19 Posted on

    Originally posted by cranlsn
    That seems to be a case of simply mis-speaking, it does happen.


Mis-speaking as you put it I have no problem with. But the fact that no effort was made to correct the cock up is pretty poor at best.

Christ if Gerry Adams was named as the leader of the IRA on western television there would be uproar regardless of whether it was intentional, and his links to said organisation are far stronger than Saddams are to al Qaeda.



"People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard
The 5th Horseman
Kolbasz








Since: 23.10.02
From: Myrtle Beach, South Carolina

Since last post: 3001 days
Last activity: 2990 days
#20 Posted on

    Originally posted by Jaguar
    So what the hell is up with 'Showing POWs' on TV or in the news. A whole bunch of people get in an uproar over our POWs being shown on TV, and yet today, I open up TIME Magazine and there's a two page spread of an Iraqi POW down on the ground being covered by US troops.

    So why aren't we throwing a fit at our own media?

    -Jag


The media isn't under any obligation to the rules of the Geneva Convention. If the media happens to catch a soldier surrendering, or being taken captive, they have no restrictions.

The technical difference with the Iraqi TV showing of the U.S. and U.K. POWs was that the Iraqi government invited a TV network in to show the POWs, already in custody and locked up, for propaganda. Then, they took it further by allowing the reporter to interrogate the prisoners. The Iraqi government was responsible for that and they are obligated to follow the rules of the Geneva Convention.

The main source of complaint with the Iraqi TV showing of the POWs was their showing of the dead U.S. and U.K. Soldiers that appeared to have been executed.

In short, the difference is that the Iraqi government was responsible for the showing of the U.S. and U.K. POWs and KIAs.



I'm not telling you anything you don't already know.
Pages: 1 2 Next
Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: So whose the "Best Dictator" now?
Next thread: Well Janeane?
Previous thread: Amidst the "Euphoria"
(2127 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Yeah, I mean, Heaven forbid our representatives are in Washington to represent us for an important vote. I think this a case of certain people thinking their organization is more important than it is.
- ScreamingHeadGuy, NAACP at it again.... (2003)
The W - Current Events & Politics - Why I don't trust Fox NewsRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.145 seconds.