Posts: 1,481
Threads: 111
Joined: Feb 2003
When trying to figure out what's going on in Iraq, where do you turn to for information? I've read several articles containing the words "according to an Iraqi spokesman", "an American general reports" etc. There was a bombing raid tonight and I read 2 articles on it. They both said the raid was devestating, so that's probably true.
The American-swayed article said the missiles hit their targets, the other stated that over 200 children and women were killed or wounded.
Can either of these articles be trusted? There's also an article on how a whole platoon of Iraqi soldiers have surrendered.. 8000 soldiers. This is also based on American intel. But if you were fighting a war wanting the other side to surrender, wouldn't you also spread false information that large quantities of your opponent's army is capitulating?
Where do you go for reliable, non-biased information? I certainly don't trust anything said in Iraq or America. I imagine I could trust BBC World, but they're a British-run network, so I'm not sure about them either.
Posts: 1,036
Threads: 12
Joined: Feb 2003
03-22-2003, 10:50 AM
(This post was last modified: 03-22-2003, 10:51 AM by Rhydderch Hael.)
A foreign press seems the most reasonable way to go. Unfortunately, unless said press has their own extensive reporter pool and access to source information, the info they may be getting is still "proccessed" through the information networks of either side.
I mean, hypothetically imagine that you're reading a Swiss newspaper that is supposed to be unbiased and neutral (it's hypothetical, folks). Now unless the Swiss have their own intel apparatus and contacts in the region (likely not), then the only information they may be getting will be the stuff coming through the Americans and Iraqis. Only the editorial voice will be neutral. The information the articles are based on would still slant to either side.
Political Correctness is the idea that you can foster tolerance in a diverse world through the intolerance of anything that strays from a clinical standard.
Posts: 106
Threads: 10
Joined: Feb 2003
03-22-2003, 12:03 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-22-2003, 04:07 PM by smithy.)
Spin by the media is one thing. Outright lies are another all together.
Maybe it is just me but I have been glued to the TV over the past few days. Most of what the cable news stations report is the same rehashed stuff they were reporting the day before, but every once in a while something interesting crops up.
"Where do you go for reliable, non-biased information? I certainly don't trust anything said in Iraq or America."
I sincerely doubt any news agency is completely non-biased. Everyone, everyone has an agenda even if it is hard to see. I really don't see the big problem with American coverage provided you are willing to look past the spin. It's usually not to hard to ignore the personal opinions and listen to the real news.
That being said,
The Iraqi "information minister" has held a number of press conferences. If you actually believe anything this guy puts out, I feel badly for you.
I don't doubt that there have been Iraqi civilian casualties (sp?) and there will be some in the future, but majority of the "information" Iraq puts out is laughable.
About the soldiers: I don't think you understand the magnitude by which the US forces overpower Iraqi forces. Combine that with the fact that some (most?) of the Iraqis don't like Hussein, and suddenly it seems rather plausible for those soldiers to surrender.
I have spent my time switching between the cable news channels and the regular broadcast channels. Most of the coverage is rather similar.
Perhpas you could try to get a feed of Al Jazeera (sp?). They are along with the US troops as well from what I have heard.
Just my opinion. :)
Smithy
EDIT: Iraqi was spelled Iraai. Almost positive there is no country of Iraa.
Posts: 785
Threads: 50
Joined: Feb 2003
:(
a no text rant, wow...
"I'm a cynical optimistic realist. I have hopes. I suspect they are all in vain. I find a lot of humor in that." -Pete
I'll remember you.
Posts: 104
Threads: 7
Joined: Feb 2003
03-22-2003, 03:58 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-22-2003, 04:01 PM by Dani.)
[ Wrote:Angel,Mar 22 2003, 10:51 AM] The American-swayed article said the missiles hit their targets, the other stated that over 200 children and women were killed or wounded. I think both are accurate. I believe most targets were hit (we now know at least one went astray), and I believe the number of 200 civilians injured (some killed of those) as well. Considering the number of missiles and bombs dropped 200 doesn't sound an exaggaration. Frankly I'm somewhat surprised the number is so low. Belgrade had more with much less ordnance dropped.
Ah and where to get the information. Well CNN Live (and only live) is somewhat ok. BBCNews has usually been quite ok. Euronews usually has perspectives from many countries so the sum can be informative. Mostly though in this particular case I'm going with the Scand media.
I'd love to have Al Jazeera, but they don't distribute it here.
Posts: 1,298
Threads: 79
Joined: Feb 2003
I was visiting cbc.ca for my news fix this morning, and found a link to this.
http://www.cbc.ca/webone/psyop/index.html
If we wonder what to access and how accurate it is.......
Imagine what those who actually live there have to deal with.
And you may call it righteousness
When civility survives,
But I've had dinner with the Devil and
I know nice from right.
From Dinner with the Devil, by Big Rude Jake
Posts: 104
Threads: 7
Joined: Feb 2003
ShadowHM,Mar 22 2003, 07:30 PM Wrote:I was visiting cbc.ca for my news fix this morning, and found a link to this.
http://www.cbc.ca/webone/psyop/index.html
If we wonder what to access and how accurate it is.......
Imagine what those who actually live there have to deal with. Well they're in a very bad position, in almost every way imaginable.
Whenever there is war, the least informative news tend to come the participants. I wouldn't be surprised if the most accurate newscoverage of current events came from China. :P
Somewhat related, just was watching CNN while sipping my tea (Taylor's&Harrogath's Cinnamon Scented...very delicious. :) ), caught a short scene from, I think, Chicago where demonstrators for the war and against the war had gathered next to each other. Reporter has one pro-war guy at mike...the exchange went something like this:
CNNRep: Do you consider [the anti-war camp] unpatriotic?
Pro-war: Not at all, it's their right, I just think they're views stem from ignorance. They think it's about oil, but it's a mission of humanity (humanenity, or whatever, I'm tired).
- Ok so far that's not too bad, but then the Pro-war guy says this:
It's about humanity and stopping Al-Qaeda...[etc.]
I almost choked on my tea. ;)
Posts: 1,481
Threads: 111
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 983
Threads: 113
Joined: Feb 2003
I am not the person that either sit glued to the TV or news paper or feel the need to follow what is going on minute by minute. Experience from past events, like Balkans, last Gulf war, other conflicts arround the world and so on, gives that the information you typically get "as it happens" have a high degree of inaccuracy or if true, usually does not tell the whole story anyway. SOrt of better to wait a while for a better "summary" so to speak (which may at times take years to get the full story).
As is obvious, wars are not just fought by the armies, media is just as important, the so called propaganda is, if not crusial, very important. As such, I always tend to be VERY carefully in believing anything that comes from either side in a conflict like this. Even if it is not lies, it may be simply telling only the few things that one want to let out, speculating in such a way that people believe and so on. there are allready countless such cases allready in this war for example.
By the nature of war, it is hard for third party to report directly. Many countries do have reporters and tv teams in bagdad for example, but that is hardly enough to give more info that just visual information about what happens in specific locations in Bagdad, hardly enough to give the over all picture.
So to sum it up, I try to wait a while since that tend to help some to sort out the wrong information and I tend to be very carefull in believeing things from anyone involved in the conflict, sort of starting out with the assumtion that it may not be true, or rather, knowing that it was told for a reason, not just to be nice to media. Everything has a purpose.
There are three types of people in the world. Those who can count and those who can't.
Posts: 1,481
Threads: 111
Joined: Feb 2003
I read another article today. It said an Iraqi "terrorist" had thrown a couple of hand grenades into an american camp killing at least 1 US "soldier" and injuring several others.
Funny how the US men and women fighting in the war are "soldiers" whereas the Iraqi are still "terrorists."
Posts: 772
Threads: 11
Joined: Feb 2003
[ Wrote:Angel,Mar 23 2003, 10:25 PM] Funny how the US men and women fighting in the war are "soldiers" whereas the Iraqi are still "terrorists." I never heard it being presented as an "Iraqi Terrorist". The first report on the subject I heard had the guy pegged as a "suspected militant" or something like that. An hour later is was "an American soldier" that had tossed the grenades in.
Heed the Song of Battle and Unsheath the Blades of War
Posts: 1,481
Threads: 111
Joined: Feb 2003
Not only are they twisting the words to their benefit, they're making stuff up as well.
:o
Posts: 983
Threads: 113
Joined: Feb 2003
If we wait a few days or weeks, it will probably be possible to know what actually happen. No need to get worked up by now :)
There are three types of people in the world. Those who can count and those who can't.
Posts: 104
Threads: 7
Joined: Feb 2003
Jarulf,Mar 23 2003, 01:34 PM Wrote:If we wait a few days or weeks, it will probably be possible to know what actually happen. No need to get worked up by now :) Just a hunch, but when I heard from one of the reporters attached to a unit saying none of them had slept for 60 hours alarm claxon started to sound in my head.
60 hours without sleep is deep into the territory where psychologists say aberrant behaviour and psychosis can manifest themselves. Ofcource it is very individual, for some it doesn't take even 40 hours. So if this particular soldier was as sleep deprived, it's entirely possible he was hallucinating or otherwise not in control of his faculties.
Posts: 772
Threads: 11
Joined: Feb 2003
03-23-2003, 05:46 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-23-2003, 05:48 PM by WarBlade.)
[ Wrote:Angel,Mar 24 2003, 12:28 AM] Not only are they twisting the words to their benefit, they're making stuff up as well.
:o BBC article
Making it up? Personally the photo of the kneeling prisoner with the military haircut (on the telvised news item I saw) looked pretty convincing to me.
Heed the Song of Battle and Unsheath the Blades of War
Posts: 254
Threads: 13
Joined: Feb 2003
Jarulf,Mar 23 2003, 07:34 AM Wrote:If we wait a few days or weeks, it will probably be possible to know what actually happen. No need to get worked up by now :) I rely on older sources for information that the folks who re-write history haven't had a chance to mess around with.
An example is the now-common statement that Iraq "expelled" the UNSCOM weapon inspectors in 1997.
If you check the original material, Iraq had accused the American members of the UNSCOM team of improper use of their position to spy on non-related, strategic assets in Iraq. Iraq began to restrict the access of the inspectors, and in Aug. 1998 they completely halted the inspections, pending action by the UN to correct the alleged problems. At this time, the inspectors were withdrawn, not expelled.
In 2000, the US government confirmed that they in fact had been getting intelligence reports from their UNSCOM weapon inspectors. Maybe Clinton was on a truth-telling kick, after the trouble he got into over his little white lies concerning Monica. :S
The point is, it was not only Iraq "playing games". Although this was very recent history, you never hear it mentioned anymore.
The violations of the Geneva Convention concerning treatment of prisoners of war is something else that is going to get re-written quickly. The clear violation by Iraq in showing American prisoners will get spun up by the Western media, and the fact that the U.S. was first in violating this only last week will be ignored.
The ramifications of each violation are different, both in terms of degree and result. It is a terrible way for American families to learn that their loved ones are dead or captured, by watching it on TV. BUT, the showing of the Iraqi prisoners is much worse.
Some of the Iraqi prisoners absolutely freaked out when they saw that they were being caught by TV cameras. They had been ordered not to surrender, and if they did, their families would suffer. The folks in Iraq have television, of course. I wonder how many of those Iraqi prisoners have been identified, and their families either arrested or executed?
I might wonder, but the western media won't. They've already conveniently forgotten all about it.
-rcv-
Posts: 5,138
Threads: 299
Joined: Feb 2003
Dani,Mar 23 2003, 06:56 AM Wrote:Just a hunch, but when I heard from one of the reporters attached to a unit saying none of them had slept for 60 hours alarm claxon started to sound in my head.
60 hours without sleep is deep into the territory where psychologists say aberrant behaviour and psychosis can manifest themselves. Ofcource it is very individual, for some it doesn't take even 40 hours. So if this particular soldier was as sleep deprived, it's entirely possible he was hallucinating or otherwise not in control of his faculties. Hmm, you must not have seen the whole report. The embedded reported said that no one had had horizontal sleep for 60 hours. Meaning no one had had a chance to lie down and sleep (and even that may not have been true). He went on to say that they had been cat-napping. When you are in convoy you don't need to have the whole crew awake, just the driver and a few other essential people so they had been sleeping, just not the standard sleep that most people are used to. From my time in the military, stuff like this isn't all that uncommon. You get an hour here or there, 15 minutes here, sometimes even 3 or 4 hours in a row. I would bet that most people in that group still managed to get 10-12 hours of sleep in that 60 hour time frame, and that isn't that bad at all. Add to it most of the people were 18-25 years old, and it becomes even less of an issue.
---
It's all just zeroes and ones and duct tape in the end.
Posts: 1,250
Threads: 16
Joined: Feb 2003
They weren't making anything up. The live news networks did, however, find themselves in the position of speculating on the event for about an hour before they really new what happened. And that is even with a reporter as an eye witness, in a camp on friendly ground. Once the suspect was apprehended and the reporter was allowed to reveal more info, the initial speculation turned out to be way off (although having some of these incidents reported so quickly is just amazing in any case).
This points largely to what Jarulf was saying. The live reports are going to be inaccurate on many aspects even when no intentional propaganda or disinformation is happening. Be skeptical about the news until the day (if not week) after.
As for the word terrorist, it really shouldn't be used in this time of war. There are acts of war and acts of crime, and either can be quite terrifying. Causing terror (shock and awe...) is basically a stated goal of the U.S. military over the past 2 days, so it is fairly silly for our media to use that word in a negative connotation during wartime.
Posts: 104
Threads: 7
Joined: Feb 2003
Gnollguy,Mar 23 2003, 08:46 PM Wrote:Hmm, you must not have seen the whole report. It's not that I wouldn't have seen the whole report, which I did. I think it's rather the disposition I have towards CNN. ie. it's not really worth focusing on. So I usually watch when I wake up, and before sleep.
Thanks for the correction though.
It's alarming though from the US perspective that one of their own throws grenades into a command tent. Though in light of other things, like managing to lose 1+ chopper per day without Iraqi input, maybe it's not that surprising. Dunno really...it's getting quite odd. Ivanov is really hopping mad...were it up to him, I wouldn't be surprised of Russia donating couple nukes to Iraq. :blink:
Posts: 1,036
Threads: 12
Joined: Feb 2003
Dani,Mar 23 2003, 01:41 PM Wrote:... Though in light of other things, like managing to lose 1+ chopper per day without Iraqi input, maybe it's not that surprising. ... Hey, people die in car crashes on highways every day in the U.S. . Amazing, given that no one actually tries to kill each other and the vehicles involved are not expressly built to kill people. But accidents happen.
I'll lay you odds that the amount of air traffic and helicopter flights being conducted in the war zone are akin to the road traffic of rush hour on an American freeway. The question isn't whether or not accidents are going to happen with that tempo; but rather to question the level of perfection somenone is demanding when they point these out as anomalies.
Political Correctness is the idea that you can foster tolerance in a diverse world through the intolerance of anything that strays from a clinical standard.
|
