More media irresponsibility
AOL's web site posted this teaser:
See What We Sell to IranWe've been selling weapons to Iran? Isn't that illegal? Read on in the actual article:
Cigarettes, Bras, Even Weapons Exports Surge During Bush Years
Sanctions are intended in part to frustrate Iran's efforts to build its military, but the U.S. government's own figures showed at least $148,000 worth of unspecified weapons and other military gear were exported from the United States to Iran during Bush's time in office. That included $106,635 in military rifles and $8,760 in rifle parts and accessories shipped in 2004.Over $106,000 in rifles and accessories? Is this like another Iran Contra scandal? No, it turns out to be just an error:
The Bush administration looked into those shipments after AP questioned whether the U.S. really approved the export of military rifles to Iran. A review found the rifles and parts actually went to Iraq; the wrong country was entered on the shipping record, Treasury Department spokesman John Rankin said. The government will correct the data, he said.So why did they go with the misleading headline? Geez, don't you think they might have read their own article before telling us that the USA was selling weapons to Iran?
Or, more likely, was this a deliberate bait and switch?
5 comments:
Very interesting topic, Media in the US, especially the news media. Did you know that more people believe that what they see on Fox News is the truth then what they could read in the New York Times? Now I know that newspapers are far from getting everything right, but I still found this number staggering. The problem is with cable networks and their funding - I'd go as far and say that objective researched news isn't very high up on their agenda. It is all about the money because Cable Networks such as the one belonging to Rupert Murdoch want to make profit. Their shows have to sell, and that goes also for the news. I am sure you can see the whole slew of implications that has for the quality of the news. Sometimes it resembles an interesting mix of serious journalism and yellow press, such as the article that you mentioned. It seems to be serious because hey AOL/cable news/ etc. talked about it but its just like the BILD Zeitung or the SUN. The cable companies do that because the rating a show has determines how much they can demand for advertising in that time slot = more money. So the Add companies have indirectly alot of power as well, because they could pressure the network by saying "Well if you talk about this XYZ it's bad for business and we will reduce our contract.." and since the network wants to keep making money it puts them in a dangerous spot. Now I don't know if that actually applies to this article since it seems to be an "honest" screw up, but it is nontheless true. How many people watch the news on cable networks compared to PBS - they aren't allowed to make profit - or read a solid newspaper? There should be more control over what they can and what they can't say on the news in cable networks, a sort of quality control. News shouldn't be something that is subject to market developments in free enterprise. But don't tell me im a commie now!
I was just looking up something about the ARD on Wikipedia and ARD also means Arizona Road Dust. I am sure you can attest to the truth of the dustiness of Arizona right now! It is a standardized dust to test filters etc.
Actually Ruthie, the New York Times is about as reliable as Fox News. They report more hard news stories, but are so wildly biased that you just can't get the full picture. You can see here for some examples.
The main problem I have with cable networks (Fox, CNN, etc) is similar to what you mentioned - they spend a ridiculous amount of time on the particular flavor of the day. I am sick to death of their reporting every miniscule detail of Barack Obama, for example, and their obsession with celebrity news stories, like the Christie Brinkley divorce right now.
I like the way the German Network ARD works. They are funded by license fees and thus are not dependable on companies or the government - meaning they can afford to report scandals and/or negative news about the Government, Politicians, World affairs etc. In fact, to inform the public of what is going on is their primary mission. That was actually something the US was adamant about after WW2 because they wanted to prevent Radio and Television from being a propaganda tool for the Government as the Reichsfunk had been for Hitler. There is some irony in the fact that the same principles are not applied in the US itself. You could do with a network that was able to compete with cable networks but was not hampered by the need to make profit by reporting what the audience wants to see (scandals etc) or what the financers want to air.
And to be honest, I would trust a written Newspaper more than Cable news any day even if it was biased. For one, if it is an established newspaper like the New York Times, their value or stock is in being a good newspaper and NOT the mouthpiece of a particular lobby. Undoubtedly, there are some biases as the NYT is a liberal newspaper and certainly reports on some issues that way. But it is possible to get a good picture of what is going on if you read more than one paper with different agendas as it were: Read them side by side and then take the middle. And most people know about the affiliation of the paper so you just have to take it with a grain of salt and form your own oppinion.
But don't you find it dangerous that so many people just believe whatever they see on TV because if its on TV it has to be true? And there is no control over what those networks can show or say at all - not that I am against free press, but if most of the networks belong to just a few people that is way too much power in the hand of very few people. Not even the government has that kind of power and for a very good reason - just remember Hitler and his total control over the media and the consequences of that.
OT (but cool!)
John,
I also sent you an email, but Thrill and I have finally completed our blogsite at:
www.victoriousopposition.com
You are welcome there to be an author if you would like. I also wrote that in the email I sent you.
Manwhore
Post a Comment