ClumsyMonkey.net

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/0903/22international.html

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/9/22/172126.shtml

http://www.hillnews.com/news/092303/press.aspx

If only you could have seen the documentary presented on the CBC on Sunday night...

If only you woulda read those articles. I posted them 2 seconds ago!

I haven't read the articles yet, but the topic title seems a little odd in relation to your post. For people who don't believe the media, read this. It's just other media. You can find anything you like on the web. Why should we believe these articles and not the ones in other newspapers or magazines?

I read the first two and they didn't impress me in the slightest. Anyone can find articles on the net about anything. It's incredibly easy.

If you look up propaganda in the dictonairy you would find these articles as examples. It's just the opinion of one man, who has been shown around by the army. They're not going to show him what's really going on. Embedded journalism can never be objective, because the journalist depends on the people he's writing about. If you believe this you're even more naieve than the people who believe the media about Iraq.

The last one is directly from the Capital. Its not mass media and neither are the others. When people speak of the media they mean the CNN, MSNBC, FOXNEWS, etc that gets played over, and over again. THAT is where the majority of people get their information. I call it tragedy TV. Thats all they put on is "doom and gloom". They think that gets them better ratings and its biased BS. If wanna get right down to it none of us can debate this at all since NONE of us have been there and seen it first hand right?! Your arguements are pitiful. Why not try and dispute the claims by the congressman (some of which I might add are LIBERALS ) that all the media is in Baghdad and the immediate surrounding areas (the only place where there is any significant uprising).

I'm not going to debate that, because I agree with him. The media don't give the right image about Iraq. Like you said, you can only say what's going on, if you've been there, but not for a visit, you would have to live there. And even those reports can never be objective. Media can never be objective. And yes, the tv stations you mentioned are probably more concerned about ratings than about bringing true stories. I won't argue with you that media are biased, because you're absolutely right. But these articles are biased as well. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

It's just the opinion of one man,

Actually it was the opinions of 7 men I think. The first 2 focused one 1 man. I chose them because he was a liberal democrat, I was making a point that its not just conservatives, and republicans that think the war is going well. The last article talks about all of the congressman that went. By the way these congressman went where they wanted. That was one of their requests when they went. They did not wanna be taken only to places the military wanted to take them. They were basically their own tour guides.

But how did they know where they wanted to go? Probably because they were briefed by people in the department of defence. And even although it's about seven men, it's still biased. I'm not saying it's not true. They're probably right that a lot of good things are going on Iraq but that doesn't mean the media shouldn't report about what isn't so positive. They should give more attention to the good things, but in journalism good news is no news.

They should give more attention to the good things, but in journalism good news is no news.

and that my friend needs to be changed or the world is in trouble.

the world is in trouble and has been for quite a long time, i'm still an idealist, but i also am aware enough to know that things are going horribly wrong. But i suppose everything has never been completely right in the first place eh?