Anchorwoman killed in Iraq.

[I Miss Trudeau]

I think people have cited government selection of CBC directors, and CBC's annual dependence on the government for funding as supporting arguments.

And yet, when the same "evidence" is raised about a US funded media outlet in Iraq, the right wing among us can't bring themselves to condemn that too.

What is it about the right that prevents them from applying the same criticisms across the board?

[Guest eureka]

It is an unanswered question whether Iraq was better off under Saddam. The death rate was much lower than it is now. Health and welfare were in better shape. There was a greater availability of electricity and water and food. The conomy was in better shape even if it was worse than a decade earlier.

All in all, it is hard to think of anything in the lives of Iraquis that has improved. Voting in a contrived election certainly does not weigh heavily on the positive side.

At this time, there seems to be little prospect of any improvement , even to the level under Saddam, in the not so very near future.

[anticlimates]

Is it media, or is it US propaganda?  If it's the latter......if the US in any way is influencing editorial control....then your characterization is wrong and the argument can be made that they should get out of it.  Let the Iraqis be free to decide what's news and how to interpret it.  They're not stupid and this overt attempt to garner public opinion will only breed cynicism.

Don't ever say I won't quote myself.

[kimmy]

I think people have cited government selection of CBC directors, and CBC's annual dependence on the government for funding as supporting arguments.

And yet, when the same "evidence" is raised about a US funded media outlet in Iraq, the right wing among us can't bring themselves to condemn that too.

What is it about the right that prevents them from applying the same criticisms across the board?

I don't think I've ever called the CBC a propaganda organ. I may be concerned with bias (as I am with privately owned media outlets as well) but I've never mistaken them for a propaganda organ.

Meanwhile, the wonder-friends here have determined that Nineveh TV is a propaganda organ, based solely on a description that could apply equally to the CBC. Yet they've never for a moment doubted the CBC's objectivity as a news source. So where's the hypocrisy *really*?

It is an unanswered question whether Iraq was better off under Saddam. The death rate was much lower than it is now. Health and welfare were in better shape. There was a greater availability of electricity and water and food. The conomy was in better shape even if it was worse than a decade earlier.

Using similar criteria, one could likewise argue that the Germans were in better shape under the Third Reich than after its fall, yes?

Is it media, or is it US propaganda?  If it's the latter......if the US in any way is influencing editorial control....then your characterization is wrong and the argument can be made that they should get out of it.  Let the Iraqis be free to decide what's news and how to interpret it.  They're not stupid and this overt attempt to garner public opinion will only breed cynicism.

Don't ever say I won't quote myself.

Ok, so on the one hand you're painting this incident as a rejection by Iraqis of US-funded media. But on the otherhand you're saying you're not under the assumption that the insurgents speak for the majority of Iraqis. So, what evidence to you have to indicate how the majority of Iraqis felt about Nineveh TV?

There's an assumption central to your argument:

Certainly, if this TV station wasn't an arm of the occupation, it wouldn't be targetted.

Actually, that's not certain at all. It ignores the factional aspect of the situation in Iraq. Elements within the Sunni minority will attack institutions they perceive as tools of the Shiite majority long after the US has left.

-kimmy

[I Miss Trudeau]

Meanwhile, the wonder-friends here have determined that Nineveh TV is a propaganda organ, based solely on a description that could apply equally to the CBC.

I haven't determined anything. I've merely pointed out that two similar cases are not being treated in a similar matter by the right.

Where are the Pravda "analogies," that are so fiercely leveled at every other state sponsored media outlet in the world, in this case?

Funny we don't see the right wingers denouncing state run media in this instance, especally considering thats it is been pushed on an occupided people.

This previous post of mine was meant to mirror the rhetoric coming from the right on state sponsored media.

So again, my question is:

Why does the right make these claims about entities such as the CBC and BBC, and then turn around and defend an American instance of state sponsored media.

I think the question deserves an answer.

Yet they've never for a moment doubted the CBC's objectivity as a news source. So where's the hypocrisy *really*?

I have actually looked at various national news networks in Canada because of this issue. Those that refuse to watch the CBC because it is "run by the Lie-berals" might be surprised to learn that the CBC tends to give a rougher ride to the ferderal liberals than any other network, on almost any given day. If you don't believe me, try it for yourself.

[kimmy]

Meanwhile, the wonder-friends here have determined that Nineveh TV is a propaganda organ, based solely on a description that could apply equally to the CBC.

I haven't determined anything. I've merely pointed out that two similar cases are not being treated in a similar matter by the right.

I actually wasn't referring to you, I was referring to the posters who determined that Nineveh is "propaganda" with apparently nothing more than "US-funded" to support that conclusion.

Where are the Pravda "analogies," that are so fiercely leveled at every other state sponsored media outlet in the world, in this case?

As I already said, and speaking only for myself (apparently I'm "the right" around here ) I've never considered the CBC to be "Pravda", and I think those that do are hardly representative of "the right" as a whole.

Myself and others *are* concerned with media bias. Don't confuse the questioning of editorial slant with the claim of propaganda. And (at least here at Mapleleafweb) for every person claiming the CBC's government funding biases their agenda, you'll find someone claiming that corporate media's dependence on advertising biases their agenda, or that CanWest's Jewish ownership biases their agenda.

I think that media bias is a legitimate issue, and it's hardly the exclusive domain of right wingers. And I would hope that one could ask questions of this nature without being called "paranoid" or having someone claim you're calling the CBC "Pravda".

Funny we don't see the right wingers denouncing state run media in this instance, especally considering thats it is been pushed on an occupided people.

This previous post of mine was meant to mirror the rhetoric coming from the right on state sponsored media.

So again, my question is:

Why does the right make these claims about entities such as the CBC and BBC, and then turn around and defend an American instance of state sponsored media.

I think the question deserves an answer.

And my answer is contained in the preceding discussion about slant versus propaganda. I don't doubt for a moment that Nineveh is slanted in favor of the newly elected government of Iraq; I don't think that's the same as propaganda.

And, as I've sought to point out, the same question can be asked of the lefties, as some of the comments in this thread demonstrate.

Yet they've never for a moment doubted the CBC's objectivity as a news source. So where's the hypocrisy *really*?

I have actually looked at various national news networks in Canada because of this issue. Those that refuse to watch the CBC because it is "run by the Lie-berals" might be surprised to learn that the CBC tends to give a rougher ride to the ferderal liberals than any other network, on almost any given day. If you don't believe me, try it for yourself.

Again, I was thinking of Caesar and Shakey, not yourself, when I said "they". If you've made the effort to actually compare coverage of various media outlets in Canada, then good for you. And if you wish to discuss this further, I'm up for it. We should start a separate thread in the Federal Politics area, though. I'll go do that now.

-kimmy

[Shakeyhands]

what are you bring me into this for Kimmy?

[kimmy]

what are you bring me into this for Kimmy?

Oops, sorry.

You guys all look the same to me.

-kimmy

[moderateamericain]

im still waiting to see a factual post showing how the US news media is funded and run by the US government. this is the kind of insinuations that are made that make me frown, you cannot justify the killing of a journalist by saying american journalism is run by the US and not back it up with something proving it.

[I Miss Trudeau]

im still waiting to see a factual post showing how the US news media is funded and run by the US government. this is the kind of insinuations that are made that make me frown, you cannot justify the killing of a journalist by saying american journalism is run by the US and not back it up with something proving it.

I can't find any post that claims the murder of a journalist was justified.

If you don't acknowledge that at least three American journalists knowingly received payment for publishing pro-Bush articles, then you are simply living on another planet. Do some research.

The question is, how many other cases have we not heard about? Maybe none. Maybe a lot.

[moderateamericain]

so individual journalist took payments from the republican party, thats not government sponsored journalism thats bi partisan politics. HUUUUGGGEE difference. the fact is there is no proof that the US government sponsors biased news media, the owneers of the different news outlets, all private citizens, influence their companies the way they see fit.