The Death of Journalism

P

piggy

Guest
I was listening to the Last Word again last night. An interview with Nick Berg's father, who is now openly talking about his opposition to the presence of American troops in Iraq and the war in general.
The jist of the conversation was basically that when his son was beheaded the media were all over him like flies, looking for his reaction to it etc...
He agreed to do an interview with one of the big network news station but only if they agreed to give him an opportunity to voice his objection to the war at the end. They cut this from the interview.
His point was that the media is utterly biased in relation to the war in the US, allowing few if any dissenting voices.

Of course, it goes deeper than that and it is not only America where we're seeing this trend. We're relatively lucky in Ireland in this regard. Australia suffers terribly from this problem...mainly due to Rupert Murdock owning the vast majority of its newspapers.

You can read more about this and propoganda in journalism in [broken link removed] chapter from John Pilger's book Hidden Agendas.
 
Propaganda

Piggy,

Are you saying that the publication of all those photos by the war friendly US media was actually trying to gain support for the war effort?
 
Re: Propaganda

Are you saying that the publication of all those photos by the war friendly US media was actually trying to gain support for the war effort?

Where did I say that?

Read the Pilger chapter Kermut and the article that fatherdougalmaguire posted...it goes a lot deeper than just this war.
 
Hey Piggy, Why have you backed away with suggestive vagueness and deferred to others (again I might add) when pressed for an argument on something substantive? Why should others go away and read a book by some daftard to try and support comments you make? It's a bit weak really.

If you can manage it, try to remember some of the great points Piger made and see if you can reproduce them.
 
Why have you backed away with suggestive vagueness and deferred to others (again I might add) when pressed for an argument on something substantive?

I presume that comment is in relation to this question?

Are you saying that the publication of all those photos by the war friendly US media was actually trying to gain support for the war effort?

As I never said this...or even alluded to this I don't see the relevance of it. I posted the link to the chapter from Pilger's book as reference for what I was talking about. :\

If you can manage it, try to remember some of the great points Piger made and see if you can reproduce them.

I posted this topic to raise debate on this subject. If you feel you have anything relevant to add to it be my guest. If you're just here to slag me off because you've taken some personal disliking to me please let us know.
 
?

If you're just here to slag me off because you've taken some personal disliking to me please let us know.
Click to expand...

Jeez, don't be so sensitive and/or egocentric.

Pilger is a good journalist, but has a screaming left agenda. For this reason he should not be trusted.
 
Re: ?

Pilger is a good journalist

Actually he's world re-knowned for being one of the best.

John Pilger has been named the winner of one of the world's most distinguished environmental and development prizes. The Sophie Prize was established in 1997 in Oslo and is awarded to "individuals or an organisation that, in a pioneering and particularly creative way, has pointed to alternatives to the present development system."

John Pilger, says the President of the Sophie Foundation, Elin Ene, "has, in his documentaries, articles and books and through his integrity, thoroughness and courage, strengthened democracy and human dignity. He has managed to engage the public -- morally and politically -- for the protection of the powerless."

Pilger is the first journalist to be awarded the Sophie Prize, which was presented by the Norwegian Minister of the Environment on 12 June, 2003.

www.johnpilger.com/

but has a screaming left agenda

Actually, I think he's far more concerned with human rights than anything else. He speaks out against many different governments across the world for human rights abuses. To brand him simply as having a left wing agenda is to overlook the message he brings to everyone.

Regardless of his views...this particular debate is about journalism. It's fact that the world's media is owned by a few, which is where the control is coming from and is why there are so few dissenting voices anymore.
 
Re: ?

but has a screaming left agenda
Click to expand...

Mebbe - but it gives a bit of balance to the screaming right agenda of Sky News/Rupert Murdoch/Fox/Tony O'Reilly etc etc.
 
?

"Mebbe - but it gives a bit of balance to the screaming right agenda of Sky News/Rupert Murdoch/Fox/Tony O'Reilly etc etc."

Two wrongs don't make a right (or a left and right don't make a center). I think it harms anyone's case when a balanced case is not presented, Pilger included.
 
Re: ?

I think it harms anyone's case when a balanced case is not presented, Pilger included.

Perhaps you could point out where in that chapter Pilger's case is unbalanced and how the argument could be more balanced?

Unfortunately, right now it looks a bit like you're ignoring the argument as a whole and focusing on your distrust of Pilger.

Fatherdougalmaguire also posted an interesting article on the subject of information control.
 
No offence piggy but surely posting the links is sufficient and obviates the need to replicate the referenced content here as well?
 
surely posting the links is sufficient and obviates the need to replicate the referenced content here...

Maybe...

I often find that reading excerpts from websites in a post is sometimes easier to do and if you feel like it you can go off and navigate the site yourself.

In this case there are over a hundred large articles on the subject. Possibly more. So I thought it would be helpful to the casual observer to read snippets from a couple of relevent articles.

However, it does lengthen the post considerably so point taken. Perhaps these particular snippets are a tad long so I've edited that post.
 
objectivity

-----------------------
Two wrongs don't make a right (or a left and right don't make a center). I think it harms anyone's case when a balanced case is not presented, Pilger included.
------------------------

There is a school of thought which says that as it is actually impossible to objective, it is better to lay out your prejudices/politics openly and give the facts as you see them. Much more honest than pretending to be objective and in actual fact being biassed.

Sometimes it is very easy to spot bias (Tabloids!), but sometimes the bias is very subtle.

When the bias is overt, it is much easier to argue the case.
 
..

I wonder if this catches on will anyone notice what the news is all about let alone how objective it is or isn't?

I for one will be watching...with the sound turned down of course ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top