We call it the right-wing media for a reason. It's because it's right-wing. That's why. And when it's right-wing, it's so, so right-wing!
The American media's spotty war coverage was never great, but it's gotten worse. While the 3 leading networks broadcast 1,157 minutes of coverage last year, they've only had 181 minutes so far this year, with the year almost halfway over.
Gee. I wonder why that could be.
Couldn't possibly have something to do with it being an election year, could it? Why yes, it could. Especially because of media execs' Republican leanings and the fact that every war item is bad news for their party.
CBS correspondent Lara Logan said she's had to fight just to get her war reportage on the air at all. She observed, "If I were to watch the news that you hear here in the United States, I would just blow my brains out because it would drive me nuts." In fact, CBS won't even place a full-time correspondent in Iraq anymore.
Not exactly a valiant bunch, them media execs are, if they don't even let their own reporters put war items on the air.
(Source: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/34301)
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Right-wing media censors war coverage because of election
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Are the American people getting the fullest and clearest picture of the way American wealth and treasured lives are committed abroad?
ReplyDeleteIs it by mere chance that a campaign is pursued to deny the American viewers get the two sides of the story that doesn't usually make it on US media some of whom either co-opted by corporations and/or corruption?
It seems that the right of US viewers’ majority to have alternate news channels is being objected to by a handful but noisy few. Interestingly, many of such vocal elements possess no expertise either about the society in the Middle East its media, or the Arabic discourse on issues existing there.
One would expect media activists to ask the major US channels draw adequate attention to matters that are of vital concern for American lives. But many are found silent on most occasions. Some are observed busy to attract attention on irrelevant and insignificant issues.
Media activist should encourage even wider access to channels like Al Jazeera that provides objective coverage of critical foreign policy and security issues, while many US media organs tiptoe around issues in fear of not to over step their boundaries.
Armed with diverse news sources, the American people can crosscheck and verify the government's position to rid themselves of half-truths from the corporate media, which remains a willing accomplice in keeping American viewers continually subjected to what former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan calls
"Washington's Culture of Deception."
If all is well (as some wish to portray) then how come US is going to face such high cost and its even higher consequences as the following example suggests:
A recent documentary best illustrates of what the American viewers miss out if their right to have alternate sources of information are continued to be denied. One wonders how many viewers in USA watched "Daylight Robbery" aired on BBC One on 10 June 2008?
This episode in the Panorama serial investigates claims that as much as $23bn (£11.75bn) may have been lost, stolen or not properly accounted for in Iraq.
The programme had many revealing references on the fact when the US goes to war, corporate America goes too. "There are
contracts for caterers, tanker drivers, security guards and even interrogators, many of them through companies with links to the White House."
"Now more than 70 whistleblower cases threaten to reveal the scandals behind billions of dollars worth of waste, theft and corruption during the Iraq war."
"A total of $23bn (£11.75bn) is under scrutiny. The US justice department has imposed gagging orders which prevent the real scale of the problem emerging."
Had American tax payers an easy access to alternate information sources such as Al Jazeera it wouldn’t have taken them several long years to question the wisdom of the “cakewalk” bunch i.e. the likes of Ken Adelmen who misled the American media by claiming “measured by any cost-benefit analysis, such an operation would constitute the greatest victory in America’s war on terrorism.”
Thus encouraging and embracing alternate sources of media has become increasingly important at a time when many US media organs tiptoe around issues in fear of overstepping their boundaries. An Italian scholar of the Arab media, Donatella della Ratta rightly suggests that the West should seriously consider before blaming or blocking channels like Aljazeera that are in fact educating tools to inform rather than a medium providing an embedded version from a warring side.
By denying the option for diversity, those who call for restricting plurality of opinion deprive the US audience to judge the facts for themselves. It is the absence of and NOT presence of an accountable media that is injurious to American interest.