In this thread, we talk about the media's pro-war bias

[Titus Pullo]

I'd like this thread to be a catch-all for talking about the corporate media's coverage leading up to military conflict... most especially the current drama unfolding with Iran.

The "liberal media"... riiiiiiiiiiight.

As a primer, we'll start with this video summing up the Iran coverage of late, which increasingly continues to resemble the same surface logic nonsense that we witnessed before Iraq:

US mainstream media: Beating war drums?
US mainstream media: Beating war drums? — RT

My first challenge to anyone:

If it is indeed the media's responsibility to tell both/all sides of the story, how come we never see peace advocates on any of the major networks given the same amount of time that retired generals and fascist *******s like John Bolton get? You never see them. Where is the balanced coverage from a fourth estate that steers dialogue towards red-meat talking points that ramp up the anxiety and fear? When does a network (even one like MSNBC) have an analyst or advocate on that reminds the people that the IAEA says the exact opposite of what RW think tanks continue to insist regarding Iran? Or merely reminds America that the U.S. can not afford another war, neither financially nor in terms of man-power?

[Titus Pullo]

from the video:

"it seems that the words 'political solution' don't belong in the U.S. media vocabulary... two main reasons: 1) BORING!, and 2) some very powerful people are behind a kind of trigger-happy, pro-war journalism.. too many times in history the media did the bidding of war profiteers."

[DarrylS]

Never thought about them being pro war, but they are definitely not anti war.

Concern for lack of coverage for the callous loss of life either for our young men and women, or for the high counts of "collateral damage" inflicted by modern warfare.

Do not ever recount an article that clearly outlines the effects of modern warfare on civilians, we do not see the results of drone attacks and were not allowed to see the civilian carnage in Iraq...

There was no galvanizing picture like the one in Viet Nam where the naked little girl was running down the street after being burned by Napalm..

Have a great deal of difficulty in reconciling the message of what seems to be a burgeoning pro life movement in today's day and age, but silence on this issue.

Perhaps it is like an adult version "Peek a Boo" (object consistency), if we do not see it, it does not exist.

[PatsFan24]

In my observation they have all been pro-war and have been since 9/11. The media wants war because it drives ratings. I gave up cable news a while ago and have been better off because of it.

[Titus Pullo]

Originally Posted by PatsFan24

In my observation they have all been pro-war and have been since 9/11. The media wants war because it drives ratings. I gave up cable news a while ago and have been better off because of it.

I still give them networks a passing glance when there's time to kill, just to keep a finger on the pulse of the mainstream bull****... it's all pretty formulaic, but it's important to keep abreast on what the herd is being force fed. ... stuff that is mostly for corporate benefit, and for soothing consumer confidence. You can smell the horse**** a mile away.

But for most of my video news, I turn to European sources. I'm a bit more forgiving of U.S. print journalism, but not much. DemocracyNow! headlines are 15 minutes each weekday that are imperative.

[Harry Boy]

War Is News they like war just like they like Murder, Deadly Fires, Shootouts and Serial Killers, Katie Couric and Bryant Gombell were both having Orgasms on the morning of 9/11.

[PatriotsReign]

I think we need to take a large portion of the blame for media war coverage. As long as we "tune-in and turn-on" our televisions and internet to help them all sell advertising, we can't really blame "them", can we?

100% of media is profit-driven...always has been and always will be. I guess if you compare our media to those in communists (I hate that word!) nations, we're doing ok.

Definately need vast improvement and it must be driven by "consumers" of media...and that means us.

[chicowalker]

Originally Posted by PatriotsReign

I think we need to take a large portion of the blame for media war coverage. As long as we "tune-in and turn-on" our televisions and internet to help them all sell advertising, we can't really blame "them", can we?

100% of media is profit-driven...always has been and always will be. I guess if you compare our media to those in communists (I hate that word!) nations, we're doing ok.

Definately need vast improvement and it must be driven by "consumers" of media...and that means us.

can certainly blame them when they fail to demonstrate journalistic integrity -- they are supposed to adhere to certain standards, not simply follow the dollar

[Harry Boy]

I had the misfortune to deal with the dirty bastards a few years ago, they tried to climb through my bedroom windows and when I did let them imterview me they distorted, lied and twisted the whole story, they are far worse than even the filthy politicians.

They love, Riots, Floods, Earthquakes and Mass Murder, I would like nothing better than to smash Shepard Smith in the face with a shovel.

[PatriotsReign]

Originally Posted by chicowalker

can certainly blame them when they fail to demonstrate journalistic integrity -- they are supposed to adhere to certain standards, not simply follow the dollar

What a business is "supposed" to do is irrelevant when most media co's are public corporations. The #1 obligation of ALL public corp is to their shareholders.

I am not naive enough to think media co's first obligation is their ethical obligation. Media is a business. Do you really think their #1 priority is an ethical obligation even if that means they'll go out of business?

If you do, good luck Chico!

Again, I think it is OUR responsibility to keep our media honest. We are the only ones who can change the way they do business.