Author Topic: They cover polls but not policy (Read 306 times)

infinite59 · « **on:** November 07, 2003, 09:07:03 AM »

Ever noticed that? Instead of giving you an indepth and balanced look at the intricacies of the policies that are affecting our lives, they only show polls and ask experts who they think is gaining or losing ground in the polls. Or which candidate has the most support in the Iowa primaries. Or if Bush should of zigged instead of zagged or how his zigging may play a roll in the elections, or if it's too early to tell, or if the polls even mean anything this early?

Man, this is ridiculous. Why don't the instead go into the history of US Relations with Iraq? And if there was really democracy in the middle east, wouldn't they vote for a Muslim religious leader as president anyway?

Like the Liberia issue. Instead of doing stories about whether or not Bush will enter into Liberia, polls on whether the people want him to go in there, blah, blah, blah, why didn't they do an indepth story on the history of Liberia, and show how the US sponsored and put Charles Taylor there in the first place. Or why not do an indepth story on the jewelry trade in Liberia? How the United States Military and Europe, Poland, have all be involved in extracting large amounts of jewelry from Liberia?

Trauma-san · « **Reply #1 on:** November 07, 2003, 07:22:47 PM »

^^ Or, they could do a story about the atrocities that have happened in Iraq, and what the poor people were having to live through there... or a story about the towns in Iraq that haven't had water for 30 years, but do now because the U.S. rebuilt the pipelines, etc.

The Media, simply, has an arrogant, condescending attitude about Americans (I can't speak for the rest of the world). They talk down to us, they pretend they know more about situations than we do, they have the balls to have 'analystists' disect every little thing down to bite size pieces. They feel they're 'making the world a better place'. How many times do you hear reporters say they got into reporting to 'make a change' or whatever.

Reporting, and news, is about just that. News. Tell us what is going on, tell us what has happened, like you said. Don't tell us how we should analyze it, don't tell us how we should view it, or what it could mean. Give us the facts, we'll make up our own minds on it.

UnstoppableForce · « **Reply #2 on:** November 07, 2003, 08:41:25 PM »

Quote from: Trauma on November 07, 2003, 07:22:47 PM

^^ Or, they could do a story about the atrocities that have happened in Iraq, and what the poor people were having to live through there... or a story about the towns in Iraq that haven't had water for 30 years, but do now because the U.S. rebuilt the pipelines, etc.

Or they could do a story about how we brought Saddam into power, and how we turned against him after he wanted to take control of the oil fields in his own country. And then how WE destroyed water reservoirs, pipelines, electrical facilities, food storage houses, and anything else necessary for the survival of the PEOPLE. Or we can talk about the uranium weapons used, which is highly radioactive, and we have known this for decades because our own soldiers were dying because of the exposure to it. And then how the government dispatched these soldiers so it wouldn't have to take care of their health care costs. Or how about the fact that the number of deaths due to cancer in Iraq had increased by about 1000% from 1988 to 1998 because of us. They can even talk about how we provided Iraq and Iran with military assistance. And how we lied to the Saudi government about Iraq having an immense line-up of soldiers at the border waiting to attack, which was proven a LIE by satellite photos. And that we lied so we could set up a base in Saudi Arabia to control and manipulate middle east activities. Last but not least, they can talk about how Kissinger explained in his own words the REAL REASON WHY WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE EAST: "OIL IS TOO IMPORTANT A COMMODITY TO BE IN THE HANDS OF THE ARABS."

Self-interest...we're not there to fix anything that we haven't fucked up... we're not there because we acare about the Iraqi people... If Saddam is what we wanted to eliminate we could've done it in 1991, but Bush pulled out even though the general said it would only take another 2 days for Baghdad to be captured and the end of Saddam...

Eidolon_Ravi · « **Reply #3 on:** November 08, 2003, 01:04:03 AM »

One way or the other the Media is always a bit PRO- Government.. Howmuchsoever we Howl about free speech and free media it just doesn't materialise.

And as far as I see the Analysts never force us to believe what they are saying.. I mean after hearing them out we are still free to make up our own minds.. unless one is very prone to get brainwashed. And brainwashed people generally turn out to be illeterate.

Also in many countries the media is a passive spectator and for majority of world News it relies more on other International News agencies like BBC CNN etc. mainly becoz of the lack of funds to sponsor their ppl. to other nations.