For those who use PressTV as a source.... Comparison on media reporting.

Zamini and BackinBlack -

Here is nother news report coming from Reuters regarding Iran.

Nuclear Scientists assasinated

Is the report close to whats being reported internally by Iranian media sources? Is the Reuters report leaving anything out or twisting any information?

go ahead , again i ask the same question ? is american propaganda media more reliable ??

Considering you're focusing on Iran, I think it's pretty understandable that Iranian news sometimes run articles critical of the USA considering the open hostility almost all of the US establishment needlessly displays against Iran.

Originally posted by lifeissacred
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

All media has bias, always question your sources. Generally, on issues pertaining to the USA or 'the West' news outlets like Presstv or RT are more likely to provide a platform for alternative opinion when compared to Sky/BBC/Fox News/CNN etc.

For generally balanced reporting, I've found that Al-Jazeera is quite a good source but again as I said, always question the sources and never rely on just one.

edit on 23-7-2011 by lifeissacred because: (no reason given)

I do question media sources when reading them.. in this particular case I am trying to figure out (aside from just assuming the reason) as to why a local issue, like the officer invoveld shooting, would make the news in Iran, and be reported in the manner it was.

I mean I can assume why, but that assumption is coming from a Westrn mindset. Just because it doesnt make sense to me, doesnt mean it wouldnt make sense to people on that side of the fence so to speak.

As far asw Western Media goes, I do agree that we have opinion programming mixed in with actual factual news reporting. Would PressTV fall into that category though? The opinion and factual?

I was trying to limit comparisons to just US and Iranian media btw (I know I added a reuters piece but it was on a local issue so it peaked my curiosity if western and iranian media were reporting the same info) so we could use the OP source as a basis.

reply to post by Xcathdra


The Presstv article on the assasination is roughly the same except that it calls the attackers terrorists and also refers to a statement made by the Iranian intelligence ministry made in relation to the other assasinations of nuclear scientists in which they allege that the CIA, Mossad and MI6 may have had involvement.

Originally posted by USAisdevil
go ahead , again i ask the same question ? is american propaganda media more reliable ??

This is what you need to do.

Go read the OP in its ENTIRETY, then think about what you are posting.

Absent that, respectfully, stay on topic or dont post.

reply to post by Xcathdra


In my view PressTv does include some stories which are motivated by geo-political interests but that's no different from many large news outlets. That being said, I still think PressTv is just as acceptable as a source as many western news outlets, provided the information can be corroborated with news stories from elsewhere.


With regards to the story in question about the shooting, whilst it now appears to be factually incorrect in the light of new evidence/statements the motivation is clear, to show that even in western countries there is still persecution by the authorities and that to a certain extent we are, or at least some people are, potentially living in a society with endemic abuse of power by the authorities.

reply to post by lifeissacred


So would you say the amount of opinion contained in PressTV reports is about the same thats contained in US media reporting?

Does the Iranian Government have a lot of say into what PressTV reports and the manner its reported in? Would you say the level of Government involvement is the same as say US government involvement in US media?

If so, what criteria is being used to reach that conclusion, on either side of the fence?

One of the assumptions is US media is independent and can report on whatever it wants, including the government, its policies and the people (President, Congress, Supreme Court etc).

Can PressTV, or any Iranian media for that matter, report in the same manner? Does Iran have freedom of the Press, independant, no freedom of the press, a hybrid freedom of the press?

Originally posted by lifeissacred

With regards to the story in question about the shooting, whilst it now appears to be factually incorrect in the light of new evidence/statements the motivation is clear, to show that even in western countries there is still persecution by the authorities and that to a certain extent we are, or at least some people are, potentially living in a society with endemic abuse of power by the authorities.

edit on 23-7-2011 by lifeissacred because: (no reason given)

Persecution... An intresting choice of words.

Why persecution? I am going to assume that in Iran, if a person pulls a gun and shoots at the police, the actions taken by the police are going to mimic those of their american counterparts, which would be to defend themselves by returning fire to end the threat.

Why would that be considered persecution?
Would it be described as persecution in Iranian media when describing iranian police actions?

BTW not picking on you, but you raise some intresting points / questions.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Well in my personal opinion, from what I have seen in my time using various news sources, PressTv is no more slanted in it's journalism than any of the main western news outlets in the sense that it generally shows both sides of an arguement equally (not in every case of course), however from my perpective it more outwardly displays it's geo-political bias with it's selection of headlines etc.

I'd still value it as a news resource as much as I would value any other major news media.

reply to post by Xcathdra


I say persecution, because the presstv article states that the victim was unarmed and cites witnesses and locals as supporting this point. As I stated this appears factually incorrect and there may be evidence to the contrary, however the general message of the original presstv article was that an unarmed teen was shot dead by police. The story was covered elsewhere on ATS also I believe. This is why I used the term 'persecution'.

reply to post by Xcathdra


There is no denying that the media are biased, on both sides, but it depends on what agenda they serve and how blatant they are when they report it. Most American media try to seem/look objective, but their bias is largely subtle, which makes it more effective because most Americans do not realize that it is taking place, an unconciouse conditioning of sorts. Additionally, this allows people from other countries to look at US media through a different lens (or any country at another), just as we are able to look at Iranian (or whatever other country) media through our own cultural lens. I am sure that, even though the government also uses its media to show the US in a certain light, many people there are both aware and unaware that it is distorted. It's hard to see the outside of the box when one is IN the box.

One thing i have to think, however, is that the way that this story is covered, is this: the US has demonized Iran for quite awhile now. From an Iranian perspective, the US is a big bully, they have gone into X amount of countries that were not a direct threat to it and have ended up harming--killing--a LOT of innocent people. Now, for the Iranians to show how even the police force at home in the US is engaged in this same type of thing (through through the use of extremely biased propaganda), is further supports their notion of what i describe above: the "powerful" exerting their control over the powerless in violent ways. Perhaps from an Iranian perspective, this is simply a microcosm of what they see going on in the world involving the US and its ways, therefore they use the media to shape this understanding among its people. ((****The above is simply an analysis, and not necessarily the opinion of this author.))

On the other hand, the US media that reported on this story are, once again, trying to be unbiased, and it seems that they largely successful by questioning unknowns, using objective speculation, and not jumping to conclusions. Since we are in the cultural box, with which we are familiar, it is difficult to see beyond what we are so used to seeing and to wonder what the bias or the agenda actually is, on which i am not going to touch, since my opinion is irrelevant and the incident is not in discussion.

After all, media are the means by which opinions, fears, loves, hates, etc of the populace are largely formed and maintained, especially culturally. I mean look at at Nazi anti-jew propaganda (yes, i'm bringing that up), soviet anti-American propaganda, anti-Muslim propaganda, anti-Irish and anti-German propaganda (that was run in US newspapers), anti-black propaganda, all kinds of stuff, throughout history. A lot of it has gotten a LOT more subtle in many of the major US news corps (unless it's a blatant tabloid or partisan indy website), where it seems these things are covered in codes and code words, but that's still the way it is.

It's what media DO.

As far as this particular story and back to your initial questions about, no one should trust any ONE news source. IMO, one should always look at as many sources as possible, even the clearly biased ones, because each one contains at least some truth.

And this simply my own perspective.

~~~~

ETA: This even happens within US media itself. I recall seeing a story, and i read two articles, one on Fox and one on another. Man, talk about night and day (and this was not an opinion piece but an actual article). True, a lot of them get their main stories from AP and simply re-post them, but when they write their own versions they tweak it to their own agenda and for their audience. You'd be surprised at the differences. As i said, it's what media do, even if it shouldn't.

Much of it could be an unconscious thing, as well, because, once again, it is ingrained culturally in our perspective.

And you did not read my post in its entirety either. Please go back and read it beore commenting. It has nothing to do with bias since I specifically stated I wanted people on the other side of the fence to comment and weigh in.

Myself and others HAVE answered your OP and HAVE been on topic..

We consider ALL media sources as biased and chose to confirm with multiple sources rather than blindly believing any single one..

You twisting it into a vendetta against ME media is your own bias, not ours and telling ATS admin how to do their job only amplifies your bias further..
They ARE doing their job, they KNOW we are staying on topic.

BTW, I wonder how many other ATS Members are sick and tired of YOU telling them not to post simply because they disagree with you??????????

reply to post by backinblack


Wow.. ignornace for the win. You apparently did not read my post or the request made.

I pointed out this news story using US media and Iranian PressTV media. I then asked for people on the other side of the fence to find a simlar comparison with Iranian internal issues that US media reports on and compare the reporting manner back in that direction.

Why is this so hard for you and USAisevil to wrap your brains around? Its a perspective question that explores the reaons.

As I stated to USAisevil -

Either comply with the groundrules for this thread or dont post. I dont want it dragged off topic simply because you dont understand the request. And before you throw a fit about me saying comply or go elsewhere, its my thread, and im within my right to make that request of you.

Stay on topic or go elsewhere.

reply to post by Xcathdra

You say Iran and Iranians... The distiction I saw in those media reports (US) and comments by Bush was our issue was with the Iranian Government, not with the Iranian people.

Irrelevant. How does opinion work within the minds of uneducated people(majority of people)?

It works the other way as well, if only you had an idea of how much respect I get just by saying I'm from Iran from non-Europeans and non-whites. If the person I am talking with has not shaken my hand they nearly always do when I say I'm from Iran. Why? Because they do not like to colonialist approach and THINK that the Iranian government is blockading this colonizing - but, I'm not part of the Iranian government. Riddle me this; why am I looked upon as part of that government? Because that is the way things go in peoples minds. I won't start on how I get treated by Europeans and whites(not all of course) I've never met who seemingly, take a step+ back after I say I'm Iranian...why? I will not explain but you know why.

The reason I used that shooting incident as a comparison was specifically the way it was reported.

And I'm at least two steps ahead of you because I just described WHY it was reported the way it was. You don't need to ask this.

The kid was armed, he did shoot at police, and he was not shot because of the 2 dollar fare. Someone pointed out the date difference in the PRessTV report at the US media report. I noted the incident took place on July 16th, so all sides had the ability to have all the information when they did their reporting.

Apart from obvious bias in reporting there is a thing called distance decay.

My question on this incident and reporting is this:
Doe the Iranian Government or PressTV have issues with the US Government, the State Governments or just the American people?

You would have to ask the Iranian government. What I believe though, is that the quarrels are with the military industry and the invasive and colonizing techniques of the American government, the CIA. Why? Well, the CIA has helped ruin Iran more than one time.

Interesting... When I see US media reporting on Iran, I see a difference. I see US media reporting on the Iranian Government and its policies, and not its people.

So "Wiping Israel off the map" is not a misinterpretation that leads people to believe the general opinion of Iranians is the same as their presidents'? What are all these talks by numerous people about bombing Iran then? Or am I to think that these people mean the Iranian government and not bombing civilians?

Is US media, when reporting on the woman who was to be stoned to death, focused on the Iranian top level government (Ahmadinejad). Is that the correct focus or should it be local?

Well first of all, I hope the woman was not stoned to death as that is a sick and barbaric practice, and not intrinsic to Iranian culture. The thing is, that the focus should be on the local - since stupid religious judges make these rulings - but then it should go onward to the top levels of governments for their failings - Who the hell stones people in this day and age? How can one call their own country democratic with # like this going on? Why? In order to highlight the stupid cleric judge and to force top level government to take action against the ruling of these imbecile religious nut jobs.

An intresting perspective. Growing up during the cold war (later half of it anyways) I always took the media reports as directed towards the governments and ideology and not neccissarily the people themselves.

And how many people were like minded? How many foamed at the mouth hearing the word "Communist"?

I guess the question then becomes how do we counter / fix it?

We burn down the media headquarters that spread this bull# and hunt their CEO's and incarcerate them. Why? They are effectively creating a war-like atmosphere. One that benefits nobody but their own wallets.

Why would Iranian media seize on this one particular topic

Because of the story itself. Just like the way foreign media to Iran portrays the rulings of stoning people.

as well as an attempt to paint the US as something its not.

But it is painting the US as something it is, maybe not painting with the right colors but the shape is correct. This goes for the Iranian government as well, since they also shout democracy then incarcerate intellectuals for their political opinions or simply, fear of their political opinions.

In Us media its being reported as a huge rift between the 2, with the possibility of Ahmadinejad being removed from his position by either IRanian legislature or the Ayatollah.

Yes but one thing the Iranians as a whole realize, that if Iran shows the slightest bit of infighting and unrest within government/society, foreign forces will try to influence and mingle right away. Iran has been a victim of this many times before but now Iran has learned.

Its also been reported in US media that several of Ahmadinejad cabinet ministers have been arrested. Part of that basis for the arrest was that insinuation they are sorcerers.

That's kind of unbelievable huh...

Is that even close to being accurate?

Don't know, maybe they did something they were allowed to, but the rulers did not like it, so the rulers stuck that accusation to their pants to discredit them.

Originally posted by USAisdevil
go ahead , again i ask the same question ? is american propaganda media more reliable ??

They are much better at the propaganda side because they have been running Hollywood to re-write history for the past 90 years.

Lets think about this a second

Last week we had the CCN/BBC puppets running news about phone hacking 24/7 as if the end of the world was coming and just a week later we hear nothing, diddly sqwat but they still have time to talk about football even when the grounds are empty.

PressTV and Russia Today have not forgot about the supision about the dead reporter or is that just propaganda

Originally posted by Zamini
Irrelevant. How does opinion work within the minds of uneducated people(majority of people)?

Actually it very much is relevant. When I see people discussing event in Iran, I rarely see the conversation turn to the Iranianuian people except to ask the question of why they tolerate some of the actions of the Iranian government (just as Iranians do about the US).

However its helpful when trying to put things into perspective - IE does the policies of the US Government reflect the views of the US people and vice versa for Iran.

Understanding that might go a long way to correcting the reportiung issues the media seems to have.

Originally posted by Zamini
It works the other way as well, if only you had an idea of how much respect I get just by saying I'm from Iran from non-Europeans and non-whites. If the person I am talking with has not shaken my hand they nearly always do when I say I'm from Iran. Why? Because they do not like to colonialist approach and THINK that the Iranian government is blockading this colonizing - but, I'm not part of the Iranian government. Riddle me this; why am I looked upon as part of that government? Because that is the way things go in peoples minds. I won't start on how I get treated by Europeans and whites(not all of course) I've never met who seemingly, take a step+ back after I say I'm Iranian...why? I will not explain but you know why.

Respect is earned, not just given... As far as how you are treated that also is a 2 way road. Check the comments people have left on PRessTV comment section for this story. Do you think this viewpoint by people, going in both directions, is a result of the media coverage of each others countries, or do you think it goes beyond that?

Educational? Religion?

Colonial approach? I see this used a lot yet nevr backed up with anything to place it into context. The US was once a colony, and we gained our independance. After that was done, the US did not go around the world to set up colonies. If you think they did can you please give me some examples so we can discuss.

Question - I think I am understanding you - You are saying Iran has issues with American actions abroad, viewing them as colonial? If that assumption is correct, then the argument being made is Iran wants the us out of the colonial business as they see it. They feel the US should mind its own business?

If Iran feels this way, and again if I am understanding your response, then shouldnt Iran only be concerned with US actions only when it deal with IRan directly? If not, it would be creating a double standard where no matter what the US does, Iran feels they can interfere how they want, while at the same time telling the US we cant do the same?

Originally posted by Zamini
And I'm at least two steps ahead of you because I just described WHY it was reported the way it was. You don't need to ask this.

Just because you and I might be on the same page regarding the question, does not mean other are. This is why I am asking what you or I would consider a no brainer question.

Originally posted by Zamini
Apart from obvious bias in reporting there is a thing called distance decay.

While I think I know what this means, I have never heard this particular term used. I am assuming that the farther away an incident is, the greater the canhes of things being lost in translations when reported?

A follow up - If the example I gave is correct, how can we accept that when we live in an age of global 24 hour media? I could more readily buy into that concept if we did not have satellites, cell phones, computers, internet etc etc. If something happens in Russia, its on the news within 5-15 minutes give or take.

Originally posted by Zamini
You would have to ask the Iranian government. What I believe though, is that the quarrels are with the military industry and the invasive and colonizing techniques of the American government, the CIA. Why? Well, the CIA has helped ruin Iran more than one time.

I will agree the CIA is no angel, and going along the same lines neither is Iranian Security services, who do operate outside of Iranian borders. The reason I asked about the view of the people as opposed to the government is from my observations about Miami Florida and Cuban refugees.

The majority opinion of the US people is the embargo on Cuba has not worked at all. However anytime a dsicussion is broached about ending the blockade, the cuban community goes bonkers to stop it. They are basing their actions on personal accounts, where as the others are seeing it from a purely political point of view with no real attachment one way or the other.

I was curious if that setup is also present in Iran because of past US involvement in relation to the Government changing?

Originally posted by Zamini
So "Wiping Israel off the map" is not a misinterpretation that leads people to believe the general opinion of Iranians is the same as their presidents'? What are all these talks by numerous people about bombing Iran then? Or am I to think that these people mean the Iranian government and not bombing civilians?

Which is why I brought the question up and the mistranslations in the reporting. I have seen people make an argument that Iran is fine with the people of Irasel, they just hate the Israeli Government. Since I have not seen anything of that nature come out of IRan (not saying it doesnt exist, ive just never seen it), its why I asked that question and used that example.

Originally posted by Zamini
Well first of all, I hope the woman was not stoned to death as that is a sick and barbaric practice, and not intrinsic to Iranian culture. The thing is, that the focus should be on the local - since stupid religious judges make these rulings - but then it should go onward to the top levels of governments for their failings - Who the hell stones people in this day and age? How can one call their own country democratic with # like this going on? Why? In order to highlight the stupid cleric judge and to force top level government to take action against the ruling of these imbecile religious nut jobs.

Setting aside the practice and religion for the moment, I dont think my question was clear so lemme ask it this way. Is Iran broken down into sections like the US is?

At the top we have the Federal Government - President, Congress etc.
We then drop down to States - These states are independant of the Federal Government
Local leadership - City councils etc.

We have Federal Law, and the Federal Government only has jurisdiction if a federal law is broken. Aside from that its up to the State / Local cities. People who live in say Florida are subject to Florida law.

Do the laws in Iran come from various levels o government, or do they all origonate from the top and filter down?

Ours go both ways - Federal law filtering down, and local law, if challeneged, filtering up.

Originally posted by Zamini
And how many people were like minded? How many foamed at the mouth hearing the word "Communist"?

In the time period I grew up? Not many.. For the US the "red scare" was a 50' / 60's and early 70's thing. When Gorbachev came intopower in the USSR and initiated parastroika things changed pretty quickly. ven then going back and looking at media coverage of the East, it concentrated on ideology and policy linked in to the government.

When it reported on people, it usually pointed out the hardships, or it taking 15 years for a person in the USSR to buy a car, how the economy was setup and failing.

You apparently have a different memory which is intresting to me since it highlights how infomration is relayed and portrayed in the media, even going back many decades.

Originally posted by Zamini
We burn down the media headquarters that spread this bull# and hunt their CEO's and incarcerate them. Why? They are effectively creating a war-like atmosphere. One that benefits nobody but their own wallets.

Agreed

Originally posted by Zamini
Because of the story itself. Just like the way foreign media to Iran portrays the rulings of stoning people.

When foreign media covered that story, were details left out of the reporting that could have directly affected the opinion of the people reading / watching it? Or did foreign media cover it using all fatcs and information?

Originally posted by Zamini
Yes but one thing the Iranians as a whole realize, that if Iran shows the slightest bit of infighting and unrest within government/society, foreign forces will try to influence and mingle right away. Iran has been a victim of this many times before but now Iran has learned.

Is it possible some of that thought process is based on Paranoia? I ask because, again from my pesepctive and news resources, anytime something internal occurs in Iran, blaming Israel or the US for it is never far behind. The way its related back to us is the Iranian Government uses countries like the US and Israel as a distraction. Any time the population of Iran starts to focus and put pressure on the government, something occurs, blame is assigned to the US / Israel, and the focus of the people, at least for a short time, focus on that instead of the government.

Is that a fair assessment? Or is western media leaving out facts / misreporting whats being said (going back to the Farsi and mistranslation).

Originally posted by Zamini
That's kind of unbelievable huh...

Using my baclground, I found it absurd yes. However, it doesnt mean that view is any less correct than any other religion. I brought it up as an example of how something is reported. US media has reported on the sorcer story, and linked it back to a certain religious group (the closest comparison would be Opus dei and the Catholic Church).

Was the reporting correct or was something lost in translation?

Originally posted by Zamini

Is that even close to being accurate?

Don't know, maybe they did something they were allowed to, but the rulers did not like it, so the rulers stuck that accusation to their pants to discredit them.

Hmmm ok.. Based on your knowledge of the country / region is the sorcer thing even remotely accurate though Is their a sect in that region that beleives in the sorcery (again sorcery was the term US media used, so not sure if something was lost in translation or not) aspect of religion?


As a side note thank you for taking the time to answer / converse / debate this. I know neither one of us are going to be able to change the press / media accounts. However, it does allow me to get some insight on the thought process and manner in which stories ae reported, as well as some views / opinions formed by people on the other side of the fence and how media can iunfluence them.

Thank you

reply to post by Master_007


Can you give me some examples of where Hollywood has joined forces with media to create a false story?

As far as the phone hacking scandal, the media is reporting on it. In the UK because of the hearing, and in the US because the FBI has opened an initial investigation into the accusations that accounts from 9/11 families were hacked.

Not much else to report until that results of those investigations become public record.

Ive seen RT reports, and in some cases they are completely accurate, and in other cases they seem to be way off, however that can be attributed to faulty sources or reporting on something that has not been independantly confirmed. There are a few stories that have been from left field though, but I suppose that happens to all media at one point or another.

Anyways, can you give me some examples of Hollywood, US media and what you consider propoganda please.