WAR: Report: Iraq Coverage Wasn't Biased

The Project for Excellence in Journalism has come to the conclusion that the coverage of the war in Iraq was not biased. The study looked at nearly 2200 reports on TV, web, and newspapers. Most stories could not be classified either way, and 20 percent had a positive spin with 25 percent having a negative.



So the reality was 45 percent of the stories had one sides spin. Media is supposed to remain neutral, so I don't know whether to be alarmed or to be okay with the finding. ATSNN does a good job of keeping the spin down until the members comment section. The interesting part of the story showed 36 percent of stories on President Bush were negative, compared to 12 percent for Democrat John Kerry. On the other hand stories were positive 20 percent of the time for Bush, 30 percent for Kerry. Coincidence? I think not.

your 'study' was funded by 'pew charitable trusts'.
here is a link to help our readers.
can you say, 'oil'

here is another link, which can help the reader understand the tools of manipulation being used by the monolithic mainstream. this site is a collective of journalists dedicated to fairness and accuracy in reporting, f.a.i.r..

read and be educated in the nature of evil corporate monoliths

All media is biased. I find it interesting that someone thought it was interesting to conduct a study to these ends......

Biased towards a political extreme is irrelevant. The bias exists 'against' the viewer to.......that is why there is a system............

This research is clearly biased towards the entire media.

45% spin only? That is highly under-rated.

this thread should be permanently tied to it's yang thread, sooooo.....
propoganda report finds bias in iraq coverage

why has this thread sunk down, and the sister thread has sat on top of recent items?
where are the defenders of the oil companies pronouncements?
why is this obviously misleading and biased propoganda allowed to stand in ATSNN, a place which alleggedly commited to 'deny bias'.
shouldn't this thread be moved out of the news section and into the 'ignorance denied' section?
i clearly showed that oil interests funded the study, and that it was completely biased.
so, what happens? nothing.

where's the fabulous moderation and commitment to 'deny ignorance' and 'deny bias' i've heard so much about?

Wow billybob, good catch

If I had a WATS left you'd get it- (next month)

This catch is explosive. 'yang thread' I don't see it exactly that tied, but if you tied both of them to a 'witch-hunt'/deny bias/ expose the subverter thread then I could buy it. Outstanding linkage and what an explosive exposure of source.

To follow the Pew Trust link I thought it odd that the trust has loans outstanding. The link at the bottom of the Pew page is laughable. Exxon bemoans the 'death of a thousand cuts' from such sources as the Sierra Club which gets grants from Pew!

Is this circular or what? Fund your attackers- what's with that? All this available information from 'company sources' makes me ask why:

is this information on the internet,
is it never exactly current,
do trails lead in both directions,

And some what:

am I supposed to gather from this,
does the presenter (Exxon in this case) expect to gain,
actions are expected

Lots more questions to be sure. One more reason to view 'Yahoo News' with a jaundiced eye. It isn't the story that is wrong, it is the slant and conclusory statements.
major props
.

.

"Is this circular or what? Fund your attackers- what's with that?"

A while back Newt Gingrich proposed cutting all funding for public braodcasting. This had the effect of driving Public Broadcasting into the arms of more left leaning organizations. Realizing the error the corporations did an abrupt about face and used the strategy that they use on every regulatory body, surround, devour and conquer. The FDA is in the pocket of Big Pharma, the Ag Dept owned by Big Agra etc. This is why the Pew Trust funds Public Broadcating. Some on the left now refer to it as National Petroleum Radio and the like. The advent of Tucker Carlson on PBS with his own show is a bell weather.

my point in linking to the yang thread is about the current witchhunt.
i'm quite peeved at having this story: scott ritter say iraq election cooked, iran plans for war 'signed by bush, -quashed by what are obviously neocon influences. this WAS news, and it IS news. it is not a 'leftist agenda'. it IS the reporting of something which actually happened, i.e. 'news'.
not only was it moved once, from ATSNN submission to 'current events' at ATS, it was then moved AGAIN by none other than FredT buttonclicky to Below Top Secret.
this thread, however, is left to stand as some kind of authoritarian statement of truth.
imho.

these stories are 'voted' as 'worthy' for ATSNN or 'unworthy'.
this seems democratic, yet it would be simple for a team of neocon desk agents to 'cook' the results by purposely voting as a team, while the good natured 'left'(center, really, if we could have a wave of truth like a breath of fresh air) isn't so machevellian, imho.

what if during the witch hunts of yesteryear, they had let the witches live, and killed the 'christian leaders' instead?

here is a link to the methods of the present day 'christian mafia'. great expose, imho.

[edit on 19-3-2005 by billybob]

If you think there is a conspiracy about the way in which articles are voted on, I'd talk to SO, I'm sure he could look at the logs for votes. But anyway, ATSNN Reporters don't need to get their stories voted on, whatever they write instantly becomes news. I'm not sure the process on becoming a reporter, but I'm sure there is one, at least I hope so.

To be fair, there is the argument that there are so many threads contrary to what this report is saying, it is only fitting this would come out by someone, anyone. You have a lot of people for the war saying the reports are biased, and people against the war saying they are biased. There are a lot of people with diverse opinions speaking to the contrary of this group's findings.

[edit on 19-3-2005 by Jamuhn]

We need titles:

Cotton accolate- for those that catch
Quis- for those that sell out their fellows
Benedict- for those that change sides

The link (scott ritter) to the story (billybob posted) is really sad. The story is lost in arguments and darts regarding the messenger. I read it all and am dismayed. 'right 'left'

Is this what matters regarding news? Newsmax is bogus- so f&%king what! There are stories out there folks and all of them don't come from The Christian Science Monitor. Anyone reading Newsmax knows it is slanted at 89deg. Any more right and it would collapse- it still 'could' have a legitimate story.

Who judges what source is good? Who judges?

Back to the thread- I would never believe the news coverage was NOT biased. Reminds me too much of Viet Nam and Panama.
.

.

I think the coverage of th Iraqi war, was used to enhance the views of the people to support the invasion, occurs no matter how bias the media was or is, certain issues tied to the war could not had gotten unnoticed.

Occurs we all know the real story or at least we think we know, and for the report well we have to understand that the media wants to keep and image of being fair and balance.

And so if some "interest groups" wants to help the better.

Even the media as in the government and "others" the image control has been very busy this days cool:

Nice link Billybob.

double post.

[edit on 19-3-2005 by marg6043]

bump up marg

Couldn't agree more. Not only with the statements but the link as well