(who, let’s not forget, were out to kill them first). What about French ‘peacekeepers’ who shoot and decapitate Ivorian protesters? As John Rosenthal points out,
It does not require a very elaborate demonstration to be able to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that if it were not the French, but rather the American military that was caught on videotape firing into a crowd of civilians, it would be all over the airwaves 24/7.
Is the BBC partially funded by the French government? If not, France owes them big time. (Silly me for thinking BBC coverage should be fair to the public and government funding it!) And while I’m on the subject of France in Ivory Coast, where is any BBC ‘analyst’ critiquing the double-standard at play between France and the UN? This really stinks. Where is the BBC? (My thanks to Instapundit, Transatlantic Intelligencer and Free Will for doing what the MSM is failing to do.)
UPDATE: I did manage to find one mention of this incident in a BBC online article.
When French tanks and armoured vehicles massed at the Hotel Ivoire, a luxury hotel not far from the state television and the presidential residence, state media implored Ivorians to form a human shield around the president.
According to the radio, the French tanks were intending to oust President Gbagbo. Again, thousands of people responded to the call, and again, hundreds of people were injured and at least 10 died. State television showed report after report showing wounded men and women in graphic detail, accompanied by commentaries denouncing France.
This is a BBC story on how the media has been used in Ivory Coast to fan tensions, yet there is no scrutiny of French actions. Their explanations are taken at face value. So, do I hear the BBC alleging that the deaths of at least ten civilians and the wounding of many others by French soldiers is to be blamed on the misuse of radio and TV by the Ivorian government?
PD
In LA the only paper is the L Times, ultra-liberal. In Washington and New York the main papers have always been liberal. Liberal in their editorials, mostly lieral in the columnists they feature. (LA and NYC are the media capitals of the US.) The mainstream TV channels are liberal.
These are facts accepted by most people with any knowledge of US politics. If you have any evidence to the contrary, please state it.
John you’re not listening. I’m not disputing that the New York/LA Times have a liberal slant (though I was disputing the figure you suggested as the survey looked a little dodgy). Aren’t these cities predominantly liberal anyway, so aren’t these papers simply catering for their audience? I can’t comment fully as I haven’t read them over an extended period.
My point is that these papers are a just a small part of the total media output in the US, so its ridiculous to point to a handful of papers as evidence of the overwhelming liberal bias in the US media.
contd.
I’ve watched all the major networks news broadcasts (CBS on Sky, ABC on NEWS24 and NBC on CNBC) and to be honest I’ve never picked up this overwhelming liberal bias at all. The anchors are so wooden and robot like I really don’t see how their political persuasion can ever come across in what must be about 5 minutes a night. At the end of the day, if there was an incredible amount of liberal bias and everyone is being brainwashed then how the hell have Republicans managed to be in power for 16 out of the last 24 years?
Oh and thanks for the “you know nothing dig” at the end. The evidence you have presented so far isn’t exactly the most convincing John.
PD
You are conveniently ignoring the TV channels.
New York did NOT vote overwhelmingly Democrat. And California split about60/40. So the LA Times and the NY Times do NOT reflect the local population. I see the LA Times regularly and it is hopelessly biassed. These are the biggest concentrations of newspaper readership in the US, and their writers are syndicated in many other newspapers across the US. They and the Washington Post are regarded as leaders of US opinion. And of the rest of the press, there is a preponderance of liberal titles as far as I know. Do you have evidence to the contrary.
I’ve mentioned the main TV channels and as I said from what I’ve seen there is no big bias. Everyone bangs on about this liberal bias and I’m not denying that in some areas that might well exist. But I think this is largely to do with social issues, such as gay rights etc.
When it comes down to the main themes like the economy and so on I really don’t see the bias at all.
John, I’m no expert on American media so no I can’t provide you with a list of titles I consider liberal and ones that are conservative. Can you? Can Anyone? Much like you I’m just giving my opinion.
OK, so you’re telling me California and NY are more split than I think? So doesn’t that reinforce my point that this alleged media bias really doesn’t pay off?
If the media is so liberal and people are being brainwashed by the news into voting democrat then why have the repulicans had so much success? Where are these people getting there information and forming their opinions?
They’re getting it from the internet PD, they’re circumventing the ‘old media’ partly because they believe it to be biased. Blogs such as this are the ‘new media’.
If one were to simply watch CBS then one could come to the conclusion that documents showed President Bush to have gone AWOL during his national service. This of course was a load of BS as conclusively shown by the ‘new media’ within an hour of the story coming out. How can you explain the whole ‘Rathergate’ thing by the way? A major network broadcasting a potentially highly damaging story based on obvious forgeries? The target being Bush? Before a presidential election? By accident???
What made Rathergate such a scandal was the long, long refusal of CBS and Rather to admit that the documents were forged. Even now they avoid that word.
The long saga is meticulously documented here :
http://www.corante.com/importance/archives/006222.php
And here a lawyer adds his forensic explanation of what CBS lawyers have been up to :
http://scyllacharybdis.blogspot.com/2004/11/sneak-peek-at-whats-not-in-memogate.html
Anyone with half a brain could see that the “1971” memos had been produced using Microsoft Word, not a typewriter. But day after day – right up to today – CBS has tried to confuse the issue. Not biassed against Bush ??? Yeah, sure !
I accept the whole rathergate thing is a good piece of evidence for your claims of bias.
It certainly was pretty sloppy journalism. I’m not sure though whether it is good proof of a consistent conspiracy over years to bash the republican party and forward the democratic cause.
We all know journos love getting a scoop and all that and will often twist things round to fit the story. The question is whether you believe that journalistic ambition blinded their rational thought/methods or was it their political persuasion?
Either way it stank for what it was. The annoying thing is that it is likely to cut the risk taken by journalists in the future (some may say rightly so).
Rather didn’t have to prove himself as a journalist. IMHO he and Mapes were driven by political malice – ending up damaging his journalstic reputation. He ended up looking a total liar.
And that was not the only major and sustained instance of bias among the major networks.
But try going back over the detailed chronology of Rathergate in the above link.
Another summary today of Rathergate arguing that Rather’s bias drove the story :
http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.18304/article_detail.asp
If anyone else is interested I found a really good summary of the whole rathergate thing with links to the blog sites that kicked it all off. Here it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_memos
PD
here is an interesting assessment of Dan Rather – and CBS/liberal media – by someone who worked with him –
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110005969