Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   Today "what liberal media?" headline: Iraq talks are "in ruins" -- as long as "in ruins" means "progressing smoothly," that is   (slate.com) divider line
43
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

479 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Mar 2006 at 7:00 PM (17 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



43 Comments     (+0 »)
 
jeremyrainman
2006-03-02 3:30:08 PM  
It's not liberal slant, it's just sensationalism.

Of course, when that sensationalism has a right-wing tinge to it, it's called propaganda.
 
Action Replay Nick
2006-03-02 3:34:06 PM  
Someone better alert Fox News to the fact that everything is fine in Iraq. (pops)
 
DeanMoriarty
2006-03-02 3:39:43 PM  
Yeah, nobody's ever attempted to rebuild something that was in ruins.
 
rocker5969
2006-03-02 3:52:50 PM  
As long as "progressing smoothly" is a conservatie euphemism for "a couple of thousand people have been killed in the last week or so, as explosions, mortar attacks, and gunfire rip through every part of the country, and curfews and martial law are instated to keep the country from erupting into a full-blown civil war", then yeah I'd say Iraq's talks are progressing quite smoothly.
 
Digitalstrange
2006-03-02 3:55:29 PM  
Oh sure, thats the thing.

Yes the media is liberally biased, but thats like saying Fox news is conservatively biased. Both are true. When a story has any grey area the given organization leans towards the slant that makes sense to their worldview. But in both cases their job is to sell ads and papers in the case of print media. They can't do so unless they report on the stories others are covering too.

In short when I and most others complain of a media bias it's not that we believe evil newspaper editors and TV executives meet with the DNC every day and plan how to bash conservatives. What we mean is that people in that buisness tend to be more liberal and thus view most news events through a lens that projects bias, thus their reporting reflects a more liberal interpretation of events. Nowadays Fox News does the same thing by filling their network by journalists of a conservative slant.

I understand why people of a more liberal viewpoint don't see the bias. It's because you see things through the same lens, thus it just looks right. Trust me I live in SC and you can't convince many of the conservatives here that Fox News has a conservative bias. I know quite a few people who include Fox News among the liberal biased media.
 
Father Jack Hacket
2006-03-02 3:58:58 PM  
Digitalstrange: Yes the media is liberally biased, but thats like saying Fox news is conservatively biased. Both are true.

bollocks
 
2wolves [TotalFark]
2006-03-02 3:59:39 PM  
What's to talk about? They're shooting at us as occupying invaders and we're shooting back because we can.
 
SnowCrashed
2006-03-02 4:02:10 PM  
Digitalstrange... like.. wow... dizzying intellect...

So let me ask this: Since the NYT was liberal when they reported the talks in "ruins", were they conservative the next day when they reported the talks were resuming?

I also don't think I have ever seen any of the three major networks run advertising for the DNC on their news websites. Fox News actually ran ads asking for volunteers to work the Republican convention in 04 for the RNC. It doesn't get any more blatant than that.
 
This About That [OhFark]
2006-03-02 4:06:14 PM  
They probably couldn't find a place for the talks that wasn't a ruin.
 
playblu
2006-03-02 4:09:45 PM  
rocker5969

As long as "progressing smoothly" is a conservatie euphemism for "a couple of thousand people have been killed in the last week or so...

Wow. Just wow. Way to have no idea what's going on. Do you get your news from anywhere other than DailyKos? Do you own a TV? Radio?
 
rocker5969
2006-03-02 4:17:57 PM  
playblu: Do you own a TV? Radio?

where do you think my liberal bias comes from?

Way to have no idea what's going on.

Almost everything that has happened in this stupid war is as I said it was going to be back in 2003 before it ever started. from the intel manipulation that started it, to the current chaos that is going on over there.

The number of deaths in the last week or so?

eports in The Washington Post this week that the death toll had risen to more than 1,000,

close enough for me.
 
Mordant
2006-03-02 4:18:38 PM  
so, with all this success and progress we should be done soon... right ?

How about this for a deal, instead of constantly telling me how well you're doing you just shut the f*ck up and tell me when you're done. Same goes for the budget.
 
SnowCrashed
2006-03-02 4:19:22 PM  
Ok, so rocker5969 is wrong about the timeframe. He was also wrong about the numbers. It seems he was a bit on the short side:

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

The count is between 28591 and 32225, going back to '03. As in 28591 civilians have died in Iraq since we invaded back in '03.
 
Action Replay Nick
2006-03-02 4:25:08 PM  
SnowCrashed
As in 28591 civilians have died in Iraq since we invaded back in '03.

Oh come on, that's only like ten September 11th's. We've still got like, 90 more September 11th victims worth of civilians to kill until we can consider our revenge against the desert people complete.
 
Bill_Wick's_Friend
2006-03-02 4:26:08 PM  
how many have died in the past two weeks?

hard to say. depends on who you ask and when:


Death toll in Iraq since Samarra bombing vigorously debated: Prime Minister Ibrahim Al-Jaafari said yesterday that the death toll provided to The Washington Post by Baghdad morgue workers -more than 1,300 dead since last Wednesday - was "inaccurate and exaggerated." Al-Jaafari said the toll was 379. Gen. Ali Shamarri of the Interior Ministry statistics department put the toll at 1,077.

U.S. and Iraqi officials offered figures yesterday both higher and lower than Al-Jaafari's count. The U.S. military said it had confirmed 220 deaths. Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, a military spokesman in Iraq, said the country's joint Iraqi-U.S. operations center reported receiving accounts of 365 civilian deaths, and said officials at the center believed the count could reach about 550.


from http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m21149&l=i&size=1&hd=0
 
rocker5969
2006-03-02 4:27:18 PM  
Here's a better definition of "progressing smoothly":

Authorities will enforce a daytime curfew Friday in Baghdad, Iraqi state TV reported, as deadly attacks continued throughout the region.

A string of bombings and shooting assaults on Thursday left at least 22 people dead and more than a dozen others wounded.

The curfew would be the second to be enforced on the Muslim holy day since last week's bombing of the revered shiite Al-Askariya Mosque in Samarra. Vehicles -- except for official ones providing essential services -- will not be allowed on the streets. People will be allowed to walk to the mosque for prayers.
 
rocker5969
2006-03-02 4:29:28 PM  
If you guys think I'm bad just wait - we go green at 7:00p
 
eggrolls
2006-03-02 4:34:40 PM  
A coworker and close friend of mine mentioned she recently heard from her brother, who had been deployed just a few months ago to Baghdad. (Happily, he's fine. He feels like time is flying by, possibly because of the heightened awareness of living in a war zone.) My friend was most suprised by how blase her brother had become in a very short time about how the 'last gasps' of the insurgency lob mortars at the US camp every day, right after aftenoon prayer. Like clockwork. And big brother, along with the rest of the guys he's stationed with, just accept the fact that someone is trying to kill them.

Every day.

Right after lunch.

My friend was stunned to have the reality of how bad it is in Iraq brought home so personally. Not that she's a flag waving pro-war bush-zombie by any stretch. She, like most Americans, had absolutely NO clue how bad it is over there every single rotten day.

Daily bombings. Snipers. Equipment and men stretched to the breaking point. Wasted amd missing money in the BILLIONS. No support from the local government, military, or police, a hostile population that not only resents you, but regularly aids and abets the enemy (since they and the enemy are regarded as the same by the powers that be, can you blame them?). Obliterated infrastructure, war without end. How long can you keep a secret like that, even if you control most of the means of communication?

'Imbedded' reporters don't get to tell the real story. The soldiers do. More and more of them are getting the word out. And more it spreads, the harder it becomes to maintain the illusion that everything is just hunky dory over there. Soon I think, that bird is gonna come home to roost.

And I hope it shiats all over Dubya's head.
 
Sensei Can You See [TotalFark]
2006-03-02 6:05:12 PM  
SnowCrashed: Since the NYT was liberal when they reported the talks in "ruins", were they conservative the next day when they reported the talks were resuming?

Um, no. When NYT said the talks were in ruins, what the story itself actually said was that Iraq's parliament postponed the talks--for about 48 hours--because they wanted to deal with a pretty bad terrorist attack.

The next day, the talks resumed. So the NYT reported--surprise!--that the talks were progressing.

What Kaus is talking about here is NYT's tendency to sensationalize stories by, as in this case, tacking on headlines and/or decks that don't represent the story at all. In other cases the editors rewrite them until they say things the author and/or interview subjects never intended.

That's bad enough, but if you track such incidents--as Kaus does--the trend is not simply to sensationalize the stories, but also to tilt them to the left.

Hence, talks that got delayed turn into talks that are in ruins, giving the impression that the process of forming a new government in Iraq--which NYT opposed--is in shambles when it's not.

This is an open dirty secret in the industry; many stringers have huge gripes about NYT egregiously rewriting wire stories to turn them into anti-war screeds, anti-Bush jeremiads or "bad news in Iraq" stories when they really aren't.

It's not just liberal bias--it's downright unprofessional.
 
Sensei Can You See [TotalFark]
2006-03-02 6:07:13 PM  
rocker5969: I'd say Iraq's talks are progressing quite smoothly.

Look, insurgent attacks are one thing. Iraq's parliament meeting about putting together the new government is something else.

Saying the talks are "in ruins" does NOT represent what the story said--which is simply that the talks were postponed while they dealt with the attacks.

But the talks themselves--the discussions and decision-making involved--really are going just fine.
 
Sensei Can You See [TotalFark]
2006-03-02 6:08:55 PM  
elchip: If you dont know about the topic....Dont make yourself sound like you do.

Okay, then. I also work for the media. So I DO know what I'm talking about.

So you tell me: RTFA, then let me know if you really think that headline accurately represents the story it's attached to.
 
kliq
2006-03-02 6:12:08 PM  
But wait, Slate is supposed to be part of the Liberal Media Conspiracy too!

Does not compute, does not compute.
 
Sensei Can You See [TotalFark]
2006-03-02 6:14:43 PM  
rocker5969: Here's a better definition of "progressing smoothly":

Once again, the article was about Iraqi parliament discussions, not the country as a whole.

Said discussions were postponed briefly due to terrorist attacks. So should the headline say

1. "Talks Delayed by Insurgent Bombings", or

2. "Talks in Ruins"?

Which one communicates that the talks were disrupted by something external, and which one suggests the TALKS THEMSELVES are breaking down?
 
Sensei Can You See [TotalFark]
2006-03-02 6:15:43 PM  
kliq: late is supposed to be part of the Liberal Media Conspiracy too!

Sometimes the tendency to shoot your own wounded overrides the impulse to participate in the conspiracy.
 
Cosmic_Music
2006-03-02 6:30:20 PM  
[image from maj.com too old to be available]
 
Sensei Can You See [TotalFark]
2006-03-02 6:56:53 PM  
elchip: I wanted to add that I was really getting a kick out of most of the replies.

I felt that some of the guys in this thread are very good at making it sound like they know what they are talking about.

So you haven't read the article yourself, yet you can tell if the people who actually have know what they're talking about?

I don't know what you're talking about.

Yes, I figured that out.

Here's a hint: You have to know what YOU'RE talking about before you can decide if anyone else does.
 
Skleenar
2006-03-02 7:16:58 PM  
Digitalstrange: Yes the media is liberally biased, but thats like saying Fox news is conservatively biased. Both are true.

Of course, since Fox is part of the media, I need to be sharing a box with Schrodinger's cat to appreciate the truth of your statement.
 
jepah
2006-03-02 7:18:06 PM  
Very nice elchip. I also commend you on your correct spelling of "belive".

/please carry on
 
Skleenar
2006-03-02 7:21:52 PM  
Is CraneMeister jousting with a Fark Cliche?

Kinda puts a new perspective on his powers of discernment.
 
Thrag
2006-03-02 7:24:37 PM  
Oh look, a thread where apologists argue semantics to avoid the real things going on in the world today. Can we have this one break down to hundreds of posts arguing over the meaning of a simple word like "anticipated" just like the thread yesterday!
 
Thrag
2006-03-02 7:26:19 PM  
TheCraneMeister: So you paid your five dollars for total fark and yet you still don't recognize a standard fark cliche?
 
jeffyd
2006-03-02 7:37:10 PM  
TheCraneMeister's a phony, a big, fat phony! How'd you get that TF tag??
 
Skleenar
2006-03-02 7:45:59 PM  
TheCraneMeister: Take that, I work for... cliche!

I work for... cliche I work for....

TheCraneMeister: Fireball! Fireball! Fireball!!

I work for... cliche I'm really getting a kick....

TheCraneMeister: Fireball!!!!
 
barkey2006
2006-03-02 8:03:05 PM  
Here's what that bastion of "dumb libruls", the Associated Press, says today.

Civilians Bearing Brunt of Iraq Violence

"Figures compiled by the Health Ministry put the civilian death toll for 2005 at 4,024. The ministry's civilian death count for the first two months of this year is 1,093."
.......

"U.S. officials fear those attacks might increase because talks among the Sunni Arab, shiite and Kurdish communities have broken down. The Iraqis are already behind schedule on their constitutional timetable for establishing the new government.

Step one in the process is supposed to be the convening of the 275-member parliament, which was to have opened within 15 days of the final certification of the results. The results were certified Feb. 10, but the new parliament has not convened."

Article
 
Sensei Can You See [TotalFark]
2006-03-02 8:04:18 PM  
Am I the only one who can't see this appearing on Fark?
 
Sensei Can You See [TotalFark]
2006-03-02 8:06:14 PM  
Skleenar: Is CraneMeister jousting with a Fark Cliche?

Apparently.

<emily litella> Never mind!</emily litella>
 
Flaccidor
2006-03-02 8:07:10 PM  
elchip

:golf clap

My hat is off to you, sir. Kind of reminded me of this:

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/videos/myspaceprank.html
 
Sensei Can You See [TotalFark]
2006-03-02 8:07:16 PM  
elchip: I think that I have automatic credibility here

And here I am struggling along with four-speed credibility.
 
ZipBeep
2006-03-02 8:19:41 PM  
rocker5969: As long as "progressing smoothly" is a conservatie euphemism for "a couple of thousand people have been killed in the last week or so, as explosions, mortar attacks, and gunfire rip through every part of the country, and curfews and martial law are instated to keep the country from erupting into a full-blown civil war", then yeah I'd say Iraq's talks are progressing quite smoothly.


Don't forget daytime curfews. That's the definition of progessing smoothly.
 
milk_plus
2006-03-02 9:21:32 PM  
I know those crazy kids will pull it together. This is just nay saying by the "glass 1/2 empty" bunch.

Just to show that every cloud has a silver lining, there is a chance that the Shia death squads killing with impunity all over Iraq might not operating with government approval.
 
karmagirl
2006-03-02 9:26:25 PM  
Liberal media? Paleeze. You know, a 10+ year study was just released a month or so ago which shows a conservative slant in the media. Of course with all the bad sh*t going on in Iraq and everywhere else Bush has laid a hand, conservatives need somewhere to focus the blame since they see their leader as infallible.
 
karmagirl
2006-03-02 9:29:35 PM  
rocker5969: As long as "progressing smoothly" is a conservatie euphemism for "a couple of thousand people have been killed in the last week or so, as explosions, mortar attacks, and gunfire rip through every part of the country, and curfews and martial law are instated to keep the country from erupting into a full-blown civil war", then yeah I'd say Iraq's talks are progressing quite smoothly.

can't also forget the ban on vehicles tomorrow. Iraq and the US: lands of the free!
 
RockIsDead
2006-03-02 10:09:40 PM  
So let me ask this: Since the NYT was liberal when they reported the talks in "ruins", were they conservative the next day when they reported the talks were resuming?

Does no one know what 'bias' means anymore?
 
Displayed 43 of 43 comments


Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

If you like these links, you'll love

TotalFark

Come for the Total, stay for the Farking.

learn more | sign up
On Twitter

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.