< link rel="DCTERMS.isreplacedby" href="http://sirhumphreys.com" > Sir Humphrey's: Media Bias #4


SITE MOVED:Sir Humphrey's has moved

Please join us at our new site: www.sirhumphreys.com.

The RSS feed for sirhumphreys.com is now here.

Thursday, April 21, 2005

Media Bias #4

From the BBC:
Iraq two years on: Endgame or unending war?

Two years after the fall of Baghdad, it is an open question as to whether an endgame to the insurgency is under way or whether Iraq faces a war that will drag on for years.
Only two extreme options along a continuum of possibilities are offered, and one is nullified by the ongoing terrorist attacks. Many countries continue to fight anti-terrorist campaigns to this day, yet the BBC does not declare them in a constant state of war. Is it coincidence the BBC consistently presents events in Iraq as negative?

Media bias types: 9- False appearance of fairness. 10- Opinion masquerading as fact. 12- Issue exclusion. New Bias Type 14- Future prediction.

Posted by Antarctic Lemur | 4/21/2005 07:48:00 am


Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're right. The BBC should really focus on the overwhelming positivity of the invasion. Don't tell us about the explosions, the dead bodies, the massive carnage or any of the other "negative" stuff. Just lollies and flowers please.

4/21/2005 02:08:00 pm  
Anonymous Mike Readman said...

The future prediction is a good one, I see that all the time. By the time the event has happened, readers/listeners/viewers have probably mostly forgotten about the prediction.

4/21/2005 02:09:00 pm  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

Thats right Brave Anonymous - the BBC should act as a mouthpiece for terrorists. They should report all negative events, and repress all positive information. They could even breathlessly report every single instance of smoke rising from the streets of Baghdad, coincidentally located in full view of a BBC video team safely tucked away in the Green Zone. After all thats the only way westerners will think the Iraqi situation is more like Vietnam rather than any number of other countries after WW2, or Malyasia after the Malayan insurgency.

4/21/2005 08:49:00 pm  
Blogger Lucyna said...

Just found this from the NYTimes: Iraqis Find Graves Thought to Hold Hussein's Victims

BAGHDAD, Iraq, April 14 - Investigators have discovered several mass graves in southern Iraq that are believed to contain the bodies of people killed by Saddam Hussein's government, including one estimated to hold 5,000 bodies, Iraqi officials say.

The graves, discovered over the past three months, have not yet been dug up because of the risks posed by the continuing insurgency and the lack of qualified forensic workers, said Bakhtiar Amin, Iraq's interim human rights minister. But initial excavations have substantiated the accounts of witnesses to a number of massacres. If the estimated body counts prove correct, the new graves would be among the largest in the grim tally of mass killings that have gradually come to light since the fall of Mr. Hussein's government two years ago. At least 290 grave sites containing the remains of some 300,000 people have been found since the American invasion two years ago, Iraqi officials say.

I found a similiar article from the BBC on it from last year Babies found in Iraqi mass grave

Mr Kehoe said that work to uncover graves around Iraq, where about 300,000 people are thought to have been killed during Saddam Hussein's regime, was slow as experienced European investigators were not taking part.

The Europeans, he said, were staying away as the evidence might be used eventually to put Saddam Hussein to death.

So what is my point? Oh yeah, here you go, anon, evidence of mass death prior to the invasion that most likely would have continued had not the invasion gone ahead. And the other point, at least the BBC has reported on this mass death, even though it's not being even alluded to in the above article. Divide and conquor, that's the way.

4/21/2005 09:05:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Brave Anonymous"? This from someone called Antartic Lemur. You made me laugh with that witty retort. What's YOUR name?

4/22/2005 01:21:00 pm  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

This isn't a little game. Do not ask for personal identification information.

Stick to the topic being discussed.

4/22/2005 02:14:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would but you were the first to mock my using "anonymous". This seems a little pathetic considering that your psuedonym is a little fluffy animal. You made fun of me in your response - and did not stick to the topic being discussed. Why don't you want people to know who you really are? What are you trying to hide?

4/22/2005 04:13:00 pm  
Blogger Lucyna said...

Anon, all of this to take the heat away from your total lack of psuedonym.. too scared to give yourself one, are you? Don't want to be recognised the next time you comment here?

4/22/2005 04:36:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

who cares what psuedonum someone uses? they can change it everytime they post something. this is not the real world. i want to know why the lemur won't reveal his real name!

4/22/2005 04:51:00 pm  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

Anyone with a modicum of intelligence who has read your increasingly weird demands now knows why many bloggers use pseudonyms.

If you have any intelligent defense for your support of the BBC's pro-terrorist reporting then make it.

4/22/2005 05:03:00 pm  
Blogger Lucyna said...

We care, anon. We do allow anonymous comments... for now.

Yes, someone could their psueodonym each time. Most don't, as their psueonym represents them and does build up a reputation online over time.

Hmmm, thinking aloud here ..What we probably need is a anon generating program that identifies you by your IP and gives you a name. So let's see, we could call you Anon-Scardey-Pants. How does that work for you?

4/22/2005 05:03:00 pm  
Blogger Lucyna said...

I don't think I spelled that right: Anon-Scaredy-Pants, that looks better.

4/22/2005 05:07:00 pm  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

Hey Anonymous (you know which one I mean).

I recently did a post about anonymous posters, which was obviously tongue in cheek, but made a couple of points. Not PC blog did a far more intelligent and recent post about the use of a real name, an alias or posting as anonymous. It had some good comments worth reading.

Obviously, posting as anonymous can confuse you with the many other anonymous posts. Still, we allow it at this site, which is saying something.

If the points an anonymous user makes are good points, then it helps the debate. It doesn't when the conversation degenerates to trolling.

Posting under a regular identity is pretty close to posting as a real person. Basically, the identity will build up a history and the name is just as recognisable to many as any real John Smith, Andrew Brown or Mike Cooper.

I personally don't think a real name is required, unless you want to go around to some-ones house and throw tomatoes at their window, which hardly adds much to the debate in any case.

So anonymous, asking Antarctic Lemur to reveal his name is a different order of magnitude than you adopting a handle of your own rather than hiding behind many posters.

That being said, if the trolling comments are dropped and you focus on providing some back-up to your comments, I think the reaction would change and you'll get some lively debate.

Presumably, the result might be to alter the perceptions of many of the readers. (I'd put it about a million to one you are going to change Antarctic Lemur's opinion with one conversation though - he's done too much reading and thinking on these matters, and the issues are complex)

4/22/2005 05:47:00 pm  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

BTW Lemur, I'm adding your great retort to my list of approved "Replies to Anonymous":

1. Brave Anonymous
2. Anonymous (if that is who you really are)
3. Full credit to Anonymous
4. Anonymous (you know the one)


4/22/2005 05:53:00 pm  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

Good post Zen. Maybe Brave Anonymous is unaware he can make his new nickname permanent by registering it at Blogger.com.

4/22/2005 06:46:00 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home