Which news network do you believe is most trustworthy/reliable?

Only C-SPAN because they show you what is going on live and there is usually no narrator spewing his bias.

DBabsJr. curently reading Fiasco and so far the author has mentioned this several times.If you don't play the game our way or tell it like the administration says it is you don't get another story you won't even get an escort out of the green zone in an armored vehicle to investigate a story.

i try to watch all of the major news networks in order to get some kind of balance, but most of my news comes from the www.

Psyopspec the proof is in your face open your eyes.Were are the wmd's,were are the flowers at our brave but mis lead soldiers feet.What years were you in country and how long and what outfit I beg to ask?And oh by the by what country?

Psyopspec the proof is in your face open your eyes.Were are the wmd's,were are the flowers at our brave but mis lead soldiers feet.What years were you in country and how long and what outfit I beg to ask?And oh by the by what country?

Click to expand...

To keep this media focused, I'll duck the WMD question for now. I have my own personal beliefs on that, and they really have nothing to do with media bias at this time. As for the flowers, most soldiers I know didn't sign on to be glorified, though I'm not sure that's what you meant with the query.

I was in Iraq March-August of 2003 with B Co, 13th Psychological Operations Bn from Arden Hills, MN. On this deployment my unit supported the 800th MP Bn in operations at Camp Bucca, an EPW/Civilian Internee camp. We were often lent out to infantry for tactical missions in which surrender appeals or crowd control by loudspeaker was required. Incidentally, each time we were told to show up where there'd be a protest against coalition forces, there never was one.

Subsequent deployments have supported infantry in Iraq, SF and marines in Afganistan, and EPW operations in Cuba. A common pattern deployed soldiers see is the media reporting about how terribly the wars are going, but seeing completely different reactions themselves from civilians who are actually grateful we are there. For example, in 2004 a vehicle-borne IED went off outside of an Iraqi police station that was recruiting for the IDF (Iraqi Defense Forces) in Mosul. The networks were quick to show the carnage and some soundbytes from stricken mothers. According to an associate in Civil Affairs working in the area, the cameras weren't back the next day when the recruiting line had tripled in size due to young Iraqi men out to prove that their resolve was stronger than that of the insurgents.

So your the guys the Marines said lost the war for us?

I generally tend to go with,The Christian Science Moniter, and PBS's News Hour with Jim Lehrer. I think that both tend to do a good job reporting and analyzing the news, without falling into all of the sensationalism that most of the Main Stream Media does. I also listen to NPR, which while being fairly liberal, in my opinion, is a very reliable news source.

So your the guys the Marines said lost the war for us?

Click to expand...

Hadn't heard that, but enlighten me - who said it, when, and in reference to whom? With a comment like yours, I'm not out of line asking for context.

Abizaid

now lets go to the wmd question

Hmm, a google search for "psychological operations abizaid" doesn't bring up anything to that effect. How bout being a little more specific in backing up your claim? I'm really interested in learning your source on this.


Edited to add: This thread is not the place for the WMD question. If you wish to start a new thread, or revamp an old one, I'll respond in that arena. I'll even respond by PM if you prefer. However, this is a thread about media bias, and I don't want to see it closed. Going to WMD would be a severe deviation from the topic at hand.

I have to agree with those posters that brought up the magic word, "access".

This administration has banned reporters from it's press corps because they asked the wrong questions, or because they wrote stories without the proper spin.

This administration has been proven to have hired at least one gay male prostitute to pose as a reporter during these press conferences to ask questions that would cause the President no trouble.

This administration has hired actual journalists to write opinion-editorials promoting their programs under the guise of free speech.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if previous administrations have done these things as well.

Psyopspec actually these words were spoken to Gen.Abizaid by a Lance Corp.on learning of the atrocities at Abu Garaib

Psyopspec why duck the wmd thig??????????

Still awaiting a source for the context of that comment. Psychological Operations had nothing to do with Abu Graib, nor were any soldiers in SOCOM prosecuted to that end.

For WMD, see above - I'll address on those terms.

The source will take 24 hrs. the book is at work.

{redacted by GWA.45.


Doug b: You do get to disagree with us.
You do NOT get to make personal attacks on other members using terms such as I have removed here.

You owe an apology}

The source will take 24 hrs. the book is at work.You sir are a true REMF in my opin.

Click to expand...

Don't bother with the source. This discussion is over on my part.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if previous administrations have done these things as well.

Click to expand...

Per the book I mentioned before (Exceptions to the Rulers by Amy Goodman), there's a pulitzer prize winning journalist (either Bill Lawrence or Bill Laurence) that received his award at least partially based on his reporting that there were no harmful after-effects from the atomic bombs dropped in Japan. His work, which may have been funded by the War Department, refuted other journalists claims (I think a British journalist snuck in against the US General's demands) that there was an ongoing disaster in Japan long after the actual bombing. He basically claimed that the reports of people's skin falling off and other nasty things were Japanese propaganda.

So, yes, it looks like it may have been done before. Information is power.

[moderator hat]

The Topic is "which news network do you believe is most trustworth and reliable", which refers to the _overall_ credibility of the press under normal circumstances.

It is not WMD, nor is it the extraordinary and separate topic of military influence on (or censorship of, if you prefer that term) the press in warzones.


[/moderator hat]

Doug b:
Enough with the petty argument and personal attack. Check your facts before you go attacking others. It does not further your argument.

psyopspec, thanks for serving & it's good to hear that those either still in the sandbox or have returned from there believe in the cause. Those that I have talked to have said the same thing you have, both in public & private. Not everybody can be wrong.

As for the media: anybody remember the Tet Offensive? Strategicly it was a success, but psychologically it was a tremendous blow to the US due in large part to media bias & our countries general disposition (due to the public opinion) to the war at that point. Without getting into a geo-political debate (which would get this thread even further off topic), the tide of the war turned at that point & the .gov caved due to heavy pressure from the people (mostly the anti-war movement). These same anti-war folks caused a lot of grief for folks serving, and caused one of the darkest moments in our nations history.

Funny (sad, actually) how history repeats itself...

Now, back to the original thread please.

Other

I voted other. They are all in business to make $$ and push their social-communist agenda. I get my news from the www and talk radio.

None of the above plus some.

Never trust any one media source. Personally I read two local, and a major national newspaper everyday, When I find the time, I enjoy watching several different news shows, including PBS and Nightly News and finally read internet news sites. In all I feel I have a pretty good idea what is going on in the world, and know how to sort through the news.

I voted "other" because I don't trust any of them!

1. Jon Stewart
2. WWW
3. Newspapers
4. Boob tube and not FOX

I don't trust any of them. I take everything I see on the news with a HUGE grain of salt--more like a truckload of salt. Just try watching one story on NBC, then flip to CBS for the same story. It's amazing how differently the same event is reported on a different channel.

Personally, I used to find of the big 3 networks (NBC, ABC, CBS) that NBC was the least biased with Tom Brokaw, but lately there's been gun-bashing galore on there. I think FOX (at least around here) is even more conservative, but it seems at times too one sided the other way. I like unbiased news. I think Peter Jennings was pretty darn biased toward the liberals, but nowhere near to the degree that CBS was. Lately, I'm not a good person to ask b/c I don't watch much of the major news networks.

I did, however, see a local debate on PBS yesterday that actually was pretty impartial. That's been my only experience with PBS, but they were pretty impartial yesterday.