NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1402259,00.html

I refuse to see if this was already posted. Tired. Just got off work. Boring, boring day.

Anyway it shows how some major news networks displayed thier bias during the election. Informing read.

*Goes off to play Counter Strike: Source*

I honestly believe it is impossible to find an unbiased news organization. Damned hard to find an unbiased person as well. Of course Al-Jazeera will focus on the violence and the low turnout in Sunni areas. Of course American media will focus on the jubilation and strong participation in the Kurdish north and Shi'a south.

95% is unrealistic for any sizeable area, but perhaps in some village or town. Voting had been declared a religious duty for the Shi'a, after all.

Personally, I believe this election is a blow to the insurgency. They 'declared war' on this election, and they really failed to live up to that declaration. It is tragic that dozens were killed and injured while trying to exercise their new right to vote, but the terrorists failed to spread terror. People in general were not afraid to vote. Some boycotted the elections, but I believe this IS a victory for Iraq, for freedom, and yes, for the US and UK.

As long as the Sunnis don't feel opressed and alienated by the government, it won't be that bad.

And you play Counter Strike Source too?

I honestly believe it is impossible to find an unbiased news organization. Damned hard to find an unbiased person as well.

This is what I wrote in another thread on the subject:

"biased" - has an agenda or point of view (used pejoratively esp when someone claims to be neutral but is not)
"neutral" - not biased, without an agenda, impartial to different points of view
"objective" - accurately and fairly representing all relevant facts, without omitting any

In short: everyone is biased. Not a problem, although it is nice if they tell us what their bias is explicitly.

My complaint is that we have a mass media which is largely non-objective. Facts are *not* accurately represented, and *many* relevant facts are omitted.

This is what I wrote in another thread on the subject:
"biased" - has an agenda or point of view (used pejoratively esp when someone claims to be neutral but is not)
"neutral" - not biased, without an agenda, impartial to different points of view
"objective" - accurately and fairly representing all relevant facts, without omitting any

In short: everyone is biased. Not a problem, although it is nice if they tell us what their bias is explicitly.
My complaint is that we have a mass media which is largely non-objective. Facts are *not* accurately represented, and *many* relevant facts are omitted.
You hit the nail on the head here! The main point of all this is that yes there were bombs and some people died but it was no different from the average day in Iraq. As fo rthe Sunni;
As long as the Sunnis don't feel opressed and alienated by the government, it won't be that bad. they were in power with Saddam oppressing the rest of the country for so long that without complete control they will feel alienated, sad but the truth. They made a general concesus to boycott the elections, either because they wanted to or thought that their own were going to blow them up, so they have nothing to complain about.

Talk about 'head in the sand'.

That's about as biased a report as you can get, Iraq now full of shiny happy democratic people!

Actually it's not so much biased as censored!

I'm biased, I want Iraq to become a modern democratic nation with good human rights and international respect. But I wouldn't pretend that was already the case.

All the unhappy dissenting opinions in the country have been censored for the American public.