NationStates Jolt Archive

Thought I would post the story on the sale of F-16's to Pakistan by the US. Now there are four different news orgs that I will post the same story. Now you tell me who is slanting the news.

First Cnn:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/25/jet.sale/index.html

BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4382735.stm

India Daily:


http://www.ndtv.com/topstories/showtopstory.asp?slug=India+welcomes+US+offer+of+nuclear+co%2Dop&id=16553


Then AlJazeera:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/19F9D6BC-D55A-4B57-9790-37056F304918.htm


This is a classic example of mis-reporting that goes on at AlJazeera. This is a minor story compared to others. But next time you hear something from this orginization it is most likely a half truth at best.

Wait, you're saying that a controlled news agency isn't reporting the whole story!?

THE WORLD IS COMING TO AN END!!!

Wait, you're saying that a controlled news agency isn't reporting the whole story!?

THE WORLD IS COMING TO AN END!!!

LOL, ahh yes but alot of Arabs take this as gospel. Believe me when I say this. After all AlJazeera direct translation means the truth. :eek:

I am shocked, shocked to hear this. :D

I'm sure this never happens with any other news organization. :rolleyes:

LOL, never.... But this is a re-occuring theme at AlJazeera. You should watch the Arabic version. I almost laugh at times listening to the propaganda and bull crap that comes out of there.

LOL, never.... But this is a re-occuring theme at AlJazeera. You should watch the Arabic version. I almost laugh at times listening to the propaganda and bull crap that comes out of there.

Sort of like Fox News :D.

Sort of like Fox News :D.


LOL, good one. But seriously AlJazeera makes Fox news look like Saints. It is that bad. Follow the English version sometime. Even though they really water it down it can be interesting. If you understand Arabic watch the TV Arabic version. That is complete crap. I use to get mad watching it. Now I just shake my head and think they are a bunch of idiots.

Sort of like Fox News :D.Six posts before the first mention of Fox News... wow! :rolleyes:

Six posts before the first mention of Fox News... wow! :rolleyes:


Some sort of record, perhaps?

Six posts before the first mention of Fox News... wow! :rolleyes:
At this rate, I bet we'll be comparing Fox to Nazis by page 2.

Some sort of record, perhaps?I had a bet that it would be after the 10th post... silly me...

The people at Fox News are NAZIs!

At this rate, I bet we'll be comparing Fox to Nazis by page 2.

The people at Fox News are NAZIs! you had to encourage them Neo... :rolleyes:

The people at Fox News are NAZIs!

Nice one. Hey they say they are fair and balanced. Although I guess AlJazeera says they are the truth. What an odd coincedence.

Thought I would post the story on the sale of F-16's to Pakistan by the US. Now there are four different news orgs that I will post the same story. Now you tell me who is slanting the news.

First Cnn:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/25/jet.sale/index.html

BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4382735.stm

India Daily:


http://www.ndtv.com/topstories/showtopstory.asp?slug=India+welcomes+US+offer+of+nuclear+co%2Dop&id=16553


Then AlJazeera:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/19F9D6BC-D55A-4B57-9790-37056F304918.htm


This is a classic example of mis-reporting that goes on at AlJazeera. This is a minor story compared to others. But next time you hear something from this orginization it is most likely a half truth at best.
Yeah, what did you expect?

Six posts before the first mention of Fox News... wow! :rolleyes:


and CNN and BBC (which are actually good news stations) are mentioned in the first.


well, after all, this is a topic about puppet media, and you didn't expect FOX to show up?

i bet you even think they're unbiased, right?

Nice one. Hey they say they are fair and balanced. Although I guess AlJazeera says they are the truth. What an odd coincedence.


a good motto to live by:

the louder someone tells you that they can be trusted, the more likely it is that you are being lied to

a good motto to live by:

the louder someone tells you that they can be trusted, the more likely it is that you are being lied to

Good advice.

After all AlJazeera direct translation means the truth. :eek:

Actually, Al Jazeera means "The Island". Maybe you're thinking of the Russian newspaper, Pravda, whose name translates to "truth".

Actually, Al Jazeera means "The Island". Maybe you're thinking of the Russian newspaper, Pravda, whose name translates to "truth".

I learned that it's translation means the truth. Maybe your thinking "Island of truth". Which Arabic form do you know this from?

I learned that it's translation means the truth. Maybe your thinking "Island of truth". Which Arabic form do you know this from?

Jazira/jazeera means island. So I'd say it's a safe bet that Al Jazeera means "the island", especially since there are places called Al Jazira and it wouldn't make sense to call your home the truth.

Jazira/jazeera means island. So I'd say it's a safe bet that Al Jazeera means "the island", especially since there are places called Al Jazira and it wouldn't make sense to call your home the truth.


don't make much sense to name something "york"

as far as i know, it doesn't mean anything, and sounds like something a dying birs would make.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera

Jazira/jazeera means island. So I'd say it's a safe bet that Al Jazeera means "the island", especially since there are places called Al Jazira and it wouldn't make sense to call your home the truth.

Ok, Just checked with my wife. I learned Arabic in Morocco. They call it the "Island of truth". Which means you are correct. I know it in Moroccan slang. So you are correct in proper direct translation.

Well, Al Jazeera tends to make up stories, or fictionlize accounts, all the way to pulling facts out of thin air.

Fox News tends to white wash things, not report on major issues, and make serious issues look minor and purposeless.

Take, for example, the Terri Shiavo thing going on. You'll never hear Fox News talk about how nurses in the hospital have admitted to hearing Terri's husband say things like he wants her dead, he wants her gone, etc. Nor do they talk about how much money he gets when she dies, or the fact he has a new wife and two children with her.

I won't go off about all the B.S. Fox News is responsible for, but if you really do studying, most of what Fox News reports on is minimalized or white washed. :P

This is what I tell my students:

ALL media outlets are biased. Therefore, the only way you can possibly figure out what's going on is to watch several different sources of news, preferably an international and political mixture. See what they say in common, see what they DON'T say, and you'll be able to draw a more informed conclusion.

LOL, good one. But seriously AlJazeera makes Fox news look like Saints. It is that bad. Follow the English version sometime. Even though they really water it down it can be interesting. If you understand Arabic watch the TV Arabic version. That is complete crap. I use to get mad watching it. Now I just shake my head and think they are a bunch of idiots.

Have you ever wondered why Arabs find Al Jazeera more credible that US news sources?

Maybe they just don't think the US is morally superior.

Bias has many forms, my friend.

AlJazeera not reporting complete stories

NO! :rolleyes:

Have you ever wondered why Arabs find Al Jazeera more credible that US news sources?

Maybe they just don't think the US is morally superior.

Bias has many forms, my friend.and also they usually are not allowed to see anything else.

and also they usually are not allowed to see anything else.


Well they all have satelites my friend. They do watch other channels.

Take, for example, the Terri Shiavo thing going on. You'll never hear Fox News talk about how nurses in the hospital have admitted to hearing Terri's husband say things like he wants her dead, he wants her gone, etc. Nor do they talk about how much money he gets when she dies, or the fact he has a new wife and two children with her.

Do you have a source for these ridiculous accusations? Why would Michael Schiavo get anything when Terri dies? Just what are the valuable assets of a woman who's been braindead for 15 years? And don't you think 15 years is plenty of time for him to move on and try to find happiness with someone else?

Have you ever wondered why Arabs find Al Jazeera more credible that US news sources?

Maybe they just don't think the US is morally superior.

Bias has many forms, my friend.

Well your right on both fronts there. I may post sometime on the differences between the two cultures to show how big of gap there is. Might enlist my wife to get absolute accurate info. My impressions from living there are skewed American.

Do you have a source for these ridiculous accusations? Why would Michael Schiavo get anything when Terri dies? Just what are the valuable assets of a woman who's been braindead for 15 years? And don't you think 15 years is plenty of time for him to move on and try to find happiness with someone else?


oh my god, it's another schiavo thread.


i'm outta here

OK, PLEASE NO TERRY COMMENTS. thank you

Thought I would post the story on the sale of F-16's to Pakistan by the US. Now there are four different news orgs that I will post the same story. Now you tell me who is slanting the news.

First Cnn:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/25/jet.sale/index.html

BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4382735.stm

India Daily:


http://www.ndtv.com/topstories/showtopstory.asp?slug=India+welcomes+US+offer+of+nuclear+co%2Dop&id=16553


Then AlJazeera:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/19F9D6BC-D55A-4B57-9790-37056F304918.htm


This is a classic example of mis-reporting that goes on at AlJazeera. This is a minor story compared to others. But next time you hear something from this orginization it is most likely a half truth at best.

what part is made up? or not true? or exagerated? or underReported?

Nice one. Hey they say they are fair and balanced.

Fair to one side, balanced by unfairness to the other >;o)

Not that that makes them substantially different than any other news source. CNN, MSNBC, CBS, etc all execute their own spin on news stories, which is fine. I happen to believe that anyone who can't see through the spin that is force-fed to them by their beloved television (or newspapers, for those scarce few who choose to read rather than rot their brains) deserve the mindless drivel that passes for informed debate on inane topics. The only shame is that so many people rely on their TV to tell them how to vote (if only we could test people on civic competance before giving them a ballot); thus we end up with candidates like Bush and Kerry for president, passing over competant politicians like (in my not-so-humble opinion) McCain and Lieberman. *rant rave grumble complain*

*prays for nuclear fire to wipe out the human race to end the idiocy*

Thought I would post the story on the sale of F-16's to Pakistan by the US. Now there are four different news orgs that I will post the same story. Now you tell me who is slanting the news.

First Cnn:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/25/jet.sale/index.html

BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4382735.stm

India Daily:


http://www.ndtv.com/topstories/showtopstory.asp?slug=India+welcomes+US+offer+of+nuclear+co%2Dop&id=16553


Then AlJazeera:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/19F9D6BC-D55A-4B57-9790-37056F304918.htm


This is a classic example of mis-reporting that goes on at AlJazeera. This is a minor story compared to others. But next time you hear something from this orginization it is most likely a half truth at best.

Al Jazeera lying! GOSH! Who knew? :rolleyes:

don't make much sense to name something "york"

as far as i know, it doesn't mean anything, and sounds like something a dying birs would make.

Actually it comes from the Roman Eboracum, which means "place of the yew trees"

As an english longbowman it would make a good name for my company.

But seriously that's the problem with the free world. We let anyone say what they want. :headbang:

Thought I would post the story on the sale of F-16's to Pakistan by the US. Now there are four different news orgs that I will post the same story. Now you tell me who is slanting the news.

First Cnn:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/25/jet.sale/index.html

BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4382735.stm

India Daily:


http://www.ndtv.com/topstories/showtopstory.asp?slug=India+welcomes+US+offer+of+nuclear+co%2Dop&id=16553


Then AlJazeera:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/19F9D6BC-D55A-4B57-9790-37056F304918.htm


This is a classic example of mis-reporting that goes on at AlJazeera. This is a minor story compared to others. But next time you hear something from this orginization it is most likely a half truth at best.What mis-reporting?
what half-truth?

care to point it out...

LOL, ahh yes but alot of Arabs take this as gospel. Believe me when I say this. After all AlJazeera direct translation means the truth. :eek:


You think Al-jazeera is bad, read the North Korean news......

You think Al-jazeera is bad, read the North Korean news......

Kim JongIll is my favorite super villan.

What mis-reporting?
what half-truth?

care to point it out...


You are serious? I really don't need to point it out do I?

You are serious? I really don't need to point it out do I?I asked twice already...

so...do the honors.
go ahead be my guest...etc.

You are serious? I really don't need to point it out do I?

Actually, now that I have gone back and read the stories, yes -- you do.

I asked twice already

LOL ok. Notice the first three news orgs mentioned the sale to both countries. They did so by not making it look bad for America. AlJazeera comes along and says "America makes India pissed" in essence. Why not report it in a way not to make America look as if they pissed off India. When in fact the offer was laid out to both nations. Even more so to India. This is a minor way. But to show my point I found this story today.

LOL ok. Notice the first three news orgs mentioned the sale to both countries. They did so by not making it look bad for America. AlJazeera comes along and says "America makes India pissed" in essence. Why not report it in a way not to make America look as if they pissed off India. .So in your mind...the Fact that India Complained and Objects to the sale..should not appear in the News Header?

Probably the most important thing here is not who is right or who is wrong, but what the story is about......jets that can deliver a nuclear payload.

"The symbolism is important as it is a nuclear (warhead) delivery platform," said Uday Bhaskar, who heads the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, a government-funded New Delhi organization."

Talk about nuclear poliferation.....guess you can add Bush's name to the list?

LOL ok. Notice the first three news orgs mentioned the sale to both countries. They did so by not making it look bad for America. AlJazeera comes along and says "America makes India pissed" in essence. Why not report it in a way not to make America look as if they pissed off India. When in fact the offer was laid out to both nations. Even more so to India. This is a minor way. But to show my point I found this story today.

From the third paragraph of the BBC story:

Indian government spokesman Sanjay Baru said Mr Singh had expressed "great disappointment", saying the move would exacerbate India's security concerns

Also from the BBC story, paragraph 16 is the first mention of a sale to India:

US officials later said the government had held out the eventual prospect of India also acquiring F-16s.

The only mention of an offer to India that I see in the CNN story is paragraph 10:

The official said that United States will allow U.S. companies to bid for contracts to provide F-16 fighter jets to India and additional defense technology, such as command and control and early warning systems.

On the other hand, this is the third paragraph of the Al Jazeera story:

Singh expressed "great disappointment," according to a spokesman in New Delhi, though US officials said Bush signalled a willingness to sell sophisticated fighters to India if it chooses to buy them.

Perhaps you are reading bias into the story.

Probably the most important thing here is not who is right or who is wrong, but what the story is about......jets that can deliver a nuclear payload.

"The symbolism is important as it is a nuclear (warhead) delivery platform," said Uday Bhaskar, who heads the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, a government-funded New Delhi organization."

Talk about nuclear poliferation.....guess you can add Bush's name to the list?

That is pretty serious. However, seeing as the primary function of the F-16 is air-to-air interceptor, and they can only afford to buy a few, I doubt they will dedicate any to nuclear weapons (which are bulky and impair performance). Although it is a possibility.

However, when I read the AJ article, I didn't actually find it that biased. It did mention that India was already purchasing planes from the U.S. The only quote they spun that I could see was declaring it to be "a major policy change for the U.S."

So in your mind...the Fact that India Complained and Objects to the sale..should not appear in the News Header?


Ok, not going to walk through this again. Yes it is how it is presented. If you can't see it I'm sorry. Miss on you.

snip.


All in the headers cat. It is basically the same story. AlJazeera made it look as a major negative in it's header. Neither of the other three made a negative American impression as the central point of there articles.

So in your mind...the Fact that India Complained and Objects to the sale..should not appear in the News Header?Aljazeera has been Lively covering the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.. the Jenin masacre and other Israel bloody retributions...Al Jazeera has lost journalist to bullets, bombs and missiles...they have been baned by Washington Pawns...

They are pretty much reporting the war "from the inside"...

After all those years all you have to whine against them is the choice of a "NewsHeader" :confused: :confused:

All in the headers cat. It is basically the same story. AlJazeera made it look as a major negative in it's header. Neither of the other three made a negative American impression as the central point of there articles.
fine...

then I must ask you to take a close look to this 2 fundamentalist muslim media Giants

http://yahoo.com

http://abcnews.com

All in the headers cat. It is basically the same story. AlJazeera made it look as a major negative in it's header. Neither of the other three made a negative American impression as the central point of there articles.

Yahoo and ABC...
In their first pages as of today they link to this articles:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050326/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_india_pakistan

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=614454

read and enjoy my friend...

LOL ok. Notice the first three news orgs mentioned the sale to both countries. They did so by not making it look bad for America. AlJazeera comes along and says "America makes India pissed" in essence. Why not report it in a way not to make America look as if they pissed off India. When in fact the offer was laid out to both nations. Even more so to India. This is a minor way. But to show my point I found this story today.
If you actually read any of the four sources you posted, you would have noticed that the US hasn't made the offer to both countries, only to Pakistan. They've simply said that they would be willing to consider any request from India if they decide they want to purchase some planes. That's a big difference there - you could possibly read that as being the Bush admin trying to mollify India, so they won't get too upset. The fact that any sale to India would need Congressional approval doesn't mean that India can bank on getting any planes from the US.
Really, reading through the al-jazzera dispatch, the only thing I can see is their saying that it has 'angered India', where everyone else said it had upset India.
Now, has any Western news network ever used emotive words in their reporting?

Also, does it not occur to you that a Muslim news network might just put more emphasis on something like this, considering it does involve a Muslim country? I doubt al-jazzera is spending much time reporting the Schiavo case.
I also notice that, once again, the Bush admin put this story out on a Friday(a public holiday to boot). They certainly love sneaking their stories out like that, don't they?



This is from CNN:
"The U.S. has to live in the world that exists, not the world we wish" exists, the official said. He added that the United States is trying to create a "positive force" and defuse tensions in a potentially dangerous region.
Anyone else find the irony in a US state official saying the US has to live in the world that exists, not the one they would like? Guess the US has never tried to tell others how they should live.
Also how is equiping one country with advanced fighter jets going to 'defuse tensions in a potentially dangerous region'?

All in the headers cat. It is basically the same story. AlJazeera made it look as a major negative in it's header. Neither of the other three made a negative American impression as the central point of there articles.

So, you back away from the statements you made earlier about facts being left out and half-truths.

The header is accurate, right?

I think the header is also a pretty common view of the story.

Here are some other headlines for the story:
"U.S. Is Set to Sell Jets to Pakistan; India Is Critical" - New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/26/politics/26military.html&OP=7394bb4c/Q24r{Q3CQ24E)w6e))l3Q24322Q60Q242ZQ243XQ24n)~glgw6Q243Xig~glQ20eL!Q3Eli~)
"India dismayed as US resumes sales of jet fighters to Pakistan" - The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/kashmir/Story/0,2763,1445939,00.html)
"U.S. to Sell Jets to Pakistan; India Upset" - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=614454)
"Bush irks India by selling fighters" - Washington Times (http://washingtontimes.com/world/20050325-100126-6555r.htm)

Again, I think you are looking for bias you want to find.

MarrakechII computer is probably having technical problems...the mouse is going nuts...and the Keyboard is possesed...My bet is he is going to call it a nigth.

...or maybe hes trying to find a compasionate mod to lock this embarrasing thread...and then call it a nigth.

That is pretty serious. However, seeing as the primary function of the F-16 is air-to-air interceptor, and they can only afford to buy a few, I doubt they will dedicate any to nuclear weapons (which are bulky and impair performance). Although it is a possibility.

However, when I read the AJ article, I didn't actually find it that biased. It did mention that India was already purchasing planes from the U.S. The only quote they spun that I could see was declaring it to be "a major policy change for the U.S."

That's just typical CH statement, "the sky is falling" syndrome. Why jeopardize one of your nukes on an aircraft that could be shot down??

Hell, Pakistan has the Ghauri [Hatf-5], with a range of 1500KM.

:rolleyes: