NationStates Jolt Archive

Here's the link from CNN's front page: Afghan children killed by coalition grenade (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/11/12/afghanistan.civilians/index.html). Now, here's the article:
Afghan children killed in attack

(CNN) -- An Afghan woman and two children died when coalition soldiers used a grenade against militants barricaded in a building in the Garmser district, Helmand province Sunday, according to coalition forces.

At least 15 militants were killed by coalition troops who came under heavy small-arms fire while searching a compound for bombers with links to the Taliban, the military said.

"During one of the engagements, several militants barricaded themselves in a building on the compound and engaged coalition forces with a high volume of gunfire," the military said.

"Coalition forces used a single grenade which killed the attacking militants; however, the building the militants were fighting from collapsed."

The bodies of a woman and two children were found in the collapsed building after the battle was over, the military said. Several militants and their weapons were also found, the statement added.

Coalition forces also found and detained two suspected militants, the military said.

Note the changed title, and the details that don't exactly match what the link implies. They make it sound as if coalition troops lobbed a grenade into an orphanage. Read the actual article and you find out it was a building collapse that killed 'em. Go figure. How hard is it to just report what happened?

In before liberal media agenda.

Here's the link from CNN's front page: Afghan children killed by coalition grenade (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/11/12/afghanistan.civilians/index.html). Now, here's the article:


Note the changed title, and the details that don't exactly match what the link implies. They make it sound as if coalition troops lobbed a grenade into an orphanage. Read the actual article and you find out it was a building collapse that killed 'em. Go figure. How hard is it to just report what happened?

Perhaps it read that way to you. To me I saw the headline and thought, some kids where killed by a coalition grenade.

I thought no further than that, not apportioning blame or jumping to conclusions on what the story may be. All in all the headline matches the story, what is your beef exactly then?

I hate that news has become a consumer item. I know that it's always been that way, but somehow choosing between Eric Severeid and Edward R. Murrow seemed infinitely more palatable than choosing between NBC and FOX and CNN, and so on, and so on.

It's almost like those in charge of media companies are deliberately trying to muddy the waters in an effort to keep the masses confused and vaguely frightened. A frightened electorate is a manipulable electorate. At least, that's what I would think if I were paranoid...and I know everyone thinks I am...;)

I agree that news should be the five Ws and no commentary, and while the headline in the OP is within the realm of what happens in the story, I can see how it almost looks deliberately inflammatory.

Why not:

"Afghan civilians victims of collateral damage", or

"Tragedy during successful coalition raid", or even

"15 enemy and 3 noncombatants killed in coalition raid"

The headline is not inaccurate, but it seems misleading.

In before liberal media agenda.

liberals have a media agenda to turn us into homosexual environmentalists

Here's the link from CNN's front page: Afghan children killed by coalition grenade (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/11/12/afghanistan.civilians/index.html). Now, here's the article:


Note the changed title, and the details that don't exactly match what the link implies. They make it sound as if coalition troops lobbed a grenade into an orphanage. Read the actual article and you find out it was a building collapse that killed 'em. Go figure. How hard is it to just report what happened?

Welcome to the world of Shock Headlines and biased reporting.

couple of notes (If the article is complete):
1) It doesn't state that the woman and children were killed by the collapsing building either. only an autopsy would show if they were alive when the building collapsed or dead already, unless such a procedure was done, it's only conjecture that they died from either the collapsing building or the grenade.
2) The headline and article puts the blame on Coalition Forces, not the millitants who used the building as cover, endangering the woman and children.

Here's the link from CNN's front page: Afghan children killed by coalition grenade (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/11/12/afghanistan.civilians/index.html). Now, here's the article:


Note the changed title, and the details that don't exactly match what the link implies. They make it sound as if coalition troops lobbed a grenade into an orphanage. Read the actual article and you find out it was a building collapse that killed 'em. Go figure. How hard is it to just report what happened?

CNN with a misleading header? Perish the thought. And people wonder why I do not trust the media.

Perhaps it read that way to you. To me I saw the headline and thought, some kids where killed by a coalition grenade.

I thought no further than that, not apportioning blame or jumping to conclusions on what the story may be. All in all the headline matches the story, what is your beef exactly then?

The point is instead of a neutral and informative title they go with a vague inflammatory one. Instead of "18 killed in Afghanistan battle" they say "Children killed by Coalition grenade". It's misleading and shows bias. The entire article and tone seems to hold the militants blameless for holing up in a house while they lambaste the coalition troops for using a grenade.

The point is instead of a neutral and informative title they go with a vague inflammatory one. Instead of "18 killed in Afghanistan battle" they say "Children killed by Coalition grenade". It's misleading and shows bias. The entire article and tone seems to hold the militants blameless for holing up in a house while they lambaste the coalition troops for using a grenade.

No, it doesn't show any bias.

Children dying is a more emotive and therefore more interesting title. It's not the result of a political agenda but of the entertainment value of news.

No, it doesn't show any bias.

Children dying is a more emotive and therefore more interesting title. It's not the result of a political agenda but of the entertainment value of news.

Dead children is entertaining?

Sick sad world.

The point is instead of a neutral and informative title they go with a vague inflammatory one. Instead of "18 killed in Afghanistan battle" they say "Children killed by Coalition grenade". It's misleading and shows bias. The entire article and tone seems to hold the militants blameless for holing up in a house while they lambaste the coalition troops for using a grenade.

Again I don't see it that way. The story is about children being killed. So why go with the headline you suggest, isn't that misleading?

The headline contains the relevant facts for the story they want to tell. If they wanted to ignore the children, and report only that 18 people had been killed, then sure go with your version.

Biase, the media is not unbiased, none of it, nowhere, what makes you think that they are?

The story it's self contiane no trace of blame, and reports what happend.

Can you point out which words or which sentence you feel shows the militants to be blameless, coz I really just can't see it.

Khadgar, after searching the CNN site, I can't find the title of the article you labeled your link after.

while the article could've been better written, your link title is as biased as you say the media is.

I would've used the same title as the article.

Can you point out which words or which sentence you feel shows the militants to be blameless, coz I really just can't see it.

right here.
(CNN) -- An Afghan woman and two children died when coalition soldiers used a grenade against militants barricaded in a building in the Garmser district, Helmand province Sunday, according to coalition forces.

now bare with me on this. the first sentence could've easily have been

(CNN) -- An Afghan woman and two children died when Militants barricaded themseves in the building they were occupying and engaged Coalition forces in a firefight that resulted in the building's collapse.

Spin in media coverageof course FOX/CNN/AP/etc war reports are spin happy.

and it took you 5 years to notice? :rolleyes:

I would hardly be describing CNN as a liberal news source.

Erm. "News companies' editors may have opinions and biases shocker"?

I would hardly be describing CNN as a liberal news source.the first years.. CNN was cheerleading for the Iraq war.

CNN Liberal? is that a joke? :gundge:

Of course spin is inherent in media. Its got people in it. Until we develope a practical NewsBot (TM), theres always going to be spin. You get spin from the writers word choice, you get spin from the stories the higher ups decide to put on, you get spin from the presentation by the reporters.
You get spin based on the hireing practices of the company.
Its aaaaaaaaaalllllllllllllllll spiiiiiiiiiiininggggggggg!
*falls over*

Here's the link from CNN's front page: Afghan children killed by coalition grenade (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/11/12/afghanistan.civilians/index.html). Now, here's the article:


Note the changed title, and the details that don't exactly match what the link implies. They make it sound as if coalition troops lobbed a grenade into an orphanage. Read the actual article and you find out it was a building collapse that killed 'em. Go figure. How hard is it to just report what happened?

In a headline? Pretty hard. That's what articles are for. The purpose of a headline is to entice you to read the article. And you read the article. See? It works.

Would you have bothered to read an article entitled "some people die in war?" Probably not.

In a headline? Pretty hard. That's what articles are for. The purpose of a headline is to entice you to read the article. And you read the article. See? It works.

Would you have bothered to read an article entitled "some people die in war?" Probably not.

"Biological entities cease vital functions as a result of trauma induced by exothermic reaction and metallic projectiles!"

I only watch C-SPAN. Thats pretty much where I get all my news from. That and NSG:)

Perhaps it read that way to you. To me I saw the headline and thought, some kids where killed by a coalition grenade.

I thought no further than that, not apportioning blame or jumping to conclusions on what the story may be. All in all the headline matches the story, what is your beef exactly then?
I totally agree with you here and I believe that Khadgar is out to lunch on this comment:

They make it sound as if coalition troops lobbed a grenade into an orphanage.
Sorry Charlie, no mention of an "orphanage" in this story.

And he is also out to lunch with this comment:

Read the actual article and you find out it was a building collapse that killed 'em.
Ummmm, the grenade caused the building to collapse, killing the children?

I totally agree with you here and I believe that Khadgar is out to lunch on this comment:


Sorry Charlie, no mention of an "orphanage" in this story.

And he is also out to lunch with this comment:


Ummmm, the grenade caused the building to collapse, killing the children?

And apparently militants were shooting at coalition forces from same building which precipitated the grenade launch. Frankly, I would love to know what kind of grenade that did that.

"Biological entities cease vital functions as a result of trauma induced by exothermic reaction and metallic projectiles!"

It's not metallic projectiles. It's high velocity particulate pollution.

And apparently militants were shooting at coalition forces from same building which precipitated the grenade launch. Frankly, I would love to know what kind of grenade that did that.

Possibly an offensive type concussion grenades, most likely an MK3A2. Fragmentation grenades are defensive grenades because the lethal radius usually exceeds throwing range.

Concussion grenades work by overpressure, so that's likely to cause the structural damage necessary to bring down a building depending on how sturdy it is.

right here.


now bare with me on this. the first sentence could've easily have been

(CNN) -- An Afghan woman and two children died when Militants barricaded themseves in the building they were occupying and engaged Coalition forces in a firefight that resulted in the building's collapse.

Yes it could have read like that, but wouldn't that just have been biased the other way?

As it was written though I still can't see what has you all het up? It is inherent in the story that the coalition soldiers where not grenading a building just for the hell of it, that they where firing not on civilians, but armed enemy, so again which words here are you actualy railing against?

If you're going to examine something like this it's important to keep 2 things in mind: profit and source.

The headline is clearly meant to invoke an emotional reaction. Whether you feel it's due to bias or sensationalism or some combination of both, you surely can't look at the way the headline is phrased and call it a completely honest hook to read the article.

The headline doesn't match the article. It just doesn't. It's extracting the most emotionally charged element of the story and bringing it to the forefront. I wonder why they even described the battle that resulted in the death of innocents. They had no direct impact on the battle and their presence wasn't even known (to Coalition forces, at least) until it was long over and somebody was digging through the rubble.

I can see why someone might argue bias on this. If your objective is to find examples of why the war is bad, this is the sort of thing you might do. Then again, it could just as easily be sensationalism meant to hold the readers' interest. (Sick in its way, but true.) Noting catches attention like women and children dying in war. (This is the kind of nonsense that drove me away from Fox News Channel)

These media types are experts at walking the fine line between sensationalism/propaganda and truth. As some have pointed out in this thread, (mostly in defense of the headline) there are no factual errors (that we know of) and the article doesn't factually conflict with the story. (Depending on how much slack you're willing to cut them for the fact that the grenade itself didn't directly kill the innocents, but rather a side effect)

That's the nature of truth-bending. We can't tell just from this article alone whether the motive is political bias or media sensationalism, but in any case, it's a great example of what's wrong with media news outlets.

Yes it could have read like that, but wouldn't that just have been biased the other way? not really since it's closer to what happened, given the details in the article. also it leaves it up to the person to draw their own conclusions.

As it was written though I still can't see what has you all het up? It is inherent in the story that the coalition soldiers where not grenading a building just for the hell of it, that they where firing not on civilians, but armed enemy, so again which words here are you actualy railing against?

I'm not railing. that's Khadgar. :p

I'm just excercising writing alternatives. ;)

another first liner could also have been...
(CNN) -- An Afghan woman and two children died when caught between a firefight between coalition soldiers and militants in the Garmser district, Helmand province Sunday, according to coalition forces.

which would be even more neutral. Leaving the reader to draw their own conclusion with the 'facts' given in the article itself.

after all, when most people read the newspapers. they tend to only read 1) the headlines and 2) the first sentence of the article. only reading the artcles that catch their interest. (not everyone examines things the way we, at NSG, do.)

Some of you are being surprisingly shocked by what has not become a standard in news media, that being sensationalist bias. Others are being, seemingly intentionally, ignorant of how framing a story in certain ways is as much spinning the story as a blatant lie is. It's kind of silly, really.

Its got people in it. Until we develope a practical NewsBot (TM), theres always going to be spin. You get spin from the writers word choice, you get spin from the stories the higher ups decide to put on, you get spin from the presentation by the reporters. See, this I disagree with. Just because media coverage has humans in it, doesn't make it biased. As I see it, there are three types of news media: the story (the bare bones informative piece), the analysis (the importance and repercussions of the event) and the editorial (useless crap, usually). The first two are able to be presented with little to no bias. The second is a little tougher, depending on the type of analysis, but if it's a power-interests analysis, I find it's easy to keep personal slant out of it. The final piece is entirely bias and only exists to be a vessel for the bias that first two strive to stay removed from.

Anyway, my point in all that is that, with good guidelines and good checks, news media can be without spin. However, given the consumer culture of our current news media, this is especially difficult since sensationalism brings in dollars and the easiest sensationalism is to target a niche demographic and cater to it. On the other hand, a fully government run media is terrifying, as well, for obvious reasons. There has to be a correct balance between the two but, unfortunately, it doesn't appear as if anyone has come up with it, yet. This is one of the best things about the internet, though, because if a solution is to come from anything, it'll be as a result of the increased dissemination of information over the internet, imo.

not really since it's closer to what happened, given the details in the article. also it leaves it up to the person to draw their own conclusions.

Really? I'm not so sure, let us examine.

The original:

'An Afghan woman and two children died when coalition soldiers used a grenade against militants barricaded in a building in the Garmser district, Helmand province Sunday, according to coalition forces.'

Your version:

'An Afghan woman and two children died when Militants barricaded themseves in the building they were occupying and engaged Coalition forces in a firefight that resulted in the building's collapse.'

The first one puts the accent on the coalition forces, in exactly the same way as the second one puts it onto the militants.

If you find the first sentence to hold bias, why not the second? In both sentences the story cleaned is the same. Some militants where in a house, the house got attacked, and some woman and children also in the house where killed.

Whether we say 'Coalition forces killed some children in an attack on a house in which militants had barricaded themselves into'

Or we say 'Militants barricaded in a house was attacked by coalition forces and some children in the house where killed'

Seems to me to be of little matter, but I do find it strange that you can find the first biased an not the second.

Really? I'm not so sure, let us examine.

The original:

'An Afghan woman and two children died when coalition soldiers used a grenade against militants barricaded in a building in the Garmser district, Helmand province Sunday, according to coalition forces.'

Your version:

'An Afghan woman and two children died when Militants barricaded themseves in the building they were occupying and engaged Coalition forces in a firefight that resulted in the building's collapse.'

The first one puts the accent on the coalition forces, in exactly the same way as the second one puts it onto the militants. two points.
1) so you admit that the original puts the emphasis on the Coalition forces and their action that caused the innocent's death. I believe that's the spin that Khadgar is riling against.

2) the article implies that the fight started outside the building and some (not all the 15, but some of them) barricaded themselves in the building. which the altered section follows closer than the op.

If you find the first sentence to hold bias, why not the second? In both sentences the story cleaned is the same. Some militants where in a house, the house got attacked, and some woman and children also in the house where killed. In this case, bias =|= spin. the article is using shock to get readers to read the story. (something I didn't deny.) that is the spin they'er using. they want the readers first thought to be "More innocents killed by the actions of Coalition forces"

Whether we say 'Coalition forces killed some children in an attack on a house in which militants had barricaded themselves into'

Or we say 'Militants barricaded in a house was attacked by coalition forces and some children in the house where killed'

Seems to me to be of little matter, but I do find it strange that you can find the first biased an not the second.
ah, as the article stated tho, the militants went into the building and the Coalition forces then threw the grenade into the building to neutralize the Militant.

my first altered section doesn't say HOW the innocents died. but leaves that detail in the rest of the article.

also, I like how your second sentence is "... house was attacked by coalition forces" when infact, the firefight (according to the rest of the article) was going on before the militants barricaded themselves in the building.

and yes, my altered section also inferrs that. A mistake on my part. ;)

two points.
1) so you admit that the original puts the emphasis on the Coalition forces and their action that caused the innocent's death. I believe that's the spin that Khadgar is riling against.

2) the article implies that the fight started outside the building and some (not all the 15, but some of them) barricaded themselves in the building. which the altered section follows closer than the op.

In this case, bias =|= spin. the article is using shock to get readers to read the story. (something I didn't deny.) that is the spin they'er using. they want the readers first thought to be "More innocents killed by the actions of Coalition forces"


ah, as the article stated tho, the militants went into the building and the Coalition forces then threw the grenade into the building to neutralize the Militant.

my first altered section doesn't say HOW the innocents died. but leaves that detail in the rest of the article.

also, I like how your second sentence is "... house was attacked by coalition forces" when infact, the firefight (according to the rest of the article) was going on before the militants barricaded themselves in the building.

and yes, my altered section also inferrs that. A mistake on my part. ;)

Well bearing all of that in mind......I still don't see it. And that really is the whole point I guess. I'm not adverse to believing the worst of our news media, hell I work in the industry, I know all about spin and the love of making money over content etc..

However in this case if one person, does not see the spin or bias you talk about, such spin or bias must be in the head of the reader. If one person inturprets both the headline and the story in a different way than you, then that surly is an indication that this is all in the head, and perhaps, just perhaps other 'agenders' are in play here.