Guest NoCalMike Report post Posted March 27, 2003 I am sure we have seen war coverage on multiple channels from CNN,CNBC,MSNBC,FoxNews, Local affiliates etc.....what kind of a job do you feel is being done, and what features do you like/dislike so far..... (and no, I am not working for any advertising companies, hahaha) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zorin Industries 0 Report post Posted March 27, 2003 I'm in the U.K and i've been mainly watching BBC news, the coverage is good and most of the time they don't jump the gun on reporting things till they get all the facts. Channel 4 news is good for more in depth anaylisis, there was a great interview with some American talking head the other day when he was completley taken to task over American abuses of the Geneva convention. I've watched some of the American coverage and I have too say i'm not impressed. I watched Fox news and was nearly on the floor laughing at there "reporting", it's the most over the top, partisan, news network i've ever seen. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Choken One Report post Posted March 27, 2003 I stick with msnbc...Fox and CNN seem to be too far on one side while MSNBC is in between... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Some Guy Report post Posted March 27, 2003 Channel 4 news is good for more in depth anaylisis, there was a great interview with some American talking head the other day when he was completley taken to task over American abuses of the Geneva convention. I've watched some of the American coverage and I have too say i'm not impressed. I watched Fox news and was nearly on the floor laughing at there "reporting", it's the most over the top, partisan, news network i've ever seen. What are the American abuses of the Geneva convention? Fox is a little over-the-top and conservative leaning. That is the reason I watch it. If I wanted to seee people rooting against us I'd watch CNN. I've heard that some of the Brits were really pissed at the BBc for their anti-war postitioning while reporting the news. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zorin Industries 0 Report post Posted March 27, 2003 What are the American abuses of the Geneva convention? Fox is a little over-the-top and conservative leaning. That is the reason I watch it. If I wanted to seee people rooting against us I'd watch CNN. I've heard that some of the Brits were really pissed at the BBc for their anti-war postitioning while reporting the news. Guantanamo I heard that it was someone on CNN complaning about the BBC reporting, most people in the U.K. think that the BBC is pretty fair in it's coverage of the war. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Some Guy Report post Posted March 27, 2003 The al Queda terroists are not representative of a country and as such they don't fall under Geneva. The Brits who were executed by the Iraqis do count under Geneva. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zorin Industries 0 Report post Posted March 27, 2003 http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,...,921192,00.html This sums my views up on the matter (although I don't agree with everything in there) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Some Guy Report post Posted March 27, 2003 All of the claims against Americans in Afghanistan are unsubstaniated and fail to tell what may have caused this treatment if it even took place. I doubt that someone would just go off and break someone's neck for shits and giggles. The people in Guantanomo are terrorists, if we weret o return them to Afghanistan they would be free to help construct and carry out more attacks against our country. They are at teh very least guilty of accessory to the 9/11 attacks and since they are not Americans, nor held on American soil they are not protected under the Constitutuion. Calling al Queda "volunteer corps" seems to be a pretty liberal defintion. The people who cry the blues about how a terrorist may or may not be treated tend to fully ignore what caused them to get in that postion in the first place. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest kkktookmybabyaway Report post Posted March 27, 2003 I watch Special Report a few times a week and get all the headlines off of top-of-the-hour radio briefs. When an issue is saturated with coverage, I tend to avoid it... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Hogan Made Wrestling Report post Posted March 28, 2003 CNN's coverage can be good due to the amount of live footage (despite those stupid video phones). The live coverage with Walter Rodgers and the northern Iraq coverage has been particularly good. BBCs coverage has been strong as far as reporting the news. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest NoCalMike Report post Posted March 28, 2003 Anyone feel that if one of the stations(cable news) just decided to run their debate shows rather than 24 hour war coverage, they might rack in some short term ratings? I mean hell, people might tend to flock to the ONE station doing something different. Personally, I would much rather watch Hannity & Colmes than some news anchor display with a model airplane how a bomb is dropped. Interrupt the show if something comes up, but damn I already miss the cable news programs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jobber of the Week Report post Posted March 28, 2003 Fox News IS going back to Oreilly, Hannity & Colmes, etc. Fuck that. I just watch one of the other channels instead. Of course, I was also switching channels when CNN had Larry King on. I just don't want regular TV during an event like this. Some Guy: Fox is a little over-the-top and conservative leaning. That is the reason I watch it. If I wanted to seee people rooting against us I'd watch CNN. I've been watching all three networks like crazy in the past week, they're all the same. I don't really give a shit about some subtly hidden political party bias in an event such as war, and honestly neither should you. CNN does not show babies burning in the street and say "See! Americans did this!" If anything, Fox has backfired more often by first claiming that illegal scud missiles were being fired into Kuwait (they weren't), then saying the huge plant was for chemical weapons (no proof of that.) I just simply watch whatever has a live anchor on the scene or a videophone on a tank or whatever. When all three channels were watching that Sky News footage of Marines in a standoff near Basra, I watched MSNBC simply because they gave it fullscreen and didn't have their own people talking over it so much. Similarly, CNN had a reporter on the scene of some tank demolition, which blew up quite nicely and finished with a quick retreat when the little dirt village neaby started launching RP Grenades at them. Nobody in the battlefield has the time to syrup their reporting to be liberal or conservative or whatever. The in-studio people are more likely to contribute bias or stupidity, but I just flip around until I see a live camera. It's quite good that way. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Midnight Express83 Report post Posted March 28, 2003 It is true, and I agree with you. Live Reports aren't biased. But watching that with a person in full body armor to report the news is kind of funny. Because they want to give the full news, but do not seem to care about that wacky dying thing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest kkktookmybabyaway Report post Posted March 29, 2003 "It is true, and I agree with you. Live Reports aren't biased. But watching that with a person in full body armor to report the news is kind of funny. Because they want to give the full news, but do not seem to care about that wacky dying thing." Oh lord, I was watching some guy on Fox report with a gas mask on and changed the channel to Conan O' Brien on Comedy Central... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest hardyz1 Report post Posted March 29, 2003 Oh lord, I was watching some guy on Fox report with a gas mask on and changed the channel to Conan O' Brien on Comedy Central... A fine choice. I watched a lot of war coverage the first few days, now I try to avoid it most of the time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest areacode212 Report post Posted March 29, 2003 Could someone explain the hate people (mainly conservatives) have for Peter Jennings? I was reading the NY Post the other day, and the letter pages were full of angry rants about his anti-Americanism and how he should "go back to Canada". Sorry, but I watch ABC a lot (I don't have cable), and I'm not seeing it. The closest thing I saw to liberal bias from him was when he tossed some softball questions to a couple of hippies (anti-war protestors) and acted somewhat chummy with them, but as an anchor, he's usually pretty neutral, and is good at providing some context & background info to unfolding events. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheMikeSC Report post Posted March 29, 2003 What are the American abuses of the Geneva convention? Fox is a little over-the-top and conservative leaning. That is the reason I watch it. If I wanted to seee people rooting against us I'd watch CNN. I've heard that some of the Brits were really pissed at the BBc for their anti-war postitioning while reporting the news. Guantanamo I heard that it was someone on CNN complaning about the BBC reporting, most people in the U.K. think that the BBC is pretty fair in it's coverage of the war. About the Al Qaeda POW's -- and this got real old last year --- once again: Al Qaeda troops are not subject to the Geneva Conventions since they do not represent a gov't and they do not differentiate themselves from the civilians. And the U.S has treated them quite well. BTW, Castro has recently been imprisoning tons of journalists and people who oppose him. I don't suppose I should ask why this has gotten so little play in the European press, should I? -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest alkeiper Report post Posted March 29, 2003 I've grown tired of the 24 hour news networks. To me, it seems like they're always trying to get the story "as it happens" and consequently they never get all the facts in order. I prefer print newspapers nowadays. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest kkktookmybabyaway Report post Posted March 29, 2003 Just steer clear of the NY Times. Read that every day and you'll believe that Iraq is winning... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheMikeSC Report post Posted March 29, 2003 I've grown tired of the 24 hour news networks. To me, it seems like they're always trying to get the story "as it happens" and consequently they never get all the facts in order. I prefer print newspapers nowadays. I find it best to check up on the war, at MOST, twice a day. Any more and you'll go bloody nuts. -=Mike --- who thinks bloody nuts is a darned creepy visual Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
