JaHerer22 on December 13, 2006 at 11:03 AM

So you would rather read a lie, than wait for the truth? You think an inaccurate newstory is useful for obtaining information? What part do you believe and not believe? What a strange way of learning.

I find that comment very interesting, given that I personally stood in a gas chamber used to kill Jews while visiting the Dachau concentration camp just outside of Munich. In the attached museum, they have photographs taken by the Nazis of Jews killed in the chamber prior to their incineration. The crematorium and gas chamber are still there for anyone to see if they care to know the truth.

Back in February, Glenn Reynolds wrote, “With a nod to the movie Spinal Tap, I would say the media treatment of Bush administration scandals ‘goes to 11′”. Of course, that’s far from its only excess, as Peter Kann, the chairman……

Are we willing to sift through the bias to uncover what is actually occuring inside Iran? If not, it would appear we would be cut off completely and have no insight on the country’s internal workings. Is there a chance Reuters depises writing stories that portray things in this light but feels the stories themselves are important and if this is the way they must be written it is the lesser of two evils? I’m still on the fence regarding how I feel about all of this.

JaHerer22 on December 13, 2006 at 11:03 AM

The problem with that is that the vast majority of people in the world don’t go through the trouble of sifting through this stuff to determine what is true, etc. In fact, many, many people rely on this information, and believe it to be objective and the truth – when in fact, as we have seen many times recently, it’s just the opposite. Seriously, this type of reporting is just the same as if the State-run news agency had done it (just as biased) – at least then, people know they are getting biased information, as opposed to a well-respected news agency that goes about doing the same thing. As for whether or not Reuters despises doing that – that’s not the point. They hold themselves out to be objective and reliable journalists – which they apparently aren’t.

You took some good investment advice on NYT stock. Buy low and sell high!

budorob on December 13, 2006 at 12:26 PM

I didn’t say I was sinking my life savings into to it. Yes, they have had a great run up but do seem to be heading back down now, most likely due to the easy access of news from other sources.

My intention was to have an avenue to complain about the content that is offered. Who knows, maybe I’ll show up at a stock holders meeting and get to air my complaints in front of other shareholders for 3 minutes.

To what extent is laziness and multi-cultural sensitivity a factor in the way the old media reports the news?

I would believe that AP or Reuters feel they have an obligation to work with and trust the press agencies of these Middle Eastern countries. And when the bloggers catch something amiss, the press gets more angry then usual b/c everyone knows that you get more angry at problems that are your own fault.

I doubt they have a very good way to check out these stories. And the fact that some of these mistakes are so glaring (especially the fauxtography) makes me think that laziness or indifference might also be the cause.

You took some good investment advice on NYT stock. Buy low and sell high!

Yup. And the nearly complete control of the voice of mass media by the left in this country is an overwhelming force.

Jaibones on December 13, 2006 at 12:01 PM

I couldn’t agree more. Look at the link here on Hot Air with the interview of the soilders talking about what they are doing in Iraq. They think we are winning and making a difference but the MSM wouldn’t dare mention what the soilders think.

When was the last time ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN/NYT ran a story about our forces building a school, road or any other good service in Iraq. I know my local stations run at least 1 “fluff” segment a night about some poor dog or cat or whatever but refuse to tell us what good is being done in Iraq by our own local soilders.

ARRRGGGGG! Time to chill out.

JaHerer22 on December 13, 2006 at 11:03 AM

NO it is not! I would guess that the American public trusts the MSM more than their own govt. This means that the MSM is feeding us lies and we are eating it up as the truth while our government is telling us the truth and we don’t believe it.

Something is wrong with this picture. If our elected officials lie and cheat us we get to vote them out. If the MSM lies to us, were still stuck with them.

Now that’s doubling down in Iraq. Bryan Preston, meanwhile, exposes how AP and Reuters “report” from tyrannies like Iran. It starts with tiny little compromises, like calling ex-Klansman David Duke an “academic” and generally giving Ahmadinejad’s…

They are slowly very quickly poisoning our minds.

bubbadog89 on December 13, 2006 at 8:33 AM

Yup. And the nearly complete control of the voice of mass media by the left in this country is an overwhelming force. I have become quite the nutjob on this issue — no thanks to people like Rush, MM, Ingraham, and their ilk — to the point where my daughters have a hard time watching a movie with me.

“Yeah, Dad, we know…”

“OK, whatever…”

good lord

How al-Reuters works within trannies
Was the way I read it first thing this morning.
Ugh… need coffee.

I’m glad I’m not the only one! SHEW!

I know FOX claims this, but I do see some bias from them.
bubbadog89 on December 13, 2006 at 8:33 AM

Its called news by “committee”. You pick and choose what to read and after a while you MIGHT be able to figure out what is true and what is not.
Or, you might not.
Thats why the bloggesphere helps as much as it does, scores of searches can result in….results.

But this is a little window into how Reuters and AP can operate within, say, Iran today and, say, Hezbollah’s stronghold in Lebanon tomorrow. Or in Gaza the day after that. None of these places grant true press freedom. Reuters’ reporters toe the tyrants’ line, either because they’re working for the tyrant or are under the tyrant’s heel

I believe this and I do think it is an important insight into how these organizations are allowed access to totalitarian states but I haven’t yet decided how I feel about it. I understand the criticism many of you make about Reuters getting too close to Iran and trading jounalistic integrity for access and I think it is a valid one. However, at the same time without Reuters and similar organizations doing what they are doing the only information we would have access to out of Iran would be official state-approved media. Yes, many of the stories are slanted in unfortunate ways and Iran is portrayed in a positive light it doesn’t deserve, but if this is the only way independent media organizations are allowed access isn’t this better than no information at all?

Are we willing to sift through the bias to uncover what is actually occuring inside Iran? If not, it would appear we would be cut off completely and have no insight on the country’s internal workings. Is there a chance Reuters depises writing stories that portray things in this light but feels the stories themselves are important and if this is the way they must be written it is the lesser of two evils? I’m still on the fence regarding how I feel about all of this.

How al-Reuters works within trannies

Was the way I read it first thing this morning.
Ugh… need coffee.

Don’t get me wrong, I am a devout hard core capitalist and I have chosen to start buying small amounts of stock in NYT and other “lost” media outlets. This allows me as an owner to have an avenue to complain about the integrity of the content. Albeit a small voice but at least an avenue.

My question to the Hot Air members is:

Where can I find accurate news to form my own opinion?

I know FOX claims this, but I do see some bias from them.

And by the way, my parents’ friends who are phony-baloney “Holocaust survivors” from Hungary must’ve had those serial numbers tattooed on their arms as a fashion statement. Riiiiight.

The klanner does have a website. It does call him an “academic.” His “academic” credential (note the singular) consists of a PhD from “the MAUP University system in Kiev, Ukraine, the largest university system in Ukraine.”

I remember reading about this. His “PhD” is in history I believe. Except it is about some sort of Zionist conspiracy.

Seriously. He got a PhD in something like how the Jews are responsible for all the wars of the world or something like that.

The left is afraid to speak against those that really will harm them – instead, they focus on going after those that protect their freedom.

Rick on December 13, 2006 at 12:13 AM

I don’t know that it’s cowardice. The effect of Bryan’s point is that these agencies trade all journalistic integrity for access/sales. But I also see ideological bias, agenda journalism, and political activism at work in all of these stories, as the whole HotAir genre has demonstrated ad nauseum.

As bloggless points out in the original comment, it’s pathetic to watch American Jews swallow their tongues in the face of the astonishing anti-Israel bias and anti-semitism.

We just need to get Mel Gibson to comment on the Iran Holocaust Carnival, I guess. Then Hollywood can come out from under the bed and see what we see.

What I’d like to know is where is Barbra Strisand while all this is happening? I believe she supports Israel, and I know she is outspoken, so where is she? In fact, it seems that many of the Jewish Hollywood has been silent about all that happens in Iran. If someone could drop her a line and find out what she thinks about all this, I would really appreciate it. Also, suggest that she read, “Because They Hate”.

bloggless on December 12, 2006 at 9:43 PM

The left is afraid to speak against those that really will harm them – instead, they focus on going after those that protect their freedom.