Stephen Den Beste examines some recent examples of biased reporting by the AP. More here on “reconstructed” quotes being used by the Globe and Mail (BellGlobe), NYT, Reuters, The Guardian…
To those, I add this. CTV’s National News trailers of last night mentioned the Bush speech. About halfway down the newscast, they got around to footage of Bush approaching the podium…. a few shots of the crowd.. and then … a clip of a single sentence.
Begin voiceover:
Cut to photos of naked prisoner in Abu Graihb.
Cut to Alan Freyer in Washington and his “analysis”.
Cut to interview with someone from the Brookings Institute
Cut to Janis Mackey Frayer in Baghdad. Is that Baghdad? Same backdrop every day.
Cut to film footage of “wedding party”. No coverage of the contradictory evidence.
Cut to interviews with unnamed Iraqis.
Cut to footage of burning car in Baghdad.
Turns out, the speech “coverage” really wasn’t coverage at all – just another excuse to recycle past negative events and political criticism. We heard reporter analysis of Bush’s poll fortunes, assertions that Iraqis are ovewhelming opposed to “the occupation”, were informed of the unstable security situation. Who knew? The razing of Abu Graihb was mentioned in passing.
It’s like this, night after night, and has been since the first days of the war. – and this is the network we turn to in order to escape CBC bias?
Well, this to Lloyd Robertson, Alan Freyer and Janis Makey Frayer: if this is the best you can do, if this is indicative of the level of respect you hold for the intelligence of your viewers, if you can think of nothing better than to replace the content of a speech made yesterday in Pennsylvania with the opinions of your Washington bureau chief, and 6 month old photos from a prison in Iraq, then thanks – but no thanks. You promised you would cover the speech, and when I gave you the chance to follow through on that, you didn’t. You wasted the opportunity code-talking to Canadians about what you think about Iraq.
So, I shall simply go read it for myself. I do not require your opinions about what it says, or what you think it says. I will form those on my own.
But unlike years past, I do not need you, Lloyd Robertson, Alan Freyer or Bell Globe Media. In fact, following is more information about the speech, and about the future plan for Iraq than you have provided in the past month. And I have provided it to my readers.
There are five steps in our plan to help Iraq achieve democracy and freedom: We will hand over authority to a sovereign Iraqi government; help establish security; continue rebuilding Iraq’s infrastructure; encourage more international support; and move toward a national election that will bring forward new leaders empowered by the Iraqi people.
The first of these steps will occur next month, when our coalition will transfer full sovereignty to a government of Iraqi citizens who will prepare the way for national elections.
On June 30th, the Coalition Provisional Authority will cease to exist and will not be replaced. The occupation will end and Iraqis will govern their own affairs.
America’s ambassador to Iraq, John Negroponte, will present his credentials to the new president of Iraq. Our embassy in Baghdad will have the same purpose as any other American embassy: to assure good relations with a sovereign nation.
America and other countries will continue to provide technical experts to help Iraq’s ministries of government, but these ministries will report to Iraq’s new prime minister.
The United Nations special envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, is now consulting with a broad spectrum of Iraqis to determine the composition of this interim government. The special envoy intends to put forward the names of interim government officials this week.
In addition to a president, two vice presidents and a prime minister, 26 Iraqi ministers will oversee government departments from health to justice to defense. This new government will be advised by a national council which will be chosen in July by Iraqis representing their country’s diversity.
This interim government will exercise full sovereignty until national elections are held.
Now, did you read my opinion? Did I rewrite it for you? See any prison photos or burning cars?
No? Is that so hard?
Outside The Beltway has aroundup of links about the speech and reactions.
None of the US Top-4 Channels showed the speech – and further to that, The Bush Administration did not even ask that American Major Media cover the event.
http://tv.zap2it.com/tveditorial/tve_main/1,1002,271%7C88388%7C1%7C,00.html
You still watch television news? Wow. I gave up on that some years back.
How cute! A Canadian who is still mentally alive while drowning in the political cesspool created by all that immigration from left wing third world countries (but not from newly liberated conservative Eastern bloc countries).
Actually, Jennifer, nobody here is Saskatchewan is “drowning” in any cesspool of immigration, third world or otherwise.
We’re watching yet another decade of out-migration, courtesy of home grown leftist economic policies.
But, hey – at least were’ not like the US…
Jen, I grew up in Sask. The weather is so bad that only people with strong family ties stay.
As for immigration, Sask. has to come up with incentives for immigrants with needed skills to come and stay there. So most of the doctors are mexicans (my stepmom was one of them) with a few indians (from india) thrown in. They were offered training with pay in return for staying there a while, kind of like that doctor on the TV show Northern Exposure.
I liked the place, the people are great, but I moved with my family as a teenager, and having no family in Saskatchewan left, I haven’t been back.
As for the leftist policies, my impression is that the NDP learned to be less leftist and more pragmatic in Sask. I have no idea if they’re still in power, but listening to them talk about the need to support businesses and cut spending reminded me that Canadian politics can be more reasonable than the politics in the US where I live now. I’ve heard actual debates in the parliment where people conceded points, something I’ve never heard here.
Another example. Why isn’t more attention given to the last line in an article about the ‘forgotten’ Afghan War?
“Taliban attacks on aid workers has led to many humanitarian projects being abandoned.”
(http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=524675)
Hmmm, maybe there’s an agenda…
Now I understand why Canadians aren’t allowed to have Fox News Channel beamed in. You’re getting all the diversity of opinion that your government will allow you to have. Too bad, eh?
In Canada, there is a prevailing myth that CNN is pro-Bush, rah rah yay war!!!!
Go figure.
Don’t forget about security. Secureroot.org