Three networks report errors in their Zimmerman reporting. - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Jorn · #16 04-05-2012, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

You mean it's not just me who doesn't watch??
As a person who does not watch broadcast TV, these issues of bias seem rather quaint.

It's fed to the viewers to create and sustain a channel to market a specific product, any product.

Yak · #17 04-05-2012, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

First we had the NBC edited 911 tape. If you believe it was an honest error, or done to fit a time slot, I have a bridge to sell you.
Second, CBS said the police video did not support Zimmerman's claim that he had been injured. Then the looked at it again, and saw that Zimmerman had injuries.
Now CNN is saying that their report that Zimmerman used a racial slur is incorrect.

In all three cases, the errors fit the "white-on-black racial crime" stereotype. In all three cases, the networks were wrong.

Anyone care to calculate the probability of all of them being innocent mistakes?

Yes, I admit this is another slam at the Main Stream Media. Maybe I should explain why I am so irritated by this.....
I grew up during the Vietnam war, watching "uncle " Walter Cronkite--that paragon of American News reporting telling me about the war. About how the Tet offensive was an overwhelming disaster for US forces and complete victory for the Viet Cong. Years later, I learned that Tet was a military disaster for the Cong. Walter had lied--had lied to me--to advance his personal view. It was my first exposure to agenda journalism, and I felt manipulated by it. It had trusted that CBS News would tell me all the news, and the truth. Maybe I was naive, but at that time, there was an expectation that news reporting was straight, and true journalists took great care to avoid selecting words or photos that would bias a story.

When the news is manipulated, the citizens in a free society no longer have the facts required to hold their government accountable. That's where, IMO, we find ourselves today. All those people who went into Journalism because " they wanted to make a difference" have graduated to positions of power, and now control what we see and hear as "news".
As is becoming increasingly obvious, the MSM can not be trusted to deliver the news. What a shame.

What did Walter Cronkite say?

WALTER CRONKITE'S "WE ARE MIRED IN STALEMATE" BROADCAST, FEBRUARY 27, 1968

Quote:

Tonight, back in more familiar surroundings in New York, we'd like to sum up our findings in Vietnam, an analysis that must be speculative, personal, subjective. Who won and who lost in the great Tet offensive against the cities? I'm not sure. The Vietcong did not win by a knockout, but neither did we. The referees of history may make it a draw. Another standoff may be coming in the big battles expected south of the Demilitarized Zone. Khesanh could well fall, with a terrible loss in American lives, prestige and morale, and this is a tragedy of our stubbornness there; but the bastion no longer is a key to the rest of the northern regions, and it is doubtful that the American forces can be defeated across the breadth of the DMZ with any substantial loss of ground. Another standoff. On the political front, past performance gives no confidence that the Vietnamese government can cope with its problems, now compounded by the attack on the cities. It may not fall, it may hold on, but it probably won't show the dynamic qualities demanded of this young nation. Another standoff.
We have been too often disappointed by the optimism of the American leaders, both in Vietnam and Washington, to have faith any longer in the silver linings they find in the darkest clouds. They may be right, that Hanoi's winter-spring offensive has been forced by the Communist realization that they could not win the longer war of attrition, and that the Communists hope that any success in the offensive will improve their position for eventual negotiations. It would improve their position, and it would also require our realization, that we should have had all along, that any negotiations must be that -- negotiations, not the dictation of peace terms. For it seems now more certain than ever that the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate. This summer's almost certain standoff will either end in real give-and-take negotiations or terrible escalation; and for every means we have to escalate, the enemy can match us, and that applies to invasion of the North, the use of nuclear weapons, or the mere commitment of one hundred, or two hundred, or three hundred thousand more American troops to the battle. And with each escalation, the world comes closer to the brink of cosmic disaster.
To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the face of the evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past. To suggest we are on the edge of defeat is to yield to unreasonable pessimism. To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion. On the off chance that military and political analysts are right, in the next few months we must test the enemy's intentions, in case this is indeed his last big gasp before negotiations. But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could.
This is Walter Cronkite. Good night.

Sounds relatively accurate. Khe Sanh did almost fall, the US wasn't defeated. Were the optimistic generals and politicians to be believed?

What happened in Tet? As I've posted here before, I've studied the Vietnam War. The NVA staged a large, unexpected attack using largely conventional forces combined with VC guerrila tactics in Saigon. It was unexpected in size and strategy. US politicians and military leaders had been presenting the public with an image of a weak adversary incapable of large scale offensive operations. Then the North attacked during an ceasefire, exacerbating the shock and surprise. US and ARVN forces were pushed back, then counterattacked. It was a tactical military defeat for the North, with a destruction of significant portions of their conventional forces. However, it also fit into their strategy as a major effort prior to the 1968 peace talks: go into the talks from a position of strength. Nixon did the same thing with Linebacker II prior to the peace talks in '73

Fast forward to now and whether we should trust the optimists or the pessimists in their strategic assessments, which is the heart of what Cronkite was talking about. Apply his words to our current wars and political testimony. When Petraeus testified about Iraq, what was said by whom? Yeah, the left and MoveOn.org, "General Betray Us." Okay, what did Rep Ryan and the right just say to General Dempsey and the budget "You generals are lying to support your boss." You get partisanship from all sides.

If you think 'media bias' lost the Vietnam War, then you've bought in to a fictional version of history.

My opinion is that the public can't be relied upon to pay attention to the news. What a shame.

Botnst · #18 04-05-2012, 08:23 PM

I've heard that before.

Yak · #19 04-05-2012, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

I've heard that before.

Fixed. It was like deja vu all over again.

MS Fowler · #20 04-05-2012, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

.....

AFAIK, no one forced you to read, or comment on this thread.

Can't Know · #21 04-05-2012, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chilcutt

Just arrest the SOB, and get him up in front of a Judge..What TF.
I am really sick of hearing about it.

Al?

Al Sharpton, is that you?

The Clk Man · #22 04-05-2012, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Can't Know

Al?

Al Sharpton, is that you?

Looks like someone is growing some balls.

MTUpower · #23 04-05-2012, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

.....

Anyone and everyone could use this for every thread posted by JR.

tram · #24 04-05-2012, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pooka

I can remember the Tet attacks. I was not there, but I remember much of the news coverage.

I recall CBS covering the story just as it took place. It was not until later anyone, including CBS, began to offer opinions on it. There was a major debate about what type of enemy the US was really facing.

LBJ decided to start winding down the war even though it became clear that thought Tet was a major attack it was almost for nothing since the NV were unable to hold any ground. Still, there was the possibility that next time would be different.

Nixon came in with his secret plan to end the war and was elected. His plan turned out to be bomb the living daylights out of anything that moved. This was not what a lot of people were expecting from him, but it did seem to be working. Uncle Walter did not agree with this plan and neither did a lot of others.

In the end Uncle Walter turned out to be right and Nixon just declared Peace and went home.

But it all started with Tet.

Actually, it started with Edward R. Murrow vs. McCarthy. And it was a segment called an "editorial".

You see, we still had that troublesome little thing called the "Fairness Doctrine" where the media HAD to present both sides of an issue in equal time on any program selling itself as "news". News was supposed to inform, not give you your opinion. This was why you had a separate "editorial" PRESENTED as such, usually at the end of the program, if indeed you had any commentary at all.

But, Reagan swept that away. Now, the "people's" airwaves are simply a medium to put forth a constant barrage of corporate agendas and party lines. Now, it's ALL opinion disguised as "news". To really find out WTF is going on out there, I find myself relying more and more on non USA news broadcasts. I'm sick of the same pre- digested "Big Lie" pink slime they feed us on every station. But, I don't see it getting any better. The media's handling of this entire debacle is beyond disgusting. A pox on all of it.

Jorn · #25 04-05-2012, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTUpower

Anyone and everyone could use this for every thread posted by JR.

JR is gone.

Palangi · #26 04-05-2012, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jorn

JR is gone.

That would explain the notable lack of troll threads in the last week or so .......

MTI · #27 04-05-2012, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Palangi

That would explain the notable lack of troll threads in the last week or so .......

Just different troll threads, isn't that what you meant?

Palangi · #28 04-05-2012, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI

Just different troll threads, isn't that what you meant?

Troll threads as defined by the posted rules ........

Such threads seem to be down by about 75% or so.

MTI · #29 04-06-2012, 12:14 AM

Nature abhors a vacuum and the space freed up by one members banning is clearly being filled by his usual sparring mates. So obvious yet you can't see it.

Can't Know · #30 04-06-2012, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI

So obvious yet you can't see it.

LOL...isn't that *exactly* the point of this thread?