user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Seems to me taking a report like this, editing out all the stuff that makes bush and the war on terror look good and cherry picking the negative quotes would be a sign of biased reporting would it not?
For instance, a report comes out that says millions of new jobs have been created, the economy is booming, but the stock market dropped slightly and the unbiased media runs on their frontpage "stock market crash looming, bush is a failure", would this be fair and unbiased reporting of the facts, or perhaps a somewhat biased and skewed result of selectively presenting the truth?
I don't know, but you can download the released report and read it for yourself. I'm sure hardly anyone on this site will do it, but they will be making all kinds of criticisms of something they have never read.
You miss the ponint. The quote about threats to the US are intrinsically linked to US success or failure in Iraq is the main issue here. In other words had Bush not focused on Iraq and instead focused on real efforts to stamp out real terrorist threats, we wouldn't be in the position to have to worry about our success of failure in Iraq adding to the threat.
Face it dude they can spin it all they want but the little tidbit of supposedly good new you point out is a drop in the bucket. You're grasping at straws with this one.
I think they call this grasping at straws.... youre getting desperate now.
Voted : They should have printed the report in it's entirety
"'seriously damaged Al Qaida leadership and disrupted its operations.'"
They then go on to say: "that the global jihadist movement--which includes al-Qa'ida, affiliated and independent terrorist groups, and emerging networks and cells--is spreading and adapting to counterterrorism efforts." I took these quotes together to mean that, despite the United States' best efforts, terrorism is still on the rise.
"'A large body of reporting indicates that people identifying themselves as jihadists is increasing...however, they are largely decentralized, lack a coherent strategy and are becoming more diffuse.'"
They then go on to say: "New jihadist networks and cells, with anti-
American agendas, are increasingly likely to emerge. The confluence of shared purpose
and dispersed actors will make it harder to find and undermine jihadist groups." I took these quotes together to mean that, although the United States has done much to splinter large terrorists groups, and to good effect, many more terrorist organizations will begin to crop up.
"'Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves to have failed, we judge that fewer will carry on the fight.'"
They also say that Iraq has become a "cause celebre" for jihadists. All that quote says is that the war in Iraq is an important struggle in the fight against terrorism, IMO at least.
"'Threats to the U.S. are intrinsically linked to U.S. success or failure in Iraq.'"
Most people, Democrat and Republican, agree on that fact. At least that I know personally.
"'The jihadists' greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution--an
ultra-conservative interpretation of shari'a-based governance spanning the
Muslim world--is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims.'"
You're right: that is a very important quote that the media skipped over. Summaries of important reports such as these should give the meaning of the whole thing, not part of it. However, I seem to remember you saying that you believe that most Muslims want Shari'a law, and that many support terrorists' actions. Which do you believe, if I may ask?
I think that the reason the media gave a seemingly lopsided account of this report is that, for the most part, it says that despite United States efforts to fight terrorism, the jihadist movement is still expanding. I agree when you say that the media should've printed the whole report, but, for the most part, it reflected negative views of the United States' current efforts to fight terrorism.
about TEN PERCENT's been released so far, with parts blacked out..
just to iron out the truth about That Part for now.
by Jyl on Wed Sep 27, 06 9:16am
[+]
Voted : They should have printed the report in it's entirety
If they want to be truly unbias, they should summarise all known information.
Steelhamster- I don't think herzog is grasping at straws. He has raised a very interesting point.
The point of this ballot is not whether Bush's War on Terror is good or bad. The point of this ballot is whether it is bias or not to edit out parts of a document that mentioned successes, while simultaneously harping on only the failures. So the issue here is the media, and not Bush himself.
From what I have seen on the media- BBC, ABC, CNN, New York Times, is reporting only of bad things that the document said.
It seems the media was being bias.
Anything to try to mitigate the growing awareness of the disaster that this invasion has been, eh?
That's like asking why a police officer's report focused on the perp's brutal mugging of a crowd of preschoolers but conveniently omitted the fact that the suspect had also flossed, earlier that same day.
Actually, my analogy is off.
It is more like filling a bathtub at 50 gallons per minute with the drain open at 10 gallons per minute and wondering why everyone is focused on the flooding.
Cath, no my analogy was more accurate. There were plenty of good things in that report that the media has chosen to ignore.
But I think we have your answer, you prefer the edited truth to the actual truth so long as it supports your side of it.
I imagine if they'd edited out the bad parts and run with only the positive bits you'd have worked yourself into quite a rant by now, but as is, who cares if they're biased as long as they're biased to the left eh?
There seems to be a lot of support on this site for the media lying to us, so long as they lie the correct way.
This is a very disturbing trend, I hope it doesn't continue.
Voted : They should have printed the report in it's entirety
If we understand the official position on how any war is going, it will always suggest we are winning, and anything to discredit that assertion is support for opposing views, unbiased reporting from a free press is the closest thing to the truth we can get. If the report is properly summarized and the conclusion is the same, to cherry pick the document to clarify an opposite outcome seems to be more of the same spin we have been overexposed to.
Steel: can I take it that you favor censorship if it benefits your side? You didn't criticize what they've done here, so we can only assume you don't have a problem with it. Is that true?
I believe in total exposure of the truth, but your flaccid attempts to cry foul fall on deaf ears, as you conveniently forget to mention just how often you 'cherry pick' views that support your agenda.
What is good for the goose, is good for the gander, old friend.
So the media is free to lie and be as biased as they want because I am biased and present stories that would otherwise be ignored?
Interesting logic. Demented. But interesting.
But I notice you still have criticized their lies. So can we now asssume you are pro-censorship? Or will you try to avoid answering a third time?
So from this and a previous ballot we can take it that steel supports the media risking childrens lives to stage a photo op, if it makes the US or Israel look bad, and he is all in favor of censoring the news, if it makes the US or Israel look bad.
Steel, is this really the person you want to be? Why can't you criticize these things? Why the knee jerk response in favor of anything you view as leftwing, no matter how despicable?
|
|
