Post by Moses on Dec 21, 2004 10:35:21 GMT -5
mediachannel@democracyinaction.org
BLAIR BOLLOCKS IN BAGHDAD
And speaking of media gang bangs, I woke up this morning to find live coverage of a press conference by Tony Blair standing to the right of Iraq's Allawi on EVERY news channel at the same time. The British PM was in Iraq doing some selling of the "elections" to come. He was trumpeting the coming of democracy while his client Mr. Allawi was denouncing "evil forces."
The mantra: "There surely is only one side to be on in what is now very clearly a battle between democracy and terror," Blair repeated, according to the BBC.
The fact that all the networks continue to give this type of blatantly staged PR event TOTAL coverage shows their priorities and political orientation as media poodle to the war policy. What was really new or news here?
Al Jazeera leads not with the Blair blitz but this: "US warplanes have launched air strikes on the Iraqi town of Hiyt, west of the capital, killing six Iraqi civilians and wounding nine others." I did not see this mentioned on the cable news outlets I watched this morning.
DECEMBER 21: THE "TOP" STORIES OF THE YEAR
* THE MOST AND THE WORST
* ACLU SCOOPS MEDIA ON TORTURE NEWS
* POLL: US PUBLIC TURNS AGAINST WAR
America's editors have now been surveyed by the Associated Press and they have agreed:"The election victory of President Bush, after a campaign often dominated by the Iraq war and terrorism, was voted the top story of 2004 in the annual Associated Press survey of editors and news directors.
"The war itself was the No. 2 choice, and four other stories in the Top 10 involved either Iraq or terrorist attacks."
And how well, may we humbly ask, were these top stories covered? Well enough to help assure the outcomes that are being reported. A self-survey of these same stories by your news dissector of the Editor at MediaChannel found these two top stories among the worst covered and most poorly reported. Could this mean that the more visible a story is, the more of a media gang bang it gets, the worse it will be reported?
--- mediachannel.org
BLAIR BOLLOCKS IN BAGHDAD
And speaking of media gang bangs, I woke up this morning to find live coverage of a press conference by Tony Blair standing to the right of Iraq's Allawi on EVERY news channel at the same time. The British PM was in Iraq doing some selling of the "elections" to come. He was trumpeting the coming of democracy while his client Mr. Allawi was denouncing "evil forces."
The mantra: "There surely is only one side to be on in what is now very clearly a battle between democracy and terror," Blair repeated, according to the BBC.
The fact that all the networks continue to give this type of blatantly staged PR event TOTAL coverage shows their priorities and political orientation as media poodle to the war policy. What was really new or news here?
Al Jazeera leads not with the Blair blitz but this: "US warplanes have launched air strikes on the Iraqi town of Hiyt, west of the capital, killing six Iraqi civilians and wounding nine others." I did not see this mentioned on the cable news outlets I watched this morning.
DECEMBER 21: THE "TOP" STORIES OF THE YEAR
* THE MOST AND THE WORST
* ACLU SCOOPS MEDIA ON TORTURE NEWS
* POLL: US PUBLIC TURNS AGAINST WAR
America's editors have now been surveyed by the Associated Press and they have agreed:"The election victory of President Bush, after a campaign often dominated by the Iraq war and terrorism, was voted the top story of 2004 in the annual Associated Press survey of editors and news directors.
"The war itself was the No. 2 choice, and four other stories in the Top 10 involved either Iraq or terrorist attacks."
And how well, may we humbly ask, were these top stories covered? Well enough to help assure the outcomes that are being reported. A self-survey of these same stories by your news dissector of the Editor at MediaChannel found these two top stories among the worst covered and most poorly reported. Could this mean that the more visible a story is, the more of a media gang bang it gets, the worse it will be reported?
--- mediachannel.org