New York Times bias

order now!

New York Times bias

Unread postby pewterchris » Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:36 am

I just got done reading the All the News that fits their Ideology section of Crazies to the Left of Me, Wimps to the Right. The New York Times so called journalism that contaminates us and our children is similar to the rest of the media. So, after reading this section I went to the computer to check my email and what was the first story that pops up through the Comcast news? New York Times Report: 121 Veterans Linked to Killings. I would be interested in seeing some numbers on whether this was just typical of this particular population group or percentage is typical of any group. I probably know the answer but I will leave that to people smarter than myself.
pewterchris
New Member
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:02 am

New York Times bias

Sponsor

Sponsor
 

Unread postby Media Rookie » Mon Jan 14, 2008 1:27 pm

And to add to this, the NYT had an article last week where the headlines (not verbatim) read that 151,000 Iraqis have died. What's strange about this number is that the website www.iraqbodycount.org (which I have heard described as a left wing site) has the Iraqis civillian death at 80,585-88,004. Whose correct? Will we ever know?
"Well, today's eight-year-olds are tomorrow's teenagers. I say this calls for action and now. Nip it in the bud. First sign of youngsters going wrong, you've got to nip it in the bud." - Barney Fife
User avatar
Media Rookie
Media watchdog!
 
Posts: 854
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 11:45 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Unread postby steve1633 » Fri Jan 18, 2008 2:19 pm

iraq body count counts only deaths reported in iraqi media. That's obviously a low end estimate then because you can't expect the media in a country in the middle of war trying to rebuild it's government to cover every single death.
steve1633
Media GOD!
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:05 pm

Unread postby Media Rookie » Fri Jan 18, 2008 4:21 pm

I'm not sure you are correct about that. If you are I just need a little proof. Although they do not say directly where they are located (for lack of a better term), but when reading the website, I'm getting the feeling that these are people here in the states or England. Let's have a little contest on who can find out that fastest. Shall we?
"Well, today's eight-year-olds are tomorrow's teenagers. I say this calls for action and now. Nip it in the bud. First sign of youngsters going wrong, you've got to nip it in the bud." - Barney Fife
User avatar
Media Rookie
Media watchdog!
 
Posts: 854
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 11:45 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Unread postby steve1633 » Fri Jan 18, 2008 5:47 pm

You are right, they are not strictly deaths recorded by Iraqi media. According to their website they record deaths that can be verified by crosschecked media accounts, non-governmental agencies, and hospital/morgue statistics. The discrepensy between their number and other estimates including the one the NYT used comes from the fact that they count only verified deaths, which again is not going to encompass all deaths (we don't even account for every single death in peace time america) and they also only count violent deaths of non-combatants. This last point is important because many estimates also count deaths that are the result of destroyed infrastructure including lack of available health care, clean water, or fresh food, as well as problems with identifying combatants. For instance, if a house known to hold an insurgent is bombed and 8 bodies are found inside are they all counted as combatants?
My point was that Iraq Body Count, while certainly a liberal group, represents a low end of the body count because it counts only verifiable deaths due immediately to violence.
steve1633
Media GOD!
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:05 pm

Unread postby Media Rookie » Fri Jan 18, 2008 6:56 pm

steve1633 wrote:My point was that Iraq Body Count, while certainly a liberal group, represents a low end of the body count because it counts only verifiable deaths due immediately to violence.


And in this day and age of propaganda and bias, I'll take verifiable over surveys and guesses any day of the week. But the very fact that there is such a large margin and these media outlets, such as the NYT, produces articles with these numbers and trying to pass these off as facts doesn't sit well with me. Which was my point to begin with.
"Well, today's eight-year-olds are tomorrow's teenagers. I say this calls for action and now. Nip it in the bud. First sign of youngsters going wrong, you've got to nip it in the bud." - Barney Fife
User avatar
Media Rookie
Media watchdog!
 
Posts: 854
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 11:45 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Unread postby steve1633 » Fri Jan 18, 2008 7:15 pm

that's understandable, news media's role should be to report purely the facts. However, in this case the fact of the matter is very hazy. Deaths of iraqi civilians as a result of the invasion inherently must include deaths that result from destruction of infrastructure caused by the US campaign and iraq body count doesn't include that so they cannot be taken as a full count of all innocent deaths in this case. Of course determining how many preventable deaths resulted from damaged infrastructure is fairly impossible so their sort of in a tough spot. Considering that ibc puts the death toll (excluding collateral deaths caused by damage to infrastructure) at about 88-90 thousand and the highest estimate i've seen, put out by the Johns-Hopkins medical school, puts the total death toll including non-violent deaths at over 650,000 it seems like 151,000 is a pretty fair estimate of how many innocent iraqis have realistically died as a result of the invasion.
steve1633
Media GOD!
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:05 pm

Unread postby Japanklet » Mon Apr 26, 2010 1:56 am

Hello, Frackk!

Welcome to the board!

I see you've already made several posts, and I hope you decide to continue with your participation here. Currently, we have no active moderators, but that might change very soon.

Again, welcome!

Japanklet
Note: To cut down on screen clutter on my tiny monitor, my computer is set to block all pictures that appear in the signatures of other posters. Because of that, I cannot see them nor comment on them. Thanks.—Japanklet
User avatar
Japanklet
Media analyst
 
Posts: 254
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 2:00 am


Return to Crazies to the Left of Me, Wimps to the Right: How One Side Lost Its Mind and the Other Lost Its Nerve

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest

cron