That's because the media is responsible to George Soros (with the exception of Fox, which is responsible to Rupert Murdoch and an Arab prince).

 

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/05/11/dont-hear-george-soros-ties-30-major-news-organizations/#ixzz1MHq6aL2l

You can thank the journalists to change a terrorist failure into a propaganda win for the terrorists.

That goes for any major news outlet (leftwing or rightwing)

Once again current day journo's have shown themselves to be a bunch of bastard gits that will do what amounts to causing more people to be killed to get a good story.

It's a journalist's job to report the news and where something is a matter of opinion, to present multiple opinions, not to favour one side or the other in any argument. From the news coverage I have been following on the OBL killing that generally seems to have been happening. It is up to the people being reported on, in this case the US Government, to present their case well. The media management by the US Government is probably the only area of significant critisism I would have regarding it's conduct, it was too quick to get out with the story before all the facts were established. A changing story always looks like somebody is lying.

However, I don't really think has "handed a propaganda victory to the terrorists". Most people are still happy to see the bastard dead, irrespective of whether there has been a changing story and a few human rights lawyers publicly wringing their hands over the legality of it all.

It's a journalist's job to report the news and where something is a matter of opinion, to present multiple opinions, not to favour one side or the other in any argument.

 

 In theory, yes. But in practice no. In a way, my sense of news reports from my perspective is that they may report some news "story" and then shape the opinions of others around it and then present the finished product as one of many case studies of objectivity. Most of the time the reports are slickly well done. But when they screw it up, they screw it up big time. To get a sense of what i mean, just Google "NBC plants Muslim looking man at NASCAR race". I am still pi$$ed at them for that!.

 

 

From the news coverage I have been following on the OBL killing that generally seems to have been happening. It is up to the people being reported on, in this case the US Government, to present their case well. The media management by the US Government is probably the only area of significant critisism I would have regarding it's conduct, it was too quick to get out with the story before all the facts were established. A changing story always looks like somebody is lying.

 

No doubt the current administration is not any better than the previous one in media management.  

 

 

 However, I don't really think has "handed a propaganda victory to the terrorists". Most people are still happy to see the bastard dead, irrespective of whether there has been a changing story and a few human rights lawyers publicly wringing their hands over the legality of it all.

A few human rights lawyers? You must be talking about the growing chorus in Europe, and just as surly soon to be seen in the US, over the legality of taking out OBL? The terrorists best trump card in all of this is all the suckers, oops... sorry- - people screaming about the human rights of terrorists. A tool is all they are for them, a means to an end. No doubt if activists such as these, had no media value to the terrorists against their enemies (All of us), then their usefulness would be at an end along their lives, with no regard to a humans right as far as we know it.

 

So i believe FJV is correct, with one minor caveat, and he may think this way as well. I don't think journalists intentionally do these sort of things too help terrorists as much as they are really in it for themselves and whose ever national political agenda they are allied with. In our case here in the US, most journalists identify with and in some cases actually and most blatantly work for the democrat party,   Not that i am trying too start anything mind you    ;-)

Bush personally was worse than Obama, at least from an international perspective. As an ex-nurse and disability worker when I saw him on TV I always had the urge to reach through the screen and wipe his chin ... he did nothing to inspire confidence. As for the administrations, I agree that they have both had screw ups in their media management.





You'll have to have that argument with Reactive who is convinced that the evil conservative Fox network is pulling all the strings. I'll personally just sit back and watch with popcorn and take the inevitable lack of an agreed conclusion as validation for my view that free speech is alive and that it allows a range of views, which ultimately provide a balanced perspective ;-).

You can thank the journalists to change a terrorist failure into a propaganda win for the terrorists.

That goes for any major news outlet (leftwing or rightwing)

Once again current day journo's have shown themselves to be a bunch of bastard gits that will do what amounts to causing more people to be killed to get a good story.

There is nothing going on in the media that i would classify as, "all of the sudden." In other words, the media has always behaved in this manner. The reason is simply money. the opposing view makes things more interesting and draws eyeballs and the resulting ad revenues. U.S. POTUS are well informed and prepared for this...

...I think we all need to think about a recent fact. The United States has publicly acknowledged a hostile covert combat operation into a nuclear armed nation. Think about the significance and precedence of that. The media is telling you three things. What it's been told, what it has learned and what it thinks. None of this is coincidence. Think about what a covert operation is and a fundamental and logical final step and it will make sense...

-DA