Comments on: The first casualty http://www.davejustus.com/2006/08/29/the-first-casualty/ None Sine Causa Wed, 03 Dec 2008 20:30:52 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: probligo http://www.davejustus.com/2006/08/29/the-first-casualty/#comment-4008 probligo Wed, 30 Aug 2006 05:20:21 +0000 http://www.davejustus.com/2006/08/29/the-first-casualty/#comment-4008 First thing that comes to my mind is confirmation bias on the part of the journos. But I think that is likely being a little unfair. I believe that some journo's in places like Lebanon, Iraq and Gaza do their best in very difficult and stressful circumstances. There are the accusations that some are best known for warming comfortable hotel couches. And that leaves what I suspect are the Iraq/Lebanon/Gaza equivalents of VRN's. THAT could be a whole lot closer to a very uncomfortable truth than I like to imagine. I have been looking for a report from FCC on VRN's - there have been a couple of preliminary comments from high places but nothing like the reports coming out from time to time from the local media commentary sources. This was the last comment on the FCC's own site on that topic - <blockquote>4/13/05 FCC Public Notice to Remind Broadcasters and Cable Operators of Video News Release (VNR) Requirements <b>and Seeking Comment on VNR Use.</b></blockquote> My interest primarily is whether there will be any acknowledgement (other than the "it has been done since Clinton's time") on US Government use of VNRs. Add that to the deliberate faking of news stories (NYT and how many others) and photos (Reuters and how many others) and one has to really wonder at the likely veracity of <b>anything</b> the media (generally, not just MSM) puts out. As for the newsmedia "favouring one side against another" the first instance that comes to my mind is the bollocking one of the national tv channels in NZ got about five years ago from its international owners and masters (CanWest) for broadcasting an item that was (quite severely) critical of Israel. As far as most sources in NZ are concerned, the editorial policies seem fair and even handed. To a reader from the US that might seem "to be favouring the other side" - it all depends upon your viewpoint. First thing that comes to my mind is confirmation bias on the part of the journos. But I think that is likely being a little unfair.

I believe that some journo’s in places like Lebanon, Iraq and Gaza do their best in very difficult and stressful circumstances. There are the accusations that some are best known for warming comfortable hotel couches.

And that leaves what I suspect are the Iraq/Lebanon/Gaza equivalents of VRN’s.

THAT could be a whole lot closer to a very uncomfortable truth than I like to imagine. I have been looking for a report from FCC on VRN’s - there have been a couple of preliminary comments from high places but nothing like the reports coming out from time to time from the local media commentary sources. This was the last comment on the FCC’s own site on that topic -

4/13/05
FCC Public Notice to Remind Broadcasters and Cable Operators of Video News Release (VNR) Requirements and Seeking Comment on VNR Use.

My interest primarily is whether there will be any acknowledgement (other than the “it has been done since Clinton’s time”) on US Government use of VNRs.

Add that to the deliberate faking of news stories (NYT and how many others) and photos (Reuters and how many others) and one has to really wonder at the likely veracity of anything the media (generally, not just MSM) puts out.

As for the newsmedia “favouring one side against another” the first instance that comes to my mind is the bollocking one of the national tv channels in NZ got about five years ago from its international owners and masters (CanWest) for broadcasting an item that was (quite severely) critical of Israel. As far as most sources in NZ are concerned, the editorial policies seem fair and even handed. To a reader from the US that might seem “to be favouring the other side” - it all depends upon your viewpoint.

]]>