Colombian Report

December 4, 2002 12:20 PM

Talking Heads Avoid revealing and discussing issues that may be controversial. Especially so when the stories run counter to the government's "talking points." Yet another reason not to trust mainstream media for relevant and accurate news. Who can we trust to report honestly and without putting personal/corporate considerations first?
posted by nofundy (25 comments total)

The President is supporting killing in Latin America? Shut yo' mouth. Americans need stories about refrigerators and baby beauty queens, rape and SUVs. Cocaine and Columbia, its just been done, baby.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 12:27 PM on December 4, 2002

news.google.com?
posted by jsonic at 12:28 PM on December 4, 2002

Well obviously we can trust Lucy Komisar, former VP of NOW, to have a completely objective opinion, and absolutely no agenda. You can believe everything she says verbatim.

(I wonder why it is that whenever someone posts an "example" proving how the major news media is biased, and glosses over the "real stories", there is no real desire to question the article itself ... which is unquestioningly accepted as truth).
posted by MidasMulligan at 12:38 PM on December 4, 2002

Who can we trust to report honestly and without putting personal/corporate considerations first?

Probably not Metafilter, its full of people who think the world's coming to an end in Bush's handbasket and that everyone who disagrees with them are ignorant of the coming apocalypse. They also feel an apparent need to hammer their viewpoints over and over and over again.
posted by Stan Chin at 12:40 PM on December 4, 2002

stan, thats so hopefully you'll look up before the sky falls on you.
posted by quonsar at 12:42 PM on December 4, 2002

This could have been an interesting and informative post about US policy in Columbia.

Instead, it's a useless troll, and hypocritical to boot: "without putting personal considerations first"?!?

This kind of attitude is indistinguishable from the right wing's whining during the Clinton era. When they are out of power, ideologues on both sides will always believe that because they are unquestionably right, there must be a media conspiracy against them. "If people weren't being manipulated, of course they would agree with us!"

If you really cared about what's happening in Columbia, instead of your own personal agenda, you would have taken the trouble to try to foster an informed discussion about Columbia. Instead of whining about media bias, why don't you set an example?
posted by fuzz at 12:44 PM on December 4, 2002

fuzz,

The linked story wasn't about US foreign policy. It was about why the media might not be reporting "risky" stories.
posted by MarquisDeShad at 1:06 PM on December 4, 2002

Where's Columbia? Is it anywhere near Colombia?
posted by TBoneMcCool at 1:06 PM on December 4, 2002

Midas, stan, fuzz.

Perhaps you should read the link before passing judgement on my post.
And fuzz, it's spelled Colombia.

How can we have an informed discussion when the information is being actively withheld?

Tell me how this story can go unreported when ALL the major "players" or "Kool Kids" heard this story.

Why is it important where Lucy comes from if she's giving relevant and accurate information?

There are better things to do than attack me for wanting a reasonable discussion about what many perceive to be a real and dangerous problem.

I am happy to entertain points of debate regarding the issue this article highlights.
posted by nofundy at 1:07 PM on December 4, 2002

Who can we trust to report honestly and without putting personal/corporate considerations first?

The troll aside, take news (from any source) with a grain of salt. In other words, use your common sense and seek many sources. Duh.
posted by Bag Man at 1:08 PM on December 4, 2002

Bag Man,

Forgive me for not understanding exactly how my question is a troll. It was meant sincerely. I really want a better news source. Of course I'm sure the "duh" wasn't intended to cast aspersions upon me or used as a troll, correct?
posted by nofundy at 1:14 PM on December 4, 2002

Why is it important where Lucy comes from if she's giving relevant and accurate information?

Give us some credit, nofundy...do you honestly and sincerely believe that everything, if anything, is factual in that article? All you did was post what normal journalists would call an editorial, and you want a reasonable debate on the merits? Do you honestly expect to be a credible poster in these matters? Stop using this site as your personal soap box...please.
posted by BlueTrain at 1:21 PM on December 4, 2002

Regarding the original question here, I would venture to say that the mainstream media -- particularly TV news -- are avoiding the Colombia story NOT because it's risky or controversial or counter to government "talking points," but because it's a complex story that's not easily distilled into a 15 inch newspaper article or a 2 minute TV report.
posted by TBoneMcCool at 1:25 PM on December 4, 2002

My two trusted newsholes are CSpan and Teh Daily Show.
Take what spews from newshole#1 and compare it to that which spews from newshole#2.

The difference between the effluent from sphincter#1 and sphincter#2 is basically the truth, or as close one can get to it without turning pursuit of same into a full-time paranoid obsession
posted by BentPenguin at 1:26 PM on December 4, 2002

Perhaps you should read the link before passing judgement on my post.

I did read the post. It contained a number of asertions (with no evidence), and was clearly not simply news reporting, but had a vigorously activist agenda.

I am happy to entertain points of debate regarding the issue this article highlights.

You cannot contain the debate into the areas you want to keep it in. You post an article that charges "the media", and invites people to question "the media", smears newscasters (who's names are named), and alleges that they will not publish these stunning truths because they aren't part of official government "talking points".

However, when the same scrutiny is turned on the article, and the article's author, suddenly it makes no difference what her background is? What her motivations are? Whether what she is reporting, and the slant she reports it with has an agenda? How can this not be relevent ... the very thing she (and this FPP) is alleging is that the big name newscasters have an ulterior agenda that determines what gets reported and what doesn't. Sorry, but she can't walk around shining spotlights on things, and expect to be able to remain in the dark herself.

You introduced the topic. But you can't control how people respond to it.
posted by MidasMulligan at 1:28 PM on December 4, 2002

avoiding the Colombia story NOT because it's risky or controversial ... but because it's a complex story that's not easily distilled into a 15 inch newspaper article or a 2 minute TV report.

I've never known TV News to shy away from oversimplifying a complex matter to fit it into a short time period or a neat pigeonhole.
posted by MarquisDeShad at 1:46 PM on December 4, 2002

Does anyone really disagree, however, that the news media are derelict in their approach? They simply do not cover some of the most outrageous stories of the day-- but people on the Left who are usually those who are upset with the media should remember that a truly open media would also ditch the politically correct conventions that most Americans could do without. Raw, unvarnished news would not 'benefit' anyone but the openminded-- no left or right idelogues should be spared.
posted by cell divide at 1:49 PM on December 4, 2002

Damn, read the title and got my hopes up for the real Talking Heads.

Home is where I want to be
Pick me up and turn me round
posted by uftheory at 2:08 PM on December 4, 2002

Forgive me for not understanding exactly how my question is a troll.

Your "question" was a loaded statement without facts to back it up. The only facts you presented is press release like statement loaded with political dogma and the bitterness of being ignored.

No Fundy, the "Duh" was asserted to say that all news outlets are bias in some way and that this should not shock anyone. I believe that main problem with mainstream media is that it’s driven by the public's fickle attitudes and prefaces. Overall they do a good job, but some stories get missed (because most people don't care about that issue or story), stories get too simplified or the story is cast in a wrong light (to appease the majority so they will watch).

You have sighted a highly bias source; I think the source you sighted in indicative of the problems you insist pelage the media. I like lefty news sources, but like any media you need to read them with common sense and grain of salt.

I also think that independent media outlets funded by adds, or by the viewers, are better that government-funded media.

Clearer?
posted by Bag Man at 3:44 PM on December 4, 2002

Didnt Noam Chomsky say that the best thing to do is to look things up yourself and do your own research to find out what is happening?

Then again, he also acknowledged that this takes a lot of effort and most people are too lazy or busy to do it and would rather let other people give them the news predigested and prepackaged.
posted by titboy at 7:19 PM on December 4, 2002

I've been reading American newspapers and watching network news for more than 40 years. Trust em? No! Because somebody rants about bias? No, rather because I have perceived, and continue to perceive, a pattern of distortion and lies. I remember the reports of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident (a fabrication that led to 58,000 dead Amnericans and many more Vietnamese, Laotions, and Cambodians). Who remembers the claim that Iraqi troops were massing to attack Saudi Arabia? Another lie that led to war. Reports on the battles for democracy in Central and South America? What did anyone here read about American trained and funded death squads?

If you didn't see it, try to find a trusted witness. Lacking that read from as many sources as you can. Disinformation abounds, and it is calculated to preserve the power of the coporate and politcal interests whose biggest fear is an informed electorate. But if this string is any indication, they are secure in their fascist grip on the collective mindset.
posted by ahimsakid at 7:28 AM on December 5, 2002

Give us some credit, nofundy...do you honestly and sincerely believe that everything, if anything, is factual in that article?

Why wouldn't I? The reporter said these words in front of a large group of "distinguished" media personalities. They obviously find him credible enough to honor him with an award.

What her motivations are? Whether what she is reporting, and the slant she reports it with has an agenda?

What I'm seeing is you hastily attacking the messenger(s) without addressing the points the object of your venom bring up. Did the award winner not say these things in a very public "reporters" forum? Has anyone refuted or backed or even reported his findings in another forum?

Bag man,
Perhaps I was reading too much into the statements. Thank you for your considered reply.

What cell divide said. Whether it benefits either side or neither side, accurate information is part of the required foundations for democracy. Whatever the reason for this information not being disseminated it is wrong and can easily be construed as a "cover up" when it happens.
posted by nofundy at 7:54 AM on December 5, 2002

Well obviously we can trust Lucy Komisar, former VP of NOW, to have a completely objective opinion, and absolutely no agenda. You can believe everything she says verbatim.

If you think she is unobjective, writing with "an agenda" or is being untruthful, YOU provide some evidence that this is the case. Otherwise, everyone will just assume you are making things up... attacking the messenger because you don't pack the gear to attack the message. You made the above assertions: where are your facts?

The article is filled with examples and support of the speakers point. Your silly little knee jerk diatribe contains zip.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 9:50 AM on December 5, 2002

Stop using this site as your personal soap box...please.

Stop trying to stifle viewpoints with which you disagree....please. Refute them if you can, but don't try to just make them go away.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 9:55 AM on December 5, 2002

"How are we to explain the fact that U.S. involvement in transferring to Iraq the same weapons we accuse them of criminally possessing is not a story worthy of high visibility in the Star Tribune and other news media outlets? It would seem that such a story is not only worthy of front page treatment, if not front page headlines, but that U.S. involvement in helping to provide Iraq's weapons of mass destruction should be a central issue in the debate over going to war. It is understandable that the President would not want this to be part of the debate. But how do we explain the fact that mainstream news media do not seem to want it to be part of the debate, and are, in fact, effectively burying the story?"
posted by homunculus at 9:11 PM on December 5, 2002