CNN - what is true?

  1. I received an e-mail this morning passing on some information we should consider while watching the highly emotional and volatile reporting on the attack on our country. The information is that the film clips of the Palestinians rejoicing in the streets was actually taken in 1991 after Kuwait was bombed. I can neither prove nor disprove, however, I will keep it in mind as I watch. Apparently, this person has the 1991 footage and it is exactly the same as what CNN has represented as following the strike on the WTC.
    •  
  2. 12 Comments

  3. by   nurs4kids
    Wow! This is both interesting and scary. You have to wonder how much our media misleads us and allows us to be wrongfully educated. As much as I love this country and our freedom of speech/media, sometimes I feel we really need some check and balance on the media.

    On the flip side, because of the media, another huge disaster was prevented Tuesday. Were it not for the quick and honest reporting of the WTC attacks, those heroic passengers on the plane that crashed in PA would have probably sat back and been blindly led into the White House or another major landmark.

    So, I guess we have to give them credit AND question their credibility at the same time.
  4. by   Q.
    Odd-

    I never heard of any Palestinians celebrating. The only ones I know of are, obviously, Afghans and Egyptians.


    The media is always know to sway things though - although journalism is supposed to be factual only.

    Just be careful on the sources.
  5. by   KellyandtheBoys
    This is so scarey! Most of what I've heard and read points to most of the Palistinian people giving our country support.
  6. by   kennedyj
    The media always seems to change things a little. I was listening to other European news broadcasts and was shocked. The US media is making it sound like we are supported. So far only England is actually behind us. Most of the other European nations seem to be against us going into Afganistan. I don't want to sound non-patriotic though. I think that we need to maybe not launch a war but definately put a hurting on terrorist activity. Although we need to do it soon while the heat is still there.

    Before I went into nursing I did a little work in the chemical and nuclear side of military warfare. The scary thing is that with a six pack size package of a slow acting agent you could wipe out a city the size of NY. no one will show symptoms for 5-6 hrs. This is the only part that scares me about agressing them. It would be much easier for terrorists to do this than hijack an aircraft. We attack to terrorists. They don't attack back at the military but at innocent American civilians.

    Other factors that influence the decision:
    -the decline in the economy and stock market since last April which needs a good conflict to end this.

    - New Presidency

    I dont want this to sound as if I dont care about what happened. In which I do. This is just the other side you dont hear about.

    We should however know more about our NATO support after the
    meetings. The US is trying to push other countries into giving support through article 5. Bottom line is that we have laid our lives and resources on the line so many times to help other countries in need. Now its time for us to cash in our chips and call on the favor this time.



    Jared
    Last edit by kennedyj on Sep 17, '01
  7. by   fergus51
    I couldn't believ how many rumors CNN reported during this week. I don't think a news station should report rumors unless they have confirmation. I wouldn't be surprised if the footage was played up a bit, just like them saying "thousands" of people were celebrating this when I didn't see that many in their footage.
  8. by   deekay
    Concerning 'truth' as it appears in the American mainstream media. I am a Canadian who lived and worked in NC for 4 years recently. Unfortunately Americans are never told what is going on in the rest of the world and so rarely think there is any different way of doing or thinking about things than the way the American press portrays things. It is not un-American to be thoughtful and to consider that others may have a valid and workable point of view; after all other countries and cultures are flourishing and have done so for a lot longer than the US. Exxon wants us all to believe that the Arabs are all guilty, their wells need protecting etc, etc. If any of you can get CBC (watch 'Counterspin") or BBC news, you will see that the rest of the world does not think like CNN. Consider for instance, that US refused to join the Kyoto agreement or any other collegial group in a constructive way recently (no dues paid at the UN for years) but expects the rest of the Western Nations to go to war with them to protect American interests in the Middle East. It gives us all pause because America has no moral high ground in this conflict either as insurgents for many South American 'revolutions' have been trained in the US.
    JUST THINK BEFORE YOU SWALLOW ALL YOUR "NEWS" PLEASE FOR ALL OUR SAKES.
    Last edit by deekay on Sep 17, '01
  9. by   cargal
    I have been a fan of Counterspin on NPR, and would like to share the following from www.fair.org . Journalists SHOULD NOT present their opinions as fact. That is the first rule, as in the medical field, "First do no harm." That the media would thrust its opinion on the public is dispicable.
    Please take the time to read this. It took me long enough to cut and paste! BTW, I receive regular emails from this org, and find them to be unbiased and informative.

    FAIR-L
    Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting
    Media analysis, critiques and news report



    MEDIA ADVISORY:
    Media March to War

    September 17, 2001

    In the wake of the devastating attacks on the World Trade Center and the
    Pentagon, many media pundits focused on one theme: retaliation. For some, it
    did not matter who bears the brunt of an American attack:

    "There is only one way to begin to deal with people like this, and that is
    you have to kill some of them even if they are not immediately directly
    involved in this thing."
    --former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger (CNN, 9/11/01)

    "The response to this unimaginable 21st-century Pearl Harbor should be as
    simple as it is swift-- kill the bastards. A gunshot between the eyes, blow
    them to smithereens, poison them if you have to. As for cities or countries
    that host these worms, bomb them into basketball courts."
    --Steve Dunleavy (New York Post, 9/12/01)

    "America roused to a righteous anger has always been a force for good.
    States that have been supporting if not Osama bin Laden, people like him
    need to feel pain. If we flatten part of Damascus or Tehran or whatever it
    takes, that is part of the solution."
    --Rich Lowry, National Review editor, to Howard Kurtz (Washington Post,
    9/13/01)

    "TIME TO TAKE NAMES AND NUKE AFGHANISTAN."
    --Caption to cartoon by Gary Brookins (Richmond Times-Dispatch, 9/13/01)

    "At a bare minimum, tactical nuclear capabilites should be used against the
    bin Laden camps in the desert of Afghanistan. To do less would be rightly
    seen by the poisoned minds that orchestrated these attacks as cowardice on
    the part of the United States and the current administration."
    --Former Defense Intelligence Agency officer Thomas Woodrow, "Time to Use
    the Nuclear Option" (Washington Times, 9/14/01)

    Bill O'Reilly: "If the Taliban government of Afghanistan does not cooperate,
    then we will damage that government with air power, probably. All right? We
    will blast them, because..."

    Sam Husseini, Institute for Public Accuracy: "Who will you kill in the
    process?"

    O'Reilly: "Doesn't make any difference."
    --("The O'Reilly Factor," Fox News Channel, 9/13/01)

    "This is no time to be precious about locating the exact individuals
    directly involved in this particular terrorist attack.... We should invade
    their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We
    weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top
    officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war.
    And this is war."
    --Syndicated columnist Ann Coulter (New York Daily News, 9/12/01)


    "Real" Retribution

    Many media commentators appeared to blame the attacks on what they saw as
    America's unwillingness to act aggressively in recent years.

    As conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer (Washington Post, 9/12/01)
    wrote: "One of the reasons there are enough terrorists out there capable and
    deadly enough to carry out the deadliest attack on the United States in its
    history is that, while they have declared war on us, we have in the past
    responded (with the exception of a few useless cruise missile attacks on
    empty tents in the desert) by issuing subpoenas."

    The Washington Post's David Broder (9/13/01), considered a moderate, issued
    his own call for "new realism-- and steel-- in America's national security
    policy": "For far too long, we have been queasy about responding to
    terrorism. Two decades ago, when those with real or imagined grievances
    against the United States began picking off Americans overseas on military
    or diplomatic assignments or on business, singly or in groups, we delivered
    pinprick retaliations or none at all."

    It's worth recalling the U.S. response to the bombing of a Berlin disco in
    April 1986, which resulted in the deaths of two U.S. service members: The
    U.S. immediately bombed Libya, which it blamed for the attack. According to
    Libya, 36 civilians were killed in the air assault, including the year-old
    daughter of Libyan leader Moamar Khadafy (Washington Post, 5/9/86). It is
    unlikely that Libyans considered this a "pinprick." Yet these deaths
    apparently had little deterrence value: In December 1988, less than 20
    months later, Pan Am 103 exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, in an even
    deadlier act of
    terrorism the U.S. blames on Libyan agents.

    More recently, in 1998, Bill Clinton sent 60 cruise missiles, some equipped
    with cluster bombs, against bin Laden's Afghan base, in what was presented
    as retaliation for the bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa. One missile
    aimed at Afghan training camps landed hundreds of miles off course in
    Pakistan, while a simultaneous attack in Sudan leveled one of the country's
    few pharmaceutical factories. Media cheered the attacks (In These Times,
    9/6/98), though careful investigation into the case revealed no credible
    evidence linking the plant to chemical weapons or Osama bin Laden, the two
    justifications offered for the attack (New York Times, 10/27/99, London
    Observer, 8/23/98).

    Despite the dubious record of retributory violence in insuring security,
    many pundits insist that previous retaliation failed only because it was not
    severe enough. As the Chicago Tribune's John Kass declared (9/13/01), "For
    the past decade we've sat dumb and stupid as the U.S. military was
    transformed from a killing machine into a playpen for sociologists and
    political schemers." This "playpen" dropped 23,000 bombs on Yugoslavia in
    1999, killing between 500 and 1,500 civilians, and may have killed as many
    as 1,200 Iraqis in 1998's Desert Fox attack (Agence France Presse,
    12/23/98).

    The Wall Street Journal (9/13/01) urged the U.S. to "get serious" about
    terrorism by, among other things, eliminating "the 1995 rule, imposed by
    former CIA Director John Deutsch under political pressure, limiting whom the
    U.S. can recruit for counter-terrorism. For fear of hiring rogues, the CIA
    decided it would only hire Boy Scouts." One non-Boy Scout the CIA worked
    with in the 1980s is none other than Osama bin Laden (MSNBC, 8/24/98; The
    Atlantic, 7-8/01)-- then considered a valuable asset in the fight against
    Communism, but now suspected of being the chief instigator of the World
    Trade Center attacks.


    Who's to Blame?

    In crisis situations, particularly those involving terrorism, media often
    report unsubstantiated information about suspects or those claiming
    responsibility-- an error that is especially dangerous in the midst of calls
    for military retaliation.

    Early reports on the morning of the attack indicated that the Democratic
    Front for the Liberation of Palestine had claimed responsibility on Abu
    Dhabi Television. Most outlets were careful with the information, though
    NBC's Tom Brokaw, while not confirming the story, added fuel to the fire:
    "This comes, ironically, on a day when the Israel Foreign Minister Shimon
    Peres is scheduled to meet with Yasser Arafat. Of course, we've had the
    meeting in South Africa for the past several days in which the Palestinians
    were accusing the Israelis of racism"-- as if making such an accusation were
    tantamount to blowing up the World Trade Center.

    Hours after a spokesperson for the Democratic Front for the Liberation of
    Palestine denied any responsibility for the attack, the Drudge Report
    website still had the headline "Palestinian Group Says Responsible" at the
    top of the page.

    Though the threat from a Palestinian group proved unsubstantiated, that did
    not stop media from making gross generalizations about Arabs and Islam in
    general. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wondered (9/13/01):
    "Surely Islam, a grand religion that never perpetrated the sort of Holocaust
    against the Jews in its midst that Europe did, is being distorted when it is
    treated as a guidebook for suicide bombing. How is it that not a single
    Muslim leader will say that?"

    Of course, many Muslims would-- and did-- say just that. Political and
    civil leaders throughout the Muslim world have condemned the attacks, and
    Muslim clerics throughout the Middle East have given sermons refuting the
    idea that targeting civilians is a tenet of Islam (BBC, 9/14/01; Washington
    Post 9/17/01).


    Why They Hate Us

    As the media investigation focused on Osama bin Laden, news outlets still
    provided little information about what fuels his fanaticism. Instead of a
    serious inquiry into anti-U.S. sentiment in the Middle East and elsewhere,
    many commentators media offered little more than self-congratulatory
    rhetoric:

    "[The World Trade Center and the Pentagon] have drawn, like gathered
    lightning, the anger of the enemies of civilization. Those enemies are
    always out there.... Americans are slow to anger but mighty when angry, and
    their proper anger now should be alloyed with pride. They are targets
    because of their virtues--principally democracy, and loyalty to those
    nations which, like Israel, are embattled salients of our virtues in a
    still-dangerous world."
    --George Will (Washington Post, 9/12/01)

    "This nation symbolizes freedom, strength, tolerance, and democratic
    principles dedicated to both liberty and peace. To the tyrants, the despots,
    the closed societies, there are no alterations to the policies, no gestures
    we can make, no words we can say that will convince those determined to
    continue their hate."
    --Charles G. Boyd (Washington Post, 9/12/01)

    "Are Americans afraid to face the reality that there is a significant
    portion of this world's population that hates America, hates what freedom
    represents, hates the fact that we fight for freedom worldwide, hates our
    prosperity, hates our way of life? Have we been unwilling to face that very
    difficult reality?"
    --Sean Hannity (Fox News Channel, 9/13/01)

    "Our principled defense of individual freedom and our reluctance to
    intervene in the affairs of states harboring terrorists makes us an easy
    target."
    --Robert McFarlane (Washington Post, 9/13/01)

    One exception was ABC's Jim Wooten (World News Tonight, 9/12/01), who tried
    to shed some light on what might motivate some anti-U.S. sentiment in the
    Middle East, reporting that "Arabs see the U.S. as an accomplice of Israel,
    a partner in what they believe is the ruthless repression of Palestinian
    aspirations for land and independence." Wooten continued: "The most
    provocative issues: Israel's control over Islamic holy sites in Jerusalem;
    the stationing of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia near some of Islam's holiest
    sites; and economic sanctions against Iraq, which have been seen to deprive
    children there of medicine and food."

    Stories like Wooten's, which examine the U.S.'s highly contentious role in
    the Middle East and illuminate some of the forces that can give rise to
    violent extremism, contribute far more to public security than do pundits
    calling for indiscriminate revenge.

    ----------

    Feel free to respond to FAIR ( fair@fair.org ). We can't reply to
    everything, but we will look at each message. We especially appreciate
    documented example of media bias or censorship. And please send copies of
    your email correspondence with media outlets, including any responses, to us
    at: fair@fair.org .

    FAIR ON THE AIR: FAIR's founder Jeff Cohen is a regular panelist
    Last edit by cargal on Sep 18, '01
  10. by   fergus51
    I wish CNN was not so soundbite oriented. Politicians and ordinary citizens alike are going on the air trying to sound tough and not presenting any real, concrete solutions. Like the caller who wanted to bomb Damascus and Terhan! Does he even realize that neither country (Syria or Iran) has been accused of being involved in this? People are too eager to turn non-involved countries into boogeymen and CNN seems to promote this.

    I lost faith in CNN after it reported rumors that Iran was involved in the Oklahoma city bombing, only to later find out it was one of our own.
  11. by   mustangsheba
    Everyone: More information on that posting of mine. IT WAS ERRONEOUS! It was from by a college student whose teacher reported it in class and later denied that she had provided the information. I see I allowed myself a weasel clause. I apologize for the post, but I'm not sorry it was wrong. It will certainly help to keep me on my toes. The discussion following was very informative. Thanks guys.
  12. by   semstr
    well, something was terribly wrong wtih that film!
    On a German Cablenet, they showed how this video was made!
    The guy in the middle buying the kids candies and coke and the arab woman coffee and cookies.

    Another reporter (a few days later) asked that woman, why she made the typical arab tonguesounds and she could not answer that question.

    This is a serious Cablestation (it's called RTL) and millions of people watch it every night.

    Beware of the media!!
  13. by   Tiara
    I had e-mailed CNN about this and they have posted a complete explanation at their site.
  14. by   CEN35
    a few things to remember........

    1st - i have been involved with the media and/or incidents 1st hand. the media rarely gets it right, from what i have seen. they are out there to get the 1st, and best story. i don't always buy what the media tells the public. the problem is, we have no other way of getting info on worl events, and the ongoings in other countries.

    during the persian gulf war, i had a friend from jordan......who lives here as a citizen in the states. he had some friends from kuwaite, and other areas in the middle east. his brother lived in sauia arabia, and father was retired from the jordan air force. cnn and the media.....only get so much information. in times like this......i would bet the goverment only lets them, show or let us in on, what they want us to know. you have to remember, what we find out through the media everybody else finds out also.

    the point i was headed towards was this......during the persian gulf war, the things i heard from my friend.......rarely collaberated with what you se on the news. he would talk to his brother and/or father on the phone. what they told him, was not always what allegedly was going on over there. this is a good thing though......for anybody knowing people in our armed forces, the last thing you want is the other side to know whats going on.



    as far as the tape alegedly being the same tape from 91' ??? i would copy it, and send it to cnn and question them? that seems a little unethical in my mind.

    me
    Last edit by CEN35 on Sep 25, '01

close