Iraqi vote in the news?

gladius

Active member
This won't come as a suprise to some of you, but as of today, Sunday Oct., 16, 2005, the Iraqi vote to ratify its constitution is at the headlines of almost every homepage of the major US news sources, except one CNN.

This really comes as no surprise to some of us here, they probably didn't show it because it tends to make Bush look good.

CNN has it listed but, they don't have it showcased and there are no pictures on their homepage, you actively have to go looking for it. No wonder nobody except liberals take CNN seriuosly.

See for yourself:

CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/

Others:
http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/home/main100.shtml
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/
http://www.foxnews.com/
http://abcnews.go.com/

At least some are not passively blatant as not to feature it. Although ABC's headline is misleading making one to believe something fell short on the Iraqi vote.
 
My favorite if front page Yahoo!

The AP's story on the constitution ratification is headlined "Sunnis Appear to Fall Short in Iraq Vote"

Not, "constitution passed" or "another step on the road to democracy" but their headline is "Sunnies appear as if they where not able to stop the constitution from being passed".

The AP can spin anything into anti-Americanism.
 
When I looked @ the CNN site the listing under More news was like this (directly copied from the page):
"Most Popular MORE NEWS
• Rice optimistic after Iraq constitution vote |
• Police knew gangs aimed to protest Nazi march |
• High-profile lawyer's wife killed at home
• 'The Fog' looms over weekend box office
• SI.com: Teen Wie disqualified from first pro tournament
• School 'willing to sponsor a prom, but not an orgy'
• Watch: Spy agency offers high-altitude images of damage"
In other words it got top billing.
I don't see your point.
 
My point is somehow CNN is reluctant to show the Iraqi vote as the headline which it should be---Up front and center. Every other news sourse has it there.

They have it reported, but to the causal viewer, who doesn't see any pictures or highlights will miss it. C'mon most people arent so dumb as to think that this is something not done on purpose. When it comes to news not featuring something or not highlighting it and relegating it to secondary pages is the almost as the same as misreporting it, the press knows this, I'm surprised you don't. Outa sight, outa mind.

They don't want to highlight it, maybe because it makes Bush look good is my point. They are doing simply what most have suspected for a long time.Thats why they will have a hard time convincing poeple they are not slanting their news towards a left-wing agenda. It is there it is plain to see and sometimes pretty blatant.

I know the helicopter crash in Paskitan is terrible, but the predominant news should be the vote in Iraq, since this could determin the future of the entire region, this is what the culmination of all that happened over there has led up to.

Not to mention what Whispering Death wrote previous to your post, I caught that too. People arent that dumb. The only ones who think so are the left-wing journalist.

Don't say I'm not well rounded when it comes to news sources, since I would have never have caught this had I been paying attention to only one source.
 
Agree 100 %. Our media completely "forgot" about Iraqi referendum's success. My answer? Because it made Bush look smart , brave and good. Had it turned out a fiasco they would have sure covered it.
 
Stu said:
Oh boo hoo..

This right here is a perfect example of not only the kind of mentality we are dealing with, but it absolutely shows those on the left-wing are not concerned with media acuracy, just simply their own agenda, no matter how false it is.

It has been proved at the media level, and also unwitingly right now at the individual level.

Need I say more.
 
gladius said:
Stu said:
Oh boo hoo..

This right here is a perfect example of not only the kind of mentality we are dealing with, but it absolutely shows those on the left-wing are not concerned with media acuracy, just simply their own agenda, no matter how false it is.

It has been proved at the media level, and also unwitingly right now at the individual level.

Need I say more.

lol..Stu is not "The Media", please becareful on generalization or over-simplification, comments like "the left-wing are not concerned" is fallacy.

I am very sure that many left-wingers, who had made contributions to the greatness of U.S, like president Roosevelt's left-wing economic policies' success in saving U.S from depression, are patrotic americans who hope the consitituion can pass and troops can go home.

I am sure vast majority of left wingers (who seem to be about half of the nation if you look how many of them support Democratics) are faithful and loyal American citizens who wish their best for their nation.
 
superworms1000 said:
lol..Stu is not "The Media", please becareful on generalization or over-simplification, comments like "the left-wing are not concerned" is fallacy.

Lol. Did you even read what I wrote, when did I say he was the media?. I said;

It has been proved at the media level, AND also unwitingly right now at the individual level.

Not only that; I said "the left-wing are not concerned WITH MEDIA ACCURACY"! You make it as if I was talking about the country as a whole. Did you even read the post or just skim through it?

As for if "the left-wing are not concerned" with media accuracy, I have proven at least some of it here, especially when it comes the media, which has been going on for decades now. It may not be true for all but there is enough of it going on, I have proven that already, you cant say it doesn't exist. Alot of them are agenda driven and dont care for the real story. If you dont care for the truth then your answers will be based on fantasy which is not good thing when dealing with the real world.

Please read the post acurately next time, dont make it seem like Im saying something else.
 
superworms1000 said:
I am sure vast majority of left wingers (who seem to be about half of the nation if you look how many of them support Democratics) are faithful and loyal American citizens who wish their best for their nation.

Actually, last time I checked the polls only 18% of Americans identified as "liberal" as oposed to 32% who identified as "conservative"
 
And I suspect from voter turnout the remaining percentage would be classified as "I Don't Give a :cen: " ;)

I would have no idea if the Chinese media have covered it as it coincides with Koizumi visiting the WWII dead shrine and the landing of their space mission... Iraq is trivia here.

The only time Iraq was in the news in a major way was at the outset of hostilities and all things American were bad. I had an escort to and from work for about three months, pretty funny though as I was bigger and better trained than my government assigned escort. I think he wasn't there to protect me but rather just to witness whatever might have happened. :lol:

Gladius the headlines on CNN change constantly and from US to International version as well. Might be something to it, might not be... "just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're NOT out to get you". ;)
 
The referendum also wasn't front-page news in our local newspaper either...mind you, Australia is a member of the "coalition of the willing".

News changes often, and while I can't speak about all media, sometimes the media will give precedence to local or national events over international events.

Besides, I don't think the placement of news is a reflection of media bias, per se. The media is also a business, and in order to attract more readers [and hence more money], they have to tailor to their target audience. Therefore, they may change the order of the news around to suit what they perceive their audience wants.
 
Ramjet said:
News changes often, and while I can't speak about all media, sometimes the media will give precedence to local or national events over international events.

Oh come one mate, they have been covering Iraq for years, ever single day, when bad news were first news, when attacks killed hundreds. And now, all of a sudden, you mean they "sometimes will give precedence to local events"? Mmmh yeah sure on the very day of the successful Constitution referendum.
 
That's why I said "sometimes". They don't give precedence to local events all the time.

[Unless it's a local community newspaper, but that's not relevant.]

Oh come one mate, they have been covering Iraq for years, ever single day, when bad news were first news, when attacks killed hundreds.

Again, I can't speak for all media but IMO negative news stories will often make front-page headlines. Why? Is it merely media bias? Personally I would disagree, because that view forgets that people are generally drawn towards news items that are dramatic and can be sensationalized.

News media likes those sorts of stories because they can quickly grab a person's attention.

Stories that are not drama-filled are less likely to become headlining news simply because they aren't seen as having the same attention-grabbing ability. It seems that the Iraqi referendum falls into this category because there hasn't been any widespread violence or the like occuring.

Look, I can't say for certain that there is no bias. Yet I also find it hard to accept that bias is the over-riding factor in news reporting.

[PS: I think two other news items may have supplant Iraq, at least in Australia - bird flu and the recent earthquake.]
 
C'mon guys no matter the subject good news is never front page. Bad news sells. The masses like to see death, mayhem and destruction. Even on the nightly TV news the "feel good" happy stuff is dead last.
 
Not if its important enough.

All the major US news sources had it headlined on their webpages except for CNN.

bulldogg said:
Gladius the headlines on CNN change constantly and from US to International version as well. Might be something to it, might not be... "just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're NOT out to get you". ;)

The page I went to was the US version. They have a seperate International version. So we are not talking about the international version here.

I'm not paranoid, and no one is out to get me. I'm simply trying to find out answers. Does finding out answers you don't like makes someone paranoid all of a sudden?

If CNN didn't do it on purpose as you say, then they need to get on the ball and feature top news, not secondary news. Thats pretty staightforward and simple stuff. If thats the case then they are inept, all the more reason not to listen to them.

So whether they did it on purpose by putting their agenda over real news, or by being inept to not feature something they should have. Either way theres no real good reason to listen to what they say. So that would make the majority of Americans who don't listen to CNN pretty smart and well informed.

If they change then more people will take them seriuosly.
 
The paranoid thingy was a joke, reference to the 60's man, like farout... chill, I am not attacking you, please back to DefCon 3. CNN is a business and they cater to an audience, enough people take them seriously to sell their advertising space or they would change. By searching their website you defeat your purpose of fomenting change. Every hit is recorded and used to set prices and sell advertising space. If you really object to a source vote with your feet, enough people do it and you will see a change.
 
Back
Top