<font color=deepskyblue>Good points all around, <font color=orange>Davros</font>. For what it's worth, my mind is NOT made up one way or the other. I don't doubt for a minute that a great deal of information was either manipulated or withheld entirely from the general public regarding the war. I understand that certain information is simply too sensitive to be broadcast over the general airwaves, but I'm also sure our gov't did it's best to use the media coverage to it's best advantage.

However, I also know that NONE of the media networks were completely objective in covering the war. Fox was gung-ho, flag-waving patriotism all the way. Now personally, I kinda liked that..but I also kept in mind the perspective Fox was broadcasting from.

The BBC came under fire for going too far out of their way to criticize the war (as did many "liberal" publications here in the states). And it was discovered that CNN - which is supposed to be the "global news network" (implying complete objectivity) - actually manufactured stories using actors. So none of the media outlets are completely trustworthy AFAIC.</font>

Just a general comment. I didn't mention anything because I expect that people here should be able to communicate with each other on even potentially divisive issues like civilized human beings, on their own initiative, based on their respect for fellow forum members, without having to be told what to do or micromanaged all the time. I hope I don't have to reset these expectations as I really do think they're quite reasonable. Initiative and self-management are things I really see as being important traits in people. Don't let me down. ;)

I said I wouldn't post on this thread, anymore, but I just have to post this article that answers this very question. Look here.

<font color="#f683ad"> Nice article Attalus, altho I am sure that the fact that it is published by the NRO will hamper it's credibility with some.

Im going to do some research on the reporter who wrote the story...be back in a few. </font>

<font color="#f683ad"> Well here is his Bio from Time:

Jim Lacey is a New York-based columnist specializing in political and military affairs, currently traveling with the 101st Airborne Division. He plans to file regular reports of his observations from the frontlines of any conflict in the Persian Gulf.

His recent articles are:

MOST RECENT COLUMNS:

Nothing Went According To Plan
The war in Iraq happened faster than military planners could move
Tuesday, Apr. 15, 2003

We Are Making Our First Wrong Turn In Iraq
What the country needs now is the rule of law. It isn't getting it
Friday, Apr. 11, 2003

How Commanders Think
The leaders of the 101st Airborne are calm and confident
Friday, Feb. 28, 2003


Well, I can't find anything that would indicate that he is a shill for the establishment..his articles have been both critical and supportive of the actions he has observed. My gut instinct is to go with his veracity.
</font>

<font color="#f683ad"> I found this and since it bears on the opening post of this thread...Can anyone give us some info abotu the source of this? It's called the "Scottsman".

<font color=lightgreen>
Mon 19 May 2003
BBC under fire for 'left-wing bias'
JOHN INNES

THE BBC’s output does not give equal prominence to "mainstream" right-wing commentators, a senior Conservative claimed yesterday.

Bernard Jenkin, the shadow defence secretary, said the corporation’s concept of centre ground was further to the left of where many perceive it.

A BBC spokesman rejected his claims, however, insisting it tried to reflect "all shades of political opinion".

Mr Jenkin’s allegations follow an announcement by Conservatives last week that they are to make a formal complaint to the BBC about its coverage of their local elections performance, claiming the corporation down-played the extent of the party’s success.

Speaking to GMTV yesterday, Mr Jenkin said: "When you talk to Conservatives who work in the corporation, they say there is an institutional bias, but it’s very subtle, it’s not even a conscious bias."

He added: "Just look at the fact that the BBC recruits entirely from advertisements in the Guardian. Obviously, media jobs are advertised in the Guardian, but it says something about where the centre of gravity in the BBC is."

Mr Jenkin continued: "Of course, it is a nationalised industry. It feels threatened by all the change that has taken place around it, in terms of the growth of commercial broadcasting, the contractualisation of jobs. I think there is a cultural disaffinity with free markets, freedom. It sticks to what it thinks is the centre ground and the centre ground in its mind is rather to the left of where most people in the country regard the centre ground."

He argued: "They put up any number of left-wing commentators on [BBC Radio 4’s] Thought for the Day. Yes, there will be some token right-wingers, but they will be minority sector right-wingers. They won’t be mainstream right-wingers."

Claiming that bias "creeps in" to the BBC’s output, he added: "I think it is something very deeply ingrained. They are not free of this and if they are not conscious of it then they are even more a prisoner of it than they imagine."

However, the BBC spokesman said: "This is not an argument about where the centre ground lies, it is the job of the BBC to reflect all shades of political opinion and we try to do this in all areas of output.

"Mr Jenkin makes some interesting points but he isn’t specific about who he thinks should be heard more often on the BBC. We are always interested to hear ideas on who might have contributions to make on political and wider issues."

He added: "Mr Jenkin is not quite right to say that the BBC recruits entirely from advertisements in the Guardian; less than a third of the BBC’s recruitment spend on advertising is placed with the Guardian.

"It is worth noting that the paper’s media section is habitually used by most of the main broadcasters and indeed the Tory Party has advertised for its Press Office in the paper."


This article:

http://thescotsman.co.uk/index.cfm?id=564472003

</font>
</font>

I said I wouldn't post on this thread, anymore, but I just have to post this article that answers this very question. Look here. </font>[/QUOTE]Nothing in this article suprises me, to say the least, but it is worth noting that this article refers to a different hospital in a different city. The obvious said, it is also noteworthy that the doctor here really had no credibility in his lie, it is portrayed as obvious and transparent.

I did not see the television show mentioned in the original post, but the tone of the news article and the people who saw it leads me to believe either the witnesses are good liars, up to the scrutnity of the camera as well as the pen or there is a whiff of truth to their story.

Seeing as how I have been unsuccessful in finding any other new story to collaberate the first article my veiw on it remains neutral.

Anybody find any other coverage of the originally posted news story?

[ 05-19-2003, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

<font color="#f683ad">Not yet Chewie, Im still looking. Of course it does annoy me thinking back to the original "rescue" mission..that they would not decisively report on exactly what ehr injuries were. I do know what other female POWS in Iraq have reported was done to them...it is easy for me to be too ready to believe the worst of the Muslim extremist Fedayeeen (sp) </font>

The New York Times reported the same story nearly a month ago AFTEREFFECTS: A HOSPITAL WARD; Rescued Soldier's Iraqi Doctors Doubled as Her Guardians

snip--

another article-
The real 'Saving Pte. Lynch' - The Toronto Star