According to MSNBC, Saddam's regime ordered two Al-Jazeera reporters in Baghdad to stop reporting, and A-J has said they will no longer report from Baghdad. [img]graemlins/wow.gif[/img]

Hmm, that must mean things are really bad, there, and A-J can serve no further propaganda purposes.

It makes it very hard to say that they've been anything other than impartial in their coverage, eh? ;)

Showing dead children full blown when they can not even prove our bomb killed them. Showing dead and captured pow's when they know full and well it is against the geneva convention.

Not even going to touch their heavy pro Arab (anti-american) slant.

Impartial?

My god...

Your government admitted afterwards that it was your bomb, with some reluctance. 3 stray Cruise missiles also fell in Southern Turkey. The US media does not show the dead, dying and wounded. If they did it would annoy the pentagon because they have to half-truths about the war to keep the masses in check to support the cause.

Showing dead and captured pow's when they know full and well it is against the Geneva convention.

As if the US media did not show Iraqi POW's. Your government made no comment on this.

[ 04-02-2003, 08:28 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

Did they? Amazing I must have missed it. I remember them saying the oppisite. Got link? Not that I do not believe you but I would like to read it myself.

Regardless, to call them impartial show's exactly how some of you think

Pick up a news publication. Picture's of Iraqi soldiers with hoods over their heads kneeling in the sand. I think that's classified as a POW, isn't it?

First two paragraphs say the Pentegon admitted to bombing a bazar. I would like some more info myself.
http://www.macleans.ca/xta-doc2/2003...er/57743.shtml

I can't find the one for the 3 that fell harmlessly in Turkey.

[ 04-02-2003, 08:56 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

<font color=orange>Uhhh... I didn't get that from the first two paragraphs. I got that the Pentagon denied responsiblity. Here's the quote from the second paragraph:</font>

<font color=white>"The former, insist officials at the Pentagon, who, after waffling for a time, finally declined to accept responsibility for bombing."</font>

<font color=orange>You might want to go back and re-read that article. Personally, I found it difficult to follow, especially with all the vitrole. </font>

1. The US media have not been (at least generally) been showing closeups of the POW's faces. OTOH, supposedly the Iraqi government media was clearly showing the POW's faces and having them state their names.

2. The US media are not government controlled like the Iraqi media.

3. There is some question as to whether or not Al-Jazeera showing the footage is against the Geneva convention, since they are not an arm of the Iraqi government nor are they even Iraqi.

I think that in this day and age that one could make a decent argument that simply showing footage of a POW stating his or her name might have some positive benefits. First and foremost being proof that the person is or was alive and is being held by the enemy. If done in a respectful manner, it's not all that offensive.

OTOH, showing pictures of dead soldiers like trophies and particularly showing closeups of their faces is truly despicable.