Media during the war.

[WillowIX]

Due to the fact that the war forum is closing I decided, with help from Luvian, to post the poll in here instead. Please share your thoughts not only by voting but also by giving us your reasoning. [img]smile.gif[/img] Since I can´t make a poll covering all networks, I had to make this a yes or no question, therefore PLEASE tell us what you thought.

BUT please refrain from debating other peoples comments since you can in no way sway their past decisions. I hope this will help to keep the discussion friendly. [img]smile.gif[/img] Comments are of course allowed if they meet the ToS.

[Attalus]

I followed the war on Fox, and I am not ashamed in the slightest degree. I did, however, love the look on Peter Jennings' face when Saddam's statue was pulled down. He looked like he smelled something really, really bad.

[WillowIX]

I followed the BBC news since I found that they had way better commenting and information than most American channels. They also have a slightly different view on casualties (I mean ABSOLUTELY no disrespect to any fallen in battle).

I must say I was very disappointed with CNN. Sure they had good coverage but they lacked in every other area IMO. Since I didn´t watch Fox, I only watch one program on Fox, I can´t comment on that. I could only comment on what I´ve seen in the papers or heard on the news but I didn´t experience it myself. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[HolyWarrior]

I'll second Attalus' post, and further comment that at times it seemed like ABCNBCCBSCNN couldn't wait to broadcast that the troops were bogged down, friendly fire, accidently killing a civilian, every little nitpick designed to make the troops and by extension George W. look bad.
Thank God for FOX News. Their TV shows are another story...

[Rimjaw]

I followed BBC after discovering CNN wasn't so impartial as I thought. Anyway, the first casualty of war is the truth.

[Davros]

I followed it on all channels. If I wanted information I went to the BBC, if I wanted rhetoric I went to FOX, if I wanted a laugh I went to FOX, and if I wanted a rumour I went to FOX [img]smile.gif[/img] . Sky did a pretty good job - not much to say about CNN or NBC.

To style myself briefly on FOX , "We at DBS (Davros Broadcasting Station) conjecture that FOX is really a news commentary sercvice, and it is rumoured that their core motto is that Every Fact Deserves A Good Opinion"

[Chewbacca]

For Tv news I go for the closest to the channel I am watching. So 41 Fox is lowest usually followed by 42,43 CNN then 53 MSNBC but ultimately I usually only watched TV war coverage for the live action shots and skip to 61 comedy central and my favorite news commentary : Jon Stewart. [img]smile.gif[/img] Unfortunaltley I do not get the BBC TV regularly.

I use google news search and typically scan a few stories everyday whilst web surfing.

And finally the Boston Globe or Herald or Metro or Pheonix or the NY times and occasionally the WSJ while on the train. I have a subscription to Time magazine.

I skimmed past most TV coverage only because in general I find the TV packaging of news to be geared more towards entertainment and less toward factual and thoughtful reporting.

Either they were reporting the over-hyped phantom 7 day quagmire or womd sightings like the presidents re-election counted on finding them. War demonstarators were reduced to a few soundbytes of rioters and people who carried "no war for oil" signs from the thousands who attended.

Tv is good for a soundbyte, a documentry, or live action unfolding, everything else available is too overpackaged, lean on facts, or over-slanted for me.

I did find it eerily entertaining for a moment to surf past a live battle scene unfolding as well as gut wrenching becasue during that live battle I stood witness to the death being caused.

During this War in Iraq thing, I left CNN on AT ALL TIMES.

[Albromor]

I actually switched around quite a bit including the BBC and I've got to say EVERYONE of them had a slant. No exceptions.