Shen wrote:LOL honestly, shooting and killing pregnant woman this is an abominible thing (as is shooting and killing anyone IMO), is there any suprise that its reported? you are completly missing my point here, a few reports of dead iraqi civilians does not make the news balanced like sooooo many people seem to think.
That's hardly fair. You complain about no coverage and when I offer an example from today (I didn't even have to search) - and from a right-wing paper no less - you then shift the goalposts and say 'well, that's a one-off'. It's not. Everyday there are balanced reports (as balanced as any world media can be) from both sides of the equation. Britain is probably the fairest country in the world when it comes to recognises our own mistakes and errors of judgement, and yes, that includes the broadcast media. I suppose you think only Al Jazeera offers "THE GLOBAL TRUTH"!?!
i somehow wonder how stupid people must be to think we actually have a free and unbiased media service...
Your age is showing... people aren't stupid Shen. They just learn about life and realise that NOBODY is 100% honest or accurate all the time. What I'm saying is that the British media is more honest and accurate than most. The fact that we even hear about this barbarism is proof alone, when it could be swept under the carpet. Not only do 'we' not do that, we welcome the investigation. Just last week an American Senator openly condemned the American massacre in Iraq. Name another country that would do this on the world stage?
and actually this one report does not confirm your point IMO since its one report, now if you tell me you see this everyday, that us soldiers shoot this person, or kill that person, then maybe i would accept your point, but your evidence is weak and flawed, sicne there is no such thing as a free media, just do some background research into who actually owns these newspapers and what they control elsewhere, and tell me we have a free media. i am likely to laugh in your face.
Well if you're looking for a scorecard forget it. There are examples everyday from both sides as I've said. Buy a bunch of newspapers and read about them. Free media? Doesn't exist. Most free? That would be us. Our media calls Tony Blair, Prime Minsiter of Great Britain, a liar; criticizes on a daily basis government actions home and aborad. What exactly do you want? Tonight with Osama Bin Laden?
if i am correct the daily mail is owned by the daily mail and general trust plc which if you actually search they own a good 30-40 other news papers... so im really sure that that gonna be a free distribution of ideas?
There's more to this than facts and figures. Besides what are you saying? That only an old man with a printing press in his garden shed has integrity in reportage? That as soon as a company becomes successful - a conglomerate - they must be biased and inaccurate? That's business. You want a media coverage that can't possibly exist. Now who's being naive?