|
| Thread: News and Bias |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
posted May 04, 2010 06:22 AM |
|
|
Again Elodin, I will point out the fact that just because it is on a website you shouldn't believe it. For instance, anagram.com defined the TTY for deaf people as Talk to You. Which it most certainly is not.
Even Beck's audience has fallen off lately..so the 'leftist media' (your words not mine) loosing audience has no bearing. Why are they losing audience? The same reason Newspapers are losing readers..the internet. That is another discussion for another time. However, it is a simple explination as to why.
Most corporations are all for liberal actions. I mean the more they can get away with, the more profit they can squeak out. Where does most advertising money come from? Oh wait..CORPORATIONS! What you fail to understand is that Fox is not 'conservative' it is 'sensationalist' just like all the 'liberal media' you claim to dislike. Don't think for a minute they wouldn't change in a heartbeat if they needed to to survive. They would be playing hail to the cheif, wearing american flags, and licking Obama's boots if it would cause a sensation and get people to watch them.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 04, 2010 07:05 AM |
|
|
Oh certainly one can't believe everything you see or read. But if Beck posts a video of Obama or Van Jones making a speech and you hear their words certainly you can believe that that is what they said.
And that is a lot of what Beck does. Show what loony leftists say that the leftisit media refuses to report. He exposes communists and socialists with thier own words.
Quote:
Even Beck's audience has fallen off lately..so the 'leftist media' (your words not mine) loosing audience has no bearing.
Beck's little falloff is probably mostly the summer slump. He still is number one in his time slot. 
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/glenn-becks-demo-ratings-beats-his-5pm-competitions-total-viewers/
Quote:
Cable news ratings, February 5, 2010: Check out the highlights, and see the full ratings below:
• Glenn Beck had more viewers in the A25-54 demographic at 5pmET for Fox News than CNN, MSNBC and HLN had in total viewers at that hour. Beck’s average was 667,000, compared to CNN (583,000), MSNBC (442,000) and HLN (151,000).
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100429/ts_ynews/ynews_ts1857
Quote:
So while the ardor of cable viewers for the Beck show may have fallen off a bit, he's still a potent marketing force. Even with smaller ratings numbers, he's still the second-highest-rated cable news host, behind only his Fox colleague Bill O'Reilly. And Beck's year-to-year drop since April 2009 was more modest than others — 7 percent among total viewers and 6 percent in the age 25-54 demographic (the viewership advertisers most covet).
By comparison, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann saw a ratings drop of 13 percent overall and 30 percent in the 25-54 demographic over the same period, and CNN's prime-time hosts have taken an even steeper fall, down 40 percent overall from a year ago.
Quote:
Don't think for a minute they wouldn't change in a heartbeat if they needed to to survive.
Yet the leftists are not changing even though they continue to lose their audience.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted May 04, 2010 07:10 AM |
|
|
Maybe because they are reporting news? Instead of catering to the most recent fad. Which is what people like Beck do, cater to the most recent fad. I've watched Beck, he is more funny then anything.
____________
Message received.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted May 04, 2010 08:35 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Show what loony leftists say that the leftisit media refuses to report. He exposes communists and socialists with thier own words.
Your are in USA, there is no leftists over there with a voice. There is not any communists nor any socialists with any position.
Can you get that into your mind?
____________
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted May 04, 2010 08:54 AM |
|
|
"leftists refuse to change"????
ab-wha?!
right= conservative=tradition
left= liberal= change
you probably know that.
it's not as though conservatives don't have alot of push in the american media.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzJzxMmXonE
and I have to say, Baracka obama is rather self-conscious about his position, but at least he's able to make humour of his situation. I suppose my problem was that with bush, you could tell he was trying his hardest not to make gaffs, but bless his banana's, he did. Obama is alot more smooth, and seems alot more relaxed. sure, he's carrying the weight of the world on his shoulders, but that's not letting him get him down.
it's not like in Britian where you have gordon "oh, what's the bloody point" brown, who constantly looks tired.
By the way, is the american media at all covering the British general election? I only say, because we were civil enough to cover your's where obamabamabamabamabama got in, so is it the same?
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 04, 2010 04:00 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 16:03, 04 May 2010.
|
A perfect example of the general bias of the news is in the oil spill in the gulf. Bush was essentially roasted on a spit for his mismanagement of the Katrina crisis. And you can bet your butt that if this oil rig disaster had happened under Bush, the press would have been spewing vitriol and calling for resignations left and right. Remember Michael Brown, the FEMA director who was forced to resign because FEMA arrived at NO way too slowly? And yet since the current disaster happens under Obama, there's nary a word reported about his administration's slow, inept handling of the problem. Where are the calls for the current FEMA director to resign? Coincidence? I don't think so.
You know it's a bad sign when even Bill Maher acknowledges the press's blatent refusal to criticize the Obama administration.
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted May 04, 2010 06:42 PM |
|
|
Your "perfect" example is just horrible.
Katrina killed 1 242 people. People mourned and were angry. Oil Rig disaster has 11 people are assumed dead because of it - the missing workers.
The catastrophies are not on the same level the same at all, yet you want Obama to have same heat Bush had over Katrina? Give. Me. A. Break. Even though oil spill is catastrofic for nature, it is the lost human lives that arouse feelings of anger among people (and thus also the press is interested in them)
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 04, 2010 07:07 PM |
|
|
Right, nice deflection of the main point. Let's get to that rather than throw red herrings around: So you don't think Bush would have been criticized at all if this had happened under his administration, especially if it happened a few weeks after he told the whole nation that off-shore drilling is perfectly safe?
The answer is pretty obvious: Bush would have been ridiculed, laughed at, and scornfully derided by both the press AND entertainment sources. You know it. I know it. Bush did a lot of dumbass things, and didn't help because he came off sounding like a nincompoop every time he opened his mouth, but to suggest that the press and broadcasting companies didn't have it in for him is just turning a blind eye to the obvious truth.
And please, let's not put words in my mouth. I didn't say the disasters were equal in any way, shape or form. The point is that the Obama administration dropped the ball on this one, however you want to scale it, and as usual, they've gotten a free pass from the press. The comparison to be made is that both disasters are in the same area of the country, and in both cases the federal government (the same branch of the federal government!) took forever to get organized and provide materials and manpower relief. One administration got flayed alive by the press. The other one didn't.
[And yes, to address your artfully inserted red herring: this has the potential to be one of the biggest ecological disasters in quite some time. The measure of a disaster is more than how many members of a single species (that is, us) died.]
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted May 05, 2010 03:16 PM |
|
|
Quote:
BBC news...
what you could consider Liberal, they are paid for by the government, and offer barely any slant on their stories.
Unless the government doesn't want a certain story reported.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 05, 2010 03:39 PM |
|
|
|
Doesn't get basiclly everyone a fre ride in their first term of office? You know, "give the (wo)man a fair chance" and everything. Then, comes termm 2, all hell breaks lose over them - for the same things they did in their first term.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted May 05, 2010 11:19 PM |
|
|
Yes, there is some of that going on, but the bias overrides it pretty easily.
An example is Bush Jr. The media pointed fingers at him and blamed him for dropping the ball on 9/11. They went on and on about how the administration should have known about it, blah blah blah. He had only been president for 8 months at the time. He probably wasn't even done appointing all his cabinet members yet. The affairs of the hundreds of government agencies and millions of employees are not something that is micromanaged by one person. He would only know what was reported to him. The attack had been in the planning for years. Yet it was his fault for the 9/11 attack????
The same thing happened to his father who was a MUCH better president. Bush Sr's biggest mistake was having children.
Bush Sr was a damn good president but the media hated him. They attacked him constantly about minor domestic issues without bothering to read the job description of the president. If they had bothered to read it they would know that the main job of the president is international affairs, not domestic issues, especially minor domestic issues. The entire world was changing at that time, it was changing rapidly and dramatically. The Soviet Union was breaking up, the Berlin wall came down with German reunification, hot spots around the world were settling down, disarmament talks with the Soviet Union were continuing at a rapid pace. In short, a lasting peace was breaking out around the world and tension was dropping off immensely. Bush had his hands full with international affairs which is his freaking job.
I'm not saying that these things were happening because of Bush, but he was the one who happened to be in charge at the time and he was freaking busy with things far more important than the nonsense the media went on and on about.
Among other things, the media created a freaking recession. Although the recession was fairly minor, more of a correction than anything else, the media made it much worse than it should have been. It was initially something that the average person would never even notice if the media didn't harp about it so much. The economy is about psychology and confidence as much or more than anything else. So when the population is constantly bombarded by the media harping about the economy to make the president look bad, eventually people start believing it, even though they don't actually see signs of it. Bush was a very good president but he lost the election because of this. Victory for the liberal media in ousting a president.
I'm not trying to say that this was intentional because I don't know, and I'm certainly not a conspiracy nut. But a point I don't think anyone has made is that bias doesn't have to be intentional. As a matter of fact I think most of it is NOT intentional.
Much of what we see is that certain professions tend to attract liberal minded people and other profession tend to attract conservative minded people. I'm not going to speculate about why that is, but it's simply true. Journalism is a profession that attracts a much higher percentage of liberals than conservatives. Professions like engineering attract more conservatives.
When you have professions like journalism, acting, TV and movie writers, etc. who are overwhelmingly liberal, then their viewpoint is naturally biased. Although it's impossible to completely get rid of it, at one time I think journalists took pride and considered it professional to make all efforts to remove any personal bias.
But now I think very few of them make much effort. They might claim to, but they don't. Even if they "investigate" the opposing viewpoint, they don't do it in a way to truly understand it, to understand how the people think. They are always going to report things from their own viewpoint and way of seeing the world.
This is especially obvious in a lot of television shows and movies. They portray conservatives as they see them, which is terribly flawed. They usually portray conservatives like they are like Elodin or they are all a bunch of militia members playing soldier out in some remote woods. They love to portray conservatives as a bunch of cold-hearted b@stards who don't care about anyone. They love to portray conservatives as a bunch of racists. They love to portray conservatives as a bunch of greedy rich people who will take advantage of anyone to get a little more money. They love to portray conservatives as a bunch of anti-abortion idiots sitting in a circle with their bible in their hands swaying and rocking like morons as they pray to their god. They love to portray conservatives as a bunch of inbred southern rednecks with an IQ of 60.
And the bad part is, a huge segment of the population actually believes it. It just amazes me the kind of stereotypes liberals have about conservatives. I run into it all the time in RL and well as online.
I wrote about this in another thread (maybe Phoenix's news thread?), but there is another bias that's not really bias of the media itself. It's more a bias in how people interpret the news. By definition the news is the exception to the rule. It takes events that you likely will never see in an entire lifetime, and shows it to you on a daily basis. After seeing this stuff for many years, it begins to seem normal to people. To interpret the world around us by what we see or read in the news is seriously flawed. By definition what we see in the news is NOT normal.
I suppose a more healthy way of looking at it is to say "let's go watch the news to see what the world is NOT like". That's a lot more realistic.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted May 05, 2010 11:40 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
BBC news...
what you could consider Liberal, they are paid for by the government, and offer barely any slant on their stories.
Unless the government doesn't want a certain story reported.
they still report on it. the BBC report on pretty much everything. I admit that statement is wrong. the BBC is paid for by the TV license and is the biggest receivee from it, and make they're money off of that. because of this, they don't need to please a particular audience like Fox, or any of the others, and are regulated are the jacksee by independent focus groups in order to make sure they are balanced in their reporting.
what's also interesting is that they don't try and put any spin on it. again, due to these independent focus groups. I am not entirely sure exactly how the BBC works, I will admit. I will say that their news reports are pretty critical of all parties invovled.
the big candidates for the investigative journalism in britian would be Panorama, who look into a huge variety of issues, from scientology, to banking, and whilst it is a bit sensationalist for my tastes, they are able to be balanced about it.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted May 06, 2010 12:10 AM |
|
|
Bixie, although I suspect that the BBC isn't as neutral as you think, I'd like to see something like that in the US. However it's extremely unlikely to happen for various reasons that I won't go into now.
I have a question though, for you or whomever else wants to answer. What do you think about that type of neutral news source vs freedom of speech? Do you think individuals or corporations should be allowed freedom of speech? Should they be allowed to start their own newspaper or television show, or even an entire network to express their views and their own interpretation of the news? If both a regulated neutral news service and private freedom of speech coexist, what if the individuals become dominant over time and dwarf the BBC in size and influence?
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted May 06, 2010 12:31 AM |
|
|
Freedom of speech vs. neutral news:
In my opinion, you're responsible for the item you sell. So if you guarantee that your item, i.e. a paper, is neutral in the way that it only reports facts and does not interpretate upon the facts, or anything, and the paper does not live up to this, then it's false advertising and people can demand their money back.
That being said, if you give no guarantees upon selling your stuff, or you just give it away free (but don't force it upon people, like in Denmark where free newspapers are dropped in mail boxes  ), then I see absolutely nothing wrong with any given combination of letters, forming words and thereby forming sentences that the given media consists off. No matter if the media is TV, a paper, or whatever it is.
I think so, because whatever information anything may hold, justifying that information through various interpretations is, in my opinon, the responsibility of the reader and therefore not something the author should be hold responsible for.
In my opinion, the real problem are acts that limits freedom, and the reason behind isn't really what matters. So if people, because they read something in the papers or saw something in tv goes outside and do violent acts towards people who do not want this, then it's not their excuse, the papers and the television, that is the problem, but the behaviour of these people. Just like it's the act of terror that's the problem and not islam (the often excuse), etc.
I think everyone should be entitled to create their own media, if they want, and there should be no limit to what they should be able to post. I understand the problem of people getting manipulated, but people gets manipulated into doing things both intentionally and unintentionally all the time, I believe, just an example, the guy who shoot Lennon after reading some book, which I believe had no intentions of manipulating him into that act.
I think the problem of extra power through manipulation, in many contexts, can be dealt with, without necessarily removing the manipulating factor, which in principle is ourself (our bodies response).
I don't know if this was that type of reply you wanted.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 06, 2010 01:27 AM |
|
|
The answer to bias in the media is the free market system. When networks go to far in one direction they will eventually begin to lose audience. The media will then either move back towards the center, go out of business, or become a niche market.
I certainly don't want government regulating "bias." Then it becomes government controlled media. Who would certify the government beaurocrat "bias free?"
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted May 06, 2010 01:48 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't know if this was that type of reply you wanted
I just asked a question, and the answer is just opinion. So yes, that's what I was looking for.
I also asked the question to make an important point. We have to be very careful when weighing neutrality vs undue influence vs freedom of speech vs personal responsibility.
You compared news to a product with people's expectation that the product is what it's claimed to be. When you mention false advertising, how is that determined? False advertising is extremely difficult to prove. So who determines this and how is it done? Most lies in advertising are lies by implication, not outright lies that can be proven.
When you see an advertisement on TV about a cold medicine and at the end they quickly say "the brand more doctors recommend", there is a lie by implication. This goes back to what I said about imagery and 10 second sound bites, although in this case it's more like a 2 second sound bite. The lie happens fast, before anyone takes the time to ask "more than WHAT?” The next commercial or television show has already begun and the implied lie has already had its subtle influence on the sheep. I mean hey, that hot chick with the big boobs is on the screen and of course seeing big boobs is a higher priority than the totally meaningless statement about "more doctors recommend".
So where is the lie? Where is the false advertising? As has already been mentioned, there can be a lot of bias in news by the choice of which stories to run. I haven't done it for a long time, but for a couple decades I specifically watched the choice of which pictures are shown during news reports or in newspaper articles. Consistently the pictures of some people were nice complimentary pictures, while the pictures of other people were negative looking with bad facial expressions or stupid gestures. So do you show that picture of Margaret Thatcher where she looks like she has bad constipation, or the one where she is smiling and radiant?
Where is the lie? Where is the false advertising? And most importantly, who decides? Should the government do it? Should they determine which news is really news and truthful? That sounds dangerous and opposed to the entire concept of free speech. Should a "neutral" non-governmental group do it? How are they picked? Who oversees the overseers?
In a large nation, these guys would be far removed from the average person. The people would simply be acting on faith that the overseers are doing their job. And, in the meantime, are the people supposed to blindly believe what is told to them on the "neutral" news source because it was stamped and certified as real news by the overseers?
Binary is a man-made construct. True or false, one or zero, might exist in Boolean logic, but it doesn't exist in the rest of the world. The real world is analog, not digital. Binary is simply a construct that we create. When some arbitrarily defined line is crossed, we call it true or we call it false. In the news there is no such thing as neutral, only some arbitrarily defined line that puts it into the truth or false category. But absolute neutrality doesn't exist. Do we want some group to arbitrarily define that line for us?
I have no answers, I'm just making some points.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 06, 2010 08:06 AM |
|
|
We have that in Germany, too (something like the BBC). PUBLIC (financed) TV: In Germany, if you own a TV (or a radio receiver, even in your car), you have to pay a monthly fee, something like a tax.
This money goes to the public TV networks - and I thank our system each day that passes for that one. Only a fraction of advertisement! News that are worth the name and not freak shows; a decent program, with lots of intelligent, meaningful stuff; programs that cater to small groups, not just mainstream stuff...
It's a pretty good system - we have the private networks as well, of course, but there is NO way to legally watch only the privates and not pay for the public. Comparing public news with private news is pretty instructive and keeps you grounded.
So don't even start discussing with Bixie and me about BBC or German Public TV, we'll defend it with teeth and nails, since we are able to watch both and know what we have with it.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted May 06, 2010 09:23 AM |
|
|
Um JJ, I already said I'd like to see something like that in the US, but I also said I didn't think it would ever happen here.
On the other hand, I don't see anything in what either of you said that makes me believe it could remain neutral, or that it's even neutral currently. How does it remain neutral, and who defines neutral? Will it still be neutral 10 or 20 or 50 years from now? How?
It doesn't have to be a freak show to be heavily biased. I certainly wouldn't call the "real" news in the US a freak show, but it's heavily biased. However there is tons of other stuff that are freak shows. Like investigative shows, talk shows, commentaries, etc. But those aren't news.
For the record we have PBS here which is publicly funded, but not in the same way as you describe. We also have NPR (radio) that is publicly funded. I don't know much about NPR and have hardly ever heard it.
PBS is pretty decent quality and no freak shows, no drama, no cop shows, etc. It's geared more toward arts, music, documentaries, independent films, history, classic movies, etc. The funding comes from donations. Originally this was only donations from individuals, but later they accepted donations from foundations and I think they accept donations from the philanthropic branches of corporations. There is no advertisements, but sponsors are mentioned (essentially 2-5 second advertisements listing the sponsors for the show that just ended).
PBS has also gotten VERY liberal over the last several years. I have no idea what, if any, measures are taken to give it neutrality.
I haven't watched TV for a year now, but when I do watch I watch a lot of PBS, because I don't like all that network garbage either. I've never paid for cable or satellite TV, but I've had it free where I've lived before. On cable there are some other pretty good networks. The History Channel and documentary channels like Discovery are very popular for example.
Yea, there is a lot of total garbage on American television. I mean shows like Jerry Springer???? Give me a freaking break! I've never met anyone who actually watched that show. There are a number of shows made for people who have absolutely no life. I could do some serious speculation about who DOES watch those kinds of shows, but it's off topic and I'd be accused of being a bigot. (hint: Jerry Springer airs during the day when most normal people are at work, but the Democrats paid them to stay home instead)
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 06, 2010 10:04 AM |
|
|
Quote:
On the other hand, I don't see anything in what either of you said that makes me believe it could remain neutral, or that it's even neutral currently. How does it remain neutral, and who defines neutral? Will it still be neutral 10 or 20 or 50 years from now? How?
No newscastcan ever be neutral, because the bias is already in what news you air and what not, what commnts you cite and what not...
However, NEWS are just NEWS, while COMMENTS are NOT.
"Today, the president of the US of A authorized the start of a new offensive of the Allied troops in Iraq" is News. "... to end suicide bombings and terror attacks being prepared in trainings camps in the vicinity of X", is BIASSED COMMENT. "... as the Secreatary of Defense told the congress ins his morning address", is still biassed although less so. "... while a sposkesman of the opposition afterward commened, that it was a dangerous and costly step that would just cost a lot of money without actually accomplishing anything", paints a much broader picture.
Note that Public TV isn't government CONTROLLED. It's not funded via tax, either, but "forced tribute", so-to-speak. There is a very complicated system of which interest roups re sitting in he boards of those networks to make sure that EVERY major SOCIAL groupis somewhat represented, and there is a legally regulated (by law) obligation of keeping political neutrality), which is constantly checked and cotrolled. If it wasn't, those political interest groups NOT represented fairly would make a hell of a fuss.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted May 06, 2010 02:45 PM |
|
|
After reading bins reply to mine I changed my opinion somewhat.
So I'd like to change it from sellers guaranteeing to objective guarantee. Thereby no false advertising.
As I see it, it doesn't matter if someone starts any kind of business and proclaims it to be something it isn't, however I'd like to draw the State into this, to make a system that doesn't limit freedom and yet is able to hinder others not getting their freedom limited as well.
In my opinion, it's the pupose of the State to try to attain equal opportunity for everyone, independent of both your genetics and the environment you live in, the only factor of your opportunities should be your choice. As the State does not have infinite ressources, priorities are of course made, however I'll assume the matters I'm writing about will not have limits.
An example, if someone is born with a disease that makes them unable to have equal opportunities, it's the responsibility of the State to give ressources depending on priority and limit to this person, so this person still have as equal opportunity as possible.
Since we all can't use the time required to justify information even on matters that is interesting and relevant to us and since some of these areas are also relevant to the purpose of the State (e.g. can I trust that this food have been tested?), then I think there should be an objective and accessible list that shows what products have guarantees and what doesn't. Then it must be up to the person if they want to buy food that've guarantees or not. Medias I don't see as government interest and therefore it should be up to the given person to justify.
An example with the '10 doctors approval', if they don't redirect directly to someway a person can justify that there's actually such an approval and can value its worth, then if the person still decides to believe in it, it must be their own responsibility.
@JJ
Quote:
No newscastcan ever be neutral, because the bias is already in what news you air and what not, what commnts you cite and what not...
I'd say if the purpose of ones channel (the owner if private, the State if public) is defined upon creation by said person/population and only changed as their own view changes.
So for a government funded channel, news about trafic would be important and choosen, news about world biggest/best 'something' would likely not be important and not choosen. Importance is defined through purpose and through what's important it's defined what one can expect will be aired.
For a private channel, purpose and thereby importance can change very rapidly, because it's only one persons opinion.
Also, I'd say it's still news and not bias, if one gives the reasoning behind actions, such as in your example with the terrorists camps if that in fact is the reasoning given by the President.
Though a news like that will always be lacking, because there's no 'view from the other side', i.e. the actual war zone from the terrorists point of view in it. I'm convinced that a terrorists thinks of himself as a 'good' person and as those people who've invaded their country/done something wrong/etc. are the real terrorists/evil.
____________
Living time backwards
|
| |
|
|
