CNN ect, How much do you trust them?

[AMK]

In Norway I get CNN on a package tv deal. Lately however I have become very sceptical of them
There initial report on the Israile boarding of that ship at see was in my opinion very one sided. I don not mean that I agree with just one side either. I have not seen a full report from both sides, But CNN tend to jump to there own conclusions a bit to quick. The majority of people in Norway and other parts of the planet seem to side against Israel. So I put my self in there shoes to see what I would do. This is what I came up with:

1) I have some ships sailing towards Gaza from another country. Regardless of the embargo, I will stop them anyway to make sure they are not delivering ilegal content. But one of the ships having responsability for so many passengers refuzes to stop. Even after several warnings they still refuze to stop? (if this happened in your country would you be ok letting them go by without knowing what there cargo was?)

2) We decide to board and in doing so meet oposition. which becomes violent. Our report shows that there were weapons on board that ship. We also report that some of our soldiers were shot and one is dead. We show video footage of fighting when the solders boarded from the helicopter. We show people on the ship firing water cannons at the solders as they try to board from a boat. Or is this all a cover up and what realy happened was that we fabricated all the video footage,Shot some of our own soldiers and even killed one.

My opinion:
I beleave that the Israilie footage is acurate
I would have done the same if someone failed to stop in my watch. So would you!
I would shoot those who try to shoot og atack me or my men.
There is plenty of evidence on the video footage to show that some people on the ship were hostile.
This could all have been avoided if they had just stopped in the first place? Now they are doing it again with another ship. If you were sailing into my watch regardless of what country, you can bet I will stop you!

The only negative I have towards Israel is the amount of time they use before aproving ligitamite support and aids to get through. there is no doubt that this issue has to be taken care of. But not by forcing it through and hopeing that the international comunity will back them. Because at the end of the day you are still going against that one country that is doing this in the first place to protect themselves from the ilegal arms that may enter Gaza. Ie Find another solution because this is not it!

Do you remember when Isreal pulled out of Gaza. They did not do it for the Palestinians alone. They did it too for the international community to show that they were willing to work on this. And then this happens. The international comunity should play a better role in aiding Israel to protect those waters and even speeding up aid via land. If they support the ships in not stoping for Israel then they are spitting in there face. If I was an Isreali I would see this as a very big insult to myself and my country!

 

[One day at a time]

As far as CNN goes.....I don't care to watch it...they are definitely more one sided. I too find that they only tend to share "part" of the story. We tend to watch more FOX news...not that they are perfect but they do a better job of it!

 

[Jenster]

You raise some good observations and questions. I also try to see a situation from many sides, as there are always people who have all kinds of different opinions on the very same thing. Mostly what I want are the facts. I can form my own opinions based on the facts, and my opinion may differ from other people's who heard the exact same thing, and I am comfortable with that.

Personally, I hesitate to say if any particular news station is intentionally one-sided or not. I am not in their newsroom when they are making decisions so I don't believe I can say what their intentions are anymore than someone can say what my intentions were for the decisions I've made in my life. I *would* however fault a news station from not trying to get all the facts, especially after enough time has gone by.

I would ask: Did the reporter have access to all the facts? Did the reporter or editor withhold facts, and is there a way to prove that? How much time elapsed between the event and the news report? (If it's really breaking news, they may have contacted authorities who have not provided information yet.) If the anchor person is leading with a sensational intro, is the rest of the report more neutral?

All that being what it is, there are definitely "news" programs that don't even try to get the facts. They just take a headline and interpret it for you, usually under the headings of "Isn't that great?" and "Isn't that a shame?" They're not even really journalists. But I wouldn't put CNN, etc., in that category.

 

[AMK]

You raise some good observations and questions. I also try to see a situation from many sides, as there are always people who have all kinds of different opinions on the very same thing. Mostly what I want are the facts. I can form my own opinions based on the facts, and my opinion may differ from other people's who heard the exact same thing, and I am comfortable with that.

Personally, I hesitate to say if any particular news station is intentionally one-sided or not. I am not in their newsroom when they are making decisions so I don't believe I can say what their intentions are anymore than someone can say what my intentions were for the decisions I've made in my life. I *would* however fault a news station from not trying to get all the facts, especially after enough time has gone by.

I would ask: Did the reporter have access to all the facts? Did the reporter or editor withhold facts, and is there a way to prove that? How much time elapsed between the event and the news report? (If it's really breaking news, they may have contacted authorities who have not provided information yet.) If the anchor person is leading with a sensational intro, is the rest of the report more neutral?

All that being what it is, there are definitely "news" programs that don't even try to get the facts. They just take a headline and interpret it for you, usually under the headings of "Isn't that great?" and "Isn't that a shame?" They're not even really journalists. But I wouldn't put CNN, etc., in that category.

A particular news station in itself I agree that would be difficult to say, But Anchor persons can sometimes give away tell tail signs in the manner in which they ask the questions. Sometimes one may notice that the anchor person is more eager to ask the questions than actualy listen to the replies. A news station must have a great deal of trust in there anchor person. Therfor anything comming out of there mouth for the most part is already aproved of the news station. In this case CNN. CNN interview,d only those who would fuel there argument and then bombarded the oposition with questions in such a way that it was very easy to see that CNN (decision makers) had already made up there minds! Of course big news stations dont want to wait until they get there facts straight. One reason is to get the story out first and for this reason they should not atack or give the impresion that they are atacking either side!

Today I saw an add in CNN: Join impact your world. fighting for a better enviroment! I was encouraged to join, But now knowing the source, I will look elsewhere! However I am aware that any large organization will have its flaws and I may just have to live with those