Biased censorship in the media

[RoaCh of DisCord]

Okay, well...yesterday our local news team was out and about questioning people about the whole Saddam issue. One of my good friends was interviewed. They asked him what should happen to Saddam, now that he has been captured.

My friends reply: "I think they need to investigate much more before they should charge Saddam with war-crimes."

In the paper it says for his quote: "They should charge Saddam with war-crimes."

Now that's messed up. Cencoring public opinions for a biased one sided outlook.

What are your thoughts on this?

He told me, and showed me...and I thought it was pretty messed up.

 

[amrtin77]

yeah that is really screwed up and it happens alot as everyone knows. at least it was just an opinion they fudged..

 

[blink_penguin]

Technically, thats not censorship... Wouldn't censorship imply that the government/big brother/the illuminati stopped him from saying what he wanted?
It is very strange, and it seems that the newspaper shouldnt have done it tho.
Did they put "...They should charge Saddam with war-crimes." or just the "They should charge Saddam with war-crimes." ?

 

[RoaCh of DisCord]

"They should charge Saddam with war-crimes."

That's it.

From Webster: Main Entry: censor
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): cen·sored; cen·sor·ing /'sen(t)-s&-ri[ng], 'sen(t)s-ri[ng]/
Date: 1882
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable

I would consider what they did cencorship.

They definitely took the part THEY wanted, so it would sound good to the masses. I mean, they left the whole beggining out, which would basically change the entire opinion itself.

It's definitely biased..none the less. Each opinion were very happy sounding.

 

[blink_penguin]

okay then, fair enough...
I'm in complete agreement

 

[Galatia]

This is not cencorship, Roach. This is called *twisting the facts according to our needs* and it is a rather common journalistic malpractice.

 

[RoaCh of DisCord]

Originally posted by Galatia
This is not cencorship, Roach. This is called *twisting the facts according to our needs* and it is a rather common journalistic malpractice.

The only way it's not censorship is if this definition is wrong...or if I'm understanding it incorectly:

From Webster: Main Entry: censor
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): cen·sored; cen·sor·ing /'sen(t)-s&-ri[ng], 'sen(t)s-ri[ng]/
Date: 1882
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable

I'm pretty sure they deleted the previous words because it was objectionable or could be offending...

 

[Forged]

Yeah it is censorship, but generally only when the govt. does it. Otherwise like Galatia said when it is the news it is just malpractice and twisting quotes for their needs. What he said would probally make their article look stupid as shit.

 

[x42bn6]

Did you read about the fact that the US might not give rebuilding contracts in Iraq to countries that disagreed with the war in Iraq? Maybe that's why. Otherwise, it's twisting the rules, but in that case, 50% of what he said is missing, so maybe that's just a deaf person or something.

 

[RoaCh of DisCord]

Well, as galatia said, it's a common practice. It also isn't illegal, as long as they don't change the actual words. They can take out anything they please for their benefit.

 

[x42bn6]

Even 50% of the stuff?

 

[RoaCh of DisCord]

Well...I don't know about that...

I found it wierd too =\

 

[blink_penguin]

Glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks that censorship is different to what roach said... But then again, can you argue with websters?

 

[bamthedoc]

What would you say if I told you that most of Webster's entries were written by a carreer criminal in prison for life? I'm not saying that Websers is bad; afterall, they have some of the most accurate definitions

As per what the media did... Let me say I'm || <--that surprised. One thing your friend may not realize is that Saddam is already being charged with war crimes. Want to know what they are?

1) Genocide
2) Using human shields
3) Endangering civilians
4) Crimes against humanity
5) Using humanitarian aid toward self-gain
6) Impeding UN investigation

And that's only the tip of the iceberg. The investigation has been done, and the paper may not have been malicious as you think. Would you rather they censor him to make him sound like less ignorant of facts or let him loose face in front of thousands? Was what they did wrong? Yes. Did your friend have all the facts? No. Does that make it right? No. But maybe both sides should be more considerate to the issues.

Oh, I'm not trying to offend you or your friend, but the investigation is almost complete. Don't assume that 12 years of evidence is for naught and that we aren't currently compounding futher evidence. Saddam Hussien won't go to trial until...

1) the evidence is good enough for even the Hague and the UN.
2) it is decided where to try him.

I personally would like him tried in Iraq. It will...

1) please the most people.
2) keep the death penalty.

The Iraqis, Arabs, and US want to see him tried to the ultimate humiliation and penalty -- humanly possible, anyway. The UN just doesn't want to kill him. It's likely that Saddam will offer up info, important info, to save himself with the Hague.

 

[KillerMe]

Originally posted by x42bn6
Did you read about the fact that the US might not give rebuilding contracts in Iraq to countries that disagreed with the war in Iraq? Maybe that's why. Otherwise, it's twisting the rules, but in that case, 50% of what he said is missing, so maybe that's just a deaf person or something.

AKA France. Anyway the media probably censors lots of shit all the time, but you're just not told about it. For all we know they are censoring bush. Unless you see the person make the statement, then you can't be sure. Anyway, I think they need to put the ... before you're friends quote. You should email the paper or call them or something. Also, the T in They is technicially not capitilized, and it is illegial to misquote someone like that.

EDIT: What I meant was the t in they should not be capatilized, but they made it capitilized.