Points well taken from all of your commenting : )

The question is worth resolving, so I’ll see what I can bring back to the discussion, research-wise, that will be of value all the way around.

Stay tuned!

All that anyone has proved here is that BBC carried a print story and a photo on the Middle East page of its Web site. What did they broadcast? How often? For how long? In what markets? Surrounded by what commentary or related stories?

We still don’t know. Mark S. can be bombastic, but he’s also publishing in London, so I wonder how wrong he’d be willing to be about the Beeb, since he can see it and we can’t.

As it is, a great many keystrokes have been spilled here in hurling barbs and brickbats without getting a step closer to resolving the question. Talk about talking past one another.

No, “It’s my blog!� is not an acceptable answer.

Yeah, because I certainly said that. Come on ford. You can be so frustrating at times because you go WAY beyond what was said. Quit stirring up stuff that isn’t there.

And by the way, this is OUR blog, not mine.

And I do think torture is okay in some situations. Like when you keep commenting on my posts. That’s a form of torture I’ll allow. Ha! ;-)

It looks like Denise is of the OPINION that the media slants left.
I share that opinion, but that’s beside the point.
I also get the impression that your OPINION is that torture is wrong under any circumstance.

If you can state your opinions as if they are fact, then why can’t Denise? No, “It’s my blog!” is not an acceptable answer.

PUHLEASE…..
What rock are you living under that you still need proof of that?
The 3 non-cable networks sure don’t hide it. The major newspapers:
NY Times, Wash Post, Toledo Blade (heh) all revel in their hatred of Bush.

Heh.

Apparently my rock isn’t nearly as big as the one ford4×4 is under.

Respectfully, turn on the television or engage any media related mechanism and what do you see? Is the coverage even close to being neutral when it comes to either administration in their respective nations?

Denise…come on. I turn on the TV and engage numerous media sources every single day. I do, you know, write for a political blog that you may be familiar with… ;-)

Historically, there’s been a liberal slant/spin to the mainstream media.

Ugh.

True, the fact is there have been more reporters who identify philosophically with liberal ideals. Whether or not you think they then take that personal philosophy and try to purposefully slant or spun is completely a matter of perspective, though.

Was the news media liberal when they went after Clinton for scandal after scandal? How about when they spread the “flip-flop” meme about Kerry last year? Of course not. They’re just doing what the media is supposed to do: uncover the truth. Sometimes that process is messy, and sometimes they get it wrong, but they’re right quite often and I very rarely ever read a piece that appears blatant. Regardless of what Bernie Goldberg’s anecdotal evidence may suggest, news organizations do their damndest to present the story as it is.

However, let it be said right now that Fox News is the ONLY news organization to come out and actually take a stance on where they report the news from. Given that, it’s the only slant/spin that is demonstratable. And Brit Hume is the ONLY anchor of a news show on cable television who then flips over on Sunday and becomes a conservative commentator, a completely ridiculous and unethical positiion as a journalist. But there it is, nonetheless.

Also, this entry you linked to is an opinion piece which wonders why the BBC isn’t covering the anti-Zarqawi aren’t demonstrations denouncing the US.

Well, guess what? The author got it wrong.

From the BBC:

At least 100,000 people marched through Amman on Friday in the latest mass show of anger at the suicide attacks.

“Zarqawi, you coward, what brought you here?” shouted the marchers.

The two-hour march concluded with a rally in central Amman, where dignitaries and clergymen addressed the crowd, condemning Jordanian-born Zarqawi and his group.

Before the attacks, Zarqawi appeared to enjoy a certain sympathy in some sections of Jordanian opinion, the BBC’s Jim Muir says.

But the death of so many Jordanian civilians seems to have eroded that sympathy very sharply, our correspondent says, and this broadcast seems to be aimed at regaining that lost ground.

So make of that what you will. They even have a picture of the protest.

More time has been devoted to negative coverage segments relating to the War in Iraq than the positive strides and victories which have been achieved throughout the campaign - is this a point that you dispute?

Well first off, how much negative coverage did you see when the first part of the war was actually going on? I’d wager to say nearly none. Why? Well, because things were going good.

But now that we’re essentially fighting a guerilla war, where servicemen and women are dying nearly every single day, you’re going to see more stories about bombings and fewer about schools being reopened. I mean, what stories LEAD the news in the US Denise? Usually violent crimes or people doing bad things. Very rarely do we ever see any good news leading. That’s just the reality of news.

Personally, I’ve always been so frustrated at the right-wing grousing about reporting “more positive” stories. Don’t you realize that it’s not really the MSM’s job to focus on the positive? However, what demanding positive stories does do is paint an otherwise credible media as liberal anti-warites. Well, I’m sorry, but it’s not going to work here.

But here’s the kicker to all of this: positive stories have been reported, are being reported and will continue to be reported. Just because you haven’t seen them doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Sure, you have to dig in there to find them, but it’s not the job of the media to push positivity in a war that has devolved into guerilla conflict. Apparently, the right-wing seems to think so and that says something about the right wing.

So forgive me for pushing back strongly when you lay a HUGE blanket over the entire MSM as being Anti-Bush and Anti Blair. It doesn’t mean I don’t respect your opinions overall, but this post just bugged me.

You assume the media has an anti-Bush, anti-Blair agenda, and yet you don’t really provide any proof.

PUHLEASE…..
What rock are you living under that you still need proof of that?
The 3 non-cable networks sure don’t hide it. The major newspapers:
NY Times, Wash Post, Toledo Blade (heh) all revel in their hatred of Bush.

Respectfully, turn on the television or engage any media related mechanism and what do you see? Is the coverage even close to being neutral when it comes to either administration in their respective nations?

Historically, there’s been a liberal slant/spin to the mainstream media. Heck, there’s even been a sense of pride demonstrated with that association by both media and liberal camps.

Not trying to take the lazy way out in the discussion by any stretch, rather I’m trying to point out a perspective that is illustrated day in and day out in media coverage. More time has been devoted to negative coverage segments relating to the War in Iraq than the positive strides and victories which have been achieved throughout the campaign - is this a point that you dispute?

It is not necessary, according to al Qaeda, that they get the great masses on their side. The goal is to win over “an important segment of the youth.� Their propaganda is directed to young men. One of their propagandists says that “if we can win over only 5% of one billion Muslims, we will have an unbeatable army.�

In other words, if Zarqawi, as an al Qaeda associate, is following this doctrine or something like it, then in spite of his token apology he is probably not all that concerned that most of the ummah seems to be turning against Zarqawi’s jihad. After all, he need only attract more young Muslim men to the jihad than are destroyed (through combat or defection) in the aftermath of the Jordan attack in order to count the attack as a success - even if Zarqawi himself ends up one of the aftermath’s casualties. By this standard, we probably won’t know how successful - or not - the attack has been for quite some time.

You’re taking the easy, lazy, partisan way out on this discussion.

It’s disappointing to say the very least.

Did they show that on the BBC?”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4454298.stm

I don’t think that this story has been hidden exactly.

I also take issue with the fact that Jordan’s anger with Zarqawi somehow shows support for the occupation. It’s not true that you can only be “for or against” Bush. Plenty of people hate the insurgents and think that the occupation is unjust. I would guess that this is the most common position among people in the middle east, actually.