if it's not fox news, it's not american?

[Busyman™]

From your link:

Serene Sabbagh, freelance TV producer who has worked with CNN, ABC News, Al Jazeera and Fox News. She joins us on the line from Amman, Jordan.

SERENE SABBAGH: After three years and watching their coverage, I thought I could make a difference working with them. I could influence some of the people that are coming into the region...

What business has a producer got trying to influence anything?

She obviously has divided loyalties and an agenda, to boot.

Though I'm sure that's okay with you, it is not proper.

Please try harder.

But from the onset of the war in Lebanon, I was devastated at the way that Fox was handling the coverage from Lebanon in the U.S., and I felt there was bias, the slant, the racist remarks, the use of the word “we” meaning Israel, and it was just unbearable up until basically the massacre at Qana. And as a mother of three, watching the images, the raw images of children being pulled out of the rubble, and then I switched to Fox News to hear some of their anchors claiming that these little kids that were killed, these innocent victims that were killed, were human shields used by Hezbollah. And one of the anchors went as far as saying they were planted there by Hezbollah to win support in this war. And it was unbelievable. For me, that was the breaking point, and this is when I decided, me and my colleague Jomana, to hand in our resignation.

When I signed with Fox News, when I started working with them, I knew that they were very pro-Israel, that the coverage of the Middle East was very slanted.

Sounds like Serene was actually trying to put some "fair and balanced" in Fox News.

I think Fox News doesn't like facts revealed when unfavorable to the Republican party so they think fair and balanced means putting out "facts" that are favorable.

This reminds me of the one side with evolution then the other "side" with intelligent design. Neither is fact but one has a basis in facts and the other doesn't....just faith.

[ahctlucabbuS]

What business has a producer got trying to influence anything?

She obviously has divided loyalties and an agenda, to boot.

Though I'm sure that's okay with you, it is not proper.

Please try harder.

Neither are a one sided agenda. Not proper.

Watch the film. It makes a solid argument.


Some people say... <insert slanting remark here>

Could it not be about trying to remove preconceptions?

Is the news supposed to be based on loyalties or facts?

[Busyman™]

On a side note, anyone see The Path To 9/11 on ABC?

It basically placed all the blame for 9/11 on the Clinton administration and made up shit to do so.

The White House must have been funding it cos it went without commercial interruption for 4 hours. If the WH didn't fund it then I see ABC getting some politcal blowjobs cumming their way.

[vidcc]

To make up things that never happened as was the case with "The Path To 9/11" was shameful.
Clinton made some mistakes and one can't change that and they should be shown, but to invent them to try to blame someone for what happened is beyond defense.
It's not like 9/11 happened 300 years ago. The facts are there and there was no need to use dramatic license.

[lynx]

The facts are there and there was no need to use dramatic license.

Facts have little bearing on anything the current US or UK administrations do.

[vidcc]

Facts have little bearing on anything the current US or UK administrations do.

How does that relate to putting things into a "docudrama" that didn't happen? especially when they know they didn't happen.

[Busyman™]

Facts have little bearing on anything the current US or UK administrations do.

How does that relate to putting things into a "docudrama" that didn't happen? especially when they know they didn't happen.

He's just making a side comment, vid.

[lynx]

Facts have little bearing on anything the current US or UK administrations do.

How does that relate to putting things into a "docudrama" that didn't happen? especially when they know they didn't happen.

It's like other things that didn't happen, such WMD.

When you get that sort of behaviour from the leadership, you can hardly expect anything different from their followers and supporters, they've already been given the nod that it is ok.

[vidcc]

It's like other things that didn't happen, such WMD.

When you get that sort of behaviour from the leadership, you can hardly expect anything different from their followers and supporters, they've already been given the nod that it is ok.

I think there is a difference between making the wrong decisions when the facts are not known for sure and doing it after they are. With the WMD they wanted to believe Saddam had them and I think they cherry picked the evidence that supported their belief and stated their belief as fact. They made the wrong choice as to what the facts were, perhaps deliberately, but we don't know that for a fact.

As time goes by, to me it looks like both the Afghan and Iraq invasions were more tactical stepping stones to get to Iran. With Afghanistan going after those responsible for 9/11 IMO justified the actions. Of course once there that particular mission seems to have been deemed unimportant. Which makes me suspect that the "war on terror" is a handy tool to achieve a different objective.
Iraq was a much tougher case to justify. But in both cases they went in with suspicions as to what the facts were. They may have manipulated those suspicions and certainly acted before they knew what the actual facts were.

All of this makes no impact on inventing things we know didn't happen when making a "docudrama" about what led to 9/11.
If lawmakers ignored facts show it. If they made mistakes or bad choices show it. History is too important to be based on fiction and it is vital to get it right from the start.

[lynx]

On the contrary, I believe they knew there were no WMDs. The invasion of Iraq was very rushed, with no real planning of what was going to happen after what would be (and subsequently proved to be) a comparatively easy incursion. Why the rush?

There is only one rational explanation, namely that their pre-planned excuse for the invasion was about to be exposed as false by the UN's inspectors. Most people who saw past the rhetoric expected and predicted that result.

In my opinion, this is just a continuation of the fabrication process, and they see no difference between distorting what we know to be false and what has yet to be shown to be false. We can expect more of the same, if you tell a lie often enough it eventually becomes accepted as the truth.

It's a trick they've learned from Hitler's Germany. However there's a big difference. Hitler actually believed the crap he came out with, these nutcases do it because it is politically expedient.