One more nail in the coffin of diplomacy regarding Iran.

[kapkomet]

You can put me solidly in the "I'd rather watch neither" camp.

^^^

 

O'Reilly is a douche. Olbermann is a bigger douche.

 

[BigSqwert]

I would say Fox News is America's Al Jazeera network.

[Jenksismyhero]

I would agree that the forged documents thing was almost as bad. But the frequency with which such things happen, even among the clumsy MSM networks, is still much lower than it is with Fox.

 

Thing is, I don't think its unreasonable to expect news sources to be... news sources. Not editorials. It just seems like journalism, particularly with major network television, has become too subjective and punchy. Seems like most of the solid journalism left is in the newspapers. And its not just about political bias - its all kinds of bias, and further, its just low quality.

 

 

Agreed, and you know why? Because it only comes out once a day.

 

I think that's the point that's being missed in this discussion, although NorthSide you mention it: cable news isn't news, it's entertainment. They have to fill 18-20 hours of the day with something so that peopel can watch it. Because of this they effectively create news - what I call the Lacy Peterson effect.

 

Do I believe that there's a 'media bias?' Meh, maybe a little. What someone may call bias I call pandering to a core audience that makes you money. Fox News came out of no where a decade or so ago and became the news-of-choice for 'middle america,' whereas CNN as always been the uppity, New York style news network. The major networks are no different - it's all about getting viewership. I think it's silly to discuss who is more biased because ulitimately the answer is both.

[kapkomet]

I would say Fox News is America's Al Jazeera network.

(Feigned outrage - much like what was seen when I said Al Queda's rhetoric equals the Democrat's rhetoric).

 

WHAT?!? OMG. STOP IT! THAT'S OUTRAGEOUS! BACK THE F'IN TRUCK UP (over your ass... ) WHAT THE EFF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!?

 

Oh, now I feel better.

 

At the end of the day, all "TV" news is just plain crappy anymore, I don't care what network you watch.

[Texsox]

Instant pictures from around the globe. News getting reported in seconds or as it happens instead of hours or weeks later, I'd say current network news is far ahead of a generation or two ago.

[NorthSideSox72]

Instant pictures from around the globe. News getting reported in seconds or as it happens instead of hours or weeks later, I'd say current network news is far ahead of a generation or two ago.

Technologically, yes.

 

[southsider2k5]

It wouldn't be France if they weren't backpeddling.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/world/europe/18iran.html

 

After Talk of War, Cooler Words in France on Iran

Sign In to E-Mail or Save This Print Reprints Share

DiggFacebookNewsvinePermalink

 

By KATRIN BENNHOLD and ELAINE SCIOLINO

Published: September 18, 2007

MOSCOW, Sept. 17 — France’s foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, sought Monday to tone down remarks he made in a radio and television interview the day before that the world had to prepare for possible war against Iran.

 

Skip to next paragraph

 

Stephane Ruet, via Associated Press

Bernard Kouchner said Sunday that it was “necessary to prepare” for war with Iran.

Attacked verbally by Iran and quietly criticized within his own government, Mr. Kouchner shifted the focus away from the threat of war and back to a call for hard negotiations as the way to force Iran to abandon key nuclear activities.

 

“The worst situation would be war,” Mr. Kouchner told journalists en route to Moscow. “And to avoid the worst, the French position is very clear: negotiate, negotiate, negotiate, and work with our European friends on credible sanctions.”

 

On Sunday, Mr. Kouchner, a Socialist known for his blunt talk, said in an interview broadcast on RTL radio and LCI television: “We will negotiate until the end. And at the same time we must prepare ourselves.”

 

Asked what he meant in referring to preparation, he replied, “It is necessary to prepare for the worst,” adding, “The worst, it’s war, sir.”

 

Asked again to explain himself, Mr. Kouchner announced that France was doing military contingency planning for an eventual war, saying, “We are preparing by trying first of all to put together plans that are the unique prerogative of the chiefs of staff, but that — it’s not for tomorrow.”

 

Lost in the off-the-cuff and freewheeling remarks about war planning was his other, less alarmist message: that France is committed to using diplomacy to resolve the nuclear crisis with Iran, that no military action is planned and that he did not believe there would be an American military intervention while President Bush was in office.

 

But his remarks fueled speculation that France was moving closer to the Bush administration position that all options — including war — are on the table.

 

On Monday, Prime Minister François Fillon, a former labor and education minister, appeared to support Mr. Kouchner, adding to the sense that France’s stance had hardened.

 

Asked during a visit to an army base at Angoulême about Mr. Kouchner’s mention of war against Iran, Mr. Fillon replied, “The foreign affairs minister is right because everybody can see that the situation in the Near East is extremely tense and that it’s getting worse.”

 

Like Mr. Kouchner, he stressed that all steps must be taken to avoid war.

 

Adding to the confusion, the Foreign Ministry seemed to distance itself somewhat from Mr. Kouchner’s remarks. A deputy spokesman, Denis Simonneau, referred journalists on Monday to a speech President Nicolas Sarkozy made last month in which he also said Iran could be attacked militarily if it did not curb its nuclear program, but that such an outcome would be a disaster. He gave no indication that France would ever participate in military action against Iran or even tacitly support such an approach.

 

The Foreign Ministry instructed its diplomatic missions around the world to use the same, more cautious, formulation, ministry officials said.

 

Mr. Kouchner’s reference to war on Sunday infuriated Iran, which accused France of moving closer to Washington.

 

“The use of such words creates tensions and is contrary to the cultural history and civilization of France,” said Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman, Muhammad Ali Hosseini, in a statement on Monday.

 

An editorial in the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency on Monday said, “The new occupants of the Élysée want to copy the White House.”

 

In Vienna, Mohamed ElBaradei, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, called for calm. “I would not talk about any use of force,” he said.

 

Stressing that only the Security Council could authorize the use of force, he urged the world to remember the lesson of Iraq before considering military action against Iran. “We need to be cool,” he said.

 

Certainly, France under President Sarkozy has toughened its policy toward Iran. Mindful that a third round of sanctions in the United Nations Security Council is unlikely for at least several months, France has begun to push an initiative for separate European sanctions against Iran.

 

Mr. Sarkozy’s predecessor, Jacques Chirac, also took a hard line against Iran’s nuclear program but was much less inclined to use sanctions, because, as he often said, he did not believe they were effective.

 

France’s foreign intelligence service has a shorter timeline for Iran’s prospects for producing a nuclear weapon than that of American intelligence, according to senior French officials. American intelligence analysts put that date between 2010 and 2015.

 

In Paris before heading to Moscow for bilateral talks on Iran and other issues, Mr. Kouchner said European countries should prepare their own sanctions outside of the United Nations.

 

“These would be European sanctions that each country, individually, must put in place with its own banking, commercial and industrial system,” he said. “The English and the Germans are interested in talking about this.”

 

While some officials inside the French government felt that Mr. Kouchner had done no harm with his mention of war, others said he should have been more disciplined in his choice of words.

 

“In an ideal world he wouldn’t have answered the questions in the way he did,” said one French official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly on diplomatic issues. “His words were not completely thought out and scripted. It doesn’t mean there is a change of policy.”

 

Katrin Bennhold reported from Moscow, and Elaine Sciolino from Paris. Nazila Fathi contributed reporting from Tehran, and Nicola Clark from Paris.

[Texsox]

Technologically, yes.

 

More willing to expose wrong doing, not willing to look the other way. Digging deeper. Able to build on each others' work more efficiently.

[jasonxctf]

in their defense, both Germany and France were correct about Iraq.

[NorthSideSox72]

More willing to expose wrong doing, not willing to look the other way.

Yes. Unless of course there is something shiny and loud the other way.

 

Digging deeper.

No way - not even close. Depth has been abandoned in favor of surface-level treatment.

 

Able to build on each others' work more efficiently.

In some ways, yes.

 

[Texsox]

Yes. Unless of course there is something shiny and loud the other way.

 

 

No way - not even close. Depth has been abandoned in favor of surface-level treatment.

 

 

In some ways, yes.

 

Depth is probably the most dramatically changed. More stories to begin with. Hundreds more reporters, hundreds more sources. Way more stories. Stories stay in the news for weeks, not a day or two.

[kapkomet]

in their defense, both Germany and France were correct about Iraq.

I wonder why?

 

[GoSox05]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296450,00.html

 

It seems that nobody really gives a s*** in the world whether the islamo-fascist regime of Iran acquires nukes. That's the sentiment I got after reading that Germany is now refusing to go along with even economic sanctions against the criminal regime of Iran. Russia and China are only concerned about their own selfish economic interests so now it looks more and more likely that we're going to have to drop the hammer on Tehran. I say go for it. Better to rid ourselves of this problem now than in 5 years when they have the bomb and the means to deliver it.

 

 

Yeah lets bomb those dirty islamo-fascist's. Let's bomb everyone!! That will solve everything. Drop the hammer! Just like Hulk Hogan!

[kapkomet]

Yeah lets bomb those dirty islamo-fascist's. Let's bomb everyone!! That will solve everything. Drop the hammer! Just like Hulk Hogan!

Love, peace, talking, and slobber - that is what makes the world go round.

[GoSox05]

Love, peace, talking, and slobber - that is what makes the world go round.

 

 

I'd rather have that than a bunch of meat heads running treating world affairs like it was a WWE match.

[kapkomet]

I'd rather have that than a bunch of meat heads running treating world affairs like it was a WWE match.

Yep, 'cause that's exactly what happens.

 

Pssst - 9/11 was an inside job.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Depth is probably the most dramatically changed. More stories to begin with. Hundreds more reporters, hundreds more sources. Way more stories. Stories stay in the news for weeks, not a day or two.

That's not depth - its breadth, which is the opposite of depth.

 

[Texsox]

That's not depth - its breadth, which is the opposite of depth.

 

Hundreds of reporters and hundreds of sources on the same story, I should have been more specific. Plus we now have access to foreign coverages as well. You also can search hundreds of news papers, getting local slants on news from out of your area. There is so much more depth that is delivered to your (door) computer.

[NorthSideSox72]

Hundreds of reporters and hundreds of sources on the same story, I should have been more specific. Plus we now have access to foreign coverages as well. You also can search hundreds of news papers, getting local slants on news from out of your area. There is so much more depth that is delivered to your (door) computer.

Yes, one now has ACCESS to much greater depth, via alternative sources. But that isn't what we were talking about, was it? You said "network news". They aren't the in-depth sources.

 

[Texsox]

I thought we were talking about "the media". The networks have partnered with on-line sites as well and expanded their offerings. MSNBC offers more "depth". cbs.com same. I believe we are much more critical and more careful consumers of news than our grandparents were. That has led to a perception that the news gathering of their days was better.

[Texsox]

And there has been the introduction of prime time news magazines, and an expansion of the "Meet the Press" style shows. Again more depth.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Yep, 'cause that's exactly what happens.

 

Pssst - 9/11 was an inside job.

 

 

Very well played.

 

)

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I'd rather have that than a bunch of meat heads running treating world affairs like it was a WWE match.

 

 

I'll take the meat heads over a bunch of flower tossing leftist pussies who sing Koom Bah Ya and "Give peace a chance!" while a country that is on record as saying it wants to wipe nations off the map implements a crash program to develop nuclear weapons.

 

/rolly

[NorthSideSox72]

I'll take the meat heads over a bunch of flower tossing leftist pussies who sing Koom Bah Ya and "Give peace a chance!" while a country that is on record as saying it wants to wipe nations off the map implements a crash program to develop nuclear weapons.

 

/rolly

Then you'd best move to France, because right now, Europe is doing more to stop Iran than we are.

 

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Then you'd best move to France, because right now, Europe is doing more to stop Iran than we are.

 

 

I don't see how that's true when we're the ones applying the most pressure for sanctions against them at the U.N.

 

 

Regardless, there will never be a nuclear armed Iran. Either Isreal, or the U.S. or both will bomb the ever living daylights out of them if it's found that their nukes are close to becoming operational.