going back to the CNN thing, how many antiwar critics and international law experts did CNN hire to discuss the war?
does anyone care to find out?
how much of a voice is given to the war between the antiwar movement and the US government?
you got to be intentionally avoiding the point of these questions when you evade them with comments about conservatives and the I/P conflict.
how can a paper have any integrity if it heavily relies on the source it is reporting on and if its persepctive is nationalistically and politically narrow?
again, the method I have proposed to analyze for biases is not based on cherry picking and Im more than willing to make such inquiries agreed upon mutually. meaning, I see no problem with coming to an agreement on how we define, interpret and inspect news articles on certain topics to look for biases. Ive already given away ample amounts of how I would like to proceed.
lets do a thought experiment:
if most of Russias media relied almost entirely on Russian government officials to report on political items related to the Russian government and there was a consistent undercurrent that they, the Russian government, were the good guys though maybe sometimes misguided by the actions of a few bad apples or bad “intelligence” how would you honestly interpret the quality of Russian media? maybe in their reporting on Chechnya they rarely - if ever - mention legal obligations of the conduct of the Russian government.
in the US, our constitution says that all treaties signed are the “supreme law of the land” and any violations of those are a major violation of the US constitution. So when we invaded Iraq in violation the UN Charter that was unconstitutional; when we used white phosphorus in Fallujah for “shake and bake” purposes it was a clear violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention (yes, that means we used chemical weapons!) and thus a violation of our constitution.
can anyone please provide me with a NYT article that pointed out either of these two things? the closest I have been able to find for the latter is an letter to the editors by Michael Ratner where he pointed it out but never mentioned the “supreme law of the land.”
the point is not that this should at least be published once, but these are important things for the media to mention when covering the war. our constitutional obligations to international law are not something that is mentioned very much. that is a big sign of media bias. now prove me wrong