Now that I'm off reading El Mundo because knowledgeable Blog readers say it's a rag (panfleto) I've turned my attention back to my preferred foil, El Pais. So I'm reading along expecting to see the usual bad information about the U.S. in there, and I see this evenly balanced article with a very positive headline, "The US Begins to Win the War." They even have a second descriptive headline that calls the Iraq war, "The Conflict in Iraq." Hey, it's not even a war anymore!
They talk about the improvements, they talk about the decreases in deaths, they talk about increased oil production, they talk about how in the U.S. we hear less about the war (like Spain since the news is better reporters don't want to talk about it). They also (very reasonably) say that it ain't won yet, shit could still go down.
Good article. The only thing I was not crazy about was their description of "Moveon.org". This organization was created when President Clinton was being hunted down for getting a, well, you know. I really liked them then. Now they have turned into something else... El Pais calls them, " The most powerful group for the support of the Democrats." Well maybe. Except I think they would elect Hugo Chavez if they could.
I tell you truthfully, the article did not have any of the usual shenanigans in it. Nicely done! And I have definitely never seen an article this positive - even in Yanquilandia.
Oh, and at least compared to this article, El Mundo does seem like a panfleto.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Do you see that signpost up ahead?
You have now entered the Twilight Zone.
...
El País es un panfleto para los de derechas y El Mundo para los de izquierdas no descubro nada con ello. Ahora, que un gringo supedite su vision izquierdista de la vida al modo en que ese medio (El País) deja a gringolandia a la altura del betún no deja de tener su gracia.
Por cada noticia en contra de los gringos en El Mundo encontrás diez en El País. Pero claro, la mierda de cada uno huele mejor que la del vecino
Well, I'll tell you the truth, I don't know Jack Squat about El Mundo. But two people told me to stay away from it. I actually thought that it was more centric politically than El Pais. But that may have been a while ago.
To me a "panfleto" does not mean it merely does not agree with my political point of view. To me it's a badly written and researched "yellow journalism type paper". So I don't thing El Pais is a rag actually, even if I don't agree with their point of view. (They do get things wrong about the US though - but they all do.)Oh, and the guy they (El Mundo)were trying to quote in that immigration story below that nobody has heard of? His name is Tom Tancredo - not Tony...
And about the "Gringos". That name for us Yanquis is stupid.
If you are really interested in what El Mundo is, do a little research into its director Pedro J Ramirez, otherwise known as Pedro J. He used to work for the ABC newspaper when it was even more conservative than it is now. He then started up a small paper until he had a very serious falling out with the PSOE when Gonazlez was in power and has since made it his life long obsession to be a serious thorn in its side. He then started up El Mundo with this particular objective, though curiously enough The Guardian is one of its sister papers.
This obsession has taken him from being a serious journalist to a loon who even frequently appears on the very frightening COPE radio programs with Los Santos and worse yet tried to actually bring down the government by fabricating a tale saying that they covered up ETA's involvement in the Madrid train bombings. Of course all of this has since been completely rubbished, though the shell shocked r
Right still cling to his sinking ship.
It's also possible that you originally took to El Mundo because it was similar to the flat, mono-dimensional press that you would be accustomed to coming from America. It was the only paper here in Spain who swallowed Aznar's terrible reign, though even he was against his war mongering.
Hi Troy,
I'll take everyone's word that El Mundo is right-leaning paper. The stuff I've seen about the U.S. sure doesn't seem so though.
"It's also possible that you originally took to El Mundo because it was similar to the flat, mono-dimensional press that you would be accustomed to coming from America."
Well, I didn't "take to El Mundo", I've actually stayed away from it since Gonzalez was in power. If "Flat mono-dimensional press" means accurate reporting and not sensational B.S. - then I'm for that. U.S. papers also have their political bents of course.
El Mundo describes itself as centre-right, but is generally only "right", when it is confronting the PSOE and has even taken on some left leaning writers, as long as they are at odds with the PSOE of course.
I'm not sure that negative press in regards to America automatically signals a left-wing stance. The following is taken from the New York based website, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting:
"Given that most media outlets are owned by for-profit corporations and are funded by corporate advertising, it is not surprising that they seldom provide a full range of debate. The right edge of discussion is usually represented by a committed supporter of right-wing causes, someone who calls for significantly changing the status quo in a conservative direction. The left edge, by contrast, is often represented by an establishment-oriented centrist who supports maintaining the status quo; very rarely is a critic of corporate power who identifies with progressive causes and movements with the same passion as their conservative counterparts allowed to take part in mass media debates."
Then we could quote from Reporters without Borders who tell a different tale of the unbiased press you speak of back in your homeland, "The United States (53rd) has fallen nine places since last year, after being in 17th position in the first year of the Index, in 2002. Relations between the media and the Bush administration sharply deteriorated after the president used the pretext of “national security” to regard as suspicious any journalist who questioned his “war on terrorism.” The zeal of federal courts which, unlike those in 33 US states, refuse to recognise the media’s right not to reveal its sources, even threatens journalists whose investigations have no connection at all with terrorism."
Spain, while ranking quite low at 41, ranks quite a bit higher than the U.S which trails behind such freedom paragons as Tonga and Botwsana. But maybe the word "accurate" means slavishly towing the corporate line and if not that, the one that spews from the White House Press Office, for if not you won't be able to get a seat in the front row and ask those hard hitting questions that they generally ask.
Being patriotic doesn't necessarily mean blindly defending your country against perceived attacks, but acknowledging its faults and working on changing them.
Troy, I can tell you think you are on the attack on another dumb-ass conservative American. Well, maybe.
I never said the U.S. press was unbiased. I actually said the opposite.
"very rarely is a critic of corporate power who identifies with progressive causes and movements with the same passion as their conservative counterparts allowed to take part in mass media debates."
I don't agree with that. The left in America is just as vocal as the right. IMHO. Media Corporations do make money selling a "left" point of view - albeit less money. The New York Times is struggling.
Where do the biases fall of the two organizations you quote? The "New York based website, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting" and "Reporters without Borders". They have none? Doubt it.
And Ouch on that "Blindly defending
your country" comment. If I disagree with you I'm blindly defending my country like an idiot?
No not at all, and please, it was not meant in that way at all. You are right, you never said that it was unbiased, it could be my fault that I read unbiased into your comment regarding the "accuracy" of the reporting in America. The sites I quote may have some bias, but they are examples of an axiom in a country that espouses something as horrendous as the Monroe Doctrine, the axiom being America is good and right. This is a dangerous axiom and one that must be challenged.
I definitely do not mean to attack as you say and certainly not personally, but it really is difficult to take seriously the idea that the press in America has any real scope of discussion whatsoever. We can speak of a left and a right press here in Spain and you speak of the existence of a left in America, and somehow mention the New York Times in the same breath, but is it somehow "left"? A newspaper that beat the war drum louder than anyone else in the run up to the Iraq war would be difficult to qualify as left. It doesn't take a Chomsky to read into the Time's corporate and government line.
It is possible that we are speaking the same language but have completely different framework and definition of these terms. Your definition of left and mine are obviously different.
Post a Comment