Agreed. Made 'custom' for the tech crowd. Almost every image is accompanied by the words "A Free Syrian Army fighter ..." because you know, without those words we might confuse them with terrorists or guys from Palestine fighting Israel.
Don't get me wrong, I strongly believe the people of Syria have a right for their own freedom, but it is striking how selective our news is. Ben Ali, the dictator from Tunis was supported by the West for 23 years, as was his neighbor the dictator from Egypt, as is Saudi Arabia, hell even Saddam was.
It's not just a war over there. There's a war for your minds as well. Reminds me of the famous "incubator story" where Iraqi soldiers stole incubators from hospitals in Kuwait and left the premature babies to die on the floor. Never happened, but was crucial for the public opinion in the West. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_(testimony)
The difference is that in America you can watch Al-Jazeera or the BBC or even TeleMundo(1) as well. Sometimes people forget this when they complain about media bias. It could be much worse. Imagine a country where the only news you can watch is a government approved faux-news(2) channel.
(1) TeleMundo is also American but has a somewhat different ideological slant.
(2) For fun, pronounce that with the X and imagine that this was the only news network you were permitted to watch. How different would your world-view be?
... with the net effect being that people believe they are choosing media of their own free will, and therefore much less likely to question what it says. Even though all of the major culturally-sanctioned channels are advocating a consistent bias, their emphases create an illusion of variety.
I doubt people in places with state-controlled media tune in and think they're getting the whole story. In the Western world, we've moved beyond the battle for facts - the battle is for control of their interpretation.
If you want to argue that America is better than countries like Cuba, then you win. I was comparing America to other rest of the developed world (i.e: non-government controlled media). And by controlled, I mean controlled by corporations such as News Corp and not the government. Well, that is probably the case in most countries. And that sucks.
It's certainly true that the American media has a pretty big bias towards rebels in non-democratic states, but that doesn't mean that they're being controlled.
The American media holds "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable" almost up there with objective truth. It's definitely not a bad principle on the whole, but you can generally predict an article's take from that.
No country or region has perfect media, but the one here in America is absolutely disgusting. I mean, are you kidding? Have you compared American media to British for example? Do you see the quality of news here? Or worse, how controlled the media is?
Compare BBC or the Economist to any American outlet. Or even better, compare them to Democracy Now <-- real independent media.
I'm not sure I agree -- from my perspective, the US left seems as crazy as the US right.
As a Swede, I follow NY Times and BBC to compare with the Swedish daily media, for the laughs -- it is like laughing at mongloids doing pratfalls. :-( I think I could do the same with most other countries' media.
On the one hand, it's pretty obviously trying to appeal to this crowd. On the other hand, it actually does appeal to this crowd. I remember seeing the homemade tank in a video someone posted here a little while ago and thinking it was pretty cool. (Though at the same time skeptical of how well it could stand up to infantry, let alone another tank.)
Reddit has this same problem with PR people managing to get thinly veiled ads on the front page of Reddit or various subreddits. [0] Though partly these things make it to the front page because they are genuinely interesting. To me it boils down to a question, "Do I want to see stuff from people who have an agenda, even if I think it's pretty cool?" For me the answer is, "Yes, but only if I don't get drowned in it.".
I wouldn't mind if we acknowledged this and had an overt discussion about it.
The article does somehow manage to neglect to mention the fact that these are the same party that executed dozens of people for suspected adultery (yes, suspected), and cut of hands of suspected thieves in a freaking warzone. That's the kind of government they're fighting for. It also shows just how honest they intend to be if they win.
Makes it kinda hard to choose. I may not feel to good about the alawites winning, but I feel a worse about these guys winning. I'd vote for the dictatorship, but I doubt they're taking votes. Also, everywhere else in the middle east, the same party that forms the rebels here is persecuting alawites close to the point where it can be called genocide. If the alawites/government lose this battle, they will be slaughtered to the last man.
Regardless of what side they're on, these guys are fighting a war using home made technology. In #20 the guy is operating a machine gun using a playstation controller! I think many in the community here would find that interesting.
Edit: if you are also dismayed, use this link to find people who want to show something new to the community:
http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=%22show+hn%...