The Newsroom

Iranian general killed - news coverage

News coverage versus news coverage (January 2020)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
BR
Brekkie
So Trump has decided the best way to deflect from his impeachment is by dabbling in some war crimes - killing the most senior Iranian general and making a fragile situation in the Middle East even more fragile.

Naturally the assassination of Qassem Soleimani is dominating news coverage this morning, meaning the bushfires, arguably the bigger human interest story at the moment, are way back down the agenda. The question is how news organisations should be reporting it.

Of course such actions can't go unreported - Trump has effectively fired the first shots of war (well, got someone else to fire the shots as is the way with these things), but as much as anything there is a propaganda war going on here (nothing new there) and although the media will question the motives and ethics of Trump more than any previous US President, there is still the appearance that such stories are reported from the point of view of the US being the good guys and anyone else being the bad guys.

Rolling news and news channels are probably not the best format for covering events like this - that is where the analytical formats of Newsnight and Channel 4 News can delve deeper than others do, but just wondering at what point down the broadcasting chain might a decision be made to run and run with a story in almost continuous mode rather than treat it as the main headline but move on from it within 5-10 minutes of the hour. Obviously in most cases the story itself makes the decision, but today it feels like a decision has been made to tip the coverage firmly in favour of one major story over another.
BA
bilky asko
That's quite a title for a thread.
London Lite, deejay and Markymark gave kudos
GI
ginnyfan
Well this is certainly a new territory for CNN and most US media - how to report and defend this action from the usual, ''America the good guy spreading democracy across the world'' standpoint but at the same time blame it on Trump as another evil thing he did.

Meanwhile, it's the people of Middle East who will pay the ultimate prize, again.....
AS
Asa Admin
bilky asko posted:
That's quite a title for a thread.

Yes, I've edited for clarity. Brekkie - don't be so misleading and clickbaity again.
NE
Newsroom
Asa posted:
bilky asko posted:
That's quite a title for a thread.

Yes, I've edited for clarity. Brekkie - don't be so misleading and clickbaity again.


It'll no doubt be updated to "Middle East Crisis 2020 soon enough.
BR
Brekkie
Asa posted:
bilky asko posted:
That's quite a title for a thread.

Yes, I've edited for clarity. Brekkie - don't be so misleading and clickbaity again.

Guess I missed an apostrophe. Very Happy

I don't think anything shocks us now when it comes to Trump and many political figures, though even the political figures here we question don't quite no how to respond. Assassination is the word being used in many articles and as coverage continues it is clear very few observers see the justification for the action. Hopefully it will deescalate quickly but sadly it'll likely be others who will pay the price.


Back to presentation and coverage and suspect worldwide Al Jazerra gets a boost when such events happen. As polar opposite as CNN and Fox News may be politically when it comes to international incidents ultimately they are under the US flag. This is where historically the BBC has cut through on an international stage. Obviously the restrictions on both domestic and foreign media make things difficult for reporting on events in Iran, and propaganda plays a huge part in any access broadcasters get. Journalists have come under considerable pressure in recent times from the public as well as politicians, but I think when events like this happen it reminds us all how important they are.
MA
Markymark
Newsroom posted:
Asa posted:
bilky asko posted:
That's quite a title for a thread.

Yes, I've edited for clarity. Brekkie - don't be so misleading and clickbaity again.


It'll no doubt be updated to "Middle East Crisis 2020 soon enough.


If it does turn into WW3 the total level of animosity on Twitter will still be slightly less than that for Brexit, so that's a plus.
NE
Newsroom
Markymark posted:
Newsroom posted:
Asa posted:
Yes, I've edited for clarity. Brekkie - don't be so misleading and clickbaity again.


It'll no doubt be updated to "Middle East Crisis 2020 soon enough.


If it does turn into WW3 the total level of animosity on Twitter will still be slightly less than that for Brexit, so that's a plus.


CNN brought in Wolf Blitzer at 11am which is typical I guess as well as annoying, despite his experience at covering conflicts in that area.

From the BBC - I reckon Lyse Doucet (from Kabul) and Jeremy Bowen (from London) will be heading to the area as well as Ben Brown or Clive Myrie.
CW
Charlie Wells Moderator
I guess a lot depends upon your perspective however BBC News at Six opted to use "Iranian General Assassinated" in its graphics behind Sophie during her introduction to the first report. Similar wording was also used during the opening headlines.
NE
Newsroom
Charlie Wells posted:
I guess a lot depends upon your perspective however BBC News at Six opted to use "Iranian General Assassinated" in its graphics behind Sophie during her introduction to the first report. Similar wording was also used during the opening headlines.


The BBC are correct with the use os the word 'ASSASSINATED'. The US administration have their own 'always' unique' view.

All the plausible pundits, editors, correspondents etc are basically aligned, those that are overtly 'not' are republicans on the US.
JU
Justin
Context about the debate if you're interested, mainstream outlets have generally strayed away from using 'assassination' to describe previous drone attacks, on the basis that Al-Qaeda terror suspects didn't qualify as politically significant enough.

Quote:
When asked whether the Associated Press would pull a Greenwald on the assassination matter, spokesman Paul Colford referred the Erik Wemple Blog to the wire service’s style guide, which puts borders around “assassination”: “Use the term only if it involves the murder of a politically important or prominent individual by surprise attack.” Well, the dropping of bombs from unmanned aerial devices clearly qualifies as “surprise.” But are al-Qaeda operatives “politically important or prominent individuals”?

Recent AP coverage suggests that the wire service believes they aren’t. The New York Times also issued a referral to its stylebook, which nods in general agreement with AP’s: “assassin, assassinate, assassination.

Elaborating a bit on the New York Times’s thinking, spokeswoman Eileen Murphy passes along these thoughts: “Our stylebook answers the broad question: We usually apply it to prominent people. And it is most often used in a political context. The president of a country is assassinated. Like most of our style guidelines, we apply on a case-by-case basis. Also … For these drone strikes on terrorists, most of our articles use ‘targeted killings.’ Most of these people are not prominently known or in political office.”

Washington Post National Editor Cameron Barr explains the paper’s position: “For as long as I can remember we have employed ‘targeted killing’ and other neutral terms to refer to the killing of alleged members of al-Qaeda and its affiliates by the United States. ‘Assassination’ connotes the surprise killing of a prominent person, usually in a political context. Many, perhaps most, of the targets of drone strikes are not prominent.”


https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/02/10/glenn-greenwald-and-the-u-s-assassination-program/

The targeting of Iran's second most important government/military figure might've been enough to tip the scales for foreign press like the BBC, though the U.S. outlets still don't seem sold.
BM
BM11



Quite an odd tweet from CBC news in Canada.

Newer posts