I watched, “Listening Post” on Al-Jazeera sme days back..the issue was about the media’s coverage of the war in Iraq. This program was more focused on the US media and its role in the war.
A heated debate about the notion of objectivity in the media. US media accused of biais n being subjective n pro-Bush in their coverage of the war. Their role in not stopping the war was also questioned.
Looking for more info on the notion of objectivity, I found this on the net:
Embedding the Truth
A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Objectivity and Television Coverage of the Iraq War
By Sean Aday, Steven Livingston and Maeve Hebert
This article reports on a cross-cultural analysis of television coverage of the 2003 Iraq War that seeks to assess and understand the dimensions of objectivity in the news during wartime. A total of 1,820 stories on five American networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox News Channel [FNC]) and on the Arab satellite channel Al Jazeera were included in the study. The study assessed bias on two levels:tone of individual stories and the macro-level portrait of the war offered by each network. Results showed that at the story level, the overwhelming number of stories broadcast by Al Jazeera and the American networks other than FNC were balanced. Yet the data also revealed a strong bias in support of the American-led war effort at FNC and important differences in how the various networks covered the war.
Also, broadcasters showed a war devoid of blood, dissent, and diplomacy, focusing instead on a sanitized version of combat. Overall, the study found evidence that the news norm of objectivity is defined in large part by culture and ideology more than events, as the norm would imply. The study also explored in detail the coverage of embedded reporters to assess their objectivity and compare their coverage to other types of reporters, especially “unilaterals” with whom they shared the battlefield.