Cognative Dissonance in coverage of Somalia between CNN and PBS

[Armstead]

Last night, I saw a shocking contrast between interpretations of events in Somalia between the PBS News Hour and CNN....I should admit here that I am fairly ignorant about Somalia, so I am just basing this on my impression of the comparative coverage.

On PBS, they had a news report that included a clip of * saying he was concerned the apparent victory by the Islamic Courts Alliance in Somalia, because we can't let Al Quadah get a foothold. But then reporter Margaret Warner had a discussion between two panelists about current events in Somalia. One was a professor in the US who is originally from Somalia. The other is a former official in the Bush I administration.

Although I expected the Bush I official to echo GW's concerns, both guests basically said that the apparent victory by the Islamic Courts Alliance is a positive development. They said it basically represented a defeat of warlords by a broadly-based coalition that included the business community and citizens who want to establish a civil society there.

The Bush I official said the US had supported warlords and "overreacted" to bad intelligence from Ethiopia in the misguided belief that the Islamic Alliance was affiliated with Al Quadeh and terrorism. He and the other guest said that Islam in Somalia tends to be more moderate, and they are not jhidists. They also said it is not likely that they would attempt to establish a Taliban style regime.

Neither guest gave the Islamic Courts a blank check. They cautioned that it is still a volatile situation. However, they advised giving them the benefit of the doubt and working with them to make it more likely that the moderate elements establish a responsible government.


......Then I turned to CNN, which was having their news summary. They said that the events in Somalia have raised concerns in the US because of "potential ties to Al Quadeh." No balancing statement...Just echoing the narrow-minded "here's something else to scare you" message of the administration.

It was a real case of cognitive disconnect. I know some people (including me) have some problems with PBS, but this showed how much better they are than the shallow shills of commercial MSM these days.

[leveymg]

1. It's the difference between "HEADLINE NEWS" and "THE NEWS HOUR"

Both are extremely flawed versions of their respective formats. But, they're really apples and oranges, and shouldn't be compared. I NEVER watch CNN except for breaking news -- it's a waste of time if you want to develop an understanding of events. If you don't have much time, go to BBC for international coverage. For on-line breaking news there's AFP (Agencie France-Presse) or BBC, or Reuters. AP is propaganda news. UPI is it's Moonie-owned twisted sister, which occasionally has some coverage that's very interesting and in some ways like al-Jazeera.

Faux is faux.

English-language coverage of East Africa is spotty, at best. There are some Somali and Somaliland news sites that seem to be fairly objective and competent. Take a look at:

www.somalilandtimes.net/sl/2005/220/280.shtml - 20k - Cached - Similar pages


Issue 220All Fair-minded Somalis Must Concede ‎‎“Garta” To Somaliland‎‎‎‎ ... The Marines participated in the bi-lateral training this past week in the east African ...
www.somalilandtimes.net/sl/2005/220/027.shtml - 20k - Cached - Similar pages
< More results from www.somalilandtimes.net >


Asmarino Independent News - Marines on Somali coast to hunt ...The reports of the Marines' arrival coincided with witness accounts of US military activity elsewhere along the coast of Somaliland, a relatively stable ...
news9.asmarino.com/content/view/97/87/ - 32k - Cached - Similar pages


Somaliuk Your Portal For News, Chat Rooms, Culture, Music, and Forums1991 - Former British protectorate of Somaliland declares unilateral independence. 1992 - US Marines land near Mogadishu ahead of a UN peacekeeping force ...
www.somaliuk.com

[Armstead]

2. I realize the format difference....It's the content o the two reports

You are right that news headlines are not the same as an in depth discussion.

But the fact that CNN didn;t bother to include a balancing phrases is the problem there. It would have been possible to simply add a caveat, such as "although the US administration is concerned about possible links to terrorism, otehr observers believe that the Islamic Court movement are moderate Muslims."

Instead CNN just tossed out the part about links to terrorism, so that the impression is left that the Isl;amic Extremists have taken over in Somalia.

[leveymg]

4. For years, that's been my biggest single complaint about CNN

And I see that it's gotten worse since the invasion of Iraq. Very little attempt at balance.

You're right, it wouldn't take much effort to inject an appearance of balance. But, there's a reason they don't even try -- they're trying to out-Faux Fox News.

As for PBS -- particularly NPR -- that's gone downhill so steeply, I barely even bother listening to it anymore. I used to love All Things Considered, before it began pandering to Congressional Republican funders. Now it's like listening to Radio Moscow during the Cold War. They never fail to cover policy statements by Bush and other top officials without any analysis or balancing comment.

[depakid]

3. "Then I turned to CNN"

They're also hyping up (and misinforming people) about the homegrown Canadian terrorist cell.

Read the real facts on that from Canadian papers- and you'll get a completely different story.

Terra paranoia and propping up the far right- that's CNN's gig- and they'll apply that slant to anything they can- anywhere in the world.