I agree with you Hilmar and think that is a wise choice. We tend to think that our news and media here in the U.S. is the most balanced and informational :o) due to 'freedom of the press' and all that. What a joke! A lot of our news is limited to things that would not reflect negatively on the government during times of war or 'panic the people.' During peacetime, our media is much better but some issues are still 'slanted' based on whether the teller is liberal or conservative, etc these days. We do get a lot of information but it should always be balanced against other sources. I know that Al Jazeera (and other news organizations out of the ME) slants their broadcasts too. Even Japan has replayed Al Jazeera broadcasts but they typically followup with the 'other perspective' to show the contrast and leave the audience with both views. I've watched interviews with Arabic journalists that said that when the cameras were rolling the people of Iraq were yelling and screaming in support of Saddam, but as soon as he turned off the camera they were begging the journalist for more information on when the U.S. and Britain would WIN the war so they could finally be free of Saddam Hussein. Quite a contrast. They said that when they knew that Saddam and his supporters were GONE for SURE they would rejoice. They said that the Iraqi soldiers turned off their water before the war started to blame it on the Americans. (We must keep in mind that these are Shiites and by history enemies of Saddam too so even this may be inaccurate). When he informed his newsagency of this, they refused to let him even mention this on his broadcasts. They also intereviewed some Iraqis in Baghdad that blamed Saddam Husseim for putting military equipment in civilian areas so the likelihood of civilian casualties would be greater and reflect negatively on the U.S. These Iraqis were very angry with Saddam and said it was the perfect example of how he kills his own citizens everyday. Some of those interviewed said that the bombs that killed so many civlians were from Iraq that misfired and some wounds were anti-aircraft fire falling down on the citizens. Then again, Al Jazerra stated that the Iraqi prisoners on film that were captured by American soldiers were propaganda only and not 'real' Iraqi soldiers at all--that some of the tapes came from Desert Storm and some were Americans dressed up to look like Iraqis. It would all be so silly if it were not so tragic. I think the likelihood that the media will show the whole story and tell the entire truth will only occur after the war is over and all of these news stories from ALL sources can be compiled and balanced against each other for the whole picture. I hope that happens because good or bad, we can only learn from it and hopefully this time lessons learned can be applied.


>>Note: BBC News (UK). Think this is a reliable source, isn't?
>
>Usually, I consider BBC a very reliable source. But since they are in one of the countries involved in the war, I would at least complement their information with other news sources. For instance, any news source might suddenly be "bought", or plainly forced to report in a less-than-objective fashion.
>
>One good place of news (warning: their seat is in the U.S.!) is news.google.com - they index about 4000 news sources from all over the World. They don't do the reporting themselves.
>
>It is not my intention to protest specifically against the U.S. or G.B. - but countries whose news I would - how should I say - try to complement with other sources, are those that are involved in the conflict: mainly Iraq, U.S., G.B.
>
>Hilmar.