An open letter to Lt. Col. Ryan (or, blaming the messenger)
Lt. Col. Tim Ryan has written a lengthy piece criticizing the media coverage in Iraq that has attracted a lot of attention. A rejoinder.
Dear Lt. Col. Ryan,
Thank you for your service in Iraq. I wish you the best, and hope you are home soon. However. A few bones to pick with your recent article.
I am sorry you think the media is “aiding and abetting the enemy.” The reporters I know are working hard, risking their lives, to bring the truth to the American public. I certainly wish the news out of Iraq could be more positive. And yes, some of your complaints are very familiar, about the media “highlighting the negative.” Ten thousand planes can land safely; it’s only when the jet crashes do the reporters show up. That’s just how journalism works. To some extent, that can give a distorted view of neighborhoods and everyday life, and I agree that balancing the two is a challenge for journalists.
You write that “In Fallujah, the enemy death toll has exceeded 1,500.” Forgive me for being skeptical. But I’m curious how much confidence you have in that figure. My understanding is that enemy kill totals are little more than best guesses by commanders on the ground. Yet when the Times’ Dexter Filkins toured Fallujah, he found
little evidence of dead insurgents in the streets and warrens where some of the most intense combat took place … The absence of insurgent bodies in Falluja has remained an enduring mystery. Roaming American patrols found few on Sunday in their sweeps of the devastated landscape where the rebels chose to make their last stand, the southern Falluja neighborhood called Shuhada by the Iraqis and Queens by the American troops.
In any case, you write that, “As soon as there was nothing negative to report about Fallujah, the media shifted its focus to other parts of the country. “
Well, yeah. Doesn’t that have something to do with how the insurgents raided police stations in Mosul, killing Iraqi police officers and burning the governor’s house to the ground? You continue,
More recently, a major news agency’s website lead read: “Suicide Bomber Kills Six in Baghdad” and “Seven Marines Die in Iraq Clashes.” True, yes. Comprehensive, no. Did the author of this article bother to mention that Coalition troops killed 50 or so terrorists while incurring those seven losses? Of course not.
Despite searches on Google News and Nexis, I’ve been unable to find any story headlines, “Seven Marines Die in Iraq Clashes.” I find it hard to believe that any reporter would knowingly leave this detail out and would like to see a citation.
Why aren’t papers leading with items like, “Coalition Crushes Remaining Pockets of Insurgents”? Hmm. Well, I’ve a give you a clue: In the three days since your article was published in the World Tribune Jan. 18, insurgents have detonated five truck bombs across Baghdad, released an audio tape warning of holy war and beheaded an Iraqi soldier in broad daylight. Even as I write this, CNN just reported an ambulance plowed into a wedding party and exploded.
So unfortunately, I don’t think an article headlined, “Coalition Crushes Remaining Pockets of Insurgents” would be particularly accurate. Do you?
You continue,
What did the the media show or tell us about Margaret Hassoon, the director of C.A.R.E. in Iraq and an Iraqi citizen, who was kidnapped, brutally tortured and left disemboweled on a street in Fallujah?
First off, the woman’s name is Margaret Hassan. Second, the mutilated body found on the streets of Fallujah was not Hassan’s, as was reported Dec. 1. Her remains still have not been recovered. If you’re going to mention the poor woman, at least get her name right.
Alas, your shoddy attempt at journalism continues:
What the media didn’t show or write about [in Najaf] were the two hundred-plus headless bodies found in the main mosque there, or the body that was put into a bread oven and baked.
I’ll let Alex Berenson, the New York Times reporter who was embedded with the Marines and covered the battle of Najaf from start to finish, handle this one:
The massacre of hundreds of women and children inside a sacred Muslim shrine would have been front-page news worldwide for days. We didn’t report it because it never happened. There were almost no women and children, living or dead, anywhere near the shrine by the time the battle ended. We did get — and write about — reports that Sadr’s guys had tortured and killed a handful of Iraqi police officers and other people unfortunate enough to run afoul of the Mahdi Army.
Berenson, incidentally, was taken captive and almost killed by the Mahdi Army. Your words are an insult to him and all the other reporters who risked their lives covering the battle.
Continuing…
Recently, when a Coalition spokesman tried to let TV networks in on opening moves in the Fallujah operation, they misconstrued the events for something they were not and then blamed the military for their gullibility. CNN recently aired a “special report” in which the cable network accused the military of lying to it and others about the beginning of the Fallujah operation. The incident referred to took place in October when a Marine public affairs officer called media representatives and told them that an operation was about to begin. Reporters rushed to the outskirts of Fallujah to see what they assumed was going to be the beginning of the main attack on the city. As it turned out, what they saw were tactical “feints” designed to confuse the enemy about the timing of the main attack, then planned to take place weeks later.
Once the network realized that major combat operations wouldn’t start for several more weeks, CNN alleged that the Marines had used them as a tool for their deception operation. Now, they say they want answers from the military and the administration on the matter. The reality appears to be that in their zeal to scoop their competition, CNN and others took the information they were given and turned it into what they wanted it to be. Did the military lie to the media: no. It is specifically against regulations to provide misinformation to the press. However, did the military planners anticipate that reporters would take the ball and run with it, adding to the overall deception plan? Possibly. Is that unprecedented or illegal? Of course not.
Here’s what Lt. Col. Lyle Gilbert of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Unit told CNN Oct. 14: “The troops crossed the line of departure. It’s been a pretty uncomfortable time. We have two battalions out there in maneuver right now dealing with the anti-Iraqi forces and achieving the mission of restoring security and stability to this area. It’s going to be a long night.”
Of course, the attack didn’t come until weeks later. The LA Times broke this story Dec. 1. Here’s CNN’s story, which never uses the word “lie.” It does quote a Pentagon spokesman as saying, “Gilbert’s remarks were ‘technically true but misleading.’ It was an attempt to get CNN ‘to report something not true,’ the official said.”
I’ll leave it to readers to decide whether Gilbert’s words constitute “misinformation” … perhaps they can parse the meaning of “is” at the same time.
You are right about one thing, though: as long as American soldiers are getting killed nearly every day, we’re not going to be giving much coverage to the opening of multimillion dollar sewage projects.
American lives are worth more than Iraqi shit.
P.S. I’m a 32-year-old MSM reporter. These opinions are just my own. I’ve never been to Iraq, but have written about it from the comfort of my desk. Here’s some of what I wrote about Fallujah; also here.
P.P.S. I use the term “insurgents” when the enemy attacks U.S. soldiers. I have no problem calling them “terrorists” when they attack civilians. Hell, when I reported about Saudi authorities finding Paul Johnson’s severed head in a freezer we called ‘em “sickos” in a headline. And that WAS sick. Ugh. Anyway, if anyone has a more appropriate term than “insurgents,” feel free to suggest it.
P.P.S. Inspired by the some of the comments here, I had a close look at Chrenkoff’s latest “good news from Iraq” update to see the news the media’s been missing. Hmm. I expected to see a stuff from soldier and Iraqi blogs, but looking at the sources … there are articles from the Cincinnati Enquirer, the Cleveland Plain-Dealer, the LA Times (via the Contra-Conta Times), USA Today, the London Times, the LA Times again (via the Register-Guard), Business Week, the BBC, the Washington Post, the News-Record (link doesn’t work), the Richmond Times-Dispatch, the New York Times, the AP, the Asbury-Park Press, the Grand-Rapids Press, and the AP via CNN.
So tell me — what’s that complaint again?
P.P.P.S. – Hell, there’s even been articles about Iraqi sewage projects. It’s kind of interesting, actually. Other stories by the same reporter, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette staff writer Amy Schlesing, can be found here.
But this is horrible — terrorists bombed a street celebration of a sewer project in Baghdad Oct. 1, killing 41 civilians, including 35 children.
January 21st, 2005 at 16:23:32 +0000
The News from Iraq
I was going to write about this and this, earlier today, but got distracted on trying to help the Flood victims here in Costa Rica, something I wish more conservative commentators like Wizbang would take up, considering Costa Rica was…
January 21st, 2005 at 17:58:03 +0000
“That’s just how journalism works.”
That’s a cop out. Journalism isn’t just about selling newspapers, it’s also about informing the public. This is why the MSM is dying: the refusal to acknowledge their responsibility to the public. The MSM gives an F-U to the their public service role and then wonders why they are a dinosaur.
Can anyone say that they can honestly assess the Iraq war when bad news is trumpeted in the MSM and good news is not reported at all? Do people that predict civil war know what percentage of the Sistani backed Iraqi National Party (??? I think I’m missing a word) candidates are Sunni? How many Americans know there’s ANY Sunni candidates in Sistani’s party?
January 21st, 2005 at 18:17:53 +0000
C’mon Matthew. Twenty-three journalists were killed in Iraq last year, 13 the year before. Michael Kelly, Terry Lloyd, Enzo Baldoni … those names mean anything to you? They were there, putting their lives at risk, because they thought they had a mission to inform the public. “Refusal to acknowledge their responsibility to the public,” my anus.
As for your other point, it’s our duty to report the NEWS, not propaganda. It’s not our fault there’s car bombs going off every few days.
January 21st, 2005 at 19:25:12 +0000
Derek,
I appreciate your correction of the facts and your commitment to accuracy. I do, however, have a bit of a quarrel with the nature of the Iraq coverage. The question before the American people is whether or not to continue to support the goal of estabilshing Iraqi democracy via the current process (ie. military presence, elections, etc.). To do that, they need to understand the nature of the situation on the ground. This means they need a big-picture view that answers questions like the following:
1) Does the insurgency have any chance of military success?
2) Is the insurgency winning the hearts and minds of Sunnis? Kurds? Shiites?
3) Do the Iraqi people support the democratic process? (Surveys)
4) Is Allawi’s government winning the hearts and minds battle?
5) How much of Iraq is unstable?
6) Would sending more troops help?
7) Is the iraqi national guard becoming effective?
a) Is desertion a big problem, or a liveable one?
b) Where the ING is taking over security duties, is it as effective as the Americans?
c) Will there be sufficient ING numbers for a serious security handover?
8 ) Does the situation on the ground suggest the possibility of civil war?
9) Would the Iraqis themselves favor immediate US withdrawal to the democratic process?
None of these questions are answered by the continual reports of bombings, attacks, and US troop deaths. The American people need to see the big picture to put those reports in context. I could well imagine a scenario where the answers to those questions pointed to a good chance of eventual success, but pubic opinion turned decisively against continued American engagement because its “big picture” view was formed almost exclusively by nightly reports of American deaths. If indeed that is what takes place, then I believe the media will have failed the American people. You have a responsibility not only to get the facts of individual stories correct, not only to report on the major events, but also to ensure that the American public acquires an accurate “big picture.” That means that mundane stories on the ING and the “hearts and minds” battle are much more important than their lack of “gotcha” value would suggest.
January 21st, 2005 at 21:06:43 +0000
The Superiority Of The Average Journalist
For some reason I got a trackback ping from this column, although I can’t find anywhere that my site is referenced in the post. It is a response to a column written by Lt. Col. Tim Ryan, Commander, Task Force…
January 21st, 2005 at 21:27:12 +0000
Derek, your own words damn you. Your choice of words reveals your mindset–which mimics that of the wire service. Unsuprising since you admit that’s your only source for the news on which your opionions are based. You doubt the LTC’s estimate of enemy dead, ascribing it to ‘best guesses by commanders on the ground.’ Yet what information do you have to refute it? An article written by someone who TOURED the area FIVE DAYS after the battle was over. Whose source of information is more likely to be accurate? But perhaps Dexter Filkins does have a better source of information than the commanders on the ground. What would that be? Where would it come from? Could it be the insurgency press release that declares they got away without major injury? The MSM (and your own) admitted insistence on placing less trust in the word of the American military than on the word of Baathist and Islamist thugs reveals exactly why the average American finds his opinion of you lower than Iraqi shit, you despicable dung beetle on the ass of history. You cannot claim to value the life of an American soldier when you openly distrust the American soldier and willingly swallow every morsel of shit the Islamists flick in your direction.
January 21st, 2005 at 22:15:36 +0000
what we have here is a failure to communicate, le chat a petit!!
how many vietnamese,hmong,cambodian human beings were sacrificed on the altar of MSM so that the derek rose’s of the world could feel, what?, a purpose?
the conservative talks decorum because he thinks liberals are wrong,
the liberal has a RIGHT to lie/bend because he thinks conservatives are evil
we seek no power over the liberal, we are powerless to change them, we simply seek honesty about a persons paradigm. If youre a communist, just say you are, but don’t pretend that youre “objective” or that you don’t want “propaganda”… how about just reporting and having some bit of faith that we’re not so stupid.ok? is it so hard? thanks dad
January 21st, 2005 at 22:20:32 +0000
Tom, I don’t have any information to refute the casualty numbers in Iraq. I’m not saying they’re wrong, I’m not certain how reliable they are. I’m not questioning anyone’s integrity, just wondering, as I wrote, “how much confidence [he has] that figure.” I’m sorry you find that so offensive!
January 21st, 2005 at 22:33:41 +0000
Thad,
how do you know I’m not a right-wing reporter who backed the war? Not all reporters are liberal, despite what you might have read.I’ll fess up — you have me pegged! But we prefer the term Marxist-Leninist these days. Workers of the World Unite!January 21st, 2005 at 22:54:11 +0000
Nathan, you make some good points, although I don’t know if anyone knows the answer to some of those questions. I think the upcoming elections will tell us a lot. As awful as today’s news was, it was heartening to read in the Times that Iraqis seem determined to vote. “Even if there remain only 10 people in this area, we will not retreat from giving our votes,” said Muslim Ashour, a laborer and neighbor of the mosque that was bombed, as he struggled to hold back tears.
January 21st, 2005 at 23:59:30 +0000
Man, this blog could of been a mirror image of Al-Jazeera since it looks as if that’s where you get all of your information. It’s so funny to read a liberal write about what his version of the truth is, of course they don’t believe the soldiers who are actually over there do they?
January 22nd, 2005 at 00:20:46 +0000
Curt, I don’t know that Ryan was actually in Najaf, where the confontation with Sadr took place. A number of reporters were, not just Berenson. Do you honestly think this is something the MSM would cover up?
Sorry you don’t like the site, but I’d caution you about making assumptions!
January 22nd, 2005 at 00:45:20 +0000
I was going to write a response to you on my blog, but I deleted it because all it did was piss me off the more that I wrote.
I’ll just ask you one question, Derek. How would you like it if I wrote a book about the “news” of your family – the drunken binges, the divorces, the fights, the car wrecks, the bills not paid on time, and I NEVER wrote about any of the good things your family has done? Would you feel like I was being unfair? After all, everything I would write would be true and accurate and, by your own definition, “news”. If I wrote about the one plane crash in your family and ignored all the safe landings, would that be “fair and balanced”? Would it be “truth”?
Think about that the next time you touch the keyboard, Derek. Accuracy ONLY is not truth. Negatives ONLY are not the truth. 1323 Americans have died in Iraq. Do you know how many have lived? What percentage have never even been wounded? How many of your columns have been rejected by your editor? Are they the only measure of your success?
January 22nd, 2005 at 01:16:42 +0000
Funny how the media spent most of 1998 covering the Lewinsky scandal rather than all the good things Clinton was doing.
January 22nd, 2005 at 08:46:11 +0000
Antimedia – I know what you’re saying. I’ve TRIED to cover the safe landings at JFK, but my editors wouldn’t take the story. And what about all those countries the tsunami DIDN’T hit? And why is Iraq, Ukraine, and Israel dominating so many headlines in our world affairs section anyway? What about all the countries where there’s peace and stability?
January 22nd, 2005 at 11:44:36 +0000
By not reporting that sewage treatment plant, you are FAILING to present the entire picture. Multiply that by the hundreds of hospitals and clinics, the thousands of schools, the countless acts of good performed by the soldiers and Marines, what THEY are there for and are hoping to accomplish, and the end result is that you headline only that which puts US forces in an unfavorable light. In this case, those good unexciting developments are crucial to allowing the public here and in Iraq to receive a complete portrayal of the unfolding story. By withholding that information, the media is shaping perception and influencing subsequent events.
“Not all reporters are liberal, despite what you might have read.”
How many are Democrats? Reports I have seen are about the same as, hmmm, the percentage of Iraqis who support the election.
Another thing is the media obsession with being a watchdog of the government. Many in the business regard that function as more important that simply reporting the news. In this case, with troops in the field, that priority is definitely misplaced, and results in greater anti-Americanism. By your very coverage, you influence the implications and ramifications of events. The media is actually a major weapon of terrorists, as they can only achieve victory by affecting the psychology of the American public.
And finally, a couple of (more?) observations and opinions:
Brian Williams’ report on NBC Evening News last night on the evening news was a veritable drumbeat for civil war in Iraq.
Your accurate refutal of particulars of Lt. Col. Ryan’s letter does nothing whatsoever to diminish the correctness of his premise.
January 22nd, 2005 at 12:28:12 +0000
Bob,
No newspaper is going could cover everything going on in a nation, city or even a neighborhood. We just report on the most newsworthy stuff, whether it’s good or bad. Life is precious — so people getting blown up gets priority over sewer projects opening or soldiers distributing Beanie Babies.
I don’t dispute that most reporters lean left, and didn’t see the NBC piece. Do you disagree with Nathan Wagner’s comments (No. 4), that reporters should be trying to answer those big-picture questions?
January 22nd, 2005 at 12:35:33 +0000
Of course journalists don’t report on safe landing of aircraft or children who weren’t kidnapped. Those are the normal and expected occurences in an established and well-functioning society. However, Iraq is essentially a developing nation struggling against a vicious and anti-social terrorist movement bent on the destruction of any institution that would allow for the development of a liberal democratic tradition. In that context, events that would otherwise be mundane and expected occurences in Europe or America must be reported on a regular basis if we are to understand what is actually happening there. I find it hard to believe that I have to explain this relatively self evident fact to a “journalist”.
January 22nd, 2005 at 13:23:43 +0000
CMM – sorry, I’m a bit thick sometimes! But even in Iraq, I’m not going to do stories about planes landing safely or children not being kidnapped.
January 22nd, 2005 at 14:52:08 +0000
“P.P.S. I use the term “insurgents” when the enemy attacks U.S. soldiers. I have no problem calling them “terrorists” when they attack civilians.”
Derek, wtf is an “insurgent”? In your case it is a terrorist who attacks U.S. soldiers because U.S. soldiers are the only defense of civilians and they are the only ones who stand in the way of the terrorists rule by force and enslavement of civilians.
You are against totalitarianism or you are for it. There is no compromise; there is no third choice. Derek, you and people like you are the enemy. Your reporting rationalizes that this is a conflict between the two armies defending just and moral principles.
Derek, imagine that you, your family, your friends were born in Saddam’s Iraq. You live in fear. Slavery. There are no laws. Your wife is a thug’s sex toy. Your children are ignorant. There is no U.S. soldier or George Bush. There is no hope. There are only people like you in the world. There is only death. No one is coming to save you. No one cares except the “insurgents” who enjoy the entertainment of your fear, the product of your forced labor and sport of fucking your wife and daughter.
You, Derek, grant “insurgents” an equal morality to the defense and advancement of liberty, democracy, inalienable human rights.
There is a story that “in the course of human events” will be written about in glorious cause and detail by historians for ages to come. It is a statement of your character and philosophy that this news is not visible to you now.
You are against totalitarianism – or – you are for it.
David Sunderland
January 22nd, 2005 at 15:11:43 +0000
David, haven’t you been paying attention? I’m an Al-Jazeera loving Marxist-Leninist! Bring on the totalitarianism, so long as I can be in charge! I promise free beer for everyone.
Seriously, words are important. Terrorists are people who target civilians. It doesn’t matter what type of government they want to set up (and NO, I’m not saying all types of government are the same). Using terms like “terrorist” indiscriminately cheapens them.
And I’m sorry, David, but YOU are the enemy. Doesn’t being this self-righteous get a little tiring?
January 22nd, 2005 at 15:16:55 +0000
Derek, you are describing precisely what the problem is. The news business runs on negatives and sensationalism, not the “mundane” as you call it. You say your editors won’t accept positive stories? Does that not bother you? Do you not see how that creates an imbalance in what you report? The problem is simple. Your business has defined news as “anything bad, unusual, extraordinary or spectacular that happens”, not as “anything that would be of interest to our readers”.
I look forward to the day when I can get all my news from the Internet and I no longer have to be subjected to the “Traci Petersen”, “Michael Jackson” and “Coby” stories. Those are “news” because your business decides they are, not because they are newsworthy. As it is, I only read the “news” media because they are often the only source of information on certain events, but the day is coming when your business will no longer exist if you don’t get your collective heads out of your collective butts and realize that people are dying to hear stories that you aren’t telling, and they’re leaving you in droves trying to find those stories elsewhere.
Physician heal thyself.
January 22nd, 2005 at 15:39:38 +0000
Antimedia, I was just kidding before about the planes-landing-at JFK story I couldn’t get past my editor. I do agree with your definition of news. If people were honestly interested in coverage of sewer projects opening in Iraq, we’d cover them. And we wouldn’t cover stuff like Laci Peterson and Michael Jackson if no one cared about them. (“Coby”?)
January 22nd, 2005 at 15:53:59 +0000
“American lives are worth more than Iraqi shit.”
This sentence demonstrates what is wrong with modern leftism: it is fearful, pessimistic, focused on the short term, devoid of strategic vision, and sees little past the immediate gratification or disgust of the moment. Sen. Barbara Boxer at the recent Rice hearings: “No dictator is worth an American life.” Really? Then FDR’s actions in WW2 must be quite disgusting to her. JFK’s inauguration speech? “…we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” Utterly wrongheaded, that one. Not like the fearful, pessimistic younger brother, Sen. Ted of today. He’s what a Democrat is supposed to be.
It also illustrates what’s wrong with the advocacy writing that is today passed off as reporting. In addition to being leftist (see above: fearful, pessimistic, focused on the short term, etc.) it is deliberately dismissive of anything that may interfere with its advocacy. The rebuilding of sanitation and hygiene in a dense population, which you dismiss as “Iraqi shit”, saves lives, but reporting this rebuilding would influence the balance of horror that advocacy editors and writers are trying to maintain on this subject. If people are told that hundreds or thousands of deaths are prevented by rebuilding sanitation facilities, then the American deaths may have meaning. If there’s enough of this complete (fair and balanced?) reporting, then viewers and readers may think the gain is worth the pain, and…well, all that advocacy writing goes to shit.
This deliberate dismissal is common in the major subjects of today’s advocacy editing and writing. Advocates either ignore the positive and promote the negative, like in Iraq, or ignore the negative and promote the positive, as in so many domestic social subjects; education, Social Security, environmental regulations, “alternative fuels”, etc.
It is these negative and ultimately dishonest traits that are diminishing the influence of modern Democrats and modern…I’m sorry, I just can’t call it reporting; it’s advocacy writing, often indistinguishable from the writing that comes from corporate or real estate promotional brochures.
January 22nd, 2005 at 16:08:47 +0000
Greg, I’m sorry my dismissal of Iraqi sewer project stories makes me a fearful pessimistic left-wing advocacy journalist! But maybe I have a good career ahead of me in real estate!
January 22nd, 2005 at 16:36:32 +0000
Derek,
I am against totalitarism, I am for freedom and individual rights. This is not self-righteous. These are either – or choices. I agree that I am your enemy because we have made opposing choices.
David Sunderland
January 22nd, 2005 at 16:40:12 +0000
One last try before I write you off. Why don’t we get stories like this in American news media?
You wrote, “If people were honestly interested in coverage of sewer projects opening in Iraq, we’d cover them. And we wouldn’t cover stuff like Laci Peterson and Michael Jackson if no one cared about them.”
You’re really serious? You actually believe that people don’t care about sewer projects in Iraq? Have you never heard of Arthur Chrenkoff? Can you possibly be this ignorant and be a blogger?
January 22nd, 2005 at 17:05:46 +0000
Antimedia, you don’t mean stories like this, do you?
My impression is that people are more interested in hearing about reading how the media is ignoring positive sewer-opening stories, than actually reading about sewer-opening stories in the MSM. Perhaps I’m mistaken?
I am familiar with Chrenkoff … he was actually kind enough to link to me, in the name of open debate. Also, read my P.P.S. above.
David, I’m for totalitarianism because I’m won’t label people who attack U.S. soldiers as “terrorists”?
January 22nd, 2005 at 17:57:06 +0000
Nice try, Derek, but the soldier’s hometown newspaper doesn’t count. Nobody outside of Syracuse reads it. We’re talking about the NY and national media (which are almost one and the same). Please point to stories in those outlets.
Yes, you are mistaken. It’s a shame, because you’re young and represent the future of the MSM. From your responses, that future is bleak.
January 22nd, 2005 at 18:10:14 +0000
Antimedia, we did some of those big inspirational “hero” stories in 2003, but I agree they’ve mostly dried up now. Thinking about this a little bit more, I do agree that most people would probably love to read some genuine, real good news out of Iraq. Hell, maybe we’ll get some in the elections next week. I sure hope so. But there also might be a reason why most of the news out of Iraq is bad.
January 22nd, 2005 at 18:31:36 +0000
The thing the media misses is that, I for one as an American, don’t want a simple number of how many died today in Iraq. That’s important, but I also want to know what is going on in Iraq that is moving it towards a rebuilt country that will soon have elections.
As a journalism student, I know that it is up to especially editors to decide what news story has the greatest priority and is the biggest news. The problem now is that the priorities of these editors, and many journalists, is to pick the death count, and not the big picture of what is happening in Iraq that is a concern to at least many, if not most Americans. Its a big disconnect there.
January 22nd, 2005 at 18:49:42 +0000
Derek,
It looks as if some of the debate here goes to what kind of story gets ratings/sells papers. If I have my history correct, the network news shows did not make money until the early eighties. Before that the networks viewed them as a sort of public service. This took the ratings pressure off and made the newsworthiness question paramount. Do you think that journalism would be better served if we could resurect that sort of arrangement for certain outlets?
January 22nd, 2005 at 20:08:01 +0000
“Do you disagree with Nathan Wagner’s comments (No. 4), that reporters should be trying to answer those big-picture questions?”
No, those are very valid and important questions. And of course, the life-and-death events are important.
The references to a sewer treatment plant are just as an example. I think you are missing the point, as in your point no. 19. Again you use an admittedly weak example to refute the premise. In my opinion, the portrayal of only the violence in this particular situation play into the hands of the criminals and fascists, criminal retrofascists (there’s a freebie for you, it applies to them all…), who want to derail progress. The media acts as a psychological force multiplier to every car bombing, et al. I think they should re-evaluate their ethics and place that concern up high on the list of considerations.
I think that you personally and certainly the media in general view the portrayal of positive events as propaganda for the US. Others have stated this in different ways,and the whole of most comments is respectful but this afternoon you are reacting defensively to certain points in a way which enables you to maintain your preconditions. Understandable, but disappointing.
You said, “…we did some of those big inspirational “hero” stories in 2003…”
As if such was a big production or required a special effort. That very characterization depicts a bias against the endeavor. Think about the hundreds of thousands of personal human-interest stories in that country right now, much bad but much good and hopeful for the future. And we’re missing it. And I am not happy. CBS is ruined, the NYT is a bird-cage rag, and the rest follow suit.
January 22nd, 2005 at 20:10:08 +0000
Nathan,
Isn’t that what blogs are all about? Despite the impression people may have gotten from this particular post, I’m very excited about how the blogosphere is and will transform the media. I’m certainly not a blanket defender of the MSM. I had the chance to interview the Powerline guys when they were named Time’s blog of the year, and asked one of them if he thought blogs would ever supplant the MSM. He didn’t think so as the mainstream press has so many more resources. But I wonder. I mean, they have more readers than a lot of newspapers … eventually, people will be able to make a lot more money off blogs, I think.
January 22nd, 2005 at 20:27:24 +0000
I haven’t read all the comments so if this is repetitious please excuse me. You state that you call those who attack US troops “insurgents” nad those that attack civilians “terrorists”. What is the logic of that? Presumably they are the same folks, primarily Sunni Bathists, and they certainly have the same intent: to prevent the majority of Iraqui’s from forming a freely elected government. It is a distinction without a difference except for those who want this effort to fail. vty kent schmidt
January 22nd, 2005 at 20:29:01 +0000
I said, “…this afternoon you are reacting defensively to certain points in a way which enables you to maintain your preconditions.”
But I missed this comment by you, “Thinking about this a little bit more, I do agree that most people would probably love to read some genuine, real good news out of Iraq.”
I want to give you credit for considering at least some of what is being thrown at you today.
antimedia makes a good point. The stories are appearing in hometown, let’s say smaller media outlets, but have no chance of percolating upwards. And I wonder what appears on the wire services.
One more thing, my complaints and I think others’ here apply as much if not more to editorial decision-making than the considerable efforts of reporters.
January 22nd, 2005 at 22:52:39 +0000
Derek-
I have a somewhat different perspective on the same issue discused here, relevant though. I have served in the IDF untill Nov ‘03 and then I came to the U.S (im a citizen ) and there is a big gap between reality there and what is reported. IDF soldiers are portraid as brutal killers who have little or no compunction toward killing children. How about a story about the Palestinian “insurgents” (a.k.a murderouse terrorists) instructing those same children to charge IDF forces durin a riot with toy/mock weapons so that a soldier who is under fire from the real combatants suddenly sees an armed figure materialise out of the black smoke of burnig tires and point a weapon at him? Then the reports sent back to the U.S and Europe describe how well armed IDF troops shot and killed a 12 year old boy durin a demonstration. Or that terrorist engineers use children to transport bomb components to the desired location for an ambush becouse they know IDF soldiers will not fire on them, and then the engineer can sneak there unburdened, assemble and set the bomb? Or the children killed transporting said components? That does happen quite often, I was guarding while four men a couple of hundred feet away flew apart because the bomb they were trying to smuggle prematurely detonated. Or these many incidents at crossing/checkpoints, why not say that Israel has those to let Palestinian workers into Israeli territories to work for the day and the terrorists use that to enter the country proper and kill civilians or to suicide bomb the checkpoint itself (and then many of the victims are actually Palestinian)? Hell, we are required now to shoot farm animals when they wander alone toward us becouse they have used “suicide donkeys”. I cannot link you to articles or the sort as this is from when I was in the army and I know the truth via experiance and so that was a year+ ago. How about a story about hate propaganda in Palestinian schools:(http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/Ending_the_Incitement.asp ). I am not saying MSM stories are always inacurate but they are incredibly lopsided.
P.S I found an example for one of my examples: (http://backspin.typepad.com/backspin/2005/01/deadly_childs_p.html), there are a bunch of example here.
P.P.S Sorry I cant link properly, I dont know how, Im new to all this.
January 23rd, 2005 at 00:06:33 +0000
Bob,
Thank you. Here’s one thing to ponder, though. Don’t “hero” stories also give a “distorted” view of a soldier’s life in Iraq, a big complaint in people’s earlier comments? I mean, doing stories on the heros who win the Silver Star, and not the everyday grunts …
Okay, I’m being facetious of course. (And yes, sure, they’re all heros, even the ones who don’t win the Silver Star). But my point is just that journalism is about extremes, not the ordinary.
January 23rd, 2005 at 00:20:35 +0000
Kent,
Good question. From what I understand about 20 or 30 different groups that comprise the insurgency. No question Zarqawi and his sick group of thugs are terrorists, but I don’t know if all of the other groups have attacked civilians.
I know that might be an unsatisfying answer, or seem like splitting hairs. But as a reporter you have to be prepared to answer a lot of “what if” questions from editors — “what if this, this and this — then isn’t your story wrong?”
January 23rd, 2005 at 00:32:33 +0000
Dan,
I’ve opened up enough of a can of worms with this post — I’m not going to get drawn into a discussion of the reporting on Israel/Palestine! But eesh, “suicide donkeys.” No question there’s some sickos out there. I’m glad you survived the experience.
January 23rd, 2005 at 10:26:00 +0000
Here’s another thought I’ve been pondering.
If Iraq is slipping toward civil war, the insurgency is gaining strength, the Coalition failing to win Iraqis’ hearts-and-minds, if the troop levels are woefully inadequate and Iraqi security forces poorly trained and untrustworthy — then can we all agree it would be pretty irresponsible for the press to be focusing on happy news stories about sewer plant openings? It would sorta be like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic; sticking one’s head in the sand.
If, on the other hand, Iraq is moving steadily toward democracy, if things are getting better and better, if 80% of Iraqis are going to turn out to vote next week, if the average Iraqi is revulsed by the insurgents’ tactics, if the U.S. military dealt the insurgency a crushing blow in Falluhah and are winning Iraqis’ hearts and minds — then yeah, the media portrayal has been far too negative.
Now, I really don’t know which of those two scenarios is closer to the truth. I mean, I’m not a military expert, haven’t been to Iraq and haven’t read any of those books Ryan mentions in his article. Some of the press accounts I’ve read certainly suggests Scenario One is closer to the mark – but it’s a bit of circular argument to say that we should trust the media coverage hasn’t been biased because of the media coverage.
I certainly think the reporters in Iraq are honest, hardworking people risking their lives bring us the story. Anyone who thinks they’d cover up a massacre in a mosque needs to get their head checked.
As I mentioned before, I think ultimately that next week’s elections will be a crucial test for Iraq, and should tell us which scenario is closer to the truth.
January 23rd, 2005 at 12:27:12 +0000
Mr. Rose,
Do you recall all the fury unleashed by the alleged looting of the Iraq National Museum?
Some of your highest-paid colleagues blew that story and NEVER admitted their mistakes.
Iraq Antiquities Revisited.
I’ve been teaching for a long time and know poor work when I see it. The MSM’s initial coverage and academia’s knee-jerk reaction (my field, sad to say) reflect very badly on our professions. Be a man and accept it. Read my humble investigation and tell me what you think.
*
January 23rd, 2005 at 12:36:14 +0000
Mr. Rose,
>I certainly think the reporters in Iraq are honest, hardworking people risking their lives bring us the story. Anyone who thinks they’d cover up a massacre in a mosque needs to get their head checked.
You are simply naive. Journalists have several Achilles’ heels and one of them is the liberal master-narrative they carry around in their heads that tells them that Bush is the Devil and American soldiers are baby-killers. I wish it weren’t so, but it is. It’s the same in my area, academia. Again, the story of the looting of the Iraq National Museum, mentioned above, is illustrative. The journalists on the spot did NOT ask tough questions of the people on the scene because what they were being told FIT their preconceived notions.
I hope this isn’t too subtle for you. I know you’re trying to be straight-forward, but I’ve been in the business of interpretation and evaluation of texts TWENTY years longer than you.
The power of the internet is that now for the first time we, the readers, the consumers, can RESPOND directly to the slanted news you are trying to peddle — news that you don’t even KNOW is slanted.
And it’s has only just begun.
*
January 23rd, 2005 at 14:01:40 +0000
Jeffrey, with all respect, I think you’re reaching. The number of artifacts looted was less than initially reported, about 14,000 instead of 170,000, as the Times noted in a March 31, 2004 story. But the museum was still looted of many of its most precious items, including the Warka Vase (later recovered under the amnesty program). And yes, U.S. troops were guarding the Oil Ministry at the time.
I’m not saying the press shouldn’t be criticized for exaggerating the extent of the looting, but the shitstorm you lay on us is just as exaggerated. How did the reporters’ ideology blind them to what actually happened? (musuem staff hiding some of the artifacts before the war to prevent looting). And your line about Burns and McGeough “cooling their heels at a desk somewhere” is pretty damn unseemly, since a cursory examination would show they’re both in Baghdad.
Everyone has a certain narrative, or view of the world, they carry around in their heads. It’s why Lt. Col. Ryan’s essay rocketed around the blogosphere as fast as it did, despite its substantive errors.
January 23rd, 2005 at 14:59:01 +0000
A little more on John F. Burns, the Pulitzer-Prize winning NYT correspondent who Jeffrey accuses of “cooling his heels on a desk somewhere” while other reporters are “actually … gasp! … researching the story”:
* He was kidnapped, blindfolded and threatened by supporters of Moktada al-Sadr while reporting from Kufa in April 2004.
* Before the invasion, he was hounded by Iraq’s secret police and information ministry for writing stories with headlines like, “How Many People Has Saddam Hussein Killed?”
* He nearly collapsed from exhaustion after returning home from Baghdad after the fall of Iraq.
* He’s also been kicked out of China and reported from Sarajevo and Afghanistan.
January 23rd, 2005 at 15:11:23 +0000
Mr. Rose,
A month after the events, McGeough was definitely cooling his heels outside of Iraq. I fact-checked that myself, but you are free, of course, to double check.
And, by the way, are you tone-deaf? You can’t hear sarcasm?
“Pretty damn unseemly”? Is this a joke? Do you know anything about McGeough’s politics? I do. It isn’t “unseemly.”
And you STILL have the numbers wrong. Jeezus.
>501,000 artifacts in total, of which 2% (8,560) still missing
Check my blog entry again. It’s at the end and I provide sources.
>How did the reporters’ ideology blind them to what actually happened?
Do I have to spell this out for you again? McGeough ASSUMED that the American soldiers were barbarians and whatever the Iraqi guard told them MUST be true because its perfect alignment with his view of America and its soldiers. Mr. Rose, there was no cross-checking or corroboration. Basics in your profession, aren’t they?
I read many, many of McGeough’s articles when I researched that blog entry. His commentary pieces bleed into his hard-news articles. I witnessed it time and again. However, even in his first article, Burns was more cautious than McGeough, and he is, of course, a fine journalist. But the lure of the BIG STORY even got the better of a journalist of his stature. Different man, different Achilles’ heel.
Listen, there are many fine journalists, some of them are my friends (James Glanz for the NYTimes, for example) but journalism as a profession hasn’t been critically analyzed or challenged enough until the past few years.
The next few years, believe me, are going to rough on journalists. I kid you not. Get used to it.
Admitting that your profession has serious problems is a first, essential step. If you can’t do that, you’re going to be sidestepped. It’s as simple as that.
You want more evidence?
If Sarah Boxer Were a Blogger ….
The Myth of the Foreign Correspondent.
You also might want to look at Jeff Jarvis’s comments on the article by Spinner.
*
January 23rd, 2005 at 15:14:44 +0000
Mr. Rose,
I have just made my comments about Burns. I think he is a very good journalist. But he did NOT produce any follow-up on what he originally wrote. Other journalists and bloggers were left to seek the truth.
Man, are you so sad that you have to create a PATRON SAINT out of Mr. Burns?
Phew!
Let’s go, tiger!
*
January 23rd, 2005 at 15:24:55 +0000
Jeffrey, I won’t have time to respond until probably late tonight, but you can read my take on the Boxer affair here.
January 23rd, 2005 at 15:35:09 +0000
Mr. Rose,
It would be Un-American of me to respond while football is being played. Agreed. We set aside our pikes while our gridiron heroes smash each other.
And, of course, at halftime, I’ll read your comments on L’affaire Boxer.
*
January 23rd, 2005 at 20:23:38 +0000
Derek:
There is a big difference between reporting about whats happenning
in US or Australia, whether thousands of flights are successfully
taking off and landing, and some flight crashing and so on; and IRAQ.
There is a WAR going on in IRAQ which is part of a larger global WAR
(similar to the cold war but against terrorism, fueled by militant
Islam.) This war in IRAQ is not just shooting and killing. Building roads,
sewage plants, making schools, etc. etc. are equally important actions of this
war. So when MSM news reports exaggerate on the looting of museum and the correction
(if any) appears in the nth page, then the exaggeration sticks in people’s
mind. In my workplace not a single person knows about the exaggeration,
but every one knows about the looting. You might take your own poll and
verify this. This single exaggertaion is repeated all over the world as
a proof that US went to war for oil, not to help IRAQ achieve democracy.
…
When MSM reports every act of the terrorists (or insurgents as you call it sometimes)
because they are negative, and fail to report most of the acts of the
US soldiers and Iraqi authorities as most of them are positive, isn’t it
obvious that they are creating an unbalanced image. Doesn’t the
MSM then become the propaganda tool of the terrorists?
You mentioned that most of Cherenkoff’s pointers to positive
news about IRAQ are to MSM articles, and wondered what is this complaint about
MSM not giving positive coverage. The answer is: For negative news you do
not have to go to 20 different newspapers. A single NYTimes,
or WashPost, or whatever would suffice. For positive news you need to compile,
as a single MSM outlet will have 1 positive article to X (my guess is X > 10)
negative article. Thats why so many of us eagerly wait for Arthur’s compilation,
to balance the negativism accumulated by reading one or 2 MSM outlet.
Having said all this, I appreciate your blogging and response to the
comments. You seem to be genuinely interested in understanding the
complaint that many of us have against MSM. Hope I have helped a bit.
January 24th, 2005 at 02:12:03 +0000
Jeffrey,
Would it be that that were so. I actually work Sundays and had to head to Rockland County to interview family of one of three FDNY firefighters killed in the line of duty yesterday. John Bellew leaves behind a wife and four kids aged six to five months. Ugh.
The Times used the 14,000 figure again today; I actually found the link to the story on one of the sites you mentioned, although he uses different figures.
I will admit I’m not an expert on antiquities and don’t know much about McGeough. I did read a little about him and think you might be correct in your assessment about his commentary, though. I’m a big fan of Burns’, obviously.
It’s worth noting that the Times did step away, somewhat, from the 170,000 figure in a story written just a few days later. Also, the Orlando Sentinel piece you link to isn’t the full Burns story, which can be found here. He describes Marines scaring off looters but not having the troops for an around-the-clock guard, not looking idly by while chewing Wrigley’s gum. I don’t see it as a “slanderous portrayals of our troops.”
Yes, Burns made an error by not realizing that many of the antiquities had been taken off-site. We all make mistakes, even the best of us. I don’t think you’ve shown that that mistake was ideologically-motivated, at least on Burns’ part. Nor have you shown him incorrectly describing soldiers’ actions.
That said, we all bring our internal view of the world to our work, howevermuch we try to be objective, and I’m sure there are many other stories where reporters’ biases has led them astray.
As I mentioned to in Comment 34, I’m generally excited about how blogs will transform journalism (although I’m not quite sure what form that will take). I think it’s great that the blogosphere let interviewees talk back to the interviewers, and disseminates decentralized knowledge and nformation that otherwise wouldn’t get shared.
(cbaral – I’ll have to respond to you tomorrow – i’m headed for bed!)
January 24th, 2005 at 05:17:10 +0000
Derek, MSM bias is a sum of the parts. What the liberal left does is dissect each individual item to point out plausible alternatives. If there are enough alternative explanations, we can say there is no proof of bias.
Using the old saying “If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck – its a duck” a typical leftist would point out that a platypus has a duck like bill therefore there are other things that can look like a duck, that swans waddle like ducks therefore there are other things that can walk like a duck, and that a Macintosh sound system can produce a quack therefore there are other things that sound like ducks. Because there are all these alternative answers I cannot prove that that this waddling, duck billed quacking bird I see in front of me is a duck. To ignore the obvious combination of facts, even when its staring you right in the face, is what makes many conservatives frustrated with arguing with the left.
If the MSM has a preference for negative stories (as you and many others claim), then it must be having a field day revealing the brutality of the Iraqi “resistance” the sordid death culture of Palestinians, or the dysfunctional train-wreck of a society created by the Iranians. But despite the claim that they want negative stories, it seems the MSM are only interested in negative stories that reflect badly on the US.
But there is no bias in this – our lefty continues – the US audience are only interested in what happens to US people. Local always beats global. Hmmm, does this mean the Israel-Palestine issue will no longer be covered because no Americans are involved?
People don’t dissect each and every issue to determine whether or not they trust someone, they judge it instinctively by looking at a person as whole. If a person is known to lie, exaggerate, misrepresent or skew their stories people will instinctively be wary of anything he may say. Alternatively, if someone is known to be a straight shooter, honest in their information and also quick to correct themselves if they find their facts are wrong – don’t people instinctively trust him as a reliable source of news. In all honesty Derek, if the MSM was a real person, which type of person do you think he would he be?
January 24th, 2005 at 13:18:20 +0000
cbaral,
First, a quibble. From what I read on the US Aid site, the coalition is not building new roads or making new schools, although it has been repairing existing ones.
That aside, reconstruction of Iraq is of course an important story … I just don’t think it should be covered through grip-and-grin stage-managed ribbon-cutting ceremonies, which is usually how media handlers would like. The media has been covering the reconstruction; see recent stories here, here, and perhaps most notably here. But you probably won’t see that story on Chrenkoff because it’s not exactly glowing.
You’re right about Chrenkoff’s compilation … I just wonder if, as I mention in Comment 41, there’s not a good reason you’re seeing a 10:1 good news/bad news ratio in the mainstream press.
January 24th, 2005 at 14:53:55 +0000
You “wonder” if “there’s a good reason you’re seeing a 10:1 good news/bad news ratio in the mainstream press”?
Wonder no more. On a day when not a single person died in Iraq due to a terrorist attack (not one bombing, not one mortar attack, not one suicide mission), what did the esteemed press report on?
AP
* Hospital Fire in Iraq Kills 14, Hurts 75
* U.S. Envoy Acknowledges Iraq Election Woes
* Al-Zarqawi Said to Declare ‘Fierce War’
Reuters
* Al Qaeda Ally Declares All-Out War on Iraqi Election
* U.S. Promises ‘Elaborate Security’ for Iraq Vote
NY Times
* U.S. Envoy Tries to Assure Iraqis of Security at Polls
* General Seeking Faster Training of Iraq Soldiers
* As Election Nears, Iraqis Remain Sharply Divided on Its Value
Washington Post
* U.S. Attmpts To Build Trust, Leaders in Iraq
Not ONE! headline – “No attacks in Iraq” – not ONE! story – “Insurgents take the day off” – not ONE!
Derek, if you’re still wondering, there’s no hope for you. We’re watching your profession, Derek, and we don’t like what we see, and we will change it. Your bosses will either change, or they will go the way of the dinosour. Newspaper circulation numbers are plummeting. Major television companies are losing viewership at alarming rates (CNN dropped 63% from 2001 to 2004 inauguaration coverage). How much more gutting of your profession has to occur before you get it? Before someone sees the light?
And if your profession is so obviously devoid of insight about itself, what does that say for its ability to understand and correctly convey stories? To tell the truth, as it were? To see all sides of an issue?
I can’t make it any plainer. If journalism doesn’t open its eyes soon, it will be relegated to the ash heap of history – an artifact of the days when information was still controlled by the elites. Those days are receding fast.
January 24th, 2005 at 16:14:49 +0000
Derek,
The more I have researched the Iraq National Museum story, the more it has become of story of shameless relinquishment of journalistic standards by many of your colleagues. I’m sorry, but I have investigated this story also in French and German and the vitriol and lack of basic reporting is almost impossible to believe.
There were, however, a few journalists who decided to look for the truth. Believe it or not, just FIVE days after the “all gone, Americans stood by” theme began to be played by all the media outlets, each one trying to outdo the other with its “Americans the Barbarians” imagery, there was one lone journalist who actually interviewed the museum director, Donny George:
>By YAROSLAV TROFIMOV
>Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
>BAGHDAD, Iraq — Last week’s looting of the Iraq National Museum, which saw numerous items disappear from a vast collection spanning eight millennia of Mesopotamian history, has provoked world-wide outcry — and criticism of the U.S. military for its failure to protect Iraq’s priceless cultural heritage.
>But, thanks to Iraqi preparations before the war, it seems the worst has been avoided. Donny George, the director-general of restoration at the Iraqi Antiquities Department, Wednesday said his staff had preserved the museum’s most important treasures, including the kings’ graves of Ur and the Assyrian bulls. These objects were hidden in vaults that haven’t been violated by looters.
>”Most of the things were removed. We knew a war was coming, so it was our duty to protect everything,” Mr. George said. “We thought there would be some sort of bombing at the museum. We never thought it could be looted.”
No other media outlet picked up on this. Why? Shoddy journalism? It didn’t fit the master-narrative. Journalists too pissed off the Iraq War had gone smoothly? I don’t know. Any ideas?
For the rest of April and halfway through May the vilification of the Americans showed no respite. Each lede was a gob of spit in the face of the American public.
Then in the middle of May the BBC reported that the antiquities may be “stashed away” and the AP announced that they “may be safe.”
On May 22, Alex Spillius, writing for the Telegraph, acknowledged that the looting story was a “mistake.”
More silence.
Then the shit hit the fan on June 8. All the major publications reported that the 170,000 figure had been an “exaggeration.” David Aaronovitch at the Guardian quipped, “It’s bollocks.”
I’ve read articles from EACH day of that two-month period, in English and French and German. Journalists f*cked up bigtime, Derek. And all along, one guy, Yaroslav Trofimov, had gotten to something much closer to the truth, just five days after the alleged “looting and pillaging under the American’s noses.”
As others have mentioned above, I think you are open listening to our criticism. I know it isn’t easy for you because this is your chosen profession. But as antimedia points out above, you guys have got to change or lose the little audience you have now.
One thing I would say, DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE YOUR READERS.
I wish I could say that the poor reporting around the Iraq National Museum was uncommon, but I can’t. I also watched the savage Bush head-hunting over the summer in the lead-up to the election. I’m a registered Democrat who voted for Bush. The MSM daily attacks on Bush, in the end, didn’t work. Why? We won’t take that shit anymore, Derek.
Oh, I agree about Burns. He’s a reputable reporter and has been consistent — as I stated, even as his mouth was watering for the American Mongols story, he offered measured qualifications, while McGeough turned to pure propaganda.
*
January 24th, 2005 at 16:17:08 +0000
Antimedia, “Insurgents Take Day off Due to Rain” – that’s hilarious!! Sorry we can’t slant the news to fit your opinions, but they’re not even true. A security guard died Sunday when a bomb blew up an election office south of Baghdad. Insurgents also stormed a police station in Ramadi. And today there’s been at least 10 wounded in a car bombing in Baghdad. AFP reports two dead.
It also appears the insurgents are “saving up” for a big attack. Not my opinion, or that of the dastardly liberal press, but Air Force Brig. Gen. Erv Lessel, deputy director of operations in Iraq, who told CNN that “we think it’s a calm before the storm, that they’re unable to sustain the level of attacks that they’ve had, but they’re saving up for something more spectacular in the days proceeding elections and on election day.”
January 24th, 2005 at 16:43:46 +0000
Lionel, I think saying the MSM has a preference for “negative stories” is a simplification. We have a preference for dramatic stories. I think that generally the record of human history is one of steady, slow progress occassionally set back by cataclysms – wars, earthquakes, tsunamis, epidemics, genocide, etc. Progress tends to be slower and less dramatic and sometimes we miss it. But positive news stories about scientific breakthroughs, capture of saddam hussein, etc., tend to be very well-reported.
I’m sorry that you’ve missed all the stories on the beheading of Nick Berg and Kilm Sun-Il or the murder of Margaret Hassan, all of which I was involved in writing. This scoop of mine on an Islamic culture of death was picked up by MSNBC, CNN and the German newspaper Bild. I do agree that Iran hasn’t really been on the media radar screen that much, but
a number of countries are equally fucked upwe could be writing stories about a number of “dysfunctional train-wreck” societies — odd you’re only mentioning one.January 24th, 2005 at 17:25:12 +0000
Derek wrote “You write that “In Fallujah, the enemy death toll has exceeded 1,500.” Forgive me for being skeptical. But I’m curious how much confidence you have in that figure. My understanding is that enemy kill totals are little more than best guesses by commanders on the ground.”
A search on google led me to this entry on CNN “The weeklong assault on the city — 30 miles west of Baghdad — has killed 1,000 to 2,000 insurgents, Marine Lt. Gen. John Sattler said. http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/14/iraq.main/
Since youre a huge supporter of the MSM…are you telling me that CNN didn’t verify these figures and blindly reported this? Should I ignore these figures coming from both a marine General and now Tim Ryan? ..Should I assume that CNN engaged in shoddy reporting even as you tell me to respect the MSM and that Dexter ‘s reporting is far more reliable. Two words come to my mind when trying to assess the veracity of the NY Times: Jayson Blair
A quick review of http://www.thegreenside.com . produced this from Dave , a Marine, who emailed this to his dad…should I assume another Marine is lying and to his DAD no less?
“By now the Marines and Soldiers have killed well over a thousand enemy. These were not peasants or rabble. They were reasonably well trained and entirely fanatical.” The “recruiting videos” that we capture contain graphic scenes of beheadings, tortured confessions and insanely violent rhetoric. Even after what we have seen, it is hard to watch them. The enemy celebrates them.
I will write you more the next time I come in about what we have found inside the city. All I can say is that even with everything that I knew and expected from the last nine months, the brutality and fanaticism of the enemy surprised me. The beheadings were even more common place than we thought but so were torture and summary executions. . There are hundreds of tons of munitions and tens of thousands of weapons that our Regiment alone has recovered. The Marines and Soldiers of the Regiment have also found over 400 IEDs already wired and ready to detonate.”
So far much of Tim Ryans stories and complaints about the MSM have been corroborated.
Derek wrote “Despite searches on Google News and Nexis, I’ve been unable to find any story headlines, “Seven Marines Die in Iraq Clashes.” I find it hard to believe that any reporter would knowingly leave this detail out and would like to see a citation”
Well Derek – a quick search on Google netted me over 12000 entries. The first ten appeared in papers across the country and on Al Jeezera and all of them came from the AP!
As Tim says – not one mention of the.Coalition troops killing 50 or so terrorists while incurring those seven losses!
Re: Alex Berenson: First his claim to have been captured by the Mahdi…according to the blog “Back To Iraq” belonging to a former AP and Daily News Reporter, in an entry dated Aug 26, 2004, called “Bad Day in Najaf” he wrote this:
“I do know what’s happening with the police department, however. They’re raiding the Sea of Najaf hotel and rounding the 100 or so journalists at gunpoint and subjecting them to mass arrest? . He was with Alex Berenson when they tried to get to Shrine earlier that day. And he writes that it was the Mahdi militants that protected the reporters, in the heat of a battle that was occurring. Later that day…all the reporters were rounded up at gun point by the COPS not the Mahdi Army.
Quoting him “These are Najaf’s finest. They’re like the old regime, only less disciplined. They’re terrifying and they’re the most dangerous element in this conflict. The Americans and the Mahdi Army have pretty set positions and you know they’re not targeting journalists. But the police here have been engaging in a systematic intimidation of us for three weeks now.. “
Since I could find NO other source to lend credibility to Alex claim that he was held captive by the Mahdi army – for now I can only believe he was a part of the reporters rounded up at gun point by the Najaf police force. The reason for the round up is quite interesting. Please check out the entry!
Futher by Tim Chavez: in the Tennesean.com entry dated 11/4/04 “Reports From The WarFront Dicey” he writes” As for the atrocities, this excerpt from a letter Maj. Butler wrote in The Nation magazine, a prominent liberal publication, appears to back Rose:
”Sadr’s forces butchered scores of Iraqi policemen and their families in a most horrific manner, then left their bodies to rot in the basement of a courthouse. Children were boiled, spouses were roasted with blowtorches and police officers were hacked to death in attempts to derive information and demonstrate the depth of Sadr’s will to all who oppose him and his movement.”
Maj. Butler, a helicopter pilot, is higher on the credibility scale because The New York Times believed him knowledgeable enough to publish an Aug. 23 op-ed column he wrote on the battle of Najaf. He was there.
This too seems to corroborate Tim Ryan’s comments, and stand in sharp contrast to Alex Berenson. However I think its best to consider the insight from Carl Prine, an investigative reporter for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, who accompanied Marines in the invasion of Iraq and: is a former Marine ”As for the veracity of Lt. Col. Rose, he seems to sincerely believe what was briefed at the staff meetings. Maj. Butler heard the same things, and saw a lot of other things, from a helicopter. Each perspective is important”
It seems Lt Col Tim Ryan perspective is alot closer to the truth. I stand with him, Derek, A trust him more than I will ever trust Alex Berenson, the NYTimes, and the MSM.
January 24th, 2005 at 18:29:06 +0000
Huntress,
First, learn to link.
I used the military’s figures too. No, I don’t think anyone tried to independently verify them, other than to the extent Filkins reported he found few bodies in Fallujah. I don’t see how you could. If you want to call this shoddy reporting, you’re welcome to your opinion. But most of the official government figures you hear in the media are just “blindly reported”; sorry to burst your bubble there. And I am certainly not accusing anyone of lying. I just suspect the 1,500 figure is more of a guess than an estimate.
My google search did not find any article with the headline Ryan talks about. Why don’t you just post the link of one of the 12,000 articles you say you found?
Isn’t it a little weird to discount the NYT so thoroughly, and then rely on it to bolster the credibility of Maj. Butler, a helicopter pilot who (presumably) wouldn’t have been on the ground? Butler doesn’t allege to have seen any of this.
“Each perspective is important” – that’s a bunch of crap. Either there were hundreds of bodies in the mosque, or there weren’t. If you can produce witnesses, photographs, other documentary evidence, by all means, I’m listening.
January 24th, 2005 at 18:51:43 +0000
At the risk of undermining my own argument, I thought my readers might be interested in this ABC News World News Tonight special section. This report was just broadcast on WNT minutes ago, including the line, “Every U.S. officer encountered today said the media has missed or under-reported the reconstruction aspect of the U.S. mission.” And they had >this interesting poll.
Barring a mega-attack, I do suspect we’ll see more election-timed stories this week about how the reconstruction is going, how Iraqis are living their lives, etc. My editor is actually headed on Tikrit to report on the election froom an embedded unit there.
January 24th, 2005 at 21:09:36 +0000
Derek:
I have been following this for a few days now. I have to agree with most of the posters here that the news is skewed. But your link to ABC WNT is a good solid story. I think that is fair. It shows both good and bad. It’s more realistic. I think one of the problems people have with the news these day’s is not so much the “news” in general, it’s Cable news! MSNBC, CNN, Fox News they are all 24 hours a day. Once a news story is in, they keep running with it. Bringing in experts and calling it analysis. When it’s really Opinions.
I would like to hear less of this “Insurgents explode car bomb at mosque killing 24 Iraqi’s!” & “Insurgents say they will kill anyone trying to vote!” But that’s all that’s on the news when you turn on the TV, it’s all bad news and it’s not just Iraq either. It’s local news too. Sensationalism has been a problem in the media for a long time, at least as long as I can remember. When I was a kid, my parents used to talk about how it’s always bad news on the TV.
All the bad news makes us look like we are losing and we suck.
Our soldiers have been saying this for a long time, “you always hear what the insurgents did, you never hear what we did to the insurgents!” Other than the major things like Fallujah and Najaf or the big prison thing. Allot of the guys who have come back say that the insurgents attack the Army patrols and then get blown away for attacking. But in the news, all we hear about is that the insurgents attacked the army patrol. The bad guys are not winning, there is no way they can win unless we leave. And they (the insurgents) cant make us leave, we would have to do it on our own choice or be asked by a democratically elected government. So why is the news so bad all the time from Iraq? Why does it make it out to be we are losing? Because that’s what’s going through peoples minds, is this worth it? Doesn’t seem like it according to the news.
January 24th, 2005 at 21:20:40 +0000
Jeffrey,
Reading and considering your last post, I think you’ve made a stronger case and have a valid point. I haven’t gone back and read all the stories myself, but the Yaroslav Trofimov article bolsters your claim considerably, IMHO.
…As I’ve said all along, I think the press does have its problems. It’ll be interesting to see how the MSM reacts as the blogosphere continues to evolve.
January 24th, 2005 at 23:14:30 +0000
Derek,
Yes, the Trofimov article is just plain strange, coming as it did on April 17, 2003. Probably odder still are the multiple and disparate stories coming from the museum director, Donny George. As one journalist queried, “Will the real Donny George please stand up?”
Tomorrow I’m going to email Trofimov and ask him why no followed up on what was revealed in his interview. I’m just curious. I imagine he was too at the time.
You’re a good man to stand up to our criticism. Thanks.
I’m in academia myself and I see all too often “commentary” bleeding into places where it shouldn’t, so we share many concerns.
By the way, in one of my critical reading classes for ESL students, we look at the same, individual events covered by the Daily News, NYPost, and the NYTimes. Same story, three versions. I’ve created a whole semester’s worth of lessons based on this plan. Anyway, the events selected are wide-ranging. Today, for example, we read the Daily News version of an event from back in 1999, when a retired teacher named Dennis Heiner smeared white paint on a painting at the Brooklyn Museum of Art. Because this is for ESL students, we read for grammar basics like direct and indirect speech, but we also discuss content issues like, in this case concerning Mr. Heiner and the artist Chris Ofili, the First Amendment implications. Anyway, I admire good journalists and have read enough about the history and theory of journalism to know its shifting tensions. And, you’re right, the blogosphere in particular and the internet in general, have brought many elements of journalism into sharp focus.
You must, as a journalist and a blogger, feel those tensions yourself.
*
January 24th, 2005 at 23:15:37 +0000
Huntress, here is a story where Alex Berenson describes being taken captive by Sadr’s supporters.
January 24th, 2005 at 23:36:37 +0000
I find my local paper (Arizona Republic), and other papers that I follow or
have followed in the past (Washington Post, NYTimes) do a pretty good
balancing of positive and negative news (actually they have more positive news)
when reporting on the local/metro events.
Considering the importance of whats happenning in Iraq, if someone
would publish a newspaper that has a special Iraq section with wide
coverage of both positive and negative news, my guess is
it would really sell. Until then Arthur Cherenkoff Zindabad.
(Long Live Arthur Cherenkoff!)
January 25th, 2005 at 10:18:37 +0000
Derek,
As I mentioned above, the mercurial Donny George remains a black hole in this story.
Check out a WaPo article from June 9, 2003:
>All Along, Most Iraqi Relics Were ‘Safe and Sound’
>By William Booth and Guy Gugliotta
>Washington Post Staff Writers
>Monday, June 9, 2003; Page A12
>BAGHDAD, June 8 — The world was appalled. One archaeologist described the looting of Iraq’s National Museum of Antiquities as “a rape of civilization.” Iraqi scholars standing in the sacked galleries of the exhibit halls in April wept on camera as they stood on shards of cuneiform tablets dating back thousands of years.
>In the first days after Baghdad fell to U.S. forces, condemnation rained down on U.S. military commanders and officials in Washington for failing to stop the pillage of priceless art, while tanks stood guard at the Ministry of Oil. It was as if the coalition forces had won the war, but lost an important part of the peace and history.
>Apparently, it was not that bad.
>The museum was indeed heavily looted, but its Iraqi directors confirmed today that the losses at the institute did not number 170,000 artifacts as originally reported in news accounts.
>Actually, about 33 priceless vases, statues and jewels were missing.
>”I said there were 170,000 pieces in the entire museum collection,” said Donny George as he stood with beads of sweat glistening on his forehead in his barren office at the museum. “Not 170,000 pieces stolen.”
>George, the director general of research and study of the Iraqi State Board of Antiquities and the source for the original number, said the theft of 170,000 pieces would have been almost impossible: “No, no, no. That would be every single object we have!”
Why he himself wasn’t vigorously challenging the numbers that had been smeared across the front pages of newspapers for close to two months I’ll never know.
BTW, “Apparently, it was not that bad” has to stand as one of the classic examples of soft-pedalling past the graveyard that I have come across. I’m assuming Booth and Gugliotta were laughing as they typed that one.
Two solid months of castigating America and Americans, painting them with brushes inspired by the German Expressionists, and then they say, “My bad.”
Ha ha. Derek, you gotta admit, this is nuts, right?
*
January 25th, 2005 at 10:53:07 +0000
Derek, you responded to my post about insurgents taking the day off with this – “Antimedia, “Insurgents Take Day off Due to Rain” – that’s hilarious!! Sorry we can’t slant the news to fit your opinions, but they’re not even true. A security guard died Sunday when a bomb blew up an election office south of Baghdad. Insurgents also stormed a police station in Ramadi. And today there’s been at least 10 wounded in a car bombing in Baghdad. AFP reports two dead.”
Please use Nexis and tell me if you can find any stories of bombings, etc. in Iraq on 1/22/2005. Stories that talk about bombings from the previous day do not count. I searched Nexis and did not find any, but you’re probably better at searching Nexis than I am. You could also correlate the date with the weather report, if you have access to that. If it rained in Iraq on 1/22/2005 and you can’t find any reports of attacks, then that’s the date that Greyhawk was referring to.
January 25th, 2005 at 10:54:29 +0000
Derek,
Until a year or so ago, newspapers received feedback from letters to the editor. Only the newspaper, of course, had access to all of those ideas coming back at them. Then the editors chose which ones to publish. The editors, in other words, controlled the flow of information among the readers. We read the selected letters.
Everything has changed now. Many, many people are upset with journalism these days — including you — and now we are talking to each other. We are not writing letters to the editors in the hope that they’ll be published and another citizen will read my comments. Today antimedia posts on your blog and I read and respond at once. New communities of critical interpretation have been formed. You are part of it too. Just as I am both inside academia and critical of much of what I see.
Like you, I wonder what changes will be implemented because of this newly-born critical community of readers. One thing is sure. The old days where the newspapers controlled the comments of its readers is OVER.
Journalism is a profession, just as teaching is. You know, as a journalist, what you have had to learn to do your job well. Many of the skills come from daily experience and you can’t hand all of that to someone on a CD. It’s the same in teaching. I have been teaching for around fifteen years and what I have learned over those years cannot be downloaded onto an iPod, given to the next person, and ask him or her to go into the classroom. All the same, reasonable criticism is welcomed, right?
About the Sox, one of my brothers is a corporate number-cruncher and a life-long A’s fan and he tells me that a lot of Boston’s recent success (just a bit of understatement!) comes from the number-crunchers that used to work for the A’s. Is it correct that Bill James works for Boston? Back in 1977, my brother, after seeing an ad for it in his Sporting News, purchased Bill James’s first abstract when James was still working as a security guard somewhere. Because James combines a love of baseball and challenging statistics, James is a kind of hero for my High-Geek brother.
I’m currently reading Michael Lewis’s “Moneyball” about the triumph of the computer and spreadsheet over the ex-jock scouts’ visceral selections. Interesting.
*
January 25th, 2005 at 14:34:26 +0000
I suspect the link is [url]http://www.breakingnews.ie/2004/12/13/story180108.html[/url]. It’s around the right date. I guess Col. Ryan missed the “US” in his headline. Something an editor would normally catch, but I have to believe something lots of journalists would miss if they didn’t have their editors. To me his slip simply shows that he didn’t have an editor.
But your post:
“If Iraq is slipping toward civil war, the insurgency is gaining strength, the Coalition failing to win Iraqis’ hearts-and-minds, if the troop levels are woefully inadequate and Iraqi security forces poorly trained and untrustworthy – then can we all agree it would be pretty irresponsible for the press to be focusing on happy news stories about sewer plant openings? It would sorta be like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic; sticking one’s head in the sand.
“If, on the other hand, Iraq is moving steadily toward democracy, if things are getting better and better, if 80% of Iraqis are going to turn out to vote next week, if the average Iraqi is revulsed by the insurgents’ tactics, if the U.S. military dealt the insurgency a crushing blow in Falluhah and are winning Iraqis’ hearts and minds – then yeah, the media portrayal has been far too negative.”
Is really germane. A lot of your critics believe the second to be the case. I [i]think[/i] do too. But where is the factual reporting in the MSM that would allow all Americans to be able to evaluate which of these scenarios is more likely to be correct? There is some polling data, but these stories are hardly ever even near the front page. How about the performance of the Iraqi forces? This is surely a critical question on how things are going, but I’ve seen little about the details of their day to day performance unless it’s tied to a bombing attack. How’s the Iraqi economy doing? How much do we hear about that?
What I’d like to see is fewer graphs of US casualties and discussion with pols who usually have an axe to grind, and more about the facts on the ground – insamuch as we can know them.
By the way I too am impressed that you’re engaging people here.
January 25th, 2005 at 14:53:23 +0000
Sorry about the bad linking there.
[url=http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7305]This[/url] is another one on the same day that’s from the AP. In this case it’s “battles” not “clashes”.
January 25th, 2005 at 15:41:15 +0000
I’m reading all these comments, but probably won’t have a chance to respond until tonight. Gotta work! But I appreciate the thought everyone’s put into them, and do promise to respond.
And I did want to share this one little tidbit, for what it’s worth. A good friend is in Baghdad, um, in neither a journalistic or military capacity. Can’t really share more, and don’t know what he’s doing there. But did email him to ask whether things are getting better or worse. His response:
January 25th, 2005 at 17:54:15 +0000
Antimedia,
sorry, both your and comment and post were dated Sunday, so I assumed that was the day you meant. It may be that no-one was killed Saturday. It appears that Saturday there was a guerilla attack on a Mosul polling station that injured one; a decapitated body of an apparent Iraqi soldier found in Qaim; and a video claim by insurgents that they had slaughtered 15 national guardsmen.
I still say, trying to paint a one-day lull in bombings as a good-news story is like trying to put lipstick on a pig. If we can pull off the elections without a devastating attack, on the other hand…
January 25th, 2005 at 18:30:31 +0000
Jeffrey,
The A’s were probably the first baseball team to take advantage of advanced mathematics, but most of the Sox front office (Theo, Larry Lucchino, Tom Werner) got their start with the Padres. And yeah, they hired James.
Isn’t Moneyball interesting? There’s an even larger story about how computer modeling is transforming a number of fields. It’s like revenge of the nerds writ large. If you ever watch those World Series of Poker on ESPN, I think about half the guys are math geeks, not card sharks. (related story) John Henry, the Red Sox owner, made his billions using computer models to revolutionize futures markets. MIT grads have used math to take vegas for millions in blackjack. Computers are transforming chess.
And thankfully, I’ve only written one article in the past year or so that’s gotten me in trouble with readers … and I promise to be more cautious in future about saying Angelina Jolie is “every man’s fantasy” …
January 25th, 2005 at 18:55:38 +0000
Nittypig,
See the ABC News piece, as well as the comments from my friend in Baghdad (comment No. 71). The Washington Post also had this poll. Like I’ve been saying, though, I think the biggest test of how things are going will be next week’s election. I also certainly would be interested to learn how the Iraqi forces are doing. I guess the international press corps in Baghdad is having a hard time doing much reporting because of security concerns.
Also – if you are right about what story Lt. Col. Ryan was talking about, don’t you think he’s being terribly unfair? Centcom put out a statement (more here) reporting the Marine deaths, without saying where they occurred, their circumstances or how many of the enemy had died in the fighting. Not to blame Centcom for that – as the release says
January 25th, 2005 at 19:16:23 +0000
Derek, I appreciate your willingness to interact. You don’t have to, so that you do is encouraging.
WRT the day in question, (1/21/2005) it does not appear to me that the ABC News article you pointed to mentions any attacks on that Saturday. I believe Greyhawks statement that there were no attacks that Saturday to be factual unless proven otherwise. My point is not that the headline should read “Insurgents take the day off”, but that the press says nothing about a day when no attacks occurred, yet many attacks get banner headlines. This creates a false impression that nothing but attacks are going on – that all of Iraq is under siege and no one is safe. That impression is patently false, as anyone who reads Iraqi blogs knows. Baghdad is bad, no doubt. But there are many places in Iraq where there is no violence at all and many more where there is only sporadic violence – every few weeks or so.
That is my complaint. There’s no balance. The picture being painted is missing colors.
Earlier you said, “If Iraq is slipping toward civil war, the insurgency is gaining strength, the Coalition failing to win Iraqis’ hearts-and-minds, if the troop levels are woefully inadequate and Iraqi security forces poorly trained and untrustworthy – then can we all agree it would be pretty irresponsible for the press to be focusing on happy news stories about sewer plant openings? It would sorta be like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic; sticking one’s head in the sand.
“If, on the other hand, Iraq is moving steadily toward democracy, if things are getting better and better, if 80% of Iraqis are going to turn out to vote next week, if the average Iraqi is revulsed by the insurgents’ tactics, if the U.S. military dealt the insurgency a crushing blow in Falluhah and are winning Iraqis’ hearts and minds – then yeah, the media portrayal has been far too negative.”
The problem with this is, it’s a false dichotomy. The truth is somewhere in between, but you would never know that from the media. This idea that something is either all good or all bad simply isn’t realistic. The truth is, things are pretty bad in Baghdad right now, but there’s a great deal of hope for the future. The elections will place in stark relief, the hopes and aspirations of the Iraqi people and the demonic hatred of the terrorists. The end result will be that no reasonable person can think that the terrorists have a just cause, and that will spell their demise. It’s only a matter of time. Each day the Iraqi forces are getting better, more insurgents are being captured or killed, and security is improving (spectacular attacks notwithstanding.)
Has it ever occurred to you that the terrorists always seem to commit their attacks so that they’re timed to hit the TV news in America? Do you think that’s just coincidence? Or are you being used?
January 25th, 2005 at 20:06:27 +0000
Antimedia,
The AP/ABC News article is pretty clear there was a guerilla attack on Saturday, although you have to read to the end.
You say that things are getting better. “It’s only a matter of time. Each day the Iraqi forces are getting better, more insurgents are being captured or killed, and security is improving.” I hope you are right, but that is not, by and large, the impression I get reading and watching the MSM. Does that mean the press is hopelessly biased, or that you’re wrong? I don’t know! I’m not over there. (And I think you can probably find Iraqi blogs to support either argument … English-language blogs are probably unrepresentative in any case).
Also not sure what you said about the timing of attacks. With the 24-hour news cycle, it is not like there is any time that’s better than others to get press coverage. And I’m not sure they’ve been mostly at the same time. To the extent that they are, I think the attacks have been timed to rush hour.
But your larger point is well-taken: I’m sure the terrorists are trying to use the American press. You see that with the videos they’ve released (here, here, and most especially, here. I was thinking about this as I pondered this blog-entry criticizing myself and the American press:
I don’t know that this is exactly true – the insurgents may be far more interested in setting off a civil war than grabbing U.S. headlines. But ultimately, though, to the extent that it is — and I don’t mean this in a snarky way at all — but what do you do about it? I mean, the purpose of terrorism is to terrorize. All terrorism is committed to get headlines and news. I guess under Mr. Weidner’s logic, you could also blame the press for 9/11 & the bombings in Bali and Madrid.
And the days when the MSM could get together and supress news is long gone. Newspapers and TV networks, especially, are going to exercise disrection as to what images they show – but they’re not going to not report the news.
January 26th, 2005 at 00:32:19 +0000
Derek,
Indeed, “Revenge of the Nerds” could stand as a subtitle to “Moneyball.” And you’re right to point out that number-crunchers have fanned out across the numerous fields of current endeavor. For me, what was startling was to find out that my brother with a room chock full of baseball stats actually belonged to a COMMUNITY. Now that is scary! He and his wife just had a child and the room they could be using is still stuffed with his first love, baseball stats, of course.
*
January 26th, 2005 at 01:16:01 +0000
Derek –
I’m afraid that I have to agree with Jeffrey. The media is too quick to swoop down on what is wrong in a situation and to report on the sensational. For example, I’m sure that he would agree with me that the speed with which the media latched onto the US government’s allegations about Iraq’s WMD program, and then trumpeted it as virtual truth is quite disgusting. As somebody with so much experience in the analysis of texts, I’m sure that Jeffrey was dismayed and outraged at the fact that so little investigative reporting was conducted into the veracity of the casus belli Bush laid out. For example, some simple digging about on the internet would have turned up a far more convincing explanation for the 81mm aluminium tubes than that of components in uranium enrichment programs. Yet no journalists tried to question or analyse this case for war to the extent that they peddled allegations of secret production lines and chemical stockpiles.
Often lies are accepted as truth, or are not at the very least disputed. For example this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22249-2005Jan19.html
Has turned out to be a pile of lies – yet was faithfully peddled as an emotive appeal for war prior to the invasion.
I’d also like to point out the facts on the looted Museum: That it was thanks to the efforts of the conscientious Iraqis that had forseen the looting that the major works were saved; if all had been left to the care of the Coalition the worst case scenario might well have been what had been reported in the first place … or worse.
January 26th, 2005 at 01:18:25 +0000
Hm. The previous ‘anonymous’ was me.
January 26th, 2005 at 10:25:52 +0000
Bruno,
good comments. My mea culpa on the WMDs is here.
January 26th, 2005 at 10:48:21 +0000
Derek,
You wrote: “Also – if you are right about what story Lt. Col. Ryan was talking about, don’t you think he’s being terribly unfair? Centcom put out a statement (more here) reporting the Marine deaths, without saying where they occurred, their circumstances or how many of the enemy had died in the fighting.”
I think if you look a little deeper at what Centcom said that day (12/13) you’ll see that they released this and this Neither confirms Col Ryan’s statement about enemy casualties or indeed is necessarily related to the seven reported deaths. However, on his broader point, that overall military operations on that day were pretty good, there seems to be some support (again assuming I have the right date). In saying that there were 50 enemy deaths associated with the seven US deaths is he using information unavaiable from Centcom? From what I can tell he certainly is. But his broader point, at least for Dec 13 2004, is well supported. In short I do think you’re being a bit unfair when you say:
“Despite searches on Google News and Nexis, I’ve been unable to find any story headlines, “Seven Marines Die in Iraq Clashes.” I find it hard to believe that any reporter would knowingly leave this detail out and would like to see a citation.”
Perhaps I’m naive, but I’d expect that the AP could do a better job of figuring out the circumstances of casualties than I can by looking at Centcom press releases.
Is Col Ryan’s assertion about the major news agency’s lead fully referenced? Heck no. But his particular point broadly supported by what Centcom says? I’d say so. And yes I known that centcom press releases cannot be treated as gospel truth.
January 26th, 2005 at 13:52:40 +0000
Nittypig,
I went back and did a little more investigating … it looks like the AP story moved very early in the morning of Monday, Dec. 13, probably between midnight and 2 a.m. EST. We were actually had the story in late editions of Monday’s paper: “SEVEN U.S. MARINES were killed yesterday in two separate incidents in Iraq’s Anbar Province, a vast region encompassing the battleground cities of Fallujah and Ramadi, the military said early today.”
In earlier editions of our paper, we had this story about Tareq Aziz and other Saddam henchmen skipping meals. Then when the AP story moved, we updated it with the Marine deaths and the hunger-strike information was moved down to the seventh paragraph. (I don’t have a link to that story, however).
Also, look at the second link you provided – it’s time-stamped at 4:52 a.m. Dec. 13.
I don’t see how the AP could have figured out anything more about the circumstances of the deaths, given that Centcom didn’t even say where they occurred. In situations like that, we’re pretty much dependent on what the military tell us.
A larger point, though: I sure hope we can trust Centcom press releases. I wrote several stories off them myself, in the days of the invasion. So did the rest of the press. (The other vital resource are the DoD releases, which I receive by email). Maybe they’re not the “gospel truth”, but I’ve never known them to lie. Casualty reports, especially, should be sancrosanct.
As both a citizen and a journalist, I love the fact that I can have a relatively high degree of trust about what the military tells me. They’re willing to admit their mistakes – even accidentally killing civilians. The contrast between the coalition press conferences and the Iraqi propaganda minister’s couldn’t have been more stark.
That’s why Lt. Col. Gilbert’s dishonesty, and Lt. Col. Ryan’s lame attempt to justify it, was so disappointing. Sacrificing the credibility of the U.S. military to get some temporary advantage in a single battle strikes me as a really bad idea.
January 26th, 2005 at 19:42:38 +0000
The NYT ran this story today on Iraq’s utilities. It didn’t mention sewer, focusing insead on power and water. Here’s a graph on Iraq’s electricity production showing it still below pre-war levels, mostly due to sabotage. And a bombing left many Baghdad residents for a week without water for drinking, laundry or bathing. On the bright side, I guess, there have been improvements in the Iraqi engineers’ ability to respond to sabotage.
January 28th, 2005 at 15:00:09 +0000
You asked me to provide the link on google for the Headline Seven Marines Die In Iraqi Clashes:
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=Seven+Marines+Die+in+Iraqi+Clashes&meta=
I know this isn’t the correct way to link – but Deal with it! 25,800 links came up for that ONE Headline.
I quoted the NYT Times to you ONLY because YOU seem to find it a credible source,and the point I made to you about CNN, was also to be applied to the NYTimes. You’re smart enough to get what I was saying and doing, Derek, so if the best you can do is make some inane snide remark about “learning to link” and “not using the MSM sources to make my argument, then so be it. Doesn’t lend credibility to your position, but let me explain why I did it , so you’re clear: Since YOU insist that MSM can and must be trusted as the ONLY reliable source of UNBIASED information, I chose to offer you articles that lend crediblity to what Tim Ryan wrote, since you seem to disagree vehemently, and only posted references from MSM sources to support your position, I wasnt going to give you an opportunity to claim that NON MSM sources ALSO supproting Tim Ryans position, were not credible. Face it Derek, you may want to believe that Tim Ryan’s position is BS, BUT it isn’t and even your beloved MSM lends credence and support to his position.
BTW – Tim Ryan appeared from the battlefield on Fox News Wednesday night, not to discuss his letter or your rebuttal, but to discuss the upcoming election, the security measures being taken, and he shared some of the victories of the week, including the capture of insurgents, weapons, prevention of roadside bombs from being detonated, the readiness of the Iraqi security forces, you know GOOD news..you DO remember Good Honest well balanced news, don’t you, Derek?
January 28th, 2005 at 15:16:31 +0000
Oh as to your comment about “all perspectives count” as “being bullshit”…well you might want to tell that to the reporter, a former Marine, who was embedded in Iraq and therefore a “credible” ground witness. But hey, what does he know he’s seen combat, and been in Iraq reporting the news, while YOU’VE been where…….ummm…oh yeah… NOT in Iraq covering any story but…..so what would you know about perspective from a chopper?
January 28th, 2005 at 18:40:14 +0000
Huntress, none of the stories in the first page of that search actually have the headline, “Seven Marines Die In Iraqi Clashes.” There are many similar headlines, but none match exactly. I think Nittypig is right in the story he found, though. My response is in Comment 82.
I certainly don’t think that only the mainstream press is the only source of reliable or unbiased information. Bloggers can be very credible indeed. But so far, the only evidence you’ve presented to support Ryan’s claim of “two hundred-plus headless bodies found in the main mosque” (and a body baked in a bread oven) comes down to this letter to the editor. It doesn’t repeat those claims, but does make other lurid allegations (“children boiled”). But there’s no sources cited, and Butler doesn’t claim to have witnessed this himself. If that’s the best you can do, we’ll have to agree to disagree.
When you say the “reporter” was embedded in Iraq – you mean Chavez? I hope you know he apologized last fall for impugning journalists “with an unnecessary political message.” I wasn’t aware he was an ex-Marine or had been to Iraq. In fact, I was under the impression he hadn’t been there. Could you kindly provide a source? (update: I had a look on Nexis, found a bunch of stories Chavez has wrote but none from Iraq. I could have missed them, I guess, but it seems unlikely).
I’m glad for Lt. Col. Ryan getting his 15 minutes of fame on Fox. But there’s nothing extraordinary about that; CNN has been running similar stories all day, and I’ve seen stories in a buncha papers, including my own (also here, and in the Times, here, here, and more oddly, here.) And that’s just today.
Lastly, I didn’t mean to be snarky with my “learn to link” comment. I just think it’s impolite not to use links.
January 29th, 2005 at 18:30:47 +0000
As I just said, I think bloggers can be very credible indeed. One blog I’ve been reading is Citizen Frank, the diary of Army Capt. Frank Myers, who is spending a year in Iraq. He is a real stand-up guy and it really shows the sacrifices the soldiers are making, spending so much time away from their families (his 5-year-old son’s blog). Anyway, he just had a long post on the Iraqi elections in which he also critiques media coverage. I think it’s worth reading and considering; it’s far more evenhanded than Lt. Col. Ryan’s letter.
::On the other side, Juan Cole says he’s appalled by the “cheerleading tone of US news coverage.”
As I’ve said all along, I’m not in Iraq. Most of what I know about what the situation there comes from mainstream press, so it’s very hard for me to say whether the coverage has been too negative or too positive.
I do try to read both the mainstream press and blogs of all persuasions: Iraq the Model and Riverbend, Juan Cole and Instapundit, military blogs and Antiwar.com.
February 3rd, 2005 at 03:55:10 +0000
Derek wrote:”But my point is just that journalism is about extremes, not the ordinary.”
Oh not it’s not! I have seen and heard headlines such as, “New study shows obesity caused by overeating.’”
I always gasp at these and say, “That is news?”
But that you think that news should be only extremes exemplifies your disconnect with the American people. I do not get my news from MSM anymore precisely because I was tired of hearing only of murders and mayhem. There IS more to life than that and yes, I want to hear about all of it. THe MSM no longer reports “news”, they just report sensationalism. I don’t need that in my diet, if I wanted that, I’d buy the Enquirer.
The real “news” are the things that affect our lives. Most murders and mayhem do not or if they did – we would not need the news to tell us about it – WE’D ALREADY KNOW! Murders n mayhem are things we could use numbers on just so we would know if they are rising or falling in general.
Now if the perp is hiding nearby, then yes, tell us. Otherwise, confine it to page 8.
Perhaps the whole point of “news” needs to be rethought by the MSM. It is not just extremes to the rest of us out here in the real world.
February 3rd, 2005 at 04:31:57 +0000
“I still say, trying to paint a one-day lull in bombings as a good-news story is like trying to put lipstick on a pig. If we can pull off the elections without a devastating attack, on the other hand…”
WELL?
no devastating attacks
but i didn’t see any glowing reports!
not that i looked much – i get my “news” from blogs now
February 3rd, 2005 at 05:08:03 +0000
Jo,
Like the rest of the media, my paper does do a lot of reporting on where the crime rate is going. I made a tally here (scroll down) and found six stories just since July.
Personally, though, I find murder stories often very compelling. Like the story that’s been in the news these past few days, the murder of aspiring actress Nicole duFresne, who was shot and killed in New York’s Lower East Side after she challenged a mugger with the words, “What are you going to do, shoot us?” This story has been on my paper’s front page for several days, as well as the Post’s. But of course if you don’t like “murders and mayhem” coverage you do have other options.
And yeah, maybe if you had read the mainstream press, you woulda read some of the glowing reports! Everything I read was very positive, although I didn’t read everything. Dan Rather in particular I remember being very effusive. (You can find our stories here and here, with an editorial here. Our front page was a picture of the long voting queues and the words, “Freedom March.” I had nothing to do with any of our coverage on this, though).
February 8th, 2005 at 16:22:37 +0000
A quote I made to The Tennessean is improperly referenced above. As the column by Tim Chavez made clear, I agree with Alex Berenson and discount any rumor of massive killings of people in the mosque as mere conjecture or gossip heard around headquarters.
The point of my quote concerned the greater issue of covering the occupapation of Iraq. The security situation int the country precludes much independent investigation of the ongoing war by western journalists. News agencies increasingly rely on untrained stringers or unvetted freelancers who too often are closer to coalition forces or various insurgent groups to be trusted.
I believe that LtCol. Rose sincerely believes what he heard to be true (whether it is, or not). As a reporter, I also believe the perspective of a helicopter pilot (who was discussing a different slice of the battlefield) is instructive if one is trying to get a grasp on the large war.
Berenson and I are in complete agreement that the mosque story was simply wrong, and to his credit Chavez sought to set the record straight. At the same time, a reporter would be an idiot not to use sources in headquarters or the field to piece together an image of the war.
February 10th, 2005 at 00:06:50 +0000
Derek,
I must complement you on sticking to your guns and defending your arguments. It’s this kind of dialog that gives me hope that the engine of political dialog isn’t dead. On the other hand, (especially in early comments) you seemed to adopt a fairly snarky tone. Considering what you, as a journalist, know of basic human psychology – is replying to a dearly held and (at least by their own reckoning) well-reasoned opinion with something falling far short of respect is not a good way to win hearts and minds. In this case, since this is a productive dialog being sustained here, I would hope you avoid the temptation to let tone diminish your argument.
Nonetheless, I am heartened not by your argument as much as I am by its clearly thought out defense. If I can assume that you trend towards the left, politically (and demographics would tend to suggest that’s a reasonable guess), then I am glad to say that you give lie to the assertion that Marc Cooper is “The Last Honest Leftist” – he has good company in you and others who are more intersted in the fate of the country than the political points to be gained by picking fights.
And in other news (sorry, I just had to throw that in), I would have preferred sending this as an e-mail, but was unable to find a link on your main page. So please accept my apologies for what could be seen is the airing of dirty laundry, or at the least, something fairly off topic.
February 10th, 2005 at 00:14:08 +0000
By the way, for reference, this is what John Burns has to say about some of the coverage in Iraq. Among other things, he seems to think that there is some measure of bias in the media. Let me dig around for a bit more data, and post on it. I’ll be back with a link.
February 10th, 2005 at 05:26:02 +0000
Bravo,
Thanks. I thought I was fairly civil, considering what people were saying about me, but I’m sure there was room for improvement. If you want to assume I’m a leftist because I’m a new york city reporter … well, the odds are in your favor, granted, but it’s still an assumption. I try to keep that sorta thing private, and limit my online rantings to journalism-related topics. I’m not trying to pretend I don’t have views on issues like abortion or capital punishment — but I think it would be harder for potential sources to trust me if they knew I disagreed with them. Like a number of reporters, I’m not registered to vote as a Democrat, Republican or whatever for the same reason.
That was a remarkable article by Burns, wasn’t it? I had read it when it came out, and re-read it just now. I should buy that book to read the whole thing. He makes some excellent points. But as far as I can tell, his and the Times’ reporting since the insurgency began has been just as “negative” as the rest of the press corps. (Although I’ve been out of the country on vacation for the last 10 days, so haven’t been up on the news lately)
By the way, did people catch this story out of Iraq, of the 19-year-old with Down’s Syndrome used as a human bomb? The story is out of Australia; the local newspaper here in NZ carried a wire service version of it. Absolutely made my blood boil…
Sorry I don’t have an email button on the blog – I should fix that. But you or anyone else wants to send me a message privately, do so at derek72 at gmail.com.
February 10th, 2005 at 05:27:42 +0000
Carl,
Thanks for that clarification. Any thoughts/commentary/defense/criticism/etc. of the mainstream media’s overall Iraq coverage? I’d certainly be interested to hear what you had to say…
February 11th, 2005 at 08:42:08 +0000
Derek,
BTW, if American lives are more important than Iraqi utilities, why in the hell did the power outages in Baghdad last summer get so much coverage?
February 11th, 2005 at 14:33:03 +0000
So much coverage? I don’t recall reading very much about outages at all, except in 2003 when they were struggling to get the power back on.
Even a few weeks back, when most of Baghdad lost their most important utility – water – there wasn’t a lot of coverage, compared to that devoted to insurgent attacks.
February 12th, 2005 at 11:48:40 +0000
Derek,
You sez: “I don’t recall reading very much about outages at all, except in 2003 when they were struggling to get the power back on.” That’s the coverage of which I was speaking. If the status of American casualties outweighs the importance of Iraqi services, then why is it that there was significant coverage on the electricity status in Baghdad last summer while American soldiers were still being killed.
February 13th, 2005 at 23:52:06 +0000
Media Bias: An Overview
A comprehensive overview of media bias and possible reasons behind the evidence and data.
February 13th, 2005 at 23:57:48 +0000
Media Bias: An Overview
A comprehensive overview of media bias and possible reasons behind the evidence and data.
February 13th, 2005 at 23:58:39 +0000
Media Bias: An Overview
A comprehensive overview of media bias and possible reasons behind the evidence and data.
February 17th, 2005 at 14:53:16 +0000
Wow. Reading the responses to this article has been immensely educating. I could not understand why so many reasonable journalists seemed to be bending over backwards to please the right-wing blogosphere. But now I see it; write a column that suggests that criticism of Iraq policy and coverage of Iraq is *not* some left-wing Chomskyite brainwashing exercise, and they’re on you like a million fleas.
I don’t think I have a “liberal mindset”, just a skeptical one. But whatever my mindset is, it told me:
Be skeptical about the administration’s claims that Iraq has WMDs. And it was correct. And the right wingers whining about bias were wrong.
Be skeptical about the administration’s claims that Iraq has ties to Al Qaeda. And it was correct. And the right wingers whining about bias were wrong.
This war will not be a cakewalk. And I was correct. And the right wingers whining about bias were wrong.
This war will not be self-financing. And I was correct. And the right wingers whining about bias were wrong.
This war will require additional troops. And I was correct. And the right wingers whining about bias were wrong.
Claims of “Mission Accomplished” were false. And I was correct. And the right wingers whining about bias were wrong.
Claims that our troops were fully armored were false. And I was correct. And the right wingers whining about bias were wrong.
And the list goes on…
And now they say the problem is that you, Derek, are not doing enough stories on sewage plant repair because somehow that would give us “the big picture”. Sheesh.
Whatever mindset I have, your critics should switch to it. They’d be right more often. But somehow I think that’s not the point. The problem with the mainstream media, Derek, is that we inhabit a world in which fact itself is becoming obsolete. Since the purpose of mainstream journalism is largely to bring us facts, to present a factually accurate view of the world, it’s inevitably slipping relative to the Fox Newses of the world.
You may be aware of the study data indicating that Fox News actually makes its viewers more ignorant of Iraq. This is not so surprising. What is surprising is the reaction of Fox viewers that I have shown it to. They don’t care. Facts are not what they’re interested in.
I may have a liberal mindset, but at least I’m not so weak as to have to lie to myself to keep fighting. And I don’t think most Americans need to be lied to either.
February 20th, 2005 at 05:58:43 +0000
Bravo,
Sorry it’s taken so long for you to get a reply on this – I’ve been hiking and kayaking and generally away from computers. My sense is that in the summer of ‘03, yes there were American troops getting killed, but people were under the impression the fighting was pretty much over and all that was left was “dead-enders.” Things didn’t start to go to hell until that fall, or at least the Aug. 19, 2003 bombing of the U.N. building that killed Sergio Vieira de Mello. As KRT Baghdad Bureau Chief Hannah Allam put it,
“We hadn’t yet been introduced to a Jordanian militant named Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, so we wrote stories about the horse track and American troops watching the Super Bowl.” (Her essay is worth reading in full, btw)
February 20th, 2005 at 06:20:22 +0000
Socrates,
Interesting comment. Of course, I did invite the “fleas”, to some degree, with aggressive trackbacks and by emailing Chrenkoff, who quite decently linked to me in the name of open discussion. (I did try to get attention from one or two liberal bloggers as well, but wasn’t successful, which is understandable because they hadn’t linked to Ryan’s essay in the first place).
But yeah, there are definitely some subjects where, as a journalist, you triple-check to make sure you’ve dotted all the “i”s and crossed all the “t”s…
March 2nd, 2005 at 15:56:26 +0000
The Washington Post’s Jackie Spinner in an online chat, after spending nine months reporting from Iraq:
I thought this was a powerful point. But she did go on to say:
No names, alas.
March 5th, 2005 at 17:09:41 +0000
Ive got news for you Socrates pig NOTHING of what you claim you got right…you got right.
Like Derek you refuse to admit that liberal bias exists in the MSM….thats the same shit Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, and Peter Jennings tried to feed everyone after Bernard Goldbergs HONEST op ed appeared in the Wall Street Journal.
The MSM media DOES and HAS for over 20 yrs now, framed everything they report from a liberal bias. Not deliberately..well that can be debated..but mostly because they seem to beleive that their elistiest POV is representative of ALL Americans..or as they are inclined to remind us…those Americans that are truly enlightened, Liberal Journalists frame stories from a liberal POV. but polls show and have shown for years now..that A LARGE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS have rservations and conflicted feelings when it comes to gay marriage and any teaching in school that amounts to an endorsement of homosexuality. But to the liberal MSM thats irrelevant..its viewed as nonsense and homophobia.
The point of Lt Col Tim’s
FYI – Derek its was NOT TIM CHAVEZ that my last post was refering to..the embedded reporter was a former Marine whose comment about all perspectives being important was torn down by you. Tim Chavez supported that comment.
The point of Lt Cols Tim Ryans complaint about the MSM seem to be lost on you Derek and on your “supporters”. He DOESNT have to be fair and balanced. he can offer an opinoin based on what he is reading for himself in the Press. However JOURNALISTs like Dan, Tom , and you Derek have an obligation and duty to report the news in a fair and balanced way. NOT from simply a LIBERAL POV that supports your position.
The point Tim Ryan was making is that the liberal MSM is reporting on Iraq from their liberal biased POV. ALL MAJOR NETWORK and CERTAINLY THE NY TIMES, WASHINGTON POST, THE LA TIMES all LEAN LEFT..FAR LEFT.
They frame the stories from that perspective.
This isnt a new concept..this is what they have been doing for …a very long long long time…and Dan Rather paid the price for his liberal bias.
Well CBS has paid for that for years now…in ratings that have diminished consistantly and continously for 15 yrs. Ditto CNN NBC AND ABC!
There exists a liberal tendency to root for the underdog…and in this case..the underdog appears to terrorists…who denounce a free liberal press ironically but yet seem to be continously supported by one.
News, Derek, as Im sure you know, isnt just a collection of facts – its how reporters /editors see those facts- how they interpret them – and what they consider newsworthy.
While rebuilding Iraq may not be as much of a ratings grab as reporting how many troups insurgents killed, its is very important in helping to frame a better balanced view of whats happening in Iraq.
That the obligation our news media is under…to inform us of the facts in a balanced way…NOT to impose their liberal bias agenda or pov on us.
The news networks are part of the same machine that determines what gets greenlit and seen on prime time television…they are the liberal titans of culture…and their liberal sensibilites are constantly represented…and represented as the “norm” as “mainstream”. You’d think that MOST american women support abortion based on their POV – but in truth – MOST american women DO NOT…and I don’t mean red state women..I mean East and West Coast working privileged women. But hell..I’d never guess that based on the way the MSN news coverage frames that story.
I worked in Hollywood for yrs…and I know how adamently Hollywood denies its all too obvious liberal agenda. That lie is an insult to anyone with a brain. both liberal and conservative! …better to admit..”yeah were liberal and our viewpoint is being reflected 90% of the time.. deal with it.”.which I and others would respect..than to deny deny deny. I know first hand that conservatives are written in a less than flattering light in most Hollywood “stories” portrayed as ultra conservative bible thumping religious uneducated close minded mean spirited fools, while liberals are viewed as enlightened, educated, forward thinkers who are sharing their views with us….views such as this from Julianne Malveaux: “I hope his ( Clarence Thomas) wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease” and this comment is “approved of” by the liberal media elite. NOT one Liberal media elite member batted an eyelash at that comment. Now Im NO FAN of Clarence Thomas, but if Rush Limbaugh had said” I hope Jesse Jackson’s wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies like most black men do, of heart disease” how much do you want to bet that the LIBERAL MEDIA ELITES, would have called him a nasty right wing nut akin to a KKK Grand Wizard. And They’d be right to say that of him…but they needed to say that of Ms Malveaux…and they refused.
For anyone (within Hollywood – the Hollywood elites) to claim that Hollywood does not have strong liberal bias and agenda that they present as the mainstream POV(while in fact its not) – and like wise for anyone (within the MSM and the MSM elite) to claim that the MSM media (both print and tv) does not have a strong liberal bias and agenda that frames their stories is bullshit.
Thats what you Derek are saying when you fail to acknowledge that Tim’s perspective and opinion is both valid and true, and when youdeny any liberal bias/or deny the reality that MSM is a left wing liberal institution that frames its stories from that perspective ALL THE TIME and that The majority of the stories about Iraq and Afghanistan are biased in their presentation to Americans.
Denial is a river in Egypt Derek, ..and your standing knee deep in it…Be careful …its a river that filled with dangerous crocodiles…as Dan Rather and Eason Jordan both found out!
Hell Chris Mathews DENIED for the first 24-48 hours that the Iraq election was valid, was monumental, and successful…hell he barely acknowledged that it had occured. FINALLY two weeks ago HE admited HE HAD BEEN WRONG about Iraq, the Iraqi people, the resounding success of the election and the positive implications that were being felt in the Arab world. THIS IS AN ADMISSION OF HIS INITIAL LIBERAL BIAS which had led him to DENY the truth even in the face of overwhelming evidence – simply because it didnt reflect his POV. To admit success would have been to admit that Pres Bush and the conservatives that voted back in for a second term were right! At least he had the decency albeit quietly to admit he was wrong. He brushed over that admission very quickly…but I commend him for making it!
Do you NOW understand what LtCol Tim Ryan was really trying to say?
The stories coming out of the MSM on Iraq are tainted with liberal bias, meant to support a liberal agenda which has never been supportive of Pres Bush or the War on Terror.
You seem incapable or unwilling to acknowlege what is so obviously tru to the majority of Americans. Denial is a river in Egypt ,Derek,a nd your standing knee deep in it! It’s a river that filled with dangerous crocodiles…as Dan Rather and Eason Jordan both found out!
March 5th, 2005 at 17:49:15 +0000
Ive got news for you Socrates – most of what you claim you got right……you didnt!
Like Derek you refuse to admit that liberal bias exists in the MSM….thats the same shit Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, and Peter Jennings tried to feed everyone after Bernard Goldbergs HONEST op ed appeared in the Wall Street Journal.
The MSM media DOES and HAS for over 20 yrs now, framed everything they report from a liberal bias. or POV if you prefer.
And they do that , perpahs not maliciously, because most definately because they seem to believe that their elitest POV is representative of MOST Americans..or as they are inclined to remind us…those Americans that are truly enlightened! ( i.e. only liberals)
Liberal Journalists frame stories from a liberal POV claiming they represent not a liberal slant…but simply “the mainstream”….on issues like abortion and gay marriage……while polls show and have shown for years now..that A LARGE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS have reservations and conflicted feelings when it comes to gay marriage and any teaching in school that amounts to an endorsement of homosexuality, as one example. But to the liberal MSM thats irrelevant..its viewed as nonsense and homophobic…spouting from the mouths of conservative fundamentalist close minded christans. In fact…my dad in neither conservative nor closeminded and he can’t bring himself to watch Will and Grace…the idea of a show based around homosexual males…well..its doesnt sit well with him!
FYI – Derek its was NOT TIM CHAVEZ that my last post was refering to..the embedded reporter was a former Marine whose comment about all perspectives being important was torn down by you. Tim Chavez supported the reporters comments as did the NYT Times, ironically!.
The point of Lt Cols Tim Ryans complaint about the MSM seem to be lost on you Derek and on your “supporters”. He DOESNT have to be fair and balanced. he can and did offer an opinoin based on what he is reading and watching in the Press.
However JOURNALISTs like Dan, Tom , and you Derek have an obligation and duty to report the news in a fair and balanced way. NOT from simply a LIBERAL POV that supports your position./agenda/perspective.
The point Tim Ryan was making is that the liberal MSM is reporting on Iraq from their liberal biased POV. And he is RIGHT…ALL MAJOR NETWORKS and CERTAINLY THE NY TIMES, WASHINGTON POST, THE LA TIMES all LEAN LEFT………..FAR LEFT.
And They frame the stories from that perspective.
This isnt a new concept..this is what they have been doing for a very long long time…and Dan Rather has now paid the price for his liberal agenda even as he continues to deny it.
CBS has paid for their liberal slanted POVfor years now…in ratings that have diminished consistantly and continously for 15 yrs. Ditto CNN NBC AND ABC!
There exists a liberal tendency to root for the underdog…and in this case..the underdog appears to terrorists…who denounce a free liberal press ironically but yet seem to be continously supported by one.
News, Derek, as Im sure you know, isnt just a collection of facts – its how reporters /editors see those facts- how they interpret them – and what they consider newsworthy.
While rebuilding Iraq may not be as much of a ratings grab as reporting how many troups insurgents killed, its is very important in helping to frame a better balanced view of whats happening in Iraq.
That the obligation our news media is under…to inform us of the facts in a balanced way…NOT to impose their liberal bias agenda /POV on us.
The news networks are part of the same machine that determines what gets greenlit and seen on prime time television…they are the liberal titans of culture…and their liberal sensibilites are constantly represented…and infuriatingly represented as the “norm” …as “mainstream”. You’d think that MOST american women support abortion based on their POV – but in truth – MOST american women DO NOT…and I don’t mean red state women..I mean East and West Coast working privileged women. As Planned Parenthood found out in a survey that was commisioned two years ago. It came as such a shock to them..so much so that its been kept on the down lo……N one would ever guess that the majority of women do not support abortion…and want limits but on access to abortion… based on the way the MSN news coverage frames that story.
I worked in Hollywood for yrs…and I know how adamently Hollywood denies its all too obvious liberal agenda. That lie is an insult to anyone with a brain. both liberal and conservative! …better to admit..”yeah were liberal and our viewpoint is being reflected 90% of the time even if its NOT the mainstream viewpoing….. deal with it” which I and others would respect…..rather than to deny deny deny. I know first hand that conservatives are written in a less than flattering light in most Hollywood “stories” and are portrayed as ultra conservative bible thumping religious uneducated close minded mean spirited fools, while liberals are viewed as enlightened, educated, forward thinkers who are sharing their views with us….views such as this from Julianne Malveaux: “I hope his ( Clarence Thomas) wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease” !!! Wow – how very sophisicated and forward thinking of her…. and this comment is “approved of” by the liberal media elite. NOT one Liberal media elite member or network..on radio, tv or in print, batted an eyelash at that comment.
Now Im NO FAN of Clarence Thomas, but if Rush Limbaugh had said
” I hope Jesse Jackson’s wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies like most black men do, of heart disease” how much do you want to bet that the LIBERAL MEDIA ELITES, would have called him a nasty right wing nut akin to a KKK Grand Wizard. And They’d be right to say that of him…but they needed to say that of Ms Malveaux…and they refused. That Derek is only ONE example of how the MSM media shapes all news stories to suit their liberal agenda. Apparent introducing someone as a “conservative ” Senator…is de rigeur for MSM…but introducting Diane Feinstein or Barbara Boxer as “liberal” Senator is un necessary. After all..we must make it clear that a conservative has entered the room. Right wing alert…Danger Will Robinson…Danger!!!
For anyone (within Hollywood especially the Hollywood elites) to claim that Hollywood does not have strong liberal bias and agenda that they present as the mainstream POV(while in fact its not) – and like wise for anyone (within the MSM and the MSM elite) to claim that the MSM media (both print and tv) does not have a strong liberal bias and agenda that frames their stories and is presented as the “mainstream” is pure unadulterated bullshit.
Thats what you Derek are saying when you fail to acknowledge that Tim’s perspective and opinion is both valid and true, and when you deny any liberal bias/or deny the reality that the MSM is a left wing liberal institution that frames its stories from that perspective ALL THE TIME and that the majority of the stories about Iraq and Afghanistan are biased in their presentation to Americans.
Another example: Chris Mathews DENIED for the first 24-48 hours following the Iraq election – that the election was valid, was monumental, and very successful…hell he barely acknowledged that it had occured.
FINALLY two weeks ago HE admited HE HAD BEEN WRONG about Iraq, the Iraqi people, the resounding success of the election and the positive implications that were being felt in the Arab world. THIS IS AN ADMISSION OF HIS INITIAL LIBERAL BIAS which had led him to DENY the truth even in the face of overwhelming evidence – simply because it didnt reflect his POV. To admit success would have been to admit that Pres Bush and the conservatives that voted him back in for a second term were right! At least he had the decency albeit quietly to admit he was wrong. He brushed over that admission very quickly…but I commend him for making it!
Do you NOW understand what LtCol Tim Ryan was really trying to say?
The stories coming out of the MSM on Iraq are tainted with liberal bias, meant to support a liberal agenda which has never been supportive of Pres Bush or the War on Terror.
You seem incapable or unwilling to acknowlege what is so obviously true to the majority of Americans. Denial is a river in Egypt ,Derek,and your standing knee deep in it. Be Careful….its filled with dangerous crocodiles…as Dan Rather and Eason Jordan both found out!
March 5th, 2005 at 18:01:55 +0000
Huntress, I’ve never alleged that liberal bias doesn’t exist in the media. My thoughts on this are a bit complicated, though; I plan to explain them in a future blog-post. But in a nutshell, I don’t deny that the mainstream press leans left.
On valuing perspectives — I think that Carl Prine, the reporter who actually made the remark, put it very well in his comment on this site. What he said, basically.
And of course Ryan doesn’t have to be “fair and balanced” (though I hope he’d try to be fair). But doesn’t he have some obligation to get his facts right? And doesn’t WorldTribune.Com, the website that published his letter? I wrote to them over a month ago about the inaccuracies in Ryan’s letter, yet there’s been no correction, and the errors are still up on WorldTribune’s site.
March 6th, 2005 at 15:58:11 +0000
But they inaccuracies you site ( at least the ones you mentioned on this blog ) I have all but disproven to you.
Altho you insist on denying that as well.
Look Derek…If you think Tim is alone in this then do me a favor and check out Steven Kiels blog…http://stevenkiel.blogspot.com/
and then check out this blog: http://armymanblog.blogspot.com/
and read exactly how much the MSM is filled with inaccuracies and deliberately misleads the american public on ALL matters concerning Iraq.
That you write to the the WorldTribune.com “deal” with Tim Ryans inaccuracies ( most of which don’t exist – even tho you refuse to acknowledge that) seems abit arrogant to me.
Why don’t you write to the the NYTIMES, WASHINGTON POST, LA TIMES, BOSTON GLOBE, CNN, AP, REUTERS, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, AND ABC, about their inaccuracies and liberal bias on many different issues…starting with their portrayal of whats really going on ir Iraq, the ING, their lack of any noteworthy positive changes that have resulted in Iraq, and throughout the Arab world…hell even ARAB papers and commentators are acknowledging the truth…that the winds of change towards democracy are now blowing through the arab world and that small changes are happening..all as a result of the election in Iraq. No mention of any of that in any of the MSM.
They don’t just lean left Derek….the colour EVERYTHING they write or talk about from their liberal POV…and imply that their POV is representative of the “mainstream” when its clearly not.
I find it interesting that you would take the time to write WorldTribune.com over ONE possible commentary that YOU feel is inaccurate ( its not) but you couldn’t care less about journalistic integrity when it comes to all the above media platforms.
You know Derek..I consider you to be intelligent and well meaning…and kute judging from the pic I saw on your blog recently….so if Im being hard on you its because I expect you NOT to follow the same party line as the MSM.. and thats starts by doing MORE than simply telling me that you don’t deny the MSM “LEANS” left. Derek it does way more than lean left.
It falsely presents itself as a the voice of sane, rational, intelligent, people, of mainstream Americans, of all that is good and right, of the ONLY bearers of truth. CNN claims to be America’s most trusted news network. BULLSHIT….its not..its ratings keep dropping..and as the Eason Jordan fiasco proved…CNN cannot be trusted. Dan Rather is still denying that his liberal bias tainted his professional judgement when it came to MOST of what he reported when he sat at the anchor desk..and that he took part in a fabricated lie about the President.
I mean even Chris Mathews admitted his error! Dan Rather refuses…why are you NOT WRITING TO HIM about ALL HIS INACCURACIES and MISLEADING broadcasts?
Maybe the so called errors are still up on the Tribs site because they in fact DID their due diligence and found none?? Why is that SO hard for you to even consider? Dan Rather is proven guilty..and he still denies he did a damn thing! Maybe he didnt forge the documents..but he did worse..he allowed his personal agenda and that of CBS to affect his judgement. And NO ONE in the entire organization STOPPED him. NO ONE said..this is wrong..no one! Why? Because the MSM doesnt just lean left Derek…because it IS left! And it refuses to offer up fair and balanced news….opting to colour and frame everything thru its liberal left wing POV.
For the record…I am not a christian conservative, or live in a red state. I live in Toronto Canada now…in a country so liberal that gay marriage and teen sex and legalized marijuana and the right to an abortion are almost widely accepted. I am a moderate republican – of the Guiliani and Schwartznegger type- and many staunch right wingers find me tooooo liberal for their personal taste. So Im not looking at the MSM through staunch right wing eyes…but rather with a more moderate POV..and Im appalled at what I know to be more than just a left leaning tendency on the part of HOllywood and the MSM.
Lt.Col.Tim Ryan would NOT risk his entire career over
” inaccuracies”. And had he been the ONLY member of our military making those same comments, sharing that same information, I ‘d say you have a point…but he isnt Derek.
Lt Col Mark A Smith, USMC, the guys who blogs I just referenced, the hundreds of other milbloggers who are there and were there previously, including ARMOUR GEDDON..who risked OPSEC issues to report what he blogged. all share the same stories..and they are not about to risk distinquished careers over “inaccuracies” and lies.
Too bad Dan Rather couldnt say the same about himself.
I am the biggest critic of the Hollywood agenda…particularly when it comes to films they plan on making like No True Glory..read my blog and you’ll see how much I rag on a business I was and am still a part of (albeit now more indirectly). What my friends are afraid to say outloud they whisper to me at night.
Yes…we do have an agenda…yeah I can’t write about conservatives and their values in a more positive light…yeah Im afraid to admit Im a christian who reads the Bible..or that Im a republican..my career is at stake! How said is that!
So if you think I don’t smell the same shit coming out of the MSM when its the same people OWNING both those two industries… think again.
I am very interested in reading your thoughts(complicated or not) on the issue of our MSM being unabashedly biased…unabashedly liberal….and aggressively advancing their agenda through slanting stories on all major issues by framing them based on their liberal sensibilities and justifing their POV by claiming it represents “mainstream” thinking…or worse..denying that their POV is slanted. I don’t know whats worse..the fact that they deny that liberal bias exists…or that they justify it by claiming to represent the “mainstream”.
I didnt know it was CNN job to represent the mainstream…I always thought news organization were supposed to offer me the facts…good bad and ugly…and offer them to me honestly.
The MSM media reminds me daily of the body count..1400 americans forces have died in Iraq. 1401-1402-1403 …..but no one mentions the positive achievements that these young men and women died for….no one but the bloggers and Fox!
For the MSM To let americans think that their efforts were for nothing is a sad way to honour the lives of our fallen heros.
Don you realize that you disrespect what those young men and women have done in Iraq ( the building of schools, the guarding of bridges that are the only avenue to freedom, to rebuilding the cities, sewers, water plants,oil lines, training of ING forces) as they continue to plant the seeds of freedom in the heart of the Arab world – and you dishonour those that paid the ultimate price- when you tell me…”doesnt Tim Ryan and WorldCom have an obligation to the facts right” but neglect to mention how many times a day you fail to write to ALL MSM to ask them to get “the facts right”!
Tim Ryan got the facts right Derek. Its you and the MSM that has them wrong!
March 7th, 2005 at 01:00:24 +0000
Huntress,
Is there anything that would persuade you that Ryan is wrong on a number of these factual points? Because I’m beginning to think that there’s not — and if so, why are we bothering to debate?
I will admit that maybe I didn’t have sufficient grounds to publicly question the Fallujah casualty figures. Other than that, I stand by what I wrote.
But, being the reasonable guy that I am — I’ll tell you what would start to persuade me that I’m wrong on the supposed Najaf mosque massacre: statements from named individuals who say they saw the 200+ headless corpses (or the severed heads). Photos. Autopsy reports. Allegations from institutions such as governments, human rights groups, the mainstream press… I don’t see why this is too much to ask — I mean, really, is everyone covering up the mass beheadings?
You write that the mainstream press hasn’t once mentioned the positive things going on in Iraq, or the “winds of change” in the Arab world. Hmm. I did read those bloggers you mentioned. Will you take a look at this ABC News report, this CBS News report, and this Washington Post report?
I’ve never heard of a soldier getting in trouble for saying something inaccurate on a blog… why do you think Ryan and the other military bloggers would be “risking their careers” by presenting inaccuracies? There’s no accountability for them — or any other type of blogger. Unlike Rather, who did apologize and admit his mistakes. He’ll be gone as of Wednesday. Would it be that certain bloggers would also acknowledge their errors!
Saying I “couldn’t care less about journalistic integrity when it comes to [mainstream] media platforms” is really unnecessary and over the top. (Because I disagree with you, I don’t care about integrity???) I’m sorry, but I think I’ve been very patient and civil with you. If this is how this discussion is going to go, we should end it here and now.
P.S. – How do I know that World Tribune didn’t investigate my charges and find them unfounded? Well, a) they never responded to me (rather bad form) and b) Margaret Hassan’s name is still misspelled in Ryan’s piece.
July 11th, 2005 at 13:07:57 +0000
So some dick who is not even in Iraq is going to criticize a soldier in Iraq. Fuck off Derek Rose you little piss ant. I will definitley take the word of a man in Iraq over a blogger. Any police man or Soldier knows that the media is biased & unfair toward the rightousness. If ww2 was reported the same way the War in th emiddle East is reported then well we would all be speaking German or Japanese. Secondly just because a soldier gets a name wrong doesn’t mean a little man such as yourself should criticize. May the terrorist visit you
July 12th, 2005 at 12:49:07 +0000
As far as human rights groups or the media why would anyone believe them? As far as I am concerned they would cover up the executions by that thug Alsadr. When as human rights or amnasty international come out & condenm the terrorist army of sunnis in Iraq for cutting off heads. Or what abouty the illegal execution of Petty Officer Roberts in Afghanistan. Look Any redblooded american will tell you the socialist groups of the world would like nothing more than to see the great USA fall. It sill gets my panties in a bunch to see a person a blogger criticize a Lt. Col in the US army for reporting what he sees as biased news reporting beause it shows what to be true about the 5th column in the US media. How you can sleep at night is truely a miracle. Now if this great man & patriot was speaking out against the war & how fair the media was you’d put on your knee pads to suck his you know what in a new york minute. Muslims are the damnation of humanity. Look @ all the major conflicts on planet earth & see how many have to do w/ repressed muslims who cn’t get along w/ their neighbors. How much suffering do these peacefull muslims cause this great planet. Talk about racism how diverse are muslim countries.
July 12th, 2005 at 12:53:48 +0000
Yeah, we in the media should just sit back and let people in the military accuse us of treason, and it’s wrong to point out what they’re saying is based on lies and half-truths?
Fuck that. I for one am sick and tired of being a punching bag.
July 12th, 2005 at 12:54:15 +0000
One last thing one can only hope that more fair journalist like Kevin Sykes will be killed reporting fair news. I mean a piece of shit get kills in a so called mosque & you fools lynch the MArine before he even gets a trial. Most of ww2 soldiers wouls be prosecuted w/the way the rules of engagement are today. My pops served 2 terms in vietnam & had the same opinion of reporters. You people are vultures nothing more nothing less. You make it seem like these reporters killed in Iraq are honorable men but I know better. They were jackasses trying to get a sensational story to make the US military out to be huns
July 12th, 2005 at 13:14:02 +0000
Punching bag you dickheads bring it on yourself. You trash the military at every turn. Whenever a bomb goes off target it’s a feeding frenzy @ the so called news. Yet when a mudering bomber drives a car into a mosque it’s on the back pages for a day then it goes bye bye.
How can you say the news media isn’t anti military. What this man was trying to say is if the news media reported the same on good news as bad news then maybe the rebellion or holy war wouldn’t be as fierce. I wonder if you have ever served your country for even a day. If it was front page news every time a success was achieved then maybe “repressed ” muslims wouldn’t be so quick to hate America. Lets go back to Somalia we fed those people but because some tribal leaders were killed & that was a bigger story then feeding hundreds of thousands. My point is you people in the media are turn coats. By the way how do you know that he is reporting in-accuracies. Maybe he has classified info that regular joe smoe reporter doesn’t have. I can guarentee Sadr baked humans. I can bet my house that if you pinkos in the media today were around during WW2 we would have lost that war because it would have eroded public support for the war. Now I wil admit Bush’s bumbling style has a lot to do w/it but still you traitors & that is how I feel have caused many deaths against are men. Reporters are responsiable for a lot more than they take credit for. You can fuel a rebellion as well as repress it, & what does the news media know about truth. If it bleeds it leads if it burns it earns. Take ridney king for example. Here is a guy putting many people @ risk & because he got the shit beat out of him & the last thirty seconds was shown it got a riot started. Why was the truck driver notr reported like that
July 12th, 2005 at 15:40:08 +0000
Yup, that’s us in the news media, traitors and turncoats responsible for everything bad in the world.
I don’t really feel like getting into a debate over whether the media is anti-military (or how the Rodney King incident was reported) with someone who calls me a dickhead and a traitor, sorry. And of course you’re welcome to believe what you’d like to believe regarding the documented inaccuracies in Ryan’s article. Sometimes I don’t think all the evidence in the world would persuade you.
P.S. I just think it’s mind-boggling that some people think it’s somehow wrong to criticize Lt. Col. Ryan’s essay because he’s a member of the military or served in Iraq. I guess you think they should have the freedom to criticize, without being criticized in return?
July 13th, 2005 at 12:21:28 +0000
WEll I think it is wrong for a blogger not ever been to Iraq to criticize a soldier who is In iraq fighting for the freedoms we all take for granted especially reporters. If I said you were a traitor I meant the media in genral terms. I don’t know you but the tone of your article was very condescending toward the soldier which is why I criticize you
July 13th, 2005 at 12:39:38 +0000
But don’t bloggers who’ve never been to Iraq feel free to criticize reporters who are over there?
Look: I started my letter thanking Lt. Col. Ryan for his service. One thing we should all be able to agree on is supporting the troops… it wasn’t my intent to be condescending. But he was basically accusing the media of treason, and y’know, as someone who’s been involved in our Iraq coverage (from the safety of our New York office) I guess I got myself worked up about that.
July 19th, 2005 at 12:34:00 +0000
Look you don’t know if his article is factually inaccurate. He is there & we are not Personally I’ll take the word of a fighting soldier over a reporter anyday. I have absolutely no faith in todays media. I see it like this. As soon as we were in Irq & Afganistan the media was calling it a quagmire a disaster. Not hardly one good story every negative. Look @ how abu graib was reported. Yet how many beheadings did the America public see. We are not even being shown the brutality of this weel orginized & well supoorted enemy. Shit the America public has forgotten we were attacked throughout the nineties & 9/11. Now I know Iraq had no part in it,but to me all countries that support terrorism are responsible. my opinion.
July 19th, 2005 at 13:25:50 +0000
Yet how many beheadings did the America public see.
Well, I spent three days outside the home of Nick Berg, and wrote a number of stories about Daniel Pearl. Both atrocities were very well-reported in the press. I believe they are the only Americans whom we know have been beheaded. I don’t know if you saw those videos but they were absolutely horrible, far too disturbing for TV.
I also wrote about the beheading of Korean Kim Sun-Il.
Lastly, absolutely no one here in New York has forgotten about 9/11. How could we?
July 20th, 2005 at 13:21:13 +0000
Maybe NY hasn’t forgotten but everyone else has. I did see the beheadings not to disturbing for tv. Atleast we would know what we are up against, & let me ask you how come to this day we still see pearl harbor footage & the atrocities committed by the Nazis. That was all horrible stuff. It was not reported enough to me & to say other wise is just protecting your comrades in the turncoat US meida. Like I said all you have to do is ask any policeman or soldier & ask them how they feel about the media
July 20th, 2005 at 17:49:10 +0000
No doubt there’s many more people than just police and soldiers who loathe the press (although I’m certainly friendly with some of both).
Our profession has been under attack for years by ideologically-inclined commentators who really have very little clue about our business, and aren’t inclined to learn. Obviously, that’s had an effect.
July 22nd, 2005 at 02:50:15 +0000
Look bro I am not brainwashed. I have a father who served 2 brothers who are police & I served a while, & I know for a fact that the media is anti military. It started in the vietnam era. After the Mao light revolution in this country. let me ask you do you really think the meida should have the right to report every single aspect of a war. How many troops are here when they are coming home names. That we are haing recruting problems. What weapons are being used. people like Kevin sykes going on missions. It’s all rubbish. No way in ww2 would FDR let the news in the way bush does. Have the troops would have been court martialed in ww2 if the meida today was there in the 40’s. I mean when japs ran out of caves on fire they were shot. Now you have to give them medical attention. The fact is like I said if you clowns were around in the 40’s hitler would have won & this world would be under the thousand yr Reich
July 22nd, 2005 at 10:00:58 +0000
Well, this isn’t World War II. And I don’t think “victory” in Iraq is worth the price of a free and independent press. If that’s what we have to do to win, we should just declare victory now and bring the boys home.
July 29th, 2005 at 14:36:52 +0000
Derek, you ask “how could we?” (forget about 911). The problem today goes far beyond someone forgetting an event, or any of the many events of the recent past, USS Cole, etc. The problem lies in the millions of us who have forgotten what this country was founded on. Whether liberals, conservatives, democrats, or republicans want to admit it or have the stones to face it, this country was founded as One Nation Under God. Read some of the many letters and speeches of our noble (and yes, imperfect) founding fathers. Little by little we have, by our actions or apathy, forced Him to a place of insignificance at best, in some quarters. God, in His grace, gave us victory after victory since our militia put up a brave stand against what was at the time, the mightiest nation on the planet (Brittain). Today we fight a war on terrorism. And instead of being able fight it as if we are intent on defending our God-given right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” we’re hog tied in the name of political correctness to pretend we DON’T remember the image of Americans jumping from a high-rise because it seemed the better option. We are at war with an enemy that fights with no rules, no fear of death, no honor, no decency, no sympathy, and no desire for peace, truce, or co-existance? How do you fight an enemy who will only be appeased by our destruction? How do you fight such an enemy? You kill them. I’m sorry to say that, yes, some civil rights may be stepped on, but if we can get our heads out of it for a minute, civil right vs. right to life should not keep Omar from being searched from head to toe at JFK just because some civil rights organization may take up a lawsuit, and some news organization will “report” how horrible we are for taking a longer look at Omar because he happens to look just like the 19. Oh, and have we forgetten the 1 that didn’t make it onto the plane? The 1 that looked like a terrorist. Thank God his civil rights took a back seat that day, or his four compatriots may have been able fight off the passengers who kept that plane from it’s intended target.
In all of our bickering, and blame placing, we have indeed forgotten one of the most important elements of our freedom. So important was it to our forefathers, that they placed it where every American would be sure to see it, on our money. “IN GOD WE TRUST”. And lest we forget, “he who does not take care of his own, especially they of his own house, is worse than an infidel”.
July 29th, 2005 at 14:50:52 +0000
well, this is getting beyond the scope of this blog, so i’m not going to get into a big debate with you … I try to limit myself to journalism-, running- or BoSox-related topics…
August 16th, 2005 at 13:40:04 +0000
Pretty amazing this forum has gone on this long. i really don’t have time to have much in the way of a discussion but I would like to clear up some facts and throw in a quick 2 cents that will maybe help out with everyone elses.
I was a member of 2-12 CAV (LTC Ryans battalion) but attached to 1-5 CAV throughout the duration of 1st Cavalry Divisions deployment to Iraq. 1-5 CAV was one of the 2 army battalions (the other was 2-7 CAV) that were sent from Baghdad to both Najaf and Fallujah to augment the Marines. I was on the ground for both of those fights so I think I can clear a few points up. I didn’t have time to read everyones comments so I might be repeating a few things, but I doubt it.
First, LTC Ryan is a soft-spoken, extremely intelligent leader. I was surprised to see an article with so much emotion from him. He wrote that article to try and raise awareness to a problem, not to try and bring anybody down. I will also say that 100% of the soldiers that have seen the article have agreed with it wholeheartedly. Some of the details may or may not be correct, but I guarantee that the overall message is absolutely true. Here are some of the facts:
1. The body count from Fallujah is a good conservative estimate. We know this from 24/7 Unmanned Arial Vehicle thermal camera coverage AS WELL AS reports on the ground from people like me. Trust me, we were not inflating the estimates in order to look good. There is no prize for killing the most. The mission was complete when the city was cleared, whether we had to kill 2 or 2000 to do it was irrelevant. A LOT of bad guys died in that fight. Also, 500 lbs. bombs, tank main gun rounds artillery typically don’t leave bodies to find. They are either disinigrated, spread over a few hundred yards or buried under a couple of stories worth of rubble. The bad guys just vanish a lot of the time when we escalate force like we did in Fallujah.
2. No we did not find hundreds of bodies in the mosque in Najaf. In fact, we never entered the mosque (far too politically sensitive). I stood about 75 meters away when Sistani ended the fight. We DID take hundreds of mortar rounds from behind the walls and did see fighters leaving it with RPG’s and other weapons constantly. The parking garage next to it had THOUSANDS of weapons, explosives, etc. Despite this, we never targeted the mosque and actually fought with an extremely restrictive No Fire Zone around it to protect it. Some richochets hit it when we got really close but thats about it.
3. Yes there are an almost limitless number of “groups” fighting us in Iraq. Some want control of Iraq, some just want to kill Americans, some want both, some are foriegn, some are local, some are religious, some are political, some are just poor guys trying to earn money, some are idiot 22 year olds trying to be tough, etc. Trying to even remotely group them is impossible. I can go into the detailed explanation of the way I group them and how I based decisions about how to act in certain areas depending on the demographics but it would take a thesis. Its complicated. Just understand that and avoid generalization. It makes for a convinient news clip but it is misleading and misinformative.
4. Some reporters really do want to report the truth BUT some do not. I ended an interview with an extremely right wing reporter because he was trying to twist what I said to fit his pre-formed agenda. The same thing happened with left-wing reporters although I did not personally have to do it. To think that all reporters are well meaning and are not just looking for the big story to make them famous is naive. Some are and some aren’t.
5. Reliance on Iraqi’s as “eyewitnesses” is amazingly stupid. It is extremely easy to find someone around a car bomb that says they hate the americans. In fact, the bad guys ensure that they have people there to find the first reporter on the scene. 10 bucks and most Iraqi’s will say ANYTHING. Even without that, you can find an Iraqi that hates America and one that loves us in any crowd. Pick and choose the one you show and you have your story. This is VERY different from the U.S. but find JUST ONE soldier to disagree with me on this last statement.
6. Very, very, very, very few reporters were willing to leave the IZ for anything less than a big fight and only then surrounded by A LOT of US Military. I understand this and really dont blame them. Dying sucks. I wouldnt either. I also have a lot of respect for the ones that do. I actually love embeds because they provide, by far, the most accurate reporting. Just dont presume to have a story because of a PHONE CALL FROM A RANDOM IRAQI THAT YOU HAVE ABSULUTELY NO WAY TO CHECK HIS CREDIBILITY. Come on, you would get slaughtered in the States for something that stupid.
There are a few other things but this is getting long.
You mentioned that the the reporters over there are reporting events – true. You also say that the news focuses on the extreme because that is what the people will watch – true. THIS IS THE WHOLE POINT. In the effort to capture the microscopic attention span of the average US citizen, the news reports on extreme events that fill a 5-10 second clip. The issue arised when the analysis of the ENTIRE MISSION is based on all of these extreme events. If you only want to report the “if it bleeds-it leads” stories, fine, you give up your right to make any kind of analysis of the overall success whatsoever. The success of one of the most complicated, delicate, problematic, and MEANINGFULL missions that the United States has ever undertaken cannot be evaluated in a 5 minute sound bite and certainly not without taking in all of the factors. “American lives are worth more than Iraqi shit” (I think I misquoted that slightly) is one of the most true and most ignorant statements ever, all at the same time. I completely agree but these multi-million dollar shit projects are part of the entire key to winning this war. Reconstruction, political progress, and the training of the Iraqi Security Forces are the ONLY measure of success in Iraq. Killing every person that poses a threat to US and Iraqi forces would be a welcome accomplishment but basically unrealistic. The other three factors WILL GET US OUT OF IRAQ AND WIN THIS WAR. LTC Ryans primary issue is that the American public has NO WAY of assessing how well we are doing because so few stories about good things actually come out of Iraq. The extreme stories are shaping peoples opinion of the entire country based on incomplete (not inaccurate, usually) information. His views are echoed by the VAST majority of soldiers in the military, including mine. I did 14 months on the ground over there. We have made mistakes, but come on; Have you ever tried to build a nation in the Middle East? Things are getting better rapidly over there. The issue is that we had much farther to go when we started than we had planned on. 2 steps forward and 1 step back is how I described it last year. Question whether we should have gone there at all, but realize that that is a non-issue at this point because we cannot pull out until we are done. There is a reason why I was inundated with emails throughout the deployment asking me for the “real” story. Many, many people want a real analysis of the progress of Iraq and you simply cannot get it from the news. That is the point that LTC Ryan was trying to make.
Actually more like 20 bucks than 2 cents but there it is.
August 16th, 2005 at 16:19:06 +0000
Dustin: Thanks for that very informative, intelligent and I think very fair post. You make a lot of good points. The one thing I wanted to say was about the “Iraqi shit” comment. I was actually talking about the SEWER PROJECT when I wrote that. I was certainly not trying to refer to any of my fellow human beings as crap!