Press has been lying about Iraq - Page 3

uh Clem · May 10, 2003, 13:14

Quote:

All this goes to show is that we tend to believe people who report the news that is consistent with our own belief system.

Which is why the Arab street truly believed the story that 4,000 Jews stayed home the morning the WTC was attacked.

What accounts for the fact that most Americans now believe that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11?

Oh wait, you just told me...

Sava · May 10, 2003, 13:20

Fox is America's Al-Jazeera... the second people realize this, the second we can have intelligent debates.

DanS · May 10, 2003, 13:25

Quote:

What he said is that this was not uniform, that he AP had some very fine reporters that told the truth. But some of them, he said, truly had it in for Bush and were spinning the stories. He also said that there was a "herd" mentality in the press where everyone reported the same stories in essentially the same way.

All of these things are part of what a discerning reader would consider possibilites when reading every story:

1) A reporter or group of reporters with an agenda;
2) A reporter who has been bought and inserts stories at the behest of others;
3) A reporter who makes up stories because good reporting is a tougher job;
4) A reporter who only goes with the herd in either subject or content;
5) A reporter who out-and-out plagiarizes; and
6) A reporter or news organization spins stories to continue access.

All of these things have happened in Gulf War II. #2 seems to happen a lot more than people realize, but spotting it is difficult. A NY Times reporter got caught with #3 and #5. Baghdad Bob got caught with #1 and #6. CNN got caught with #6. #4 happens all the time--why do we all of the sudden hear so many "chaos" and "lawlessness" stories on Thursday this week?

Ned · May 10, 2003, 13:40

Thanks for the summary Dan. All this goes to show is that one really needs multiple sources with different political agenda's to really get a balanced view of events that have tremendous political impact.

The bottom line, you lefties and Sava whatever you call yourself, watch FOX. You may learn something.

I continue to watch CNN and read the AP stories. But it is nice to know that all is not as bleak in Iraq as they tend to report it.

DanS · May 10, 2003, 13:46

Actually, I'm not much of a triangulator. IOW, if you read 5 stories that are full of lies, you probably will not be able to infer the truth from them by looking at the whole.

HershOstropoler · May 10, 2003, 13:51

Ok, so now that there is not only CNN, pussyfooting and arselicking the Bushies, but also Fox that has gone to enthusiastic arsecrawling, the extreme right takes this as proof that CNN is another part of the vast leftwing conspiracy. Quite funny, just that I'd love to see a news network that really mirrors Fox's blatant bias on the other side.

DanS · May 10, 2003, 13:54

so now that there is not only CNN, pussyfooting and arselicking the Bushies

Rather, that was CNN pussyfooting and arselicking Saddam Hussein.

Quite funny, just that I'd love to see a news network that really mirrors Fox's blatant bias on the other side.

In this case, it was al Jazeera.

Sava · May 10, 2003, 13:56

Quote:

watch FOX. You may learn something

I agree... I'll hear what Rupert Murdoch wants me to know.
FOX = Al Jazeera

HershOstropoler · May 10, 2003, 14:00

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
Rather, that was CNN pussyfooting and arselicking Saddam Hussein.

Yeah, especially Walter Rogers.

"In this case, it was al Jazeera."

Did it cover the war under "Imperialist war of aggression against the people of Iraq" and start reports with pictures of mutilated Iraqi children? If so, it would come close, yes.

DanS · May 10, 2003, 14:11

Did it cover the war under "Imperialist war of aggression against the people of Iraq" and start reports with pictures of mutilated Iraqi children?

Yep. That's the one.

Fox News and al Jazeera shared feeds with one another. Al Jazeera ended up with egg on its face when they cut to Fox News' image of the square in Baghdad when the Saddam statue came down. The whole Arab world watched that one in prime time.

Life is full of ironies.

HershOstropoler · May 10, 2003, 14:13

Good. Now we'd need a US network doing that.

"The whole Arab world watched that one in prime time."

With or without US flag?

DanS · May 10, 2003, 14:15

With both the US flag and the pre-91 Iraqi flag.

Good. Now we'd need a US network doing that.

"Al jazeera" was the most popular Google search term there for a while. Even outdid "sex".

Gatekeeper · May 10, 2003, 14:36

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Journalists may be liberal, but their managers and editors are ratings-fed corporate whores who'd die rather than really offend anyone.

Now I am serious: Your paintbrush has broad strokes, MtG. Too broad, and too g*d*mn stereotypical. I'll leave it at that, because what I'm thinking right now has no place in polite company.

Gatekeeper

Gatekeeper · May 10, 2003, 14:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
... All this goes to show is that one really needs multiple sources with different political agenda's to really get a balanced view of events that have tremendous political impact.

No, what you need are *apolitical* sources. As you stated further down in your post (but I clipped for space), the Associated Press is a fine resource for stories like this, along with most of the other wires services and/or in-house news providers (Reuters, KRT, Gannett, et al.).

Gatekeeper

Gatekeeper · May 10, 2003, 14:46

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
All of these things are part of what a discerning reader would consider possibilites when reading every story:

1) A reporter or group of reporters with an agenda;
2) A reporter who has been bought and inserts stories at the behest of others;
3) A reporter who makes up stories because good reporting is a tougher job;
4) A reporter who only goes with the herd in either subject or content;
5) A reporter who out-and-out plagiarizes; and
6) A reporter or news organization spins stories to continue access.

All of these things have happened in Gulf War II. #2 seems to happen a lot more than people realize, but spotting it is difficult. A NY Times reporter got caught with #3 and #5. Baghdad Bob got caught with #1 and #6. CNN got caught with #6. #4 happens all the time--why do we all of the sudden hear so many "chaos" and "lawlessness" stories on Thursday this week?

Do you have a link for the NY Times reporter? That one I haven't heard about as of yet.

Also, there was a Los Angeles Times photographer who was fired from his job for altering a photograph he took while in Iraq.

Gatekeeper

DanS · May 10, 2003, 14:51

Here's a good article from Reuters that shows #2. It is unclear to me whether the reporter is doing Iran's bidding or the US State Department's bidding. My guess is that it's Iran, and they are trying to frame it in the State Department v. Defense Department fight.

http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml...toryID=2717180

There are two inserts that strike me as bogus. One is...

Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage said Iran was different from the others because it was democratic, but the Bush administration has complained more and more vocally about Iran's rapidly developing nuclear programs.

Nobody in the US would ever say that Iran is "democratic." Clearly a plant.

Here's another...

A group of conservatives close to the Bush administration has started to advocate "regime change" in Iran, with the son of the late Shah as their candidate as ruler.

US policy would never be to have the Shah redux. Clearly, another plant.

It just goes to show you that you have to read your news carefully.

Ned · May 10, 2003, 14:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Gatekeeper

No, what you need are *apolitical* sources. As you stated further down in your post (but I clipped for space), the Associated Press is a fine resource for stories like this, along with most of the other wires services and/or in-house news providers (Reuters, KRT, Gannett, et al.).

Gatekeeper

Gatekeeper, trying to keep politics out of reporter's stories is like trying to keep politics out of reporters. One cannot change human nature.

We should simply accept the fact of political bias in the press. No one here denies that Fox is biased on the right. The problem I have is that the left refuses to knowledge any "leftist" bias by any reporters whatsoever. Apparently, in their view, if a reporter is right-wing, he is biased. If he is not right-wing, the reporter is "objective."

Gatekeeper · May 10, 2003, 15:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
My suspicion is:
embedded reporter = reading scripted military news

Actually, the embedding process has received mostly high marks from journalists and their professional institutions. Believe me, if all they were getting were press releases, you'd be hearing howling along the lines of what came when the press was *restricted* during Grenada, Panama, Gulf War I and in Afghanistan.

Gatekeeper

HershOstropoler · May 10, 2003, 15:05

"Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage said Iran was different from the others because it was democratic"

Brit gov sources were talking about Iran as a nascant or developping democracy. Maybe Armitage had to admit that at some point.

"A group of conservatives close to the Bush administration has started to advocate "regime change" in Iran, with the son of the late Shah as their candidate as ruler.

US policy would never be to have the Shah redux."

Very weak. It says "a group", you say "US policy". You can bet there are some whacky flies circling the shitpile who want the Pahlevis back.

Gatekeeper · May 10, 2003, 15:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned

Gatekeeper, trying to keep politics out of reporter's stories is like trying to keep politics out of reporters. One cannot change human nature.

We should simply accept the fact of political bias in the press. No one here denies that Fox is biased on the right. The problem I have is that the left refuses to knowledge any "leftist" bias by any reporters whatsoever. Apparently, in their view, if a reporter is right-wing, he is biased. If he is not right-wing, the reporter is "objective."

Perhaps, but I write based only on *my* experience in the world of journalism, of which I've been a part of to one degree or another since 1989. And in my experience, my fellows are, if anything, hard-bitten and jaded toward those with blatant political leanings, one-issue candidates and so on.

Maybe things are different in the "big cities," than they are in the more rural part of the nation where I earn a living. If so ... well, too bad. I'm not going to let the rotten apples ruin the barrel, so to speak.

Gatekeeper

Gatekeeper · May 10, 2003, 15:12

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
Here's a good article from Reuters that shows #2. It is unclear to me whether the reporter is doing Iran's bidding or the US State Department's bidding. My guess is that it's Iran, and they are trying to frame it in the State Department v. Defense Department fight.

http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml...toryID=2717180

There are two inserts that strike me as bogus. One is...

Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage said Iran was different from the others because it was democratic, but the Bush administration has complained more and more vocally about Iran's rapidly developing nuclear programs.

Nobody in the US would ever say that Iran is "democratic." Clearly a plant.

Here's another...

A group of conservatives close to the Bush administration has started to advocate "regime change" in Iran, with the son of the late Shah as their candidate as ruler.

US policy would never be to have the Shah redux. Clearly, another plant.

It just goes to show you that you have to read your news carefully.

Dan, the reporter is doing his or her job: REPORTING. You notice that the material you highlighted is *attributed,* do you not? That means the reporter is *reporting* on what was said, nothing more.

I'm sorry, but you're starting to see secret agendas where none exist. Don't go paranoid, man. There's a whole world of difference between being an alert and educated reader and being just plain paranoid.

Gatekeeper

Ned · May 10, 2003, 15:12

A good news organization should promote and advance reporters who have an extablished record for truth and objectivity. Unfortunately, I suspect this is not the case with many reporters who are always trying to get the sensational story that gets them a Pulitzer. Shading a mundane story into a sensational story is therefor pandemic, I suggest.

Ned · May 10, 2003, 15:14

FYI, Powell is now speaking on his arrival in Israel.

DanS · May 10, 2003, 15:15

Maybe Armitage had to admit that at some point.

Yes, "nascent democracy" would be the farthest that Armitage would go, but I doubt that he would go quite that far. Iran is a country with democratic elements that is a despotic theocracy on the whole.

It says "a group", you say "US policy". You can bet there are some whacky flies circling the shitpile who want the Pahlevis back.

Well, the group they are discussing is the neo-cons in the Defense Department. But the neo-cons are a bunch of republicans (small "r") and would never start talking shah when they believe they have 80-90% of the Iranian populace on their side.

HershOstropoler · May 10, 2003, 15:22

"but I doubt that he would go quite that far."

If he agreed with Tony at some point, it just takes dropping a "nascent".

"Well, the group they are discussing is the neo-cons in the Defense Department."

"In"? Didn't the article say "close to"?

Gatekeeper · May 10, 2003, 15:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
A good news organization should promote and advance reporters who have an extablished record for truth and objectivity. Unfortunately, I suspect this is not the case with many reporters who are always trying to get the sensational story that gets them a Pulitzer. Shading a mundane story into a sensational story is therefor pandemic, I suggest.

For every "hotshot" television reporter you see giving you a 30-second blurb, there are 5,000 "trench" journalists working their butts off (and giving their lives, in some cases) for peanuts so you can get the news and proceed to question its integrity.

**sigh** I don't mean to come across as ornery, but over the years I've found out that journalists simply cannot win. We're liberals. We're corporate slaves. We're used for target practice. We're denigrated. Well, it's just tiresome.

Every profession has its rotten apples, and journalism isn't excluded from that. But, by gosh, we're hardly all money-grubbing publicists for pet causes. If I proceeded to stereotype *groups* or *professions* based on experiences I've had with *individuals,* I'd absolutely HATE:

1. Veterans.
2. Lawyers.
3. Politicians.
4. CEOs.
5. Environmentalists.
6. Parents.
7. Grandparents.
8. Religion.
9. Bosses.

My motto is simple: Take everything on a case-by-case basis. Starry-eyed and naive? Perhaps. But it's better that than turning into a jaded journalist with an ax to grind.

Gatekeeper

Nubclear · May 10, 2003, 15:36

Ok, lets put this in perspective. "Y" stands for "Yes, the war isn't going quite as planned" and "N" stands for "No! Its all a conspiracy! Everyone but me is LYING!!!"

YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYNYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY Y

And this is for CNN alone

GePap · May 10, 2003, 15:56

Everyone here is trying to spin things: without spin, ones opinions suddenly become unjustifiable, just, well, OPINION. lets look at the Museum piece: now, from what I have been told by Oerdin alone, about 34 ancient artifacts that were catalogued were stolen, plus regular stuff from the museum, such as furniture and equipment. From MtG I learn that many lesser artifacts that werew not catalogued also went.

So what does this mean? supporters of the war claim that this proves the rpess was lying and making things worse than they were, since it was not hundreads of pricelss artifcats taken. If only 34 catalogued pieces were stolen, then this is true.

But there is also the other truth: The Museum was looted, and 34 priceless pieces of art were taken, as well as lots of other stuff. Was it the disaster made out to be early on? Perhaps not. But it does show the US failed (and continues to have porblems with) enforcing law and order in the country.

I am fine with admitting that the museum looting was not the great cultural disaster I may have believed earlier..but it was still and obvious case of lack of law and order, and of the US being able to keep things safe. It may not have been a great disaster, but it is nothing to scoff at, it was still a crime the US failed utterly to stop, as it has failed to stop other instances of looting and mayhem. And none of the posters here saying the press is biased can refute, or ignore that (well, maybe they will, but if they are honest, they shouldn't).

Ned · May 10, 2003, 16:12

Gatekeeper, I will note that the news is made of by hundreds and thousands of reporters who feed stories to the anchors and on screen types. This suggests that if is a network has a bias, it is being caused by the network's editors and not so much by biased reporters.

But the bias of the press, from Baghdad Bob to Al Jazeera to Fox News to CNN to the AP has become itself a story. Just a few minutes ago I saw a debate on Fox between a commentator that insisted that the story that the French Embassy in Syria was giving passports to Saddam's régime was well documented and another commentator who was equally adamant that this was just an unconfirmed report by one reporter. He relied on Donald Rumsfeld for his authority -- because Rumsfell was not ready to confirm the report.

Spiffor · May 10, 2003, 16:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
The problem I have is that the left refuses to knowledge any "leftist" bias by any reporters whatsoever. Apparently, in their view, if a reporter is right-wing, he is biased. If he is not right-wing, the reporter is "objective."

Erm, I don't know for any other leftwinger out there, but when I'm reading my communist newpaper or some extreme-left news source, I am perfectly aware of the bias. I accept it wholeheartedly and shamelessly, that is