One would think that after Rathergate and other publicized media scandals that editors and journalists would go out of their way to make sure a story is true and accurate before publishing it. In addition, one would hope that these same editors and journalists would take into consideration the potential ramifications of their story upon the world political arena, especially if the story's trustworthiness is in question...
But once again, another media scandal is shaking the country. Unlike the Rathergate forged document fiasco, this one is going to cost lives. A lot of lives. In Afghanistan alone there have been at least 15 or 20 killed in riots over this story. Thousands of muslims in other countries are also protesting, and there have been several injuries. Now we wait for the American deaths, where deeply offended young idealistic muslims with dynamite strapped to their body walk into a shopping mall in Denver or Columbus or wherever, to "pay back the Americans for what they've done..."
Newsweek has printed a retraction, but unfortunately the muslims in the middle east aren't buying it. Still the riots go on, and now the White House is demanding that Newsweek do more than just "one retraction." White House spokesman Scott McClellan called the retraction a good first step, but said the newsweekly should "help repair the damage that has been done, particularly in the region," by explaining "what happened and why they got it wrong."
This explanation, if it ever comes, will not be the truth. 'Well, we just went ahead with it because we knew it would sell more magazines,' is not going to be heard. Likewise, no one is [ever] going to admit to having a liberal bias.
The popular media, the media elite, the major media, have proven themselves to be big supporters of the liberal agenda (see Rathergate, cBS or CNN election coverage versus Fox.) For example, Eason Jordan of CNN admitted to suppressing news of the horrors of Saddam's regime in exchange for ratings and "keeping the bureau open" where he was stationed." If one is not going to report the truth about where they're stationed, then what's the point of being there? This same Mr. Jordan also told the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland that the American military was killing journalists (He was asked to "Prove it!" by Democrat Barney Frank, and Mr. Jordan to date has not offered any proof.) Even back in the first gulf war, American military officials asked CNN reporter Bernard Shaw about what he saw in Iraq before he left (after the bombing had started.) Mr. Shaw's reply, "Sorry, can't do that; I'm a journalist. I can't choose sides."
There has been a long pattern here, a very long pattern. The liberal media doesn't like GWB, they've made that clear. In addition, it's no secret they do not want him to succeed, in anything, especially the war on terror. One could make an inference here that this story in Newsweek was not a mistake, nor was it negiligence, but was Newsweek's attempt to discredit the American military and attempt to place a wedge between American and the muslim world. I would have to say that they have succeeded.
I pray that no more lives are lost. I hope Newsweek steps up and does the decent thing here, but I just don't know. When has the national media done the "decent thing?"
What does Decatur think? Was this a liberal-biased attack as some propose, or just a mistake or act of negligence? Do others see the pattern of the media's leaning toward the left?
Until next time...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Oh, bite me and grow up. You all are the establishment media now too-you have billion-dollar media outlets at your command, and somehow you manage to maintain the fiction that there is a huge, united, coordinated array of liberal media out to get you.
I've studied Arabic and have some familiarity with the culture and I cringed when I heard those stories--even worse when I heard they weren't true, because we know what they mean to the Arab world. But ask me this:
Y'ALL NEVER DID FIND THE BLOODY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION THAT WERE SUPPOSED TO BE A "SLAM DUNK"--
where's the accountability for that? Where is the retraction for that?
You've fed off of the "media elite" crap for too long--you now are a big chunk of it, so act responsibly. You've run against Congress for a long time, and now guess what? You ARE Congress. You can't run as persecuted outsiders any more. You ARE the elite.
My my my. We are rather angry, aren't we?
For your information, the "media elite" (or as they 'were' according to your point of view) are still the leading source of news to the outside world, ie, outside of the US. And yes, the power that they once wielded over the whole world's media is now eroding in America, as you pointed out. But they still influence a great many in America, and they still influence a great many across the world, including our muslim friends.
As for the rest of your comment, TDD, I can say to check your recent post on blogdecatur and my comment. It addresses your concerns.
Have a nice day.
"Was this a liberal-biased attack as some propose, or just a mistake or act of neglegence?"
It's likely a combination of all three. One thing everyone needs to realize is how dramatically the standards of journalism (both broadcast and print) have changed over the past 20+ years, since the advent of 24-hour cable news coverage. There was a day when editors and journalists scrutinized every detail of a story's accuracy before putting it out to the public. At that time, the big burden/pressure on news outlets was to keep the story quiet while they got it RIGHT. News consumers didn't have the expectation of turning on the TV or booting up the computer and finding "Breaking News" at every hour of the day and night. Today, with so many hours of programming to fill and so much competition for "the story," we don't see that same level of scrutiny.
What we see now is not "News," but the news gathering process unfolding live before our eyes. Anyone who's ever worked as a journalist knows that for every kernel of truth you uncover, you find handfuls of untruths. And the time it takes to sort things out can cost you the scoop. But now, the biggest pressure in the news room or at the editorial table is to get it FIRST! Following another outlet that broke a story, even if it's with the "real story," doesn't pull the same ratings/readership, and that has a negative effect on the bottom line of corporations that "own" the news. Journalistic integrity takes a back seat to profit. And that's not good for America.
Another thing that has changed because of all these hours to fill is the blurring of the lines between opinion and news, ie: a BIG source of bias creeping into "journalism." Take Lou Dobbs for example, who is fairly middle of the road as far as the conserative/liberal continuum is concerned. His show leads with some daily news, so he's a newsman, right? Well, how long did his "Exporting of America" series go on? In that series, Lou started with the "opinion" that sending American jobs overseas is a harmful trend, and his show reported stories to support that position. I'm sure that a "newsman" with the opposite point of view could find just as many stories/pundits to aver how that trend is somehow good for our economy, politics or position in the world. Don't get me wrong; I don't like seeing Americans lose their jobs and their ability to support their families. But this is a subtle example of underlying bias in the media. Ever listended to Hannity's daily radio program? While his show isn't a "news" program, where did Hannity gain his fame? On Fox NEWS Channel. There is bias in the media and it leans toward BOTH sides of the aisle.
So back to the Newsweek story. It is disturbing to see a monthly news magazine -- where the lead time is longer and more in-depth reporting is expected -- bungle a story of such import. I don't know if that was biased or inept reporting (based on the overall content of Newsweek, I would say bias is definitely in the mix), but it certainly was negligent. How a MONTHLY news magazine with the resources of Newsweek could hit the racks with a story based on one anonymous source is beyond my comprehension. And how could the editors run with this flimsy story, KNOWING how infamatory it was and KNOWING that we have American men and women serving on the ground in the countries populated by the very people who would be provoked by it? Unfortunately, the way news is reported, I think we'll see more and more and more biased, inept, negligent "reports" followed by one-line clarifications and/or retractions buried in the next issue's fine print.
Folks, the point of the post was the Newsweek story, not the war in Iraq, the Republican New World Order (sounds like a very odd division of the WWE) or anything else.
I think Ms. Trachtenberg said it more eloquently than I could. How could a news agency KNOWINGLY put this out, knowing the potential harm it could bring? Irresponsible is just too nice of a word here.
As far as the direction the republican party is taking right now, from what W has been saying, it is to promote democracy in the world over tyranny, to win the war on terror, and to make American more secure and stronger. He (nor does his party) have ALL the answers; what they do have is IDEAS. They don't spend all day bashing the other party, they come up with IDEAS. I don't particularly care for all the ideas, and I don't claim a party (I truly believe that claiming a party is dangerous; who knows when one's trusted party is going to identify themselves with something that one does not want to be associated with at all?) As I have said before, it's choosing the lesser of the two evils. In my opinion, at this time, the republican party has more pluses than minuses, and therefore will probably get my support on most issues. On many issues, it will not.
What I cannot stand is people who support the party because it's their party and dammit, that's the way it is. "My mom was a republicrat, my dad was a republicrat, and I will support the republicrats, come hell or high water, till the day I die, regardless of what they say, or what they do." Right and wrong need to be measured in all this, not just what some politician (including W BTW) says.
Which leads to the ultimate question: How does one determine right and wrong?
Now here, my friends, is where we really get to the meat of the matter...
To say the war in Iraq was solely based on errors is downright irresponsible. Does anyone remember the UN resolutions that Saddam did not comply with? Does anyone remember the threats he made against the US? Does anyone remember the proven link that Saddam had with Al Qaeda? Does anyone remember the deaths of thousands that Saddam caused at his whim? Okay, there weren't any WMD at the time that we got to do FULL INSPECTIONS *after* the war, and after 12 years of time for Saddam to hide them, yes, that is true. To say the war was based soley on errors is erroneous to the hilt. There were plenty of reasons to go war against Iraq at the time it happened; the only reason that the US-led coalition listed was the first one; the non-compliance with UN resolutions. The longer you let a nutball despot defy the world like he did, the more dangerous he can get. Regardless of what was or was not found in Iraq after the war had started, I agree with John F. Kerry's statement, when he said that regardless of whether there are WMD or not, Saddam is a threat himself and needs to be taken out. (I paraphrase.)
Where does a party, or a person, determine right or wrong? Do they make it up themselves? Do they rely on "the majority?" Do they go with 'what the government says?' That is the heart of the matter. For it is with the answer to this question that one can make rational decisions on one's politics and on every other area of life.
Hey MJ and TDD,
You guys are usually right on but your both way off here. I hate the war in Iraq also and wish it would just end.
You say "war based on errors" as if it was all Bush. If Saddam would have let the inspectors do their job there would have been no war. He didnt. He stalled, bullied, harassed, and lied up until the very last moment. And why should'nt he. He had France, Russia, and Geremany doing everything possible to keep him in power. The fact is that he did possibly have those weapons (which may have went to Syria. (Remember when he flew many of his planes to Iran during the first gulf war or did you not know aobut that?) Dems get tired of hearing this one but did he not gas the Kurds? Lets face it, no matter what he had he was his own "WMD". Don't take Bush's word for it. Take Pres Clinton, Sen Lieberman, Harold Ford, Hillary Clinton and depending on what poll he read that day John Kerry.
Now now now...
Give your party more credit than that! To say that the DNC would just blindly follow W and be led along is a big big bash of your democratic comrades.
No, I think they looked at the evidence that was presented and formed their own conclusions as well. No party on either side of an issue as big as this is going to just roll over and do what the other side says. These politicians are critical thinkers; they take into consideration all aspects of a situation (including who is providing the information, where it's coming from, what may or may not be available to them, etc.) and then they make a decision.
If Ted heard you bashing his party like that, he'd throw his drink on your head!
I have seen a lot of liberal bias in the media. I remember hearing several soldiers who came home from Iraq saying the news coverage here is all negative, and that no one is reporting the good that is going on there. Schools being built, hospitals being built, and so on.
I would have to say there is a "spin" on almost every news broadcast, no matter where it comes from. We have to be critical thinkers and take it all in before coming to any definite conclusions.
I would agree. I listen to FoxNews more often than the major networks because of the networks tendency toward leftward bias. Depending on the situation, I also know there can be a rightward bias on Fox, but I don't see that all that often. Usually if there is a discussion, there are liberals and conservatives on the panel, and one gets a well-rounded picture of what both sides think.
Regardless of who says what (and where I hear it) I tend to step back and carefully consider what I've been told before I make a decision about what to believe. Getting news from a variety of sources helps one to figure out what may truly be going on.
Going back to the right and wrong question, I often wonder where some decide on what is indeed "right" and what is indeed "wrong."
It seems in politics that those definitions change all the time.
Given that, how can we as voters choose right and wrong when the picture changes all the time?
"News Junkies" like us do as the Lincoln Republican does. That is getting news from a varity of sources and consider the source. Many Amercians do not do that. They hear a news blurb or read a headline and form their opinion from that. All news sources have some bias. So its up to the viewer sort it all out.
OK, so I just saw Linda Foley on Orielly. Her accusations that the US Milatary is "targeting journalists" was obsurd. When a nut like this makes it into the mainstream its scary. Does this woman hate Bush so much that she is willing to supply this kind of propaganda to the terrorists and put our military in danger? She actually accused our troops of targeting Arab journalists. At least when newsweek did this it was more out of incompetence than bias.
Well oh well oh well.
Not only Newsweek, but the Brits' The Sun gets into the act with printing stolen pictures of Saddam in his underwear. Why don't we just start burning mosques and force-feeding pork to muslim children while were at it? I'm sure that will not bother most Islamic extremists, would it?
Maybe we should make the "journalists" who produce this crap work side-by-side with those on the frontlines trying to keep the peace in the muslim world so they can see the unrest they have created.
Post a Comment