Come for the politics, stay for the snark.
by John Cole| 24 Comments
This post is in: Media
Since I wasn’t clear enough below, let me restate my opinion once again. I systematically reject this premise:
Let me clear up one thing. Whether Americans flushed the Koran down the toilet is irrelevant. Newsweek should not have reported it, even if true. It
Comments are closed.
Winning the war on terror
Earlier this week, the Washington Monthly’s Kevin Drum took his share of guff (and then some) from our side of the ’Sphere for calling the New York Times “the best newspaper in the world, bar none.” Today, the Gray Lady rather eloquently rises t…
Stormy70
The media can report any true story they want, freedom of the press and all that jazz. I think our MSM media are biased, and prone to print only mistakes that America makes. The story here is the reaction of militant Islamists who riot and kill over this kind of thing, true story or not.
Still, a false story put out by Newsweek, was picked up and used in the propaganda war against the US, and the MSM is pissed at the administration. The media has grown lazy, and think they are entitled to any piece of info they want, and if they don’t find the truth, they make it up. Of course, there are rumors of torture at Gitmo, but until I see definitive proof, I don’t find them credible.
The MSM should not get a pass for reporting rumors as fact, period. However, I think Americans can make up their mind about the press without any interference from the government. The blogs are doing a good job of keeping the MSM feet to the fire, anyway.
About flushing the Koran down the toilet, it’s not newsworthy to me if someone does it, but I’m not a farging Islamic Terrorist-loving nutcase.
jcricket
John, I understand that your frustrations with the Republican party are recent, but in your effort to be “balanced” you keep equating the extremism of the left and the right. I think there’s little evidence that the left is as big of a threat to America as the right.
Quite simply, the modern Republican party and the righties in the blogosphere have come out against freedom of press, freedom of/from religion, independent judiciaries, evidence-based science and medicine, equal rights for gays, and individual rights to make end-of-life decisions.
They’re in favor of government-sponsored (but not disclosed) propoganda, faith-based medicine/science, loyalty oaths, torture (if the person is brown). The right excuses threats and murder (of those “activist” judges) and offers huge givaeways to corporations while paying lip-service to the ever declining condition of the American worker.
I challenge you to produce _anything_, besides some tax policies, that you agree with the modern Republican party about. There isn’t a balance between left and right, beyond the number of people that seem to vote on each side.
I’m not saying you should become a member of the ELF and start burning car dealerships. But the modern Democratic party, for all its faults, is not the one flushing the founding principles of this country down the f*ing drain. And to imply that it’s as flawed as the Republicans is simply buying into the myth that balance means giving equal weight to everything.
Some facts are indisputable.
Andrei
Cole says, “The media was wrong for reporting a false story…”
That’s not the kind of wording I would use. Given the record of abuses of prisoners currently reported so far, it’s unclear if the story at its heart is “false.” It is clear that this account by this reporter was incorrect, or at least unverifiable, and that’s just shoddy work.
IOW, are you willing to state for the record — given all you know to this date — that there have been no incidents of interrogatores using tatics like desecrating the Koran to get information out of prisoners? Are you willing to lay out that kind of bet? I’ll take the bet, by the way, if you are willing. I think it woul dbe a big +EV move for me to take such a bet from you.
It is clear that a certain aspect of the story (this Koran piece was a detail in a larger story) was supposedly verified by a source trusted by the reporter, and that it had to be retracted after the fact when the source backed off. That’s just bad journalism. But to start making claims this sort of story is “false” — given all we know so far — seems to be begging for reporters to go on a hunt. I happened to agree with Sullivan on this point. It seems like a really bad play, strategically speaking, on the part of the right to take the stance they are taking now unless everyone is willing to beleive or take hard line positions that such behavior does not or has not existed at places like Gitmo. Again, what does recent past behvior tell you on this chance?
I think you’d be better suited to say, “The media was wrong in using a source that wasn’t bullet proof, forcing them to retract story.” That’s a phrasing you can at least back away from elegantly, right?
But that’s just me.
Aaron
Just learn from FDR.
No photos of US war dead were shown until 1943-44, because we didn’t want to lower civilian morale.
Finally, when they did show a dead marine on a beach in the South Pacific, it was because they thought the public had become too complacent about the war, and wanted to bring it home.
Hmmmmmmmmmmm….it worked for FDR.
Andrei
“The media has grown lazy, and think they are entitled to any piece of info they want, and if they don’t find the truth, they make it up.”
I agree. Time to kick out Limbaugh, Hannity and O’Reilly, the worst offenders of such laziness and posturing.
Oh wait… I doubt you were referring to them, were you?
Andrei
“The media has grown lazy, and think they are entitled to any piece of info they want, and if they don’t find the truth, they make it up.”
I agree. Time to kick out Limbaugh, Hannity and O’Reilly, the worst offenders of such laziness and posturing.
Oh wait… I doubt you were referring to them, were you?
Aaron
Let me be on record. I agree with John, LaShawn’s post is wrong.
However, if the press can judge that they shouldn’t show beheading videos or people jumping from windows, I think think they could also excercise some restraint in going full bore with anything anti-military that might not even be true.
Let’s do a test run. Let’s show the beheading video and then afterwards Dan Rather can run a story about Korans not being stacked neatly.
Let the public decide what’s important.
Thomas
Aaron, if the public shouldn’t be given news that might cause anti-military bias, how exactly can they decide what’s important?
Aaron
Finish my sentence.
‘that might not even be true.’
Oh, and I’m sure you honestly believe that German troops killed Belgian babies and ate them.
The press told us so!
Aaron
It might be useful to look at history…recall Yellow Journalism?
Remember the Maine!
Now it simply the oppposite.
Stormy70
Hannity, Rush , etc. are not news reporters. They’re commentators and entertainers. What is your point?
I expect a little more truth out of the vaunted news media. Instead they have become a joke on Saturday Night Live and the Daily Show, as well they should be.
Unless those terrorists are being physically tortured, I do not give a crap about what goes on at Gitmo. They are terrorists, not bunny rabbits. If the media really cared about physical torture, why did they not report on Saddam’s torture chambers until after the fall of Baghdad? Face it, the MSM is biased against anything Bush does, and they are at the point of repeating rumors, instead of facts.
Andrei
Stormy, you stated “the media” and keep referring to the “MSM” like so many others in the blogophere.
Limbaugh, Hannity and O’Reilly are part of the media and the MSM. Last time I checked, MSM stood for “Mainstream Media.” Are you claiming Limbaugh, Hannity and O’Reilly are not part of the media? The mainstream? Or both? Further, Limbaugh’s show airs on ABC NEWS Radio here in the Bay Area. Not ABC Radio… ABC ***NEWS*** Radio.
If you are referring *purely* to news shows or content, then might I suggest you use a more accurate term than the “the media” or “the MSM” since you seem to be talking about something entirely different.
Stormy70
I am referring to investigative news journalists, not news opinion commentators. Rush, Hannity, etc do not hang around the Pentagon or the White House asking questions, and digging up stories.
Are you seriously saying that you get your news from talk show hosts because they are on ABC news radio? It would explain alot ;).
Andrei
“I am referring to investigative news journalists, not news opinion commentators.”
Then you are not referring the MSM. Maybe the MSNJ, but not the MSM. The MSM is the entire collective. There is no distinction of news journalists from anyone else in the “media” in the term “mainstream media.” If they are in the mainstream, and in the media, they are in the mainstream media.
I would suggest you start being more precise with your language.
“Are you seriously saying that you get your news from talk show hosts because they are on ABC news radio? It would explain alot ;)”
Nice try. Maybe a little more honey with that pointless ad hominem? It lacked flavor.
Birkel
I can stack a buddha, a koran, a bible, a talmud and a figurine of the purple dragon from the candy planet in my BBQ grill and burn them wrapped in an American flag. It’s my right according to the SCOTUS.
Is the MSM so pansified that they think offending somebody is a story? Then why didn’t those two people out in San Fran who were hanging President Bush in effigy get more MSM coverage?
Can the liberals not just admit that the only reason they’re defending the MSM is because they realize which team the MSM backs and the Left therefore must protect its biggest defender?
Andrei
“Can the liberals not just admit that the only reason they’re defending the MSM is because they realize which team the MSM backs and the Left therefore must protect its biggest defender?”
You mean the same MSM that hung Clinton out to dry leading to impeachment over lies regarding private sexual practices but whom has not hung Bush out to dry for the kind of misinformation we’ve been fed regardng WMD, and all the faulty intelligence regarding a war that is far more public and costly in terms of scope?
The irony that Isikoff was the same reporter who got info from Linda Tripp to lead to the Clinton impeachment, and is now the involved in the Newsweek mess is just too priceless. It’s even more priceless that Isikoff was seemingly every conservative’s buddy when he lead the media on the hunt to discover information that lead to the impeachment of a Democractic President, and now many of those same people seem to be forcing him to take one for the team under a GOP administration. Fall on the sword Isikoff! You’ve done well, little solider.
You just can’t write this stuff.
Rick
Quite simply, the modern Republican party and the righties in the blogosphere have come out against freedom of press, freedom of/from religion, independent judiciaries, evidence-based science and medicine, equal rights for gays, and individual rights to make end-of-life decisions.
Aw-right…who blabbed our RadicalRight plan to this sleuth. Karl’s gonna *kill* someone.
Cordially…
Stormy70
Rick – like Karl will work with the likes of us.
Kimmitt
However, if the press can judge that they shouldn’t show beheading videos or people jumping from windows, I think think they could also excercise some restraint in going full bore with anything anti-military that might not even be true.
Sure, and you’ll note that Newsweek self-corrected on this thing. One factual error, quickly corrected. Sounds like they’re trying pretty hard to stick to your standard.
sidereal
“Unless those terrorists are being physically tortured, I do not give a crap about what goes on at Gitmo. They are terrorists, not bunny rabbits.”
Holy crap. Why are you wasting your omniscience on these silly blogs? Get yourself to Gitmo. The poor guys down there only know that they have suspected terrorists. Oh. . wait, a number of them have already been found innocent. Now I’m doubting your omniscience.
TJ Jackson
The American press is given the right to report and with that comes the responsibility to exercise proessionalism and responsibility. They have shown neither. The press also cannot claim the rights afforded them in the Constitution and then pretend that they do not represent American interests. For if they do not and actually represent the Taliban shouldn’t they be afforded the treatment they merit?
Birkel
“hung Clinton out to dry”
That’s interesting. You mean before, when Isikoff’s editors told him they wouldn’t print his story.
Strike that.
You mean when Isikoff’s editors wouldn’t allow him to print a factually accurate story that was proven by DNA on a dress?
The difference you fail to recognize is that the Clinton story was not fake but it was very much accurate.
None of which I really cared about ’til it became obvious that he had lied under oath. I actually think we oughta tell the truth under oath. I’m old fashioned like that.
Kimmitt
They have shown neither.
What are you talking about? There was a factual error in a story. Newsweek caught the error and immediately put out a correction. They’re only human; errors will happen. The important thing is that it was both rare and swiftly acknowledged.