How corrupt the media?
 

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ed...ent_id=1979014

tw: if you don't read this, you are anti-American. If you read it and read it well, your head will explode.

Anyone anti-war: you have to read this to find out how you got that way -- and a few of the names that let you down and made you indirectly support some of the worst horrors of the world so that a small number of people could make a quick buck.

Anyone who follows only one source of news: you have to read this to understand how very little you know.

Do you think you know what's going on in the world? The only way to know is to read blogs. This story comes to us via Andrew Sullivan.

The media is corrupt.
 

Since the media is corrupt, including the war-mongering Times, it is best to stick with basic principles like non-intervention. After all,
"Violence is the first refuge of the incompetent." -Issac Asimov

Now let me be sure I understand, the war is now about human rights and was all along, even though we were spoon fed lies by a compliant media about WMD and Saddam/Al Queda connections. gotcha... Yes we are the good guys since it will take many many years before we surpass Saddams body count, not that we're counting. Is the world, as a whole, safer because of our aggression? I doubt it. Is Israel safer? I doubt it. These interventions make new enemies for us out of people who should be our allies. I take no responsibility for the message written by this media type but its no more dubious than a blog rant.

I should have said "anyone anti-war except Griff" as we know you have other objections.

But the whole point of this is that the media was more compliant to Baghdad than to Washington, solely because Baghdad required such compliance.

Let me take that a step further. It's the opinion of 99% of the media that there ARE no WMDs. Most of the outlets I watch have made that decision at a very high level somewhere and have spent time pushing that as fact. CNN was absolutely relentless for two weeks in the beginning of the summer. Only one newspaper bothered to publish the documents that were found suggesting that the al Qaeda connection could be real, and that newspaper is in the UK.

Now regardless of all of that, there are a few people in the world who know about the actual WMD situation and the actual al Qaeda connection, and none of those people work in the media.

A media interested in presenting factual information would have to say the answer is we don't know yet. Sometimes they do admit that, but newspeople resist saying "don't know" at all costs.

We will know more by the end of the month.

Re: How corrupt the media?
 

Blanket statements like these, addressed to "anyone who X," always makes me whip out my heavy-duty, industrial-size, grain of salt. Doubly so when the "damning evidence" is in the form of one single reporter's opinions and impressions. He claims all of the other reporters were lying and bribing, but you assume he isn't lying to make himself look good. Statistically speaking, that's a lot more likely. Maybe this guy was an asshole and created problems for other reporters unnecessarily. Maybe the stories are completely untrue. Or maybe he's being honest. We don't know. This story is information useful in forming an opinion, but it is not damning evidence.
I have mixed feelings about the war, but I realize that those in power have more information than I do, and for now I choose to trust their judgement. So I don't really qualify for the "anti-war" category you designated. But the above statement, suggesting that people who don't think we should have invaded Iraq when we did are indirectly supporting the horrors there, is like saying that anyone pro-war is indirectly supporting the murder of decent men, women and children... namely Iraqi civilains and US soldiers.

Both are offensive suggestions, are obviously untrue, and are obviously an attempt to invoke emotion rather than communicate facts. This is exactly the practice that is eroding the quality and value of the news media today. This is exactly the practice that is condemned by so many bloggers today, but then they turn around and do it themselves. To bloggers' credit though, few claim to be impartial and unbiased.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, anyone who categorizes people, and then makes blanket judgements about the moral character of everyone in that category, is being a shithead as far as I'm concerned. And yes, I recognize the irony in that statement.

Sorry. Now get back to baitin tw! Try chumming with MBA degrees.
;)

Al, you're right and I shouldn't make the blanket statement.

Still, there's more to this. Here's the thing. The honest reporting of terror probably would have made the case for war. Yes. And here's where we get hypothetical:

It also would have really undercut France's attitude/honest disagreement/perfidy, because it would have cast the problem differently and cast public opinion differently.

That, in turn, might have convinced Saddam that it was not possible for him to play various opinions against each other in an attempt to survive. That, in turn, might have convinced him (and other world leaders!) to stop terror -- because it became a political disadvantage. Certainly it would improve the world's opinion of the US.

But Saddam found it easier to bribe the media, and to throw them out on their ear when they reported the facts.

Everyone played by the rules of the game that were cast.

This is not a pro-Bush slant, but it is a pro-Blair slant, because Blair sold the war to his people by pointing out the human equation. Bush largely left that out, as Griff points out. Of course getting the political will for the war was not as big a problem in the US as it was in the UK. We were in a confrontational mood.

Long Post.
 

Following are snippets of the text of British PM Tony Blair's speech on March 18, 2003. If you want the whole thing, it's on the guardian website, or PM me and I'll email it to you. My emphasis in color.


So: why does it matter so much? Because the outcome of this issue will now determine more than the fate of the Iraqi regime and more than the future of the Iraqi people, for so long brutalised by Saddam. It will determine the way Britain and the world confront the central security threat of the 21st century; the development of the UN; the relationship between Europe and the US; the relations within the EU and the way the US engages with the rest of the world. It will determine the pattern of international politics for the next generation.

But first, Iraq and its WMD.
In April 1991, after the Gulf war, Iraq was given 15 days to provide a full and final declaration of all its WMD.
Saddam had used the weapons against Iran, against his own people, causing thousands of deaths. He had had plans to use them against allied forces. It became clear after the Gulf war that the WMD ambitions of Iraq were far more extensive than hitherto thought. This issue was identified by the UN as one for urgent remedy. Unscom, the weapons inspection team, was set up. They were expected to complete their task following the declaration at the end of April 1991.
The declaration when it came was false - a blanket denial of the programme, other than in a very tentative form. So the 12-year game began.
The inspectors probed. Finally in March 1992, Iraq admitted it had previously undeclared WMD but said it had destroyed them. It gave another full and final declaration. Again the inspectors probed but found little.
In October 1994, Iraq stopped cooperating with Unscom altogether. Military action was threatened. Inspections resumed. In March 1995, in an effort to rid Iraq of the inspectors, a further full and final declaration of WMD was made. By July 1995, Iraq was forced to admit that too was false. In August they provided yet another full and final declaration.
Then, a week later, Saddam's son-in-law, Hussein Kamal, defected to Jordan. He disclosed a far more extensive BW (biological weapons) programme and for the first time said Iraq had weaponised the programme; something Saddam had always strenuously denied. All this had been happening whilst the inspectors were in Iraq. Kamal also revealed Iraq's crash programme to produce a nuclear weapon in 1990.
Iraq was forced then to release documents which showed just how extensive those programmes were. In November 1995, Jordan intercepted prohibited components for missiles that could be used for WMD.
In June 1996, a further full and final declaration was made. That too turned out to be false. In June 1997, inspectors were barred from specific sites.
In September 1997, another full and final declaration was made. Also false. Meanwhile the inspectors discovered VX nerve agent production equipment, something always denied by the Iraqis.
In October 1997, the US and the UK threatened military action if Iraq refused to comply with the inspectors. But obstruction continued.
Finally, under threat of action, in February 1998, Kofi Annan went to Baghdad and negotiated a memorandum with Saddam to allow inspections to continue. They did. For a few months.
In August, cooperation was suspended.
In December the inspectors left. Their final report is a withering indictment of Saddam's lies, deception and obstruction, with large quantities of WMD remained unaccounted for.
The US and the UK then, in December 1998, undertook Desert Fox, a targeted bombing campaign to degrade as much of the Iraqi WMD facilities as we could.
In 1999, a new inspections team, Unmovic, was set up. But Saddam refused to allow them to enter Iraq.
So there they stayed, in limbo, until after resolution 1441 when last November they were allowed to return.
What is the claim of Saddam today? Why exactly the same claim as before: that he has no WMD.
Indeed we are asked to believe that after seven years of obstruction and non-compliance finally resulting in the inspectors leaving in 1998, seven years in which he hid his programme, built it up even whilst inspection teams were in Iraq, that after they left he then voluntarily decided to do what he had consistently refused to do under coercion.
When the inspectors left in 1998, they left unaccounted for: 10,000 litres of anthrax; a far reaching VX nerve agent programme; up to 6,500 chemical munitions; at least 80 tonnes of mustard gas, possibly more than ten times that amount; unquantifiable amounts of sarin, botulinum toxin and a host of other biological poisons; an entire Scud missile programme.
We are now seriously asked to accept that in the last few years, contrary to all history, contrary to all intelligence, he decided unilaterally to destroy the weapons. Such a claim is palpably absurd.
1441 is a very clear resolution. It lays down a final opportunity for Saddam to disarm. It rehearses the fact that he has been, for years in material breach of 17 separate UN resolutions. It says that this time compliance must be full, unconditional and immediate. The first step is a full and final declaration of all WMD to be given on 8 December.
I won't to go through all the events since then - the house is familiar with them - but this much is accepted by all members of the UNSC: the 8 December declaration is false. That in itself is a material breach. Iraq has made some concessions to cooperation but no-one disputes it is not fully cooperating. Iraq continues to deny it has any WMD, though no serious intelligence service anywhere in the world believes them.
On 7 March, the inspectors published a remarkable document. It is 173 pages long, detailing all the unanswered questions about Iraq's WMD. It lists 29 different areas where they have been unable to obtain information. For example, on VX it says: "Documentation available to Unmovic suggests that Iraq at least had had far reaching plans to weaponise VX ...
"Mustard constituted an important part (about 70%) of Iraq's CW arsenal ... 550 mustard filled shells and up to 450 mustard filled aerial bombs unaccounted for ... additional uncertainty with respect of 6526 aerial bombs, corresponding to approximately 1000 tonnes of agent, predominantly mustard.
"Based on unaccounted for growth media, Iraq's potential production of anthrax could have been in the range of about 15,000 to 25,000 litres ... Based on all the available evidence, the strong presumption is that about 10,000 litres of anthrax was not destroyed and may still exist."
On this basis, had we meant what we said in resolution 1441, the security council should have convened and condemned Iraq as in material breach.
What is perfectly clear is that Saddam is playing the same old games in the same old way. Yes there are concessions. But no fundamental change of heart or mind.
But the inspectors indicated there was at least some cooperation; and the world rightly hesitated over war. We therefore approached a second resolution in this way.
We laid down an ultimatum calling upon Saddam to come into line with resolution 1441 or be in material breach. Not an unreasonable proposition, given the history.
But still countries hesitated: how do we know how to judge full cooperation?
We then worked on a further compromise. We consulted the inspectors and drew up five tests based on the document they published on 7 March. Tests like interviews with 30 scientists outside of Iraq; production of the anthrax or documentation showing its destruction.
The inspectors added another test: that Saddam should publicly call on Iraqis to cooperate with them. So we constructed this framework: that Saddam should be given a specified time to fulfil all six tests to show full cooperation; that if he did so the inspectors could then set out a forward work programme and that if he failed to do so, action would follow.
So clear benchmarks; plus a clear ultimatum. I defy anyone to describe that as an unreasonable position.
Last Monday, we were getting somewhere with it. We very nearly had majority agreement and I thank the Chilean President particularly for the constructive way he approached the issue.
There were debates about the length of the ultimatum. But the basic construct was gathering support.
Then, on Monday night, France said it would veto a second resolution whatever the circumstances. Then France denounced the six tests. Later that day, Iraq rejected them. Still, we continued to negotiate.

(continued next post)

Last Friday, France said they could not accept any ultimatum. On Monday, we made final efforts to secure agreement. But they remain utterly opposed to anything which lays down an ultimatum authorising action in the event of non-compliance by Saddam.
Just consider the position we are asked to adopt. Those on the security council opposed to us say they want Saddam to disarm but will not countenance any new resolution that authorises force in the event of non-compliance.
That is their position. No to any ultimatum; no to any resolution that stipulates that failure to comply will lead to military action.
So we must demand he disarm but relinquish any concept of a threat if he doesn't. From December 1998 to December 2002, no UN inspector was allowed to inspect anything in Iraq. For four years, not a thing.
What changed his mind? The threat of force. From December to January and then from January through to February, concessions were made.
What changed his mind? The threat of force. And what makes him now issue invitations to the inspectors, discover documents he said he never had, produce evidence of weapons supposed to be non-existent, destroy missiles he said he would keep? The imminence of force.

(snip)

Even now, when if the world united and gave him an ultimatum: comply or face forcible disarmament, he might just do it, the world hesitates and in that hesitation he senses the weakness and therefore continues to defy.
What would any tyrannical regime possessing WMD think viewing the history of the world's diplomatic dance with Saddam? That our capacity to pass firm resolutions is only matched by our feebleness in implementing them.

(snip)

Iraq is not the only regime with WMD. But back away now from this confrontation and future conflicts will be infinitely worse and more devastating.
But, of course, in a sense, any fair observer does not really dispute that Iraq is in breach and that 1441 implies action in such circumstances. The real problem is that, underneath, people dispute that Iraq is a threat; dispute the link between terrorism and WMD; dispute the whole basis of our assertion that the two together constitute a fundamental assault on our way of life.

(snip)

So let me explain the nature of this threat as I see it.
The threat today is not that of the 1930s. It's not big powers going to war with each other. The ravages which fundamentalist political ideology inflicted on the 20th century are memories. The Cold war is over. Europe is at peace, if not always diplomatically.
But the world is ever more interdependent. Stock markets and economies rise and fall together. Confidence is the key to prosperity. Insecurity spreads like contagion. So people crave stability and order.
The threat is chaos. And there are two begetters of chaos. Tyrannical regimes with WMD and extreme terrorist groups who profess a perverted and false view of Islam.

Let me tell the house what I know. I know that there are some countries or groups within countries that are proliferating and trading in WMD, especially nuclear weapons technology.
I know there are companies, individuals, some former scientists on nuclear weapons programmes, selling their equipment or expertise.
I know there are several countries - mostly dictatorships with highly repressive regimes - desperately trying to acquire chemical weapons, biological weapons or, in particular, nuclear weapons capability. Some of these countries are now a short time away from having a serviceable nuclear weapon. This activity is not diminishing. It is increasing.
We all know that there are terrorist cells now operating in most major countries. Just as in the last two years, around 20 different nations have suffered serious terrorist outrages. Thousands have died in them.

(snip)

And the possibility of the two coming together - of terrorist groups in possession of WMD, even of a so-called dirty radiological bomb is now, in my judgement, a real and present danger.
And let us recall: what was shocking about September 11 was not just the slaughter of the innocent; but the knowledge that had the terrorists been able to, there would have been not 3,000 innocent dead, but 30,000 or 300,000 and the more the suffering, the greater the terrorists' rejoicing.
Three kilograms of VX from a rocket launcher would contaminate a quarter of a square kilometre of a city.
Millions of lethal doses are contained in one litre of Anthrax. 10,000 litres are unaccounted for. 11 September has changed the psychology of America. It should have changed the psychology of the world. Of course Iraq is not the only part of this threat. But it is the test of whether we treat the threat seriously.

Faced with it, the world should unite. The UN should be the focus, both of diplomacy and of action. That is what 1441 said. That was the deal. And I say to you to break it now, to will the ends but not the means that would do more damage in the long term to the UN than any other course.

To fall back into the lassitude of the last 12 years, to talk, to discuss, to debate but never act; to declare our will but not enforce it; to combine strong language with weak intentions, a worse outcome than never speaking at all.

(snip)

I have come to the conclusion after much reluctance that the greater danger to the UN is inaction: that to pass resolution 1441 and then refuse to enforce it would do the most deadly damage to the UN's future strength, confirming it as an instrument of diplomacy but not of action, forcing nations down the very unilateralist path we wish to avoid.

But there will be, in any event, no sound future for the UN, no guarantee against the repetition of these events, unless we recognise the urgent need for a political agenda we can unite upon.
What we have witnessed is indeed the consequence of Europe and the United States dividing from each other. Not all of Europe - Spain, Italy, Holland, Denmark, Portugal - have all strongly supported us. And not a majority of Europe if we include, as we should, Europe's new members who will accede next year, all 10 of whom have been in our support.

But the paralysis of the UN has been born out of the division there is. And at the heart of it has been the concept of a world in which there are rival poles of power. The US and its allies in one corner. France, Germany, Russia and its allies in the other. I do not believe that all of these nations intend such an outcome. But that is what now faces us.

I believe such a vision to be misguided and profoundly dangerous. I know why it arises. There is resentment of US predominance.

There is fear of US unilateralism. People ask: do the US listen to us and our preoccupations? And there is perhaps a lack of full understanding of US preoccupations after 11th September. I know all of this. But the way to deal with it is not rivalry but partnership. Partners are not servants but neither are they rivals. I tell you what Europe should have said last September to the US. With one voice it should have said: we understand your strategic anxiety over terrorism and WMD and we will help you meet it.

We will mean what we say in any UN resolution we pass and will back it with action if Saddam fails to disarm voluntarily; but in return we ask two things of you: that the US should choose the UN path and you should recognise the fundamental overriding importance of re-starting the MEPP (Middle East Peace Process), which we will hold you to.

(snip)

There should be a new UN resolution following any conflict providing not just for humanitarian help but also for the administration and governance of Iraq. That must now be done under proper UN authorisation.

(snip)

I have never put our justification for action as regime change. We have to act within the terms set out in resolution 1441. That is our legal base.
But it is the reason, I say frankly, why if we do act we should do so with a clear conscience and strong heart.

I accept fully that those opposed to this course of action share my detestation of Saddam. Who could not? Iraq is a wealthy country that in 1978, the year before Saddam seized power, was richer than Portugal or Malaysia.
Today it is impoverished, 60% of its population dependent on food aid.
Thousands of children die needlessly every year from lack of food and medicine.
Four million people out of a population of just over 20 million are in exile.
The brutality of the repression - the death and torture camps, the barbaric prisons for political opponents, the routine beatings for anyone or their families suspected of disloyalty are well documented.
Just last week, someone slandering Saddam was tied to a lamp post in a street in Baghdad, his tongue cut out, mutilated and left to bleed to death, as a warning to others.
I recall a few weeks ago talking to an Iraqi exile and saying to her that I understood how grim it must be under the lash of Saddam.
"But you don't", she replied. "You cannot. You do not know what it is like to live in perpetual fear." And she is right. We take our freedom for granted. But imagine not to be able to speak or discuss or debate or even question the society you live in. To see friends and family taken away and never daring to complain. To suffer the humility of failing courage in face of pitiless terror. That is how the Iraqi people live. Leave Saddam in place and that is how they will continue to live.

(snip)


Saddam himself admitted he had WMD. Gave numbers of how much of what he had. Then when the inspectors come in, they couldn't find it. Or he wouldn't let them in to the sites they suspected he made them at.

Seems to me that this point has been over looked time and time again, along with the point of the UN resolution 1441.

Corporate media is corrupt, evil, murderous, with no honorable mission? Yeah.

Its the lack of justification for war that chaps me the most, and I imagine the rest of our former allies. Now its on, and Bush and Co continue to inspire me with only distrust and devisiveness, and I imagine the rest of our former allies. As Ive said, Blair gave me as much hope/trust as anyone. I want to believe him. I'd rather he be in charge.

Scoff if you will at international law, I think it offers the only route to lasting or at least longer term peace. no justice, no peace

That information is indeed awful, UT. It ought to be equally awful to people who are pro-war and people who are anti-war. The media has been corrupt (it almost always has been), and in this case biased about Saddam's offensiveness, to the detriment of the federal government's point of view. It was also biased and corrupt in support of Bush. You may be correct that it would have made it more difficult for other nations to oppose the war, and it could have cast the US in a better light. The vivid reporting of terror in Iraq might have helped persuade more people to go to war against Iraq.

Unfortunately, I don't see how it has anything to do with why I, or anyone whom I've talked to, is anti-war. It doesn't make having gone to war any better of a decision. As far as I could see, Saddam's anti-citizen stance didn't have much to do with Bush's reasons for war. Personally, what I really want to know is the real reason why Hermann went to war. I don't care how he persauded the American people to follow along. The reasons given were not convincing.

Because blogland is the best place for unbiased factual reporting.

I mean I agree - the media is unquestionably full of corruption and incompetence. No denying that. Whoopdedoo they sucked up to the Iraqis, whoopdedoo they suck up to Bush every press conference, what's new? What's the point? Saddam was not the first nor the last nor the worst dictator in history. The media has always been manipulated, death and taxes.

News reporting in the runup to and during the short, sharp conflict had utterly zilch to do with my or many others anti-war stance. The geopolitical makeup of the reigon would be a little closer to the truth.

I find your statements about how people 'ended up this way' frankly, insulting, narrow minded bigotry.

      I have to agree with Torrere, the media is corrupt in both directions. Either that or Fox News is purely anti-Bush. Whatever.

      Blogs are good for quick info about things that won't get said to US News people on foreign soil. However, those people have an agenda too. Frankly, without being there you don't know for sure what the situation is. Even then, it can change quickly.
      All info should be taken with a pound of salt. I would think most of the people on this site are intelligent enough to know that, 'cause frankly, nothing in that story surprised me.

      In UT's defense I don't recall him ever defending Bush's reasons for the war directly. He's not here, there is a wide margin for believing Bush is full of it and still being glad we took out Hussein. I'm sure there are a few of us that fall in this gray area. Don't assume every pro-war sentiment is necessarily pro-Bush.

Wholeheartedly agree. The news, sadly, has fallen victim to the "If it's on TV, it must be true!" syndrome that has plagued our country since we invented the damn box. I flip around the news stations, but MSNBC is the anchor channel for me. I feel they at least attempt to strike the balance between left and right. Do they consistently succeed? No, but then, who does? Seriously, who does? You know someone out there who pulls this off, let a guy know, huh?

Anyhow, whenever one of these places has "breaking news", my first reaction isn't "Oh, wow, look at that.", but "Wait, are they serious?" and then start flipping to the other channels to see if they picked up on this too. Like with the recent blackout in the City, when I first heard it, I thought "Now wait, is someone's blender broken or--(change channel)--oh, look at that."

So why didn't we have this case made for the war? You're saying it's because Saddam put the clamps on the media and the media went along so they'd still be able to report from Iraq.

OK, let's let that one ride--although I've got to think any network with a half-decent PR department could have done it, and turn their explusion into part of the story, with a huge spin about their defense of Truth, Justice, and the American Way(tm). But let's ignore that.

The media are not responsible for justifying any case to go to war. They are responsible to make cash for their shareholders/owners. Some outlets do this by publishing sober news analysis of international events. Some do it by displaying video of a fire or crime scene from your local city at 6:00 every night. Some do it by explaining that Britney Spears says she's a good girl, even if she does snog Madonna and pose for Rolling Stone in her undies. (This last from the Newsmakers page of yesterday's Philadelphia Inquirer.)

The responsibility for any justification, or lack thereof, must lie with our government. So we have to ask ourselves, why didn't our government make the case you suggest? Because they didn't know the facts? Because they tried to make the case but Saddam's lap dogs in the media wouldn't run the stories? Because.....?

I'm not going to defend the jackals of the press. But don't give them the responsibility for making the case for war.

You're right, it's definitely NOT the job of the media to make the case for war. But I still consider it their job to report the big facts on the ground.

The question is to what degree they see that as their job.

I finally found the Amanpour (of CNN) quote I was looking for here:

CNN is one of the outlets that admitted holding back on stories about the regime. On the other hand, they were booted out by Hussein early in wartime, for making reports by videophone instead of from the information ministry, and Amanpour herself was booted out way back in the beginning of the year for some reason I forget.

Why the Bush admin. didn't make the humanity case: well now that I think about it, they DID -- the case just didn't "take".

They didn't press it and make it the major point for war, and the reason they didn't do that, I think, is that it's generally a good idea to use only as much political capital as you have to.

There are worse hellholes on this earth and if humanity is the major reason to go, there were several places we should have gone to before Iraq. But the real case for war is a very complex mix of security, needs, interests, international relations, etc. as well as cases that HAVE to remain hidden. Bush could NOT go on TV and say "We need to turn Iraq into a successful democracy because it will probably destabilize Syria and Saudi Arabia, and we can't do that any other way without screwing up the oil market and hosing the whole world for a decade." (I don't know how much that point really sways the case, but you get the idea)

      Ok then, UT. Bush is really fulfilling a noble ambition to make the world a better place. He's using secret info to uplift all of humanity. Sure he is. Whatever you say.

I'm a postin' machine! Chris Muir's Day by Day comic savaged Amanpour yesterday for that:

http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/?CartoonDate=09/16/2003

And I have yet more thoughts on the topic which are bubbling up! Sorry!

No, see, Whit, that's not my point at all. My point is that it was Bush's case to make, not the media's, and our decision to make, not the media's.

It was the media's job to give us all the information. They decided it was their job to either make the case... or savage it. They then decided that it was better for them not to report information because it would have been pro-war.

Instead, they made the decision, and then reported the information to you in ways that you would like if you had come to the same conclusion.

It's exactly the same problem as Fox not reporting information that would be anti-war.

As opposed to what actually happened, which was a case study in minimizing the use of political capital? :cool: I'm sorry, I still don't buy it. Bush's flacks are masters at getting the press to report what they want to report. If the administration had wanted the humanity case in the foreground, they would have gotten it there. The international community response may or may not have been different, but it could hardly have been worse than where we are now.

When is somebody going to start a "Manhattan Project" for alternative fuels? The only reason anybody gives a damn about these places is that they're sitting on top of oil. Remove the value of that oil and all of a sudden it doesn't matter a whole lot what's going on there. Surely reducing American dependence on foreign oil is a cause that conservatives and liberals can all agree is in the short- and long-term strategic interests of our country? Oh, shit, it would also reduce dependence on domestic oil producers. Never mind.

Besides, I see no signs that anybody really wants Iraq to be a successful democracy. Oh sure, everybody gives it lip service, but again, if they wanted it, they'd be trying harder.

Crazy Idea for the Day
 

If Bush wanted to invade Iraq without the French tagging along, what better way than to avoid selling the humanitarian angle? Consider the problems for the Bushites if they had to divey up the pie internationally after the invasion. just a crazy thought

      UT, as I said earlier, for that matter lots of people have said, we know the media is biased. It's been discussed a lot on this site. You acted like this was amazing new information. What's more, intentionaly or unintentionaly, you were extremely one sided in what that meant.       The piece you linked was interesting only as an example. Also your last post was the first one in which you admitted the corruption goes both ways. Interesting bit, bizzare conclusion. You've been hanging with TW to much.
      For the record, I got your point. The media shouldn't be biased, agreed. However, I'm no idealist. People should also be able to resolve their differences without violence and no one should ever feel they have to turn to crime to make ends meet. Of course in the real world...

Yup, I really haven't done a good job of coalescing my thoughts before I post 'em!

The reason I swung the story that way is because I too have bias -- we all do -- but the real problem, I think, is the corruption.

Or maybe how strangely relentless the bias is?

Help?

It is what Kennedy had to keep demanding of his advisors during the Cuban Missile Crisis. What does he see? What is he being told? What is the environment in which he is being informed? What are his options?

There is nothing unusual or corrupt in that topmost NY Times reporter story. It is how all reporters work to find those brass tacks. Every news organization takes a different approach. Each use different reporters with different SOPs. Overall, the major news media got the story right. They universally kept coming back to the same bottom line - there was no smoking gun in that Weapons of Mass Destruction story. And now they are slowly exposing another fact - Saddam apparently had destroyed in 1996 the last few WMD he had tried to hide.

Even the aluminum tube story was obvious. If one read tabloid versions, then one could never have understood the underlying perspective - to see from where each report was being written. And yet it was quite obvious from reports from so many news organizations that aluminum tubes had no WMD purpose. There was no final 'smoking gun' proof of that conclusion. But from the reports, any claim that aluminum tubes were for nuclear weapons production had almost near zero supporting evidence. Once details in long news reports (the perspective) were considered, then a conclusion was clear: those alumunim tubes were for some other purpose and not for centrifuges.

Jimmy Carter did same thing in Panama. He pretended that the election was fair and legal. He openly decieved so that he could broadcast live on Panamanian TV; that Noriega had defrauded the elections. Would you now call Carter corrupt? He lied? He deceived? But like those reporters, he conived to get facts reported. According to some conclusions here, then Carter was corrupt.

Walter Cronkite was absolutely forbideen by CBS top management (Stanton) to report on VietNam. Absolutely forbidden. So yes. CBS did lie - and yet was one of the strongest sources on how wrong the VietNam war was. Cronkite eventually was permitted to do one special report on VietNam. Extremist hawks openly called him a communist for doing that report. Cronkite finally reported the facts about VietNam - but only once. So brutally forthcoming was his report that CBS (Stanton) refused to permit him to make any more VietNam news documentaries or white papers or whatever you might call them. Yes, the great Walter Cronkite was forced to lie by remaining silent. But like all great news reporters, one fights only the battles one can win. Walter only reported what he was permitted to report. However, those who learned how to also read into a reporter's perspective knew from Walter's report that VietNam was so wrong - that what he said was accurate far beyond what he reported. Walter's one relatively censored report was so accurate (once his perspectives were considered) that even Lyndon Johnson concluded, immediately after that report, that the war was lost.

By taking perspective, by reading those news reports that are long and comprehensive (not Daily News type reports), by compiling information from many different news sources both foreign and domestic, then it was obvious Saddam had no smoking gun that justified war. Today, the reports go farther. Not only did Saddam have no smoking gun. He also had no WMD. And he was not hated by most every Iraqi as Rumsfeld would have us believe.

Reporters are not corrupt. They report as best they can - and try to provide their perspective in that report. In Israel, when being openly censured because Sharon had invaded Lebanon, each reporter added that his report was being censored by Israeli military. Blatantly reporting what their perspective was so that you could separate Israeli propaganda from actual facts.

Even Woodward and Bernstein were called treasonist by so many right wing extremists in those Watergate days. But W&B were permitted to report what many other news organizations did not permit their reporters to report. CBS News was censored by CBS top management - not by quashing stories - but by not permitting their reporters to dig into Watergate. CBS even refused to let their reporter have exclusive copies of the Pentagon Papers. So when CBS News did report a Watergate story, then you knew that report took a herculean effort by a reporter and his anchorman to get the story told. And that there was far more to that story. Again, news is not corrupt. The reader / consumer must also read that reporter's perspective - what it took to get the story and therefore what part of the story is most accurate.
.
.

The benchmark of this entire discussion about press and corruption really lies in a benchmark example - those aluminum tubes. Some did not collect enough facts, read enough reports, and appreciate the reporter's perspectives to see that those aluminum tubes were not for centrifuges and uranium reprocessing. The overwhelming information from those "corrupt" news reporters made that obvious - those tubes were not part of a WMD program.

That topmost NY Times reporter story only demonstrates the perspective that reporters must procede to get the story - and how the reader / consumer must learn what the reporter (and his peers) are really saying. Yes, that story also requires reading his peer's (competition) reports. And it requires stories too long for tabloids such as the Daily News. Its not corruption. Its called perspective. One without appreciating the perspective would instead call news reporters corrupt. Even cops sell drugs to dealers to make the bust. Are cops corrupt? Even DAs make deals with obvious criminals. Are DAs corrupt? Perspective; not corruption.

Is this:

A) A smarmy line in an even smarmy-er blog rant

B) The front-cover tease of a story in next month's The Nation

C) Howard Dean's biggest laugh line in a stump speech in Iowa

D) The opening sentence in a front page New York Times story

(via Agenda Bender, who saw it in The Corner)

E. All of the above?

The humanitarian aspect sure as hell took in the United States. I can't remember it well enough to pin dates to it, but I believe that it became popular when our soldiers started fighting in Iraq.

tw, I can't quite figure out what you're trying to say. What are your examples supposed to show? That reporters are the paragons of morality? That some reporters are corrupt and some aren't? Are you trying to disprove the claim that everyone has bias? Are you showing us that it is the top management that is corrupt? (That is likely -- power corrupts, after all).

Most reporters aren't striving to let out the truth. They flow like seagrass in the tide of public opinion, and struggle feebly to direct the tide.

I'm surprised that tw did not mention the classic case of yellow journalism, specifically Hearst and Pulitzer pushing the United States toward the Spanish-American War.

Edit: English made better.

I applaud those parents that put their children to bed before Bush addressed the nation. Kids shouldn't be watching that kind of indecency on network television.

Those words corruption, bias, etc apply if the reporter is the almighty who knows all the facts and reports with intent. That is what too many assume when they accuse the press of corruption. Is it corrupt to report that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that could be launched in 45 minutes even though there was no evidence AND that Saddam acutally had no WMD? No. A reporter must report the news. He must report what, for example, the government official claims even if it is obviously or internal sources say it is not based on known facts.

That rediculous claim is from Tony Blair. The BBC demonstrated in details that this Tony Blair statment could not be supported by other sources. Furthermore, the BBC also noted how other Tony Blair claims were based upon absurd sources such as a graduate thesis. That the British government claims were even plagurized from that graduate paper - word for word complete with typographical mistakes. To provide perspective, the BBC noted how other claims were made without valid basis. As it turns out, the BBC was reporting correctly. Tony Blair was all but completely inventing those Saddam WMD claims.

This hurricane is but another example. It was a dud. A trivial storm. But could the press report it in its correct prespective? Ted Koppel said it best last night. That a reporter can only be criticized for overplaying a story. But he can be fired for not giving a major storm its just emphasis. Again, the press did not know how bad that storm would be until late in the game. It was apparent that by hitting the outer banks as a category 2 or smaller, it would not be significant. But they had to play on its worst case scenario. Is that corruption? Of course not.

Its all about perspective. And in those longer news reports are the details so that the reporter can provide that perspective. Those who would read the Daily News or other tabloids don't get anywhere near enough detail to gain that perspective. And so they would assume the press was corrupt, incompetant, or just plain stupid.

Each reporter has a perspective. Not just in what he sees and what his confidential sources are saying. He sometimes must answer to an editor who has an agenda - such as the west coast guy who kept reporting that Vince Foster was murdered by the Clinton people.

Even stories have perspective. That trailer-trash Arkansas girl with a duck beak for a nose who claimed Clinton had sex with her. So they put her up in an expensive west coast beachfront condiminim with a Mercedes - until Clinton was no longer president. Then suddenly all her cash dried up. Many heard her claims. Many did not read those details - such as her expensive plastic surgery - from money that she could not have earned. In those details was enough fact to say her claims just were not credible. Perspective. Many never bothered to read where she did not even know she had to renew the Mercedes registratiion. For anyone else, that was a nothing story. But her traffic ticket was national news because of what was not directly said - who was paying for the Mercedes and its registration previously? It was a report about the story's perspective.

Without that perspective, then one would have to claim the NY Times is a corrupt paper - because they keep exposing all those mythical weapons of mass destruction. Perspective. All those Washington Post reports from Woodward and Bernstein kept suggesting that corruption existed inside the White House. As we now know, the top crook was the President himself. But back then, so many failed to read the perspective. 49 out of 50 states voted Nixon for a second term even though Watergate was somehow completely tied into top White House people. Woodward and Bernstein's reports back then could not say that directly, but the perspective they kept providing said corruption was deeply embedded in that White House.

What word is being used most often in this and the previous post? Perspective. One will never get perspective of the story if Fox News or the Washington Times or 700 Club is their major news source. They will get perspective of political intent. Unlike other major news media, the intent of those three is to report from a political conservative agenda rather than seek the irrefutible facts.

There is no magic sound byte to summarize this concept called "perspective". But if one does not have enough sources and if one does not delve into the details, then one would only blindly says, "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction because the White House said so." Perspective made those claims dubious. Perspective now says those claims were being made knowing full well that no sufficient evidence existed. Perspective said there was no smoking gun to jusitify war. Not bias. Perspective. Better news sources provide the perspective of their reporters and not the perspective of a political agenda.

Are the Washington Times, et al corrupt? Of course not. They state outright their perspective.

close up of the sign...

Text from Mr. Blix's report to the UN. Emphais mine.


This is from the freaking inspectors. Iraq ADMITTED to MAKING THEM. ADMITTED to HAVING them. But for some reason, they can't find evidence to prove Iraq destroyed all of the amounts they SAID they HAD.

Have we found it yet? No. Does that mean it's not buried in the desert somewhere? No. That's a big freaking desert. When they can PROVE they destroyed all they said they had, I might believe they don't have them any more. But then, who says they reported all they had? But to ask me to swallow that Saddam's regime is being the slightest bit truthful when it comes to WMD .... come on. I was born on Wednesday, but not LAST Wednesday.

In addition this comes from this site regarding the report.
Note it's not IF. It's HOW MUCH. Indeed.

You know what they say...nothing is really bad until it happens to *you*.

I'll be interested to hear TW's evaluation of a hurricane that takes off his own roof, instead of someone elses.

Here's a Yahoo slideshow of images of the damage done by this insignificant storm...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?g=e...mpl=sl&ns=&l=&

I blame the media for oversensationalizing these pictures of destroyed buildings and roadways and the accompanying text about the dead people and such.

Even the President is getting caught up in the media hysteria!
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...sabel_disaster

*Blush...*

I think TW just picked a poor example, because I, too, believe that there's waaaayyyy too much hype and bullshit in the media.

Well yeah some people got killed, and a lot of property was destroyed, but after all it was below the Mason-Dixon line so it's really not important.:haha: :haha:

Oh, great, Bruce...start the War Between the States all over again, why doncha? :D

That's what we need to get the economy pumped.:D

No, it's along the southern border of PA.:)

Shows how much I know about the eastern US, (or the Civil War) doesn't it?

:blush:

Subjugate the District of Columbia!

      Oh yeah, the War of Northern Aggression. The US's war of conquest. After all, you had two countries, one took over the other. Sounds like conquest to me.
      There, that should stir the pot a bit... Did I say that outloud?

Further evidence of weather-related media hysteria...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...n_re_us/isabel

Said it before, and I'll say it again - the South ever rises again, I'm carving out my own little fiefdom, not too sure where yet.

Hey, show of hands, who wants to help me out? Come on, a land of our own, with a government of the geek, by the geek, and for the geek. And should it/we ever perish from the Earth, it's because we've taken the Earth with us. Who's with me?!

      Are you kidding? How many of the last several Presidents have been southerners? The south already rose and took over. Mostly 'cause yanks like Syc are boring. Not that the south is proud of our politicians or anything. But hey, who is?

But the Prez is just a whipping boy for the press and congress. We all know the Stonecutters are really running things.
STONE CUTTERS SONG
Who controls the British crown?
Who keeps the metric system down?
We do! We do!
Who leaves Atlantis off the maps?
Who keeps the martians under wraps?
We do! We do!
Who holds back the electric car?
Who makes Steve Guttenberg a star?
We do! We do!
Who robs the cave fish of their sight?
Who rigs every Oscars night?
We do! We do!
:rolleyes:

Oh Bruce ... :(

You had to go and tell, didn't you.

I'll certainly miss you, after your mysterious accident which leaves you a drooling hulk whose best friend is a green bean ... I'll visit your bedside and read you Chaucer for as long as they leave your feeding tube installed ...

Me? Boring?

Yeah, you're high.

Novak/Wilson Story
 

And now we know those "few people" were political hacks working for the administration. Scientific fact after fact was distorted to prove the administration's lies. Why is it that the press got it all right, and yet some still believed the administration's lies about WMD? To believe a lying administration, the press was described as corrupt!

Having been part of too many lies too many times, insiders - little people who really do the work and know the truth - are coming forth. Not just member of the Joint Chiefs or White House officials. Many are leaking reality to the press from every part of this administration. Many doing so discretely because we know this administration will even out a CIA agent - a crime regarded so serious as to be considered treasoness - to take revenge on purveyors of truth.

These so many scientific distortions have even disturbed the IEEE. This article includes a picture of the highly propagandised Saddam's aluminum tubes with this description:
So why were lies put forth by the George Jr administration?
In short, politics (not facts) are the source of administration science. Heaven forbid should we learn science that contradicts The Vulcans. Do they follow the facts to reach a conclusion OR do they make conclusions based only upon a political agenda? Even the IEEE writes about science distorted by a political agenda. Best to call it what it is - a lying president.

IEEE Spectrum goes on to discuss the lies about those aluminum tubes. Then says this:

Yes, it turned out Powell was... mistaken.

I hear the centrifuges in Libya were real, what do you hear?

Centrifuges in Libya were real. Khadaffi gave them to the US. Don't know if they are yet in the US. More interesting is where the centrifuges come from. Not from the Axis of Evil. They come from a close American ally - Pakistan.

There is much to worry about when it comes to 'dangerous' situations. Is it just an accident that more than one-half the world's plutonium is in Japan? One must remember that threats can arise from anywhere. According to the doctrine of pre-emption, we should attack Japan? Of course not. The doctrine is fundamentally flawed. But 'dangerous' situations is why, more than ever, we need the UN.

Threats are exposed by facts - not from a list of evil. Facts do not justify the Axis of Evil speech. Those facts justified an important mission by Carter to N Korea - and why the Russians were so actively helping CIA to monitor N Korea. Facts even say that Libya had been slowly trying to move back into the world of responsible nations over the last five years - which is why they gave up those centrifuges and its provider as proof of their desire to change.

Why is N Korea on the list whereas Libya and Pakistan were not? When the Axis of Evil speech was given, we had already known about these other two countries - and about those centrifuges. So what facts were used to create an Axis of Evil list? Were they mistaken or did the Vulcans already have a pre-ordained agenda?

The French have a shitload of nuke power plants, they should be on the list as well.;) Do we (anybody) really know how much plutonium there is?