Why did we go into Iraq?

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by BigV

But I think it's more likely the editing for clarity that represents difference of content.

I hope you don't really believe that, and are just using a metaphor for how Fox News operates as a whole. "Edited for clarity" is an official copyediting phrase when writing transcripts. It means they took out all the "uh, er, soo--I mean, see..." crap that normal people say. If you've ever read a real unedited transcript, they can be pretty hard to understand.

If you're just being facetious about how Fox News chooses what they say as compared to other news stations, fine. But don't imply that they're literally changing the words coming out of their own spokespersons in their transcripts, that doesn't even make sense.

It's not a left-wing media conspiracy, it never has been. It is simply the natural, unavoidable bias of reporters doing what they believe is right--it is a statistical fact that a large majority of journalists vote democratic, just like it is a statistical fact that security in Iraq has not improved. Nobody at BBC thinks to themselves, "Oooh, yes, today we're gonna really ream that Cheney guy!" and nobody at Fox News says, "Yes, we all know this war was a complete mistake, but let's release a few stories pretending we believe otherwise."

We're dealing with what these journalists truly believe to be right in their hearts, and it is impossible for that bias not to come out one way or another. That's why we have multiple news sources.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

I hope you don't really believe that, and are just using a metaphor for how Fox News operates as a whole. "Edited for clarity" is an official copyediting phrase when writing transcripts. It means they took out all the "uh, er, soo--I mean, see..." crap that normal people say. If you've ever read a real unedited transcript, they can be pretty hard to understand.

I do understand that.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

If you're just being facetious about how Fox News chooses what they say as compared to other news stations, fine.

Partly facetious. Because in this case, this post, it's about two different interviews, and even I can't fairly compare them in the way I have. So, half credit for effort at humor. But the NON-facetious half is ominous.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

But don't imply that they're literally changing the words coming out of their own spokespersons in their transcripts, that doesn't even make sense.

I was implying that, for the unflattering humorous effect, but I'll leave the attempts at humor aside and plainly affirm your statement. I do believe that FOXNews can, has, and does say what they want, when they want, how they want. And to let the different interpretations of many of the words we (FOX and you and I) all use lie unexamined, to OUR disadvantage.

I mean words that you and I almost certainly share a common definition for, like, "transcript" and "report" and "news" and "fair" and "journalism". To me, and to you, I'm certain, these are pretty concrete terms, objective. Probably "fair" is the most subjective term in the list. But take "report" for example. To me that means what I read in the dictionary: to say what happened. I'm sure you and I agree on this point. I contend that FOX does not, not in a strict, consistent way.

The common term for this is "spin" and it's present in everything FOX touches. The most prominent example, to me, is their title: FOXNews, implying, well, "news". There is enough of what reasonable people would agree on qualifies as "news" to give that appearance at first glance. But paying closer attention clearly reveals a substantial difference. They call themselves a news program, but they are an entertainment program. Their function is to get you stay tuned through the commercials. Whatever it takes to get that to happen is what they'll do, and if that means calling it news, so be it.

When I go fishing, I call that little worm a "meal". It could probably stand up in court, too. But I am certain the fish would have a considerably different opinion, even if, no, especially if he actually ate the worm.

FOXNews is to news as Jay Leno's monologue is to news. They're both topical (there's the "news" ingredient), but Leno plays it for laughs and FOX plays it for spin favorable to it's corporate sponors and self-interests.

It's not just words like news, report, fair, transcript, but everything that comes from their corporate mouth. Don't believe me? Check this out. This is the story of FOX going to court, and winning, to protect their right to LIE. (How could I make this shit up?!) An excerpt:

In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.

Back in December of 1996, Jane Akre and her husband, Steve Wilson, were hired by FOX as a part of the Fox “Investigators” team at WTVT in Tampa Bay, Florida. In 1997 the team began work on a story about bovine growth hormone (BGH), a controversial substance manufactured by Monsanto Corporation. The couple produced a four-part series revealing that there were many health risks related to BGH and that Florida supermarket chains did little to avoid selling milk from cows treated with the hormone, despite assuring customers otherwise.

According to Akre and Wilson, the station was initially very excited about the series. But within a week, Fox executives and their attorneys wanted the reporters to use statements from Monsanto representatives that the reporters knew were false and to make other revisions to the story that were in direct conflict with the facts. Fox editors then tried to force Akre and Wilson to continue to produce the distorted story. When they refused and threatened to report Fox's actions to the FCC, they were both fired.(Project Censored #12 1997)

...

FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so. After the appeal verdict WTVT general manager Bob Linger commented, “It’s vindication for WTVT, and we’re very pleased… It’s the case we’ve been making for two years. She never had a legal claim.”

They call it news, I call bullshit.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

It's not a left-wing media conspiracy, it never has been.

http://www2.eou.edu/socprob/lecture/sp03/bias2.htm

This is a good opening analysis of the starting point you make.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

It is simply the natural, unavoidable bias of reporters doing what they believe is right--it is a statistical fact that a large majority of journalists vote democratic, just like it is a statistical fact that security in Iraq has not improved. Nobody at BBC thinks to themselves, "Oooh, yes, today we're gonna really ream that Cheney guy!" and nobody at Fox News says, "Yes, we all know this war was a complete mistake, but let's release a few stories pretending we believe otherwise."

Indvidual bias, a person's point of view that they bring is acceptable, it has to be since it's unavoidable. An individual's biases can be observered and be compensated for, to the extent that you know that person. But this can be difficult if the listener is anticipating for one set of biases and a different set of biases are at work. But you make an important and in this case dangerous mistake in your argument above. By starting with the individual's biases, and filtering accordingly, you can miss the biases of the organization that produces and delivers the content.

You and I see and hear the reporters and interview subjects and think about the biases at work in these people. The biases of the news organization are easily overlooked. This can lead to the mistake described. By attributing the individual's biases to the story and compensating accordingly, you miss the company line. And in every case from independent producers to GalacticMedia, it is the company's biases that trump the individual's (reporter's) biases. Every. Time.

It is possible for the distance from the reporter to the CEO to be quite small, even zero for bloggers, for example. And it is also possible for the company's biases to be neutral or neutral leaning. This can let more of the reporter's biases shine through. But it's the company that has the final say. And to fail to recognize that can lead to some pretty serious disconnects.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

We're dealing with what these journalists truly believe to be right in their hearts, and it is impossible for that bias not to come out one way or another. That's why we have multiple news sources.

Clodfobble, your optimism gladdens my heart. I am not being sarcastic, I wish to pay you a thankful compliment. I see this remark as hopeful, bordering on naive. Your other posts don't reveal a naive streak that I can detect, so hopeful it is.

[tw]

So why did we go into Iraq? Clearly Saddam was conspiring with Al Qaeda. Apparently top anti-terrorist officials who get promoted don't know the difference between Al Qaeda (which is blamed for everything excepting ending the world) and other entities. No wonder the administration would put out repeated Orange Alerts for threats that did not exist. No wonder this nation's top anti-terrorist investigator was all but driven out of the FBI by the George Jr administration. When propaganda demands blaming everything on Al Qaeda, then no wonder the George Jr administration never mentions Muslim Brotherhood. Apparently they even don't trust FBI agents that speak fluent Arabic. Apparently they don't yet know what the Muslim Brotherhood is. Or maybe its just too convenient to pretend Muslim Brotherhood does not exist.

from NY Times of 19 Jun 2005
In Letter to Senators, Lawyer Criticizes Top F.B.I. Officials
In a 15-page letter, the lawyer, Stephen M. Kohn, wrote that the F.B.I.'s top counterterrorism officials said in sworn depositions that they did not know the relationship between Al Qaeda and Jamal Islamia, a South Asia offshoot of the terror network. Nor were they aware of the linkage between Osama bin Laden and Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, a spiritual adviser to Mr. bin Laden with whom he had been closely associated since the 1980's.

Mr. Kohn said that F.B.I. Director Robert S. Mueller III, in his deposition, seemed unsure of Mr. bin Laden's relationship to Sheik Rahman, who is better known as the blind sheik and was convicted in 1996 on terrorism charges. Asked if he was aware of their relationship, Mr. Mueller is quoted in Mr. Kohn's letter as saying he was not.