Phony Journalism: yet another Bush export

[Alban Berg]

Obviously you haven't seen the tremendous volume of material written on the subject and the Times' weak responses. Take a moment and google it instead of whining about our forum and three of its members.

So if there's a tremendous volume of material written on the subject, what's your beef? The constant complaint from you three is that there's no way for the average reader to get a balanced picture.

[pizza]

Obviously you haven't seen the tremendous volume of material written on the subject and the Times' weak responses. Take a moment and google it instead of whining about our forum and three of its members.

So if there's a tremendous volume of material written on the subject, what's your beef? The constant complaint from you three is that there's no way for the average reader to get a balanced picture.

What relevance does the volume of material written about it have to do with "my beef"? Must I refrain from discussing it because others already have complained? The unfortunate fact is that the average reader can't get a balanced picture from a press that won't publish balanced material. The complaints haven't affected the way the mainstream press operates. For example:

Enemy Press
By David Horowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | December 5, 2005


This is a war. You can be unhappy about it and sit it out. That's ok. That's what a democracy is about. You're right to dissent. You can criticize the war and vote for another government that will leave the field of battle. That's ok too. That's also what a democracy about. But while an elected government and the young men and women it sends into battle are engaged with a ruthless enemy in the field, you can't work to cripple their efforts , or do the work of the enemy side and expect the rest of us not to regard you as a saboteur and a Judas and an enemy within.

These thoughts are provoked by the lead story in Saturday's Los Angeles Times and then by a missing lead in the paper the next day. On Saturday the lead story headline in the Times was "Bomb Kills 10 Marines At Fallouja." What kind of a lead story is this? We're in a war. What's the big news that ten soldiers have died? And by one roadside bomb? It could happen any day -- even on the last of a war before a peace. There is no story. This is hardly news. It's like running a headline that today 110 people were killed in car accidents. Actually that's a fact (or a ballpark fact -- if 55,000 Americans die every year from car wrecks). But no one writes headlines about it because it's not news. It's life as we know it. As long as there are millions of cars on the roads and they're driven by people like us, there are going to be accidents and deaths. So too with war.

The only reason the Times ran the commonplace death of a few soldiers in war as its lead story is that the Times' editors want America to cut and run from the battle for Iraqi freedom and let the Zarqawi terrorists take over the country. So they are conducting their own psychological warfare campaign against the war. Just what the enemy would do if it had the means. I don't care if you call this treason or not. What it undeniably is is a pscyhological warfare campaign which the terrorists would conduct themselves if they had the means to do it.

Terror is about inflicting enough pain on free societies so that they willsurrender without a fight. If America's pain threshold is lowered enough, the terrorists will win in Iraq by default. And then they will come after Americans here at home with Iraq's oil billions behind them and the chemical and biological and eventually nuclear weapons they are desperately seeking in hand. Is this what the Times wants? Or perhaps the Times editors are so delusional they think the way John Kerry does -- that we are responsible for creating the terrorists. That they wouldn't exist if we weren't in their face. But of course we weren't in their face on 9/11 -- thanks to Bill Clinton and Al Gore. And that was the problem.

On Sunday the Los Angeles Times lead story was again about Iraq: "Private Security Guards In Iraq Operate With Little Supervision." This was not a big story either, but it was also a negative one and so it was the Times' editors choice for a lead. It would sap Americans' will to fight. It would increase their weariness with the problems of the war.

But there was another Iraq story on Sunday that the Times' editors pushed to page 3. The headline for this story was; "Senior Leader of Al Qaeda Is Killed in Blast." Actually it was the number 3 leader of Al Qaeda after bin Laden and Zawahiri. This was big news -- or should have been big news for people who think that the war in Iraq is a distraction from the war on terror. And of course it was big news for them which is why they attempted to bury it on page 3 instead of leading with it on page 1. Because in addition to opposing an American war for freedom, the Times editors are dishonest journalists and relentlessly subordinate reporting of the facts to arranging their reports to serve their political agendas.

No sooner had the Times story about the killing of Al-Qaeda's number 3 covered the details of the event, moreover, than its writers sought to diminish the significance of that event. "[Unamed] experts cautioned that the killing was likely to have a limited effect because Al Qaeda is less a hierarchchical organization and more a movement that can carry out missions without directions from top leaders." Oh, like 9/11.

What this malicious subterfusion conceals is the fact that while the Los Angeles Times and the Democratic leadership were busily sabotaging the American war on terror, the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld team was destroying Al-Qaeda as we knew it. Yes, today Al-Qaeda may be a decentralized collection of local terrorist cells, as the Times claims. But that is because America has taken the offensive, killed Al-Qaeda's leaders and driven them into hiding, destroyed much of its infrastructure and reduced its capabilities so dramatically that the United States has been safe from terrorist attack for more than four years.

[Alban Berg]

Must I refrain from discussing it because others already have complained?

Of course not. I was I who suggested you or another member of your troika publish your views in the MSM you continually malign.

The unfortunate fact is that the average reader can't get a balanced picture from a press that won't publish balanced material.

The average reader has access to exactly the same resources you do.

[Classicus Maximus]

Enemy Press
By David Horowitz

That is so appropriate.
Horowitz has shown himself time and time again as an enemy to Democracy.

BUT

You cite opinion pieces.
I have cited facts
Have you read the notes in NYT & WaPo about their faulty coverage of WMD?
Have you read the Pentagon's admission of the number of people in Abu Ghraib who were swept up randomly?
Have you read the news all weekend about how the President's "Plan for Victory" speech was a PR piece?
Have you read the GAO condemnation of WH buying of the press?
Do you believe for a second that the DoD is doing things that the WH doesn't want?

Heckuva job Pizza.

This is Karen Ryan reporting.

[pizza]

Must I refrain from discussing it because others already have complained?

Of course not. I was I who suggested you or another member of your troika publish your views in the MSM you continually malign.

The unfortunate fact is that the average reader can't get a balanced picture from a press that won't publish balanced material.

The average reader has access to exactly the same resources you do.

So does the dishonest press. But that doesn't change the way it operates. The average reader doesn't normally take advantage of a widespread range of media and relies on habitual sources for information. Of course you didn't know that.

[Classicus Maximus]

The average reader doesn't normally take advantage of a widespread range of media and relies on habitual sources for information.

We agree on that.

This is Karen Ryan reporting.

[pizza]

Enemy Press
By David Horowitz

That is so appropriate.
Horowitz has shown himself time and time again as an enemy to Democracy.

BUT

You cite opinion pieces.
I have cited facts
Have you read the notes in NYT & WaPo about their faulty coverage of WMD?
Have you read the Pentagon's admission of the number of people in Abu Ghraib who were swept up randomly?
Have you read the news all weekend about how the President's "Plan for Victory" speech was a PR piece?
Have you read the GAO condemnation of WH buying of the press?
Do you believe for a second that the DoD is doing things that the WH doesn't want?

Heckuva job Pizza.

This is Karen Ryan reporting.

Every president's speech is a PR speech. Did you just discover that? Nobody "bought the press". We're talking about Iraqi journalists in Iraq. Should the government be required to take out paid ads in the MSM to make it's position known to the American people? Better they should support the Iraqi economy. The GAO is a large organization. I'm sure there are those within it who disagree. To call David Horowitz "an enemy of democracy" is a well known loonie lefty obscenity. His analysis of the LA Times and its disgusting behavior is right on the mark.

I'll believe what I want. You believe what you want. If you think it's a good idea to remove an administration that's fighting terrorism, you certainly have the right to make your position known. I don't happen to agree with you. It's that simple.

Again, I've yet to see a point-by-point refutation of Podhoretz' superb analysis in Commentary.

[Alban Berg]

The average reader doesn't normally take advantage of a widespread range of media and relies on habitual sources for information. Of course you didn't know that.

Of course I didn't, I was born yesterday. All the more reason for anyone not content with the coverage in the MSM to step up to the plate and exercise his right to free speech by writing letters to the editor and such.

[Classicus Maximus]

Should the government be required to take out paid ads in the MSM to make it's position known to the American people?

Let's see know
Armstrong Williams
Maggie Gallagher
Michael McManus

This is Karen Ryan reporting.

[Werner]

Karen Ryan, you seem to be on to something.

[operafan]

Five days after the story broke Rumsfeld says, 'we don't know what the facts are yet'. It's enough to make one worry that they have not yet fixed the intelligence gathering capabilities yet. Can't he get some drone/lackey to find the contract in less than 5 days? Or maybe Rumsfeld doesn't know what is going on in his own shop? One almost hopes he is lying rather than incompetant.


http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArtic ... MSFELD.xml

Note the 2002 date on this one http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1830500.stm

[pizza]

Five days after the story broke Rumsfeld says, 'we don't know what the facts are yet'. It's enough to make one worry that they have not yet fixed the intelligence gathering capabilities yet. Can't he get some drone/lackey to find the contract in less than 5 days? Or maybe Rumsfeld doesn't know what is going on in his own shop? One almost hopes he is lying rather than incompetant.


http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArtic ... MSFELD.xml

Note the 2002 date on this one http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1830500.stm

First the compaint is that these guys don't know anything and they're incompetent. Then it's that they know everything and they're lying.

Thank goodness Rumsfeld has more to do than play librarian for you, operafan.

[Werner]

Pizza, it seems hat Rumsfeld can't to anything wrong ij your view. To many others, who seem to me to have a clearer view of the facts, it seems that he can't do anything right or competent. Particularly disappointing in a man who has a long and deep resume of service.

[pizza]

Pizza, it seems hat Rumsfeld can't to anything wrong ij your view. To many others, who seem to me to have a clearer view of the facts, it seems that he can't do anything right or competent. Particularly disappointing in a man who has a long and deep resume of service.

I don't agree with everything he's done. I don't even agree with everything I've done. But to claim that no matter what he does he's either incompetent or dishonest is an absurd and simplistic assessment of what the man is all about.

[Classicus Maximus]

Pizza - will you explain to me why you didn'r reply to this?

Should the government be required to take out paid ads in the MSM to make it's position known to the American people?

Let's see know
Armstrong Williams
Maggie Gallagher
Michael McManus

This is Karen Ryan reporting.

[Classicus Maximus]

I guess Al-Yawer didn't hear the RNC talking points.
=======================================

AP Scoop: Iraq VP Disputes Bush on Training of Forces
By Sally Buzbee, The Associated Press
Published: December 05, 2005 11:45 AM ET

DUBAI (AP) The training of Iraqi security forces has suffered a big "setback" in the last six months, with the army and other forces being increasingly used to settle scores and make other political gains, Iraqi Vice President Ghazi al-Yawer said Monday.

Al-Yawer disputed contentions by U.S. officials, including President Bush, that the training of security forces was gathering speed, resulting in more professional troops.

Bush has said the United States will not pull out of Iraq until Iraq's own forces can maintain security. In a speech last week, he said Iraqi forces are becoming increasingly capable of securing the country.

Al-Yawer, a Sunni moderate, said he agreed the United States cannot pull out now because "there will be a huge vacuum," leaving Iraq in danger of falling into civil war. In particular, armed Shiite militias in the south might try to incite war if U.S.-led coalition forces leave, he said in an interview with The Associated Press and a U.S. newspaper at a conference here.

"I wish it were that simple," he said of calls to set a timetable for withdrawal or a drawdown.

But al-Yawer said recent allegations that Interior Ministry security forces -- dominated by Shiites -- have tortured Sunni detainees were evidence that many forces are increasingly politicized and sectarian. Some of the recently trained Iraqi forces focus on settling scores and other political goals rather than maintaining security, he said.

In addition, some Iraqi military commanders have been dismissed for political reasons, rather than judged on merit, he said.

He said the army -- also dominated by Shiites -- is conducting raids against villages and towns in Sunni and mixed areas of Iraq, rather than targeting specific insurgents -- a tactic he said reminded many Sunnis of Saddam Hussein-era raids.

"Saddam used to raid villages," using security forces, he said. "This is not the way to do it."

Al-Yawer also expressed grave concern that Iraqi army units might use intimidation to try to keep Sunni voters from the polls during the country's crucial Dec. 15 general election.

American officials -- and Sunni moderates like al-Yawer -- are trying to persuade Sunnis to go to the polls, hoping that if they gain a sizable chunk of parliament, Sunnis will abandon support for the insurgency.

Al-Yawer said many Sunnis want to vote. But he noted that both intimidation and voter fraud occurred during the Oct. 15 constitutional referendum, and complaints to the Iraqi Electoral Commission and U.N. voting advisers went nowhere, he said.

His supporters have made a series of requests to ensure a fair vote this time, including changes to the electoral commission and adequate numbers of polling stations and ballots in Sunni areas, he said. Most importantly, they have asked that U.S.-led coalition forces, and not Iraqi army troops, guard polling stations, he said.

Many outside experts have expressed concern that Iraqi security forces will actually increase tensions if they guard Sunni areas, rather than keep order. Al-Yawer did not specifically say that Shiites make up too much of the army, but said he would like to see more political and sectarian balance — especially among the officer corps.

Al-Yawer, running on a slate of secular candidates along with former Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, also said he believes the Saddam trial also should be postponed until after the Dec. 15 election so Iraqis can focus on the election.

He expressed frustration with the trial so far, saying it is giving Saddam an opportunity to grandstand and appear sympathetic.

[pizza]

Pizza - will you explain to me why you didn'r reply to this?

Should the government be required to take out paid ads in the MSM to make it's position known to the American people?

Let's see know
Armstrong Williams
Maggie Gallagher
Michael McManus

This is Karen Ryan reporting.

Because it doesn't say anything.

If you're implying that the government paid Armstrong Williams to write his "No Child Left Behind" columns, he was involved in that undertaking long before the government became interested. There may have been the appearance of a conflict of interest but there was none in fact.

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns ... 14190.html

Gallagher was an expert on marriage and HHS hired her to write about its advantages. Big deal.

I don't know what great crime McManus is supposed to have committed. You tell us.

But of course that hasn't much to do with Iraq, does it? Apparently you can't see the difference between hiring experts to write locally about programs the government advocates, and hiring foreign journalists to print news in foreign journals that the local media refuses to print for political reasons.

You're really reaching.

[Classicus Maximus]

But of course that hasn't much to do with Iraq, does it?

1) Read the subject of this thread.

2)It does matter that Williams etal were paid.
It places clouds over every thing they write subsequently.
It makes them ignore any facts that are inconvenient.

Hey - are you getting paid too?
======================================
Plus
I feel this phony journalism is wrong and has no place in a healthy democracy. If this were being done by a Democratic administration, I'd say the same thing and then we'd be on the same side.
Am I wrong about that?

[pizza]

But of course that hasn't much to do with Iraq, does it?

1) Read the subject of this thread.

2)It does matter that Williams etal were paid.
It places clouds over every thing they write subsequently.
It makes them ignore any facts that are inconvenient.

Hey - are you getting paid too?
======================================
Plus
I feel this phony journalism is wrong and has no place in a healthy democracy. If this were being done by a Democratic administration, I'd say the same thing and then we'd be on the same side.
Am I wrong about that?

Nonsense. This is a capitalist society. We all get paid for our work, or at least should. I get paid for representing my clients. If I ignore relevant facts, inconvenient or otherwise, my clients will suffer as a result so I deal with them. I've had a fairly good success rate over the years.

There's nothing phony about paid-for journalism. Journalists have to eat too. What has no place in a healthy democracy is politically motivated withholding of news that's favorable to the administration by a mainstream media that has a lock on the widespread distribution of news.

[Classicus Maximus]

There's nothing phony about paid-for journalism. Journalists have to eat too. What has no place in a healthy democracy is politically motivated withholding of news that's favorable to the administration by a mainstream media that has a lock on the widespread distribution of news.

Hello
Hello
Earth to Pizza

Paid for journalism is good because journalists have to eat.
Mainstreet Media has been hard on this administration.
Paid journalism is not politically motivated
All Mainstreet Media is politically motivated.

UNCLE
You win
I can't compete with that
I doubt that even Rush, Bill or Sean could make sense of your statement.

[Werner]

Pizza, you're throwing out accusations that have some implications you masy not have had in mind. Your accuse the mainstream media - thank goodness we still have some to balance the right-wing opinion journals - of deliberately withholding information favorable to the administration. Of course the idea that this may be a matter of news judgment, which is the owners' privilege, does not seem to enter your judicial mind. But hte press as flacks for the administration - so long as you like the administration - seems okay by you.

Let's hear it for the mainstream media!

[Alban Berg]

What has no place in a healthy democracy is politically motivated withholding of news that's favorable to the administration by a mainstream media that has a lock on the widespread distribution of news.

There's no lock. Google and other research tools are open to anyone who wants to access all kinds of political opinions; the MSM includes the Wall Street Journal that is as rabidly right-wing as to satisfy any of you gung-ho Bush, rah-rah-war types; you can tune in the MSM's WABC to hear John Batchelor night after night; Rush Limbaugh is not exactly a shrinking violet; PBS's Jim Lehrer report always presents two opposing views; even the NY Times, favorite whipping post of the right wing here, has always had a conservative columnist (used to be William Safire, now it's David Brooks) for balance, etc. And even the Times's Maureen Dowd is not so much anti-Bush as anti-politicians in general; she skewered the Clintons with as much gusto as she skewers Bush today. But that of course escapes the right-wingers always ready the paint one of the best papers in the country with a broad brush.

[Classicus Maximus]

Well said AB

But I'd add understated.

now it's David Brooks

John Tierney is mouthing RNC talking points on same days as Rush and crew.
Plus Kristof regularly sides with Bush.

I'd add FNC, Washington Times, Clear Channel to the list of MSM who totally intermingle editorial and news content UNLIKE the NYT and WaPo.

The NYT coverage of this administration has been overly fair with Sanger and Stevenson bending over backwards to give Bush the benefit of every doubt and Elizabeth Bumiller downright fawning - though she may win a Pulitzer for scooping the free world on what Bush has on his iPod.

[pizza]

There's nothing phony about paid-for journalism. Journalists have to eat too. What has no place in a healthy democracy is politically motivated withholding of news that's favorable to the administration by a mainstream media that has a lock on the widespread distribution of news.

Hello
Hello
Earth to Pizza

Paid for journalism is good because journalists have to eat.
Mainstreet Media has been hard on this administration.
Paid journalism is not politically motivated
All Mainstreet Media is politically motivated.

UNCLE
You win
I can't compete with that
I doubt that even Rush, Bill or Sean could make sense of your statement.

That's simply a puerile distortion of what I said. The four absurdities posted above took what I said out of context and that's a silly game to play if you're interested in a "coherent" discussion.

Paid for journalism is a reality. There's no inherent contradiction between paid for journalism and good journalism.

Mainstream media can be has hard on the administration as it chooses. That's not the point. We're in a war. Mainstream media has chosen to manage the news in a way that subverts the war effort by withholding or burying information favorable to the government in places that most readers will bypass. That's irresponsible. The government has chosen to pay foreign journalists to state its position. That's sensible in view of the fact that local mainstream media won't.

I don't view my government as my adversary.

[pizza]

What has no place in a healthy democracy is politically motivated withholding of news that's favorable to the administration by a mainstream media that has a lock on the widespread distribution of news.

There's no lock. Google and other research tools are open to anyone who wants to access all kinds of political opinions; the MSM includes the Wall Street Journal that is as rabidly right-wing as to satisfy any of you gung-ho Bush, rah-rah-war types; you can tune in the MSM's WABC to hear John Batchelor night after night; Rush Limbaugh is not exactly a shrinking violet; PBS's Jim Lehrer report always presents two opposing views; even the NY Times, favorite whipping post of the right wing here, has always had a conservative columnist (used to be William Safire, now it's David Brooks) for balance, etc. And even the Times's Maureen Dowd is not so much anti-Bush as anti-politicians in general; she skewered the Clintons with as much gusto as she skewers Bush today. But that of course escapes the right-wingers always ready the paint one of the best papers in the country with a broad brush.

What escapes you is the fact that we're in a war and that raises legitimate questions about the role of the mainstream press and how it reports the news. MSM can opine whatever it wants. That's not the point. There's a difference between opinion and fact. What it can't do with legitimacy is withhold or bury factual news that's favorable to the administration's position on the war. The average reader shouldn't have to google for his news.

[pizza]

Pizza, you're throwing out accusations that have some implications you masy not have had in mind. Your accuse the mainstream media - thank goodness we still have some to balance the right-wing opinion journals - of deliberately withholding information favorable to the administration. Of course the idea that this may be a matter of news judgment, which is the owners' privilege, does not seem to enter your judicial mind. But hte press as flacks for the administration - so long as you like the administration - seems okay by you.

Let's hear it for the mainstream media!

Werner -- apparently you missed the article I posted by David Horowitz about the LA Times' recent handling of the war news. It's that sort of news management I'm talking about. It's perfectly OK for a paper to state any opinion it wants. For all I care the LA Times can push bin Laden for our next president. But what it shouldn't do is withhold or bury news favorable to the war effort. It's our country's war, not a Republican war, nor Bush's war, and whether the Times' editors agree with it or not, people should be informed of all the news.

[Classicus Maximus]

I posted by David Horowitz about the LA Times' recent handling of the war news. It's that sort of news management I'm talking about. It's perfectly OK for a paper to state any opinion it wants. For all I care the LA Times can push bin Laden for our next president. But what it shouldn't do is withhold or bury news favorable to the war effort. It's our country's war, not a Republican war, nor Bush's war, and whether the Times' editors agree with it or not, people should be informed of all the news.

Pizza

In serious publications like NYT, WaPo, WSJ, LATand the Boston Globe, there is a wall between the news and editorial section. This wall is taken seriously and the editorial page editor and the executive editor really do work in separate parts of the newspaper. It is very obvious that you do not know the difference between editorial opinion and news coverage.

Perhaps that is because you get your news from FNC where there is no wall and the news is opinion driven.

[pizza]

I posted by David Horowitz about the LA Times' recent handling of the war news. It's that sort of news management I'm talking about. It's perfectly OK for a paper to state any opinion it wants. For all I care the LA Times can push bin Laden for our next president. But what it shouldn't do is withhold or bury news favorable to the war effort. It's our country's war, not a Republican war, nor Bush's war, and whether the Times' editors agree with it or not, people should be informed of all the news.

Pizza

In serious publications like NYT, WaPo, WSJ, LATand the Boston Globe, there is a wall between the news and editorial section. This wall is taken seriously and the editorial page editor and the executive editor really do work in separate parts of the newspaper. It is very obvious that you do not know the difference between editorial opinion and news coverage.

Perhaps that is because you get your news from FNC where there is no wall and the news is opinion driven.

I get my news from more sources in a day than most people probably read in a year.

What's obvious is that you do not wish to discuss the responsibilities of the mainstream press during wartime, including its obligation to print ALL the news -- even news that contradicts its editorial position -- in a balanced manner and in readily accessible places so that the average reader will be able to see it, and its refusal to do so.

[Werner]

I can't speak for Clasicus Maximus but I think I am quite aware of the responsibility of the press in wartime - or any time. And I'm quite confident that the press, although no less humanly prone to error than anyone else including the propagandists for a particular one-sided political view, is using decent judgment in the presentation of the news. The fact that there are a multitude of independent sources makes for the availablility of a range of news views and versions.

If these veteran and proven news sources seem to neglect your favorite version of events, I'm afraid that's your problem.

[Barry]

I can't speak for Clasicus Maximus but I think I am quite aware of the responsibility of the press in wartime - or any time. And I'm quite confident that the press, although no less humanly prone to error than anyone else including the propagandists for a particular one-sided political view, is using decent judgment in the presentation of the news. The fact that there are a multitude of independent sources makes for the availablility of a range of news views and versions.

If these veteran and proven news sources seem to neglect your favorite version of events, I'm afraid that's your problem.

It's not a question of one's favorite version. The issue is neglecting the good news while splashing the bad news on the front page with huge headlines. I recently posted a letter to the editor by an Iraq veteran from New Jersey who discussed how his company of soldiers dug a well and brought fresh water to an Iraqi village for the first time in its history; and this was a village that has seen armies go through it all the way back to the days of Alexander the Great. The people were incredibly appreciative.
But as the soldier pointed out, stories like that that are happening all over Iraq (not to mention the political progress, the reverberations that have been felt in other countries in that region like Lybia, Lebanon, Egypt, etc., etc., etc.) get little to no attention or are buried on an inside page because they aren't exciting enough for today's MSM, who are too busy splashing huge headlines about the latest death toll across the top of the front page. And we wonder why it's difficult for the American people to remain patient. If the press behaved like this during World War II, we probably would have lost.
If I"m not mistaken, Werner, you were in the Battle of the Bulge. That battle didn't start off very well for us. A lot of Americans were killed during the early days of the battle. I have a feeling the tone of hopelessness and disaster, not to mention massive casualty headlines, wasn't the norm in U.S. papers back in those days. And that's because, as I and Pizza have mentioned, the press thought of themselves as Americans as much as they did journalists. They don't have a duty to cover up all the bad news, but they do have a duty to provide balance when there really is both good and bad going on and the outcome is still in doubt.
I think I've said before that I don't think it would be possible to maintain support for ANY prolonged war, not matter what the cause of objective of it, when the MSM operates with the kind of mindset that dominates it today.

[pizza]

I can't speak for Clasicus Maximus but I think I am quite aware of the responsibility of the press in wartime - or any time. And I'm quite confident that the press, although no less humanly prone to error than anyone else including the propagandists for a particular one-sided political view, is using decent judgment in the presentation of the news. The fact that there are a multitude of independent sources makes for the availablility of a range of news views and versions.

If these veteran and proven news sources seem to neglect your favorite version of events, I'm afraid that's your problem.

Werner: I'm not speaking of "error". I'm pointing out a carefully calculated manipulation of the news by the mainstream press, deliberately aimed at managing it in such a way that news favorable to the administration is either buried or withheld. There is nothing "decent" about burying a major news item on page 3 that supports the administration's wartime efforts in Iraq, and leading instead with the death of 10 soldiers, a common occurrence during wartime -- obviously designed to sap the strength of the readership's willingness to support the war effort that the newspaper opposes. That's irresponsible journalism. Ultimately it's your problem also, even if you prefer not to recognize it as such.

[Classicus Maximus]

I'm pointing out a carefully calculated manipulation of the news by the mainstream press, deliberately aimed at managing it in such a way that news favorable to the administration is either buried or withheld.

That is your answer through this whole thread.
Any fact that is inconvenient to your ideology is false.
It is only columnists who agree with you who are right.

Are FNC which is the largest cable news outlet and Clear Channel & the other big radio outlet burying the favorable news too?


<<There is nothing "decent" about burying a major news item on page 3 that supports the administration's wartime efforts in Iraq, and leading instead with the death of 10 soldiers, a common occurrence during wartime -- obviously designed to sap the strength of the readership's willingness to support the war effort that the newspaper opposes.>>

Have you heard the news axiom - if it bleeds it leads?
It is not anti-adminstration, it is marketing. Surely, you are not against that.

Oh - 10 soldiers died - a common occurence.
I don't even know how to respond to such a throwaway remark.

[Barry]

Werner: I'm not speaking of "error". I'm pointing out a carefully calculated manipulation of the news by the mainstream press, deliberately aimed at managing it in such a way that news favorable to the administration is either buried or withheld. There is nothing "decent" about burying a major news item on page 3 that supports the administration's wartime efforts in Iraq, and leading instead with the death of 10 soldiers, a common occurrence during wartime -- obviously designed to sap the strength of the readership's willingness to support the war effort that the newspaper opposes. That's irresponsible journalism. Ultimately it's your problem also, even if you prefer not to recognize it as such.

For the record, as I've stated in the past when Corlyss made similar claims, I don't think there is malicious intent on the part of the media for the most part (there are probably exceptions, but I'm speaking generally). To me, it's more a case of what will bring personal glory to the reporters (foreign, and especially war correspondents want to be where the action is.....it's not exciting for them to report on a group of American soldiers bringing fresh water to a village for the first time), and for the editors, it's a question of what they think sells. And bad news, especially violent bad news is what they think sells (and they may be right). Just look at your local tv news with the seemingly never-ending reports on murders and fires at the top of the broadcast. Then they stick a feel-good story about someone doing something positive in the last segment, after sports and weather, when many people have already tuned out.

But regardless of whether their motive is what Pizza and Corlyss say it is or what I say it is, they're behaving irresponsibly (i.e. in a way that's making it more difficult for us to successfully accomplish the mission) for a time when we are in a crucial war. It's one thing to think only what will sell during peacetime. But when our country is at war and many thousands of soldiers are in harm's way, there is a duty to be fair and balanced, even if it means not running the raciest headline across the front page some days.

[Alban Berg]

Werner: I'm not speaking of "error". I'm pointing out a carefully calculated manipulation of the news by the mainstream press, deliberately aimed at managing it in such a way that news favorable to the administration is either buried or withheld. There is nothing "decent" about burying a major news item on page 3 that supports the administration's wartime efforts in Iraq, and leading instead with the death of 10 soldiers, a common occurrence during wartime -- obviously designed to sap the strength of the readership's willingness to support the war effort that the newspaper opposes. That's irresponsible journalism. Ultimately it's your problem also, even if you prefer not to recognize it as such.

For the record, as I've stated in the past when Corlyss made similar claims, I don't think there is malicious intent on the part of the media for the most part (there are probably exceptions, but I'm speaking generally). To me, it's more a case of what will bring personal glory to the reporters (foreign, and especially war correspondents want to be where the action is.....it's not exciting for them to report on a group of American soldiers bringing fresh water to a village for the first time), and for the editors, it's a question of what they think sells. And bad news, especially violent bad news is what they think sells (and they may be right). Just look at your local tv news with the seemingly never-ending reports on murders and fires at the top of the broadcast. Then they stick a feel-good story about someone doing something positive in the last segment, after sports and weather, when many people have already tuned out.

But regardless of whether their motive is what Pizza and Corlyss say it is or what I say it is, they're behaving irresponsibly (i.e. in a way that's making it more difficult for us to successfully accomplish the mission) for a time when we are in a crucial war.

Speculating on a newspaper's or its journalists' motives is futile and irrelevant as well. I do not, btw, consider placing a story on page 3 of section 1 equivalent to burying it. Burying it would be placing it deep in section 5 on page 34 along with the news of whose dog died that day.

In any case, I reiterate what I've said previously: Any citizen who feels a newspaper or other MSM sources is distorting the news is free to redress the balance as best he/she can. The New York Times is explicit in saying that it "accepts opinion articles on any topic" from anyone. So my suggestion is that instead of restating your criticisms of the MSM in an Internet forum with a readership of 10, you get your thoughts together and submit them to a widely read newspaper where they can be heard and responded to by a far larger population. There's no guarantee of publication of course, but nothing ventured, nothing gained, especially if you feel the issue is so critical. Which I agree it is.

[Ted]

(i.e. in a way that's making it more difficult for us to successfully accomplish the mission) for a time when we are in a crucial war. It's one thing to think only what will sell during peacetime. But when our country is at war and many thousands of soldiers are in harm's way, there is a duty to be fair and balanced, even if it means not running the raciest headline across the front page some days.

Can we say bull crap here Barry?
Cause man, can you dish it out
So, let’s tweak the headlines for the sake of the military and some bogus war
Uh Huh
Yea
Okay

[pizza]

I'm pointing out a carefully calculated manipulation of the news by the mainstream press, deliberately aimed at managing it in such a way that news favorable to the administration is either buried or withheld.

That is your answer through this whole thread.
Any fact that is inconvenient to your ideology is false.
It is only columnists who agree with you who are right.

Are FNC which is the largest cable news outlet and Clear Channel & the other big radio outlet burying the favorable news too?


<<There is nothing "decent" about burying a major news item on page 3 that supports the administration's wartime efforts in Iraq, and leading instead with the death of 10 soldiers, a common occurrence during wartime -- obviously designed to sap the strength of the readership's willingness to support the war effort that the newspaper opposes.>>

Have you heard the news axiom - if it bleeds it leads?
It is not anti-adminstration, it is marketing. Surely, you are not against that.

Oh - 10 soldiers died - a common occurence.
I don't even know how to respond to such a throwaway remark.

If there are some major news organizations that do not withhold or bury the news, it hardly justifies the practice of those that do.

If marketing -- assuming that were the case and I doubt it where certain papers are concerned -- takes precedence over support for the nation's war effort and the morale of its people, that truly underscores the disgusting depths to which that segment of the press has sunk.

Obviously you're too young to remember what wartime America was like -- when casualties, however painful were viewed as part of the price exacted for preserving our liberties and way of life rather than exploited for cheap political gain; in other words, when the press exercised self-discipline, restraint and good judgment.

[Classicus Maximus]

But regardless of whether their motive is what Pizza and Corlyss say it is or what I say it is, they're behaving irresponsibly (i.e. in a way that's making it more difficult for us to successfully accomplish the mission) for a time when we are in a crucial war.

Remember this:
"Without censorship, things can get terribly confused in the public mind."
- General William Westmoreland

The press has been remiss in NOT challenging this adminsitration until Katrina finally made it clear that even FNC reporters would not buy into the party line.

Heckuva Job Brownie.

But when our country is at war and many thousands of soldiers are in harm's way, there is a duty to be fair and balanced, even if it means not running the raciest headline across the front page some days.

Hey - listen to your guy Pizza
10 deaths in one incident - common stuff.
What me worry?

You keep on asserting that the press has been hard on this adminstration.
How do you justify that statement?

[Classicus Maximus]

If there are some major news organizations that do not withhold or bury the news, it hardly justifies the practice of those that do.

I said even the RNC talking points media can't avoid talking about how bad things are in Iraq.
You still haven't shown one NOT ONR shred of evidence to support your claim.
Oh no - please don't cite Jonah Goldberg next.

Assumption after assumption after strawman.
You can run but you can't hide.

[Barry]

(i.e. in a way that's making it more difficult for us to successfully accomplish the mission) for a time when we are in a crucial war. It's one thing to think only what will sell during peacetime. But when our country is at war and many thousands of soldiers are in harm's way, there is a duty to be fair and balanced, even if it means not running the raciest headline across the front page some days.

Can we say bull crap here Barry?
Cause man, can you dish it out
So, let’s tweak the headlines for the sake of the military and some bogus war
Uh Huh
Yea
Okay

Ted,
You can say it, and I can say right back at ya, Man.

I didn't say lie or tweak. Deciding what to make the big headline on page one is an editorial decision. Guess what, people get killed in wars. The latest tally need not be the daily front page headline. And the men and women fighting over there certainly don't consider it bogus; nor do they appreciate sentiments like those expressed by you above.

[Barry]

But regardless of whether their motive is what Pizza and Corlyss say it is or what I say it is, they're behaving irresponsibly (i.e. in a way that's making it more difficult for us to successfully accomplish the mission) for a time when we are in a crucial war.

Remember this:
"Without censorship, things can get terribly confused in the public mind."
- General William Westmoreland

And you tell me a successful war effort that didn't involve some degree of propoganda and censorship? As I said, under the media rules we played by in Vietnam and now in Iraq, it would not be possible for us to win a prolonged war, not matter what the motivation or aim of the war. Think about that.

The press has been remiss in NOT challenging this adminsitration until Katrina finally made it clear that even FNC reporters would not buy into the party line.

Heckuva Job Brownie.

But when our country is at war and many thousands of soldiers are in harm's way, there is a duty to be fair and balanced, even if it means not running the raciest headline across the front page some days.

Hey - listen to your guy Pizza
10 deaths in one incident - common stuff.
What me worry?

In war, while every death is a tragedy, 10 is not a large number. That would have been considered a great day in a number of past wars we've fought; the only difference being that we didn't have the press screaming about it on the front page in huge headlines.
I suppose by your logic, that we should have turned around and gone back to England in light of how many Americans were killed on Omaha Beach alone (and I'd be willing to bet the emphasis in the major American papers at the time was the success of the landing and not the way Americans were gunned down the instant their landing boat doors opened.

You keep on asserting that the press has been hard on this adminstration.
How do you justify that statement?

With my own eyes. I've said before that the press was gung ho supportive of the war as long as we were in the initial invasion stage. As soon as things got tougher, which is predictable in war, their tune changed dramatically. They're about ratings and selling papers; not providing the sort of balance that accurately reflects the reality on the ground. I hear time and time again military people saying there is a wide gap between the war they read about in the papers and the war they're experiencing with their own senses (i.e. reality).

[Ted]

Deciding what to make the big headline on page one is an editorial decision.

News is news Barry
35 killed by car bomb is a bigger story than 15 Iraqi’s get running water, which is what (from your other posts) you think is just as big a story.
Pardon my BS remark, it’s not personal

[Barry]

Deciding what to make the big headline on page one is an editorial decision.

News is news Barry
35 killed by car bomb is a bigger story than 15 Iraqi’s get running water, which is what (from your other posts) you think is just as big a story.
Pardon my BS remark, it’s not personal

Then I'll just say it again. It's not possible to win a prolonged war when the press behaves as they are now. You may think this war is bogus (a claim I think is way off base obviously), but what happens when a war comes along that you think is crucial to our survival and the same thing that's happening now happens then? As I mentioned in another post, do you think the emphasis on the front page of the major papers the day or two after D-Day was on the success of the landing or the fact that thousands of Americans were gunned down as soon as they tried to get off of their boats at Omaha Beach? I believe I know what the answer was then, and I also believe I know what today's press would have emphasized. We're dealing with enemies whose stated goal is to first take over the Middle East, then overrun western civilaztion. Wake up, Ted. We're at war, and we need to win. Your attitude (you being a metaphor for millions like you) isn't helping; in fact, it's making the job harder.
The rules during peacetime are not the same as they are when we're at war. They weren't during World War II and they shouldn't be now.

[Ted]

We're at war, and we need to win.

We are at war Barry, with that I’ll agree.
Unfortunately we are fighting the war in the wrong place.
I’ll bet you all the tea in China that when this country suffers another 911 type terrorist attack it will not have had its roots in Iraq…just like 911 didn’t...
You want to win the war, start in the mountains of Afghanistan/Pakistan not to mention Iran, Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia
Amazing isn’t it, the one country that we know for certain produced 911 conspirators goes unscathed while we invade the one country we know for certain had nothing to do with it.
That is Bush Logic to the “T”

[Classicus Maximus]

Then I'll just say it again. It's not possible to win a prolonged war when the press behaves as they are now.

You assume this is the case.
I strongly disagree
The press has been overly compliant not combative.

You may think this war is bogus (a claim I think is way off base obviously), but what happens when a war comes along that you think is crucial to our survival and the same thing that's happening now happens then?

I would hope that Congress does its job before we go to war again.
And yes - this war was bogus.
Read Woodward's (no critic of Bush is he) Plan of Attack.
War in Iraq was in the works and it was a war looking for an excuse.

As I mentioned in another post, do you think the emphasis on the front page of the major papers the day or two after D-Day was on the success of the landing or the fact that thousands of Americans were gunned down as soon as they tried to get off of their boats at Omaha Beach?

This WW II analogy makes me sick.
Try this one.
Imagine after Dec 7th, we retaliated against China.

And our President did a great disservice to the memory of Dec 7th in his speech at the CFR today, when once again, he said we went to fight the terrorists in Iraq because of 9/11.
The man has no honor.

AND

Look at the subject
Did this administration engage in phony journalism or is the GAO wrong?

[Werner]

Barry, you make some very facile referenes about the Battle of the Bulge and Normandy.

I'm not assuming a hero's stance - I'm nothing of the sort - but I was at both places in my Government-paid travels through Europe. And your references to the press and public reactions to both - and your assumptions as to their relation to the present day - border on the scurrilous.

The heavy losses during these campaigns were never hidden - they couldn't be - but of course they occurred in the course of a major world-wide conflict that went way beyond the synthetic hype practiced by the Cheney types.

But apart from the merits of who got us (on our side, at our initiative, in reaction to a real provocation) into it, unfortunately the good work being done by our troops and the service they render the local populace when they can, the fact remains that our high-echelon leadership has not managed to secure most of the country. The insurgency keps getting more capable of inflicting damage. And you want the press to paint Potemkin villages showing progress that can't be sustained?

Who is being irresponsible?

[Barry]

Then I'll just say it again. It's not possible to win a prolonged war when the press behaves as they are now.

You assume this is the case.
I strongly disagree
The press has been overly compliant not combative.

Yeah; they've been a regular cheering squad for the administration's policies; right.

You may think this war is bogus (a claim I think is way off base obviously), but what happens when a war comes along that you think is crucial to our survival and the same thing that's happening now happens then?

I would hope that Congress does its job before we go to war again.
And yes - this war was bogus.
Read Woodward's (no critic of Bush is he) Plan of Attack.
War in Iraq was in the works and it was a war looking for an excuse.

I read much of it.
We're fighting to stop jihadists from controlling the Middle East (yes, at least in part because they would then control a major portion of the world's oil supply and would have the power to wreck western economies, including ours). Iraq is in the Middle East and it was as logical and realistic a place to start as anywhere else. And the domino effect that was hoped for in the region has already started, albeit in small steps. But good things often start in small steps. The people who think history's judgment on this war has already been determined have no idea of what they're talking about. I'm willing to admit that there is a mix of good and bad that has come from the war and the final judgment is still in doubt. My ego isn't big enough for me to say history's final judgment is written in stone.

As I mentioned in another post, do you think the emphasis on the front page of the major papers the day or two after D-Day was on the success of the landing or the fact that thousands of Americans were gunned down as soon as they tried to get off of their boats at Omaha Beach?

This WW II analogy makes me sick.
You need a stronger stomach. We were fighting an enemy who openly stated its imperialistic goals and disdain for our way of life in World War II, and we're doing that now.
Try this one.
Imagine after Dec 7th, we retaliated against China.
A better analogy would have been hitting the Japanese in China. But regardless, the point is to establish an independent, largely democratic (it doesn't have to resemble our own system) government. Our enemies obviously understand how dangerous our success in that endeavor would be to their cause. If they didn't, they wouldn't be going all out to stop us.

And our President did a great disservice to the memory of Dec 7th in his speech at the CFR today, when once again, he said we went to fight the terrorists in Iraq because of 9/11.
The man has no honor.
No, you apparently lack the ability to comprehend that a direct (there certainly were connections between Saddam and Islamic terrorists, including the Palestinian suicide bombers whose families he paid healthy sums to after they completed their missions) connection to 9/11 wasn't necessary to topple a dictator and replace him with a democratic government in an effort to stem the tide against radical Islam in that region.

AND

Look at the subject
Did this administration engage in phony journalism or is the GAO wrong?

See my above remark on the necessity of some degree of propoganda to succeed at war, especially when your own MSM doesn't present a balanced picture. Winning a war is difficult enough without having to do it with one hand tied behind your back (and in spite of saying that, I have no reason to disbelieve that the stories that were paid for were, in fact, an accurate depiction of what's happening in Iraq).

[Werner]

Barry, I think you have a learning curve ahead of you in differentiating World War II from he present conflict.

Try winning a war "with one heand tied behind your back" with ill-planned, undermanned, underequipped quick-and-on-the cheap excuses for a strategy. And you want the press to misrepresent that?

Forget about what the Bushes and Cheneys tell you. Try to listen to the genuine article, like a McCain or a Murtha.

The grownups in WWII had no choice but to go in with all they had and the entire nation behind them. It took a monumental amount of effort, time, and determination to see this through, aand everybody knew what the stakes and the obstables were.

Yes, we are threatened by the Islamist totalitarians. And we need the brainpower and leadership to overcome them. And while we're doing it, we should try to remain ourselves. Possibly too big a task for the bunch we're stuck with - tragically.

[Alban Berg]

Try winning a war "with one heand tied behind your back" with ill-planned, undermanned, underequipped quick-and-on-the cheap excuses for a strategy.

Exactly. If one hand is tied behind our backs, it's Dubya and Rummy and Tricky Dick who have tied their own hands. Failure to anticipate the levels of troops needed, losing sight of Osama, dissolving the Baathist army, not stopping the looting, not stopping the tortures at Abu Ghraib - and what more? The press is not at fault for this, nor the Democrats, nor the US citizens opposed to Bush and his war. Once again, George W. Bush has nobody to blame for George W. Bush's problems but himself.

[Barry]

Werner,

I agree that both Murtha and McCain are the genuine article, no matter how misguided Murtha's current stance may be.
As for McCain, while he is clashing with the administration on the issue of how prisoners are treated, he has been and remains a strong supporter of the war and is dead set against talking about withdraw. He understands why we went there and why we have to see it through.

The administration has taken steps to correct some of its earlier mistakes, such as not getting an early enough start on emphasizing the training of Iraqi troops. Instead of harping about what they did wrong at the start of the war and calling them silly names, I choose to take the more productive route of supporting what they're doing right now because I think their current approach is the correct one. When Iraqi troops are able to take care of their own security, American troops will start to be withdrawn. We're working in that direction, as we should be. Setting a timetable would be a mistake.

In all my reading on this and other wars, the thing that has probably become more clear than anything else is that mistakes are always made and unforeseen things happen. War doesn't go by the playbook. Audibles are necessary. And our current leaders (the only ones we have, like it or not) are doing a pretty good job of audibling. Of course, if you want the entire mission to be accomplished tomorrow, then you're not going to be satisfied. This is a long-term project. People are going to have to live with that.

[Werner]

Barry, a thoughtful post - I hardly expected anything less. At least I heard no complaints about the press failing to whitewash the problems.

Just what do you mean by "audibles?" An unfamiliar term to me.

Apart from the rhetoric - yours or mine - the sad fact is we're where we are and have whom we've got in command. And that's what we've got to work with.

Now not even Murtha has asked for any immediate withdrawal - that seems to be a fiction of someone's imagination. And there are currents at work that may very well result in a reduction of forces, whatever we call it, before too much time goes by. And then we'll see whether things get better or worse. In the meanwhile, there are the December 15th elections to get over - with the insurgency causing as much trouble as they can manage in he interim.

Trying to reform a culture of a nature totally foreign to our Western values by unilateral force is a risky business. The most encouraging thing I can see is the big turnout in the first electio - not to be ignored. But neither can we count on these, the constitution, or the coming elections to result in anything similar to what we know about the democracies. But having come to this point, let's hope that somehow this mess will turn into something that is reasonably secure and workable.

Like it or not, that's where we are.