posted
Newsweek made an enormous blunder, probably without significant consideration of the reprecussions of their actions. This is pretty blatantly obvious to anyone and everyone.
Was this mistake without harmful reprecussions to the magazine? Not remotely. Other news organizations have been tearing at their colleague like piranha. There has been public consideration of costly censure, and that consideration has reached the highest levels. If nothing else, the cost in credibility will haunt the magazine for many years to come, much like the CBS story of Bush's commanding officer and Time's darkening of OJ Simpson's mug shot continue to burden their respective institutions. Far more than money, credibility is the unmintable coin of news media. It seems of late those in charge of the news have to be taught the importance of supporting and verifying their sources, above and beyond the urge to jump on a story and "scoop" their peers. This is the lesson of the day.
And that's it.
Card has an obsession with the "liberal" media and academic world that I can only describe as paranoia. Seeing this bias seep into so much of his writing is frustrating and distracting. I have no doubt as to Card posessing a real gift for writing and a fine mind; yet every time these subjects are allowed to come up, there's this incredible sense of "mind off, dogma on." There's a shorthand of presumptions that requires no thinking, no justification, no rationalization. It is inherently right, given, signed, sealed, and delivered.
The "liberal media" that "want[s] to bring down or weaken President Bush and everything he stands for, no matter the cost" is the same "liberal media" that gave us 24-hour a day coverage of Monica Lewinsky and that blue dress. It is lazy, desperate to cover news that will cause a weary public to perk up its head, and far too fearful of being "scooped". It is flawed. It is sensationalistic.
And it is utterly necessary. The First Amendment was not a rushed or unconsidered portion of the document.
If our country is a boat, and a person doesn't "break a hole in the hull of [the] boat during a storm, just because he doesn't like the guy at the tiller and thinks the storm could have been avoided", so too must we by that analogy take responsibility for knowing where and how that boat is steered and raise a fuss when it is in danger of being run aground. Without the media, we remain locked in steerage without so much as a porthole to look through. As a country of, by, and for the people, we solemnly recognize that those who steer us are not descendents of gods, but humans much like us capable of mistakes. We cannot allow ourselves the luxury of assuming Father Knows Best.
Newsweek should have confirmed and cross-checked its sources. The media has a duty to report the truth. Not just the pretty truth, the us-affirming truth, the patriotic truth. The truth.
If the story was true, should it have gone unreported? Truly? Should we be ignorant of what is being done in our name? Should we assume that such news will escape scrutiny simply because it has not been reported by our free press?
What sort of patriotism is it, to allow what you stand for to be perverted and remain ignorant? To, in fact, insist on ignorance as a position?
How can our claims of bringing democracy to the world ring anything but hollow in the face of such a position?
The news media needs a public that will loudly voice its displeasure when that media delivers news that proves false. If that public demands to be coddled, it will get exactly what it deserves.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Umm, the story wasn't true. The media has not been confirming and cross checking its sources since Bush took office. The media does not report the truth, nor does it report the US affirming, patriotic truths. How many articles have you read about all the good things the US has done in Iraq? Schools being built? Sewer projects completed? Iraqi lives saved by US medical nurses and doctors? How many articles have you read about all the bad things the US has done in Iraq? The media focuses almost soley on negative things especially when dealing with the US Armed Forces. It's not liberal bias paranoia when the media thinks "Piss Christ" is art that should be paid for by taxpayers (National Endowment for the Arts), yet the same media rushes out an untrue story about the US abusing the Koran and just how horrible that is. I have seen more defense of Newsweek than truly tearing at collegues like pirahanas. People defend Isikoff as bipartisan because he 'broke' the Lewinsky story. He didn't break the story until Matt Drudge got a hold of it. He sat on it for weeks until Matt Drudge exposed it, then Isikoff went with the story. How is that not bias? Any bad item about Bush is immediately sent to press, reported, distorted, and made to be fact, yet major Clinton scandals went largely unreported. Yes, we need freedom of the press, but the press must have a responsibility too.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: The media has not been confirming and cross checking its sources since Bush took office. The media does not report the truth, nor does it report the US affirming, patriotic truths.
Man, again, it's a good thing you're speaking for me. I'd hate to have given my own opinion on that, because I'd've gotten it all wrong.
posted
Nah. I feel my point is pretty clear. I don't actually have to enumerate the items on which I disagree with you, do I? *grin*
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do include Fox news in this too. Both sides are not doing well in actual fact checking. Kind of like what Obi-Wan said (Please, NO, not a Star Wars reference) "So what I told you was TRUE... from a certain point of view.'
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, probably not, and oddly enough, I consider you one of my hatrack friends I mean that sincerely Tom, we may not see exactly eye to eye on things, but we are probably more similar in things we like and things we do, than we are different
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm so cynical, and this is in no way a statement about you, DarkKnight, but when I read "we're probably more alike than we are different" in most of its versions, I invariably read it as "you're not wrong about everything." *smile*
Posts: 6213 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I acknowledged that the story wasn't true, or at least that it was not properly confirmed by multiple credible sources and should not have been reported as though it were. (Similar stories coming out of Guantanamo bay are still being checked.) But do you really believe all media failures to properly account started with Bush's inaguration? And that this principle of "jumping the gun" is founded on nothing more than a desire to take this particular president down?
I do read and hear some stories about positive work being done in Iraq. I grant I read and hear more stories about Haliburton's questionable bookkeeping, the lack of vehicular and body armor, and the death toll, both civilian and military. Similarly, in the aftermath of the asian tsunami, I heard far more about the death and destruction that followed in the tsunami's wake than about the rebuilding efforts that followed. Should I assume the press wanted the rebuilding efforts to fail?
Similarly, what little I've heard about "Piss Christ" from the media, in as much as it offered any opinion one way or another, echoed your opinion: why the hell does anyone consider this art, let alone think taxpayers should shoulder the bill? I haven't seen so much as a single story that implied this was a great new wave of art.
A media that was truly liberal and cared about nothing more than tearing down the president and the humanitarian efforts in Iraq would footnote every story about building projects with comparisons to the damage done to infrastructure during the invasion, deaths during Hussein's rule against civilian deaths during the invasion and occupation. I haven't seen that.
I repeat: sensationalistic, fearful, and lazy. But important, and not remotely as liberal as some claim.
As far as "we need freedom of the press, but the press must have responsibility, too", I happen to agree. But that responsibility is only to the truth.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's funny how "sensationalistic, fearful, and lazy" Card is and yet no one takes his advice.
And thus the real sensationalistic, fearful, and lazy reports made by Newsweek and the media continues.
Posts: 102 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The media is pretty balaned in many respects, but all American media is pro-U.S., in a way that the B.B.C. is not pro-British.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing is, if anybody who's managed to come out of Gitmo in one piece is to be believed, the story IS true, it's just not confirmed by any "official" source. Which is hardly surprising.
I myself am not convinced that their "retraction", being merely a statement that the story couldn't be confirmed rather than that it was false, wasn't simply an "oh, spit" reaction to the fallout from the story. Which, to be fair, isn't something you would expect from this end of the earth: people don't have bloody riots when you flush a Bible down the toilet, at least not in this part of the world.
But your original question cleaves closer to my own heart. Should "ignorance is bliss" become our national motto when it comes to the ugly things we do in the name of... what... waging war on terror, or drugs, or poverty, or other abstract concepts?
Posts: 196 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That pro-US bias explains Feb 2 Newsweek (Japanese edition) showing a US flag in the garbage. And how their cover article (which didn't run in the US edition), noting the spread of democracy through the world, spun this as a _rejection_ of America on the grounds that these democracies have different constitutions from ours.
My original thought on the Newsweek riots was that their problem was that they lied, but if they hadn't, it would have been justified. But OSC has a point, and I'll take it further: if this conflict between the USA and al-Qaeda gets reframed in the world as USA v. Islam, we will lose. This won't be losing like losing in Indochina, where we get to go home and they get the killing fields. This is the sort of losing where US cities go up in fireballs (and they still get the killing fields). If we lose, it is very bad news.
And Newsweek is doing what it can to make it happen. Instead of admitting to the Islamic world that they have no evidence of Koran-flushing, they told al-Jazeera that they didn't know whether it happened or not. (Both are true, but they chose to spin it in such a way as to suggest that the Islamic world keep suspecting us, despite the lack of evidence.) The administration asked them to report on what really _does_ happen at Gauntanamo; they have thus far refused to cover it. I don't want Newsweek prosecuted, but this is dangerous. The 16 or so that were killed so far is only the beginning.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a tough question, Pelegius. My initial reaction was that Newsweek should have told the truth, even if the truth was "the US military flushed the Koran." I'm still torn between that and a compelling interest in keeping New York from going up in a fireball.
But that's hypothetical. In our world, Newsweek didn't tell the truth about the Koran report, and puts significant anti-American spin on things, which apparently is having the effect of convincing the Islamic world that this is US v. Islam, not US v. al-Qaeda. If this is successful, as OSC points out, we're going to lose. So the choice is instead between lying, spinning, and making a nuclear NYC likely, and not lying, not spinning, and not making a nuclear NYC likely. That choice seems pretty clear.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
err...I must have missed the part where the Newsweek story went from "We've only got one source form this who has since backed off." to "Ok, this was just not true." Could someone provide a source for that.
Also, I got to tell you, saying that it would be Newsweek's responsiblity if there's a terrorist attack on an American city is just...weird. There might be a few - just a few, mind you - people and organizations that might bear a bit more responsibility in that case.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also missed the part where Newsweek went to OK this was just not true. However, I didn't miss the part where Newsweek contradicted their claim.
Here's the claim: "Investigators probing interrogation abuses at the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay have confirmed some infractions alleged in internal FBI e-mails that surfaced late last year. Among the previously unreported cases, sources tell NEWSWEEK: interrogators, in an attempt to rattle suspects, flushed a Qur'an down a toilet..." ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7693014/site/newsweek/ )
They have since admitted that they only had one source, and there was no confirmation. That means that saying "investigators have confirmed" is not true, and they knew it when they printed it.
The last point you have is really interesting. If New York gets nuked, what comfort will it be to apportion blame correctly? The important thing is to prevent it from happening. I don't see that telling Moslems the US hates them and their religion will be effective in doing that. How can we possibly face this gruesome prospect, and consider the important question to be who gets to pass the buck?
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As to terrorist attacks on an American city, is any one else concerned about North Korea? It seems like they are rather rapidly becoming a big threat to the US. Nuclear war is a pretty scary thought.
Posts: 1215 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My perception is that the media focused on Monica Lewinsky within a context that it built: Monica was a victim of her traitorous friend Linda Tripp (and not Bill Clinton), Clinton was being picked on my Ken Starr, that lots of people only consider intercourse as the definition of sex, that everyone lies about sex and their personal lives, that a president's personal life is different from his professional life, etc.
Within this framework, the media could focus on Lewinsky all it wanted and come across as not being Clinton apologists because "See, we are focusing on negative stories about Clinton,"--yet within this framework actually avoid hurting him very much (and in fact created some sympathy for him).
When it came to more serious issues, like rape, stories were witheld during the impeachment happenings because the media didn't want to influence the impeachment happenings--by their own admission. Okay, either report the news, or use discretion when not to--but be consistent. However, if you go the discretion rout, people must rely more on their own values and perspectives with which to make such decisions. Is it paranoia to perceive that a body of people who by their own admission are overwhelmingly in their personal lives more liberal than conservative might just be using their discretion in ways that don't give conservatives the same benefit of the doubt as it does liberals?
Posts: 83 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The last point you have is really interesting. If New York gets nuked, what comfort will it be to apportion blame correctly? The important thing is to prevent it from happening. I don't see that telling Moslems the US hates them and their religion will be effective in doing that. How can we possibly face this gruesome prospect, and consider the important question to be who gets to pass the buck?
That's our only options? Either report and face the dire consequences, or keep quiet about any and all human rights violations our country might be making?
There's got to be a middle ground.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Either report and face the dire consequences, or keep quiet about any and all human rights violations our country might be making?" is not a reasonable paraphrase of "How can we possibly face this gruesome prospect, and consider the important question to be who gets to pass the buck?"
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I realize you may simply think "FAIR" is yet another left-wing organization with their own axe to grind, but their surveys suggest, at least to their own estimation, public media figures tend only slightly liberal on social issues, and contrastingly, slightly conservative on fiscal issues. www.fair.org/index.php?page=2447
To make another comparison: Do you see a significant difference between the media coverage of the claims against Bill Clinton vs. the claims against Clarence Thomas? Did you see any major media coverage at all about Mr. Gingrich's own excapades with interns?
Linda Tripp was a sideshow in the coverage I saw, much like Kato Kaelin in the O.J. Simpson coverage. I didn't see anything that seemed to find fault with a 40 million dollar investigation, at least while said investigation was going on. And, indeed, why would there be? As long as the investigation kept going, there was a story.
quote:Originally posted by Scooter: My perception is that the media focused on Monica Lewinsky within a context that it built: Monica was a victim of her traitorous friend Linda Tripp (and not Bill Clinton), Clinton was being picked on my Ken Starr, that lots of people only consider intercourse as the definition of sex, that everyone lies about sex and their personal lives, that a president's personal life is different from his professional life, etc.
Within this framework, the media could focus on Lewinsky all it wanted and come across as not being Clinton apologists because "See, we are focusing on negative stories about Clinton,"--yet within this framework actually avoid hurting him very much (and in fact created some sympathy for him).
When it came to more serious issues, like rape, stories were witheld during the impeachment happenings because the media didn't want to influence the impeachment happenings--by their own admission. Okay, either report the news, or use discretion when not to--but be consistent. However, if you go the discretion rout, people must rely more on their own values and perspectives with which to make such decisions. Is it paranoia to perceive that a body of people who by their own admission are overwhelmingly in their personal lives more liberal than conservative might just be using their discretion in ways that don't give conservatives the same benefit of the doubt as it does liberals?
The reason we are searching for a middle ground is because we want America to be a better place for all of us to live in: a more honest, open, and accountable place - with a free-flow of information.
Above all of this is JFK's great quote (not Kerry) "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."
Therefore reporters, and every citizen, should be focusing on keeping this country safe and secure, not on the (I'll be generous to Newsweek) abstract ideals of journalistic freedom and forhtrightness.
Without a safe and secure America, all the ideals that we cherish will come crashing down around us.
Posts: 201 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you consider the reports of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib to be irresponsible journalism? I'm not comparing the Newsweek story, I'm just curious to see if you feel that Americans should speak out if we fear that, in the fight against the enemy, we are using some of the enemy's techniques.
Does the ends justify the means?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Do you consider the reports of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib to be irresponsible journalism? I'm not comparing the Newsweek story, I'm just curious to see if you feel that Americans should speak out if we fear that, in the fight against the enemy, we are using some of the enemy's techniques.
Does the ends justify the means?
My more cynical side says that the more thoughtful people will recognize that a strong and free country engages in open debate and self-criticism, and that making such information open is not a sign that a majority of people favor such actions, but quite the opposite. The less thoughtful (here's where the cynicism comes in) will seize upon whatever information allows them, in their own mind, to come to whatever conclusion or justify whatever action they had in mind anyway.
But even if such a cynical asessment is correct, should we necessarily pitch our news to the lowest common denominator? Shouldn't we hope the thoughtful will be the ones who become leaders and raise their fellows above an eye-for-an-eye mentality?
Similarly, if you want to go to the whole, eternal ends-means debate, my more cynical side thinks that question only comes up when the intended ends are either A) incredibly nebulous, or B) not successfully acheived by whatever unspeakable means were meant to achieve them.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't consider reporting on Abu Ghraib, per se, to be irresponsible. (Printing porno pictures from a magazine in the Boston Globe and claiming they were leaked from US military abuses, that was irresponsible. The slanted reporting was irresponsible.) But it needed to come out. But Abu Ghraib was different in several ways.
One, it really happened.
Two, it was a human rights abuse.
Three, it was something the US could investigate, punish, and (I hope) prevent.
Four, it wasn't tailor-made to upset Moslems without giving the US any way to fix the problem.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
One: we don't know if it really happened. We do know that it was really reported in an FBI document, as seen here (towards the end).
Two: without an investigation, we don't know if human rights abuses are happening. I'm not nearly as concerned with the treatment of the Koran as I am with the repeated beatings mentioned in this and other documents. I know of no way to initiate an investigation without bringing details to light, although Newsweek could certainly have handled it better.
Three: these attacks, if true, were committed by American guards. Presumably we would have some way of investigating, punishing, and (I hope) preventing this.
Four: What?
This administration has been incredibly close-mouthed and extremely reluctant to investigate any of these reports, stalling and obstructing and outright ignoring repeated requests for investigations. How, then, should investigations of human rights abuses be requested?
I would rather there be an efficient and dependable method, rather than seeing the press clumsily force the issue. So far, there doesn't seem to be any method the administration respects.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting numbers (media survey). Two observations:
1)these numbers are at least 7 years old and most of the the recent numbers I have heard of as far as for whom media figures have voted for are much more slanted.
2)what does "center" mean? How many media people are willing to admit they lean any direction? Are Liberals more or less likely than Conservatives to hide behind the word "center"--or do they interpret it differently? I don't know the answers to these questions. One could argue that liberal media figures are aware of the common charge of a Liberal slant and thus be likely to hide behind "center"--it is also possible that conservative media figures for really the same reason do the same thing (to help support the charge).
I don't know anything about FAIR and I don't know why you would assume that I would label it a certain way. I think that your comment is pretty revealing about your assumptions (or my assumption that I was stating a reasonable argument without extreme accusations).
Posts: 83 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been involved in a fair number of discussions with those of a conservative bent who felt that it was their right and duty to dismiss out of hand any news or information they felt came from a "liberal" source, whether that source was the Village Voice or the New York Times. It's become a reflex to attempt to defuse such terms from the outset in order to prevent a decent discussion from grinding to a halt just as it's getting started. If you're more open-minded than that, splendid and more power to you. Please understand my "assumption" is a defensive one, and not intended to cast aspersions upon your person.
quote:Originally posted by Scooter: Interesting numbers (media survey). Two observations:
1)these numbers are at least 7 years old and most of the the recent numbers I have heard of as far as for whom media figures have voted for are much more slanted.
2)what does "center" mean? How many media people are willing to admit they lean any direction? Are Liberals more or less likely than Conservatives to hide behind the word "center"--or do they interpret it differently? I don't know the answers to these questions. One could argue that liberal media figures are aware of the common charge of a Liberal slant and thus be likely to hide behind "center"--it is also possible that conservative media figures for really the same reason do the same thing (to help support the charge).
I don't know anything about FAIR and I don't know why you would assume that I would label it a certain way. I think that your comment is pretty revealing about your assumptions (or my assumption that I was stating a reasonable argument without extreme accusations).
posted
I understand and can relate. I appreciate the dialogue.
By the way, I do seem to remember the media reminding us constantly about the millions of dollars spent on the investigation--one could take that at an effort to create the kind of context I was referring to, or as simply an inherently-relevant tidbit of information. Hard to judge intent, and to judge newsworthyness (I shake my head at much of the local nightly news and wonder why someone found it newsworthy). As I said, I have many more unknowns than knowns.
Posts: 83 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I don't actually have to enumerate the items on which I disagree with you, do I? *grin*
