Is anyone watching the Fallujah Coverage?

[Coramoor]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
It worries me that you really believe that stuff.

Believe what....that the media can't be trusted and is only out to get ratings...

It worries me that you are naive enough to trust the media.

[DeltAlum]

I hope you won't mind -- actually, I don't really care -- that I take personal offense to that.

I've worked in radio or TV since 1963 -- a substantial portion of that time directing newscasts. I am not one, but I have known hundreds, perhaps thousands of journalists, and your contention that all that media are simply out for "ratings" or subscribers is absurd. Painting an entire profession with the same brush is unfair and uninformed. It's easier to be a parrott, though -- to say (and maybe actually believe) that everything you hear or read is tainted.

It's a little like saying that everyone in our armed forces is like Lt. William Caley from the Vietnam era or the present men who are allegedly mistreating Iraqi captives as the "nude" photos being shown around the world the same.

Or that all politicians are like the Watergate Burglers or the Republican staffers who allegedly recently stole information from computers of Democrats and shared the information with other Republicans.

Or that all people from West Virginia are inbred hicks with no teeth who can't read or write and have stills in their backyards.

Few people notice the remarkable safety record of the airline industry until there is a serious accident. Nobody notices the solid performance of most journalists until one of them does something wrong or stupid.

There are certainly some exceptions, but the vast majority of journalists I know are hard working professionals who have high ethical standards. People who take to heart what they learn in J School about fairness and balanced coverage. The exceptions are mostly pretty rare in all but the most radical cases.

Next, I think that you should go back an take an American History or Government (Political Science) Course. I have a minor in the latter. As I alluded in an earlier post, one of the reasons that America's founders (we often call them Patriots), left their homes and migrated here was for things like Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Religion. That's why the First Amendment to our Constitution addressed those issues.

When you assert that government should spoon feed information to the media, and thus to the American public, you are saying that those reasons for our forefathers pilgramage, and the freedoms for which we have fought over the past 225 plus years are wrong.

Just like the doctrine of separation of powers in our government in which the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches balance each other so that no one can gain absolute control, and thus total power, so did the founders believe in a press that would sometimes be adversary to government. Investigative journalism is a force that helps keep government and business honest.

If you don't think that's true, take a look at how political parties use higly sophisticated propaganda techniques to try to use media against their opponents.

Out of curiousity, can you give me a documented case where an American journalist knowingly gave information which aided an enemy in battle? There may be one, but I can't think of it.

By the way, did I mention that at least one influential part of media, broadcasting, is regulated by the government itself? How long do you suppose that a broadcast facility would hold its (government granted) license if it were as scandalous as you allege?

Journalism is a business. Profit is a motive. But, in order to maintain that business, media cannot simply run roughshod over anything in its path. The American Public, which is for the most part fairly middle of the road to consertive would not stand for it. There is a huge difference between reporting a scandal in government or military and knowingly giving out information which would jeopardize the lives of other Americans -- military or not.

It is very fashionable to accuse the media of being liberal, or conservative or unfair in many ways. However a vast majority of Americans claim that most of their news comes from electronic media. What's wrong with that picture? People are either too dumb or too lazy to read papers or magazines. That's a tragedy because what really needs to happen is that we all should get our news from many sources -- and make up our mind about what is real and what isn't.

Blaming media for all of our ills is a total copout. Media is reactive to society and government. It doesn't set social standards and mores', it reflects them. It can strengthen them, but doesn't generally introduce them.

Finally, I would simply reiterate that one of the things that scares a dictator and/or his regime the most is a free and open press. The truth is something they simply can't deal with. Ask someone who has lived in a dictorship how important an open media is to them. Or, better yet, find someone who has grown up with a free press and then had to live with restrictions.

[AlphaSigOU]

Well said, DA!

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by AlphaSigOU
Well said, DA!

Thanks,

People don't seem to remember that, had it not been for a Free Press, Edward R. Morrow would have never taken on and exposed Sen. Joseph McCarthy, Woodward and Bernstein et. al could never have told us about Watergate and Walter Cronkite wouldn't have taken a hard look at the Vietnam Conflict. Enron might still be cheating people. We wouldn't know the name Lewinski.

Anyone really think those stories weren't worth coverage? Anyone think that the respective administrations in those times would have told us the truth about them?

Just to borrow an item out of this weeks' news. If we were to only hear what the government wants us to, we would have believed that what we heard from the deck of an aircraft carrier a year ago was true -- that "Major Combat" is over in Iraq. Tell that to the hundred plus families who lost sons and daughters during the month of April.

Truth is that members of the government are the best "Spin Doctors" in the world.

That's why the media has to be adversarial.

Does it go too far sometimes. Yes. Are some mistakes made? Yes. Are they honest ones. Usually.

It's easy (too easy) to blame all of our ills on the media. But it most often goes back to, "If there's smoke, there's fire." Generally, if there isn't something to report on, it won't get reported.

Better get off this soapbox (an early form of editorial). My knees are getting tired.

***BTW A-Sig, had a great weekend in Norman. Took Mrs. DA down to see the Memorial (I'd been there once before). She was very moved.

[swissmiss04]

If you're going to be so snotty, at least quote Jefferson correctly, dear.

"The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them, inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors. He who reads nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false." --Thomas Jefferson to John Norvell, 1807

However, Jefferson also said this:
"The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787.

[Coramoor]

Deltalum,

If I implied that I trust the gov't, that was not my intention. I think the gov't is entirely too large and does lie-it's gov't nature to try and spin the truth.

What I am saying is that I do not trust the media in dealings with the military. I think there is a strong biases against the military in most instances and I know from second hand experiences that the vast majority of what is reported in Iraq right now is not even close to the truth.

Does it go too far sometimes. Yes. Are some mistakes made? Yes. Are they honest ones. Usually.

For every honest reporter looking for social justice there are probably about ten reporters that only want to hand in the next 'big' story to get their name out. Whether their accusations are true or not, or whether they will do a great deal of harm to those involved doesn't matter a wit to those types of reporters.

If you are going to call me out, honey, you had better know the time frame of when those quotes were used.

The second quote was taken before Jefferson was President. The first quote was taken after he held that position. If you know enough to quote him, then you should probably know that those quotes are used to show the change of philosophy in dealings with the media before and after holding the highest office in the land.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by Coramoor
What I am saying is that I do not trust the media in dealings with the military. I think there is a strong biases against the military in most instances and I know from second hand experiences that the vast majority of what is reported in Iraq right now is not even close to the truth.

Why do you suppose that is? The military itself is controlling the information flow to the media almost entirely in this conflict.

You can take your second hand information if you like. I've been on both sides of the table on this one. So personally, I'll just go with my experience.

By the way, did you notice that President Bush went out of his way to name and honor the two reporters who died in Iraq just yesterday, and compliment the media? Actually, if he's happy with the reporting, that worries me a little.

For every honest reporter looking for social justice there are probably about ten reporters that only want to hand in the next 'big' story to get their name out. Whether their accusations are true or not, or whether they will do a great deal of harm to those involved doesn't matter a wit to those types of reporters.

Clearly you have made up your mind due to your second hand information. You're wrong. There are damned few of the kind of reporter you're describing. Naturally, everyone is looking for good stories, but 99.999% will go out of his/her way to get responses from all sides of the issue. If one side or the other doesn't choose to comment or chooses to tell less than the truth and gets caught, it's their fault.

Have you ever met a reporter face to face?

By the way, I hope you weren't calling me Honey -- I didn't question your quotes.


ETA Just as I signed off GC last time, I ran across this Associated Press story on the AOL home page. Doesn't seem anti-military to me.

SCIO, N.Y. (May 1) - Mourners Saturday filled one of Cpl. Jason Dunham's favorite places - his high school gym - for the funeral of the Marine, who died in Iraq after using his own body to shield his men from an attacker's grenade.

The gym, packed with more than 1,500 people, is the largest gathering space in the upstate New York town of Scio, where Dunham grew up. His casket rested beneath a basketball hoop.

Dunham, 22, died just over a week ago from wounds he sustained April 14 in Iraq.

A report from the Marine Corps said Dunham was commanding a check point near Karbala when a man got out of a car and tried to flee. Dunham tackled the man, who then pulled a pin from a hand grenade. Dunham dove onto the grenade before it exploded, the Marines reported. Two other Marines were injured.

Dunham, with K Company, 3rd Battalion, 7th Marines, was remembered in Iraq on Thursday at a service attended by more than 500 Marines, sailors and soldiers, the Marines reported.

Dunham "never judged anyone and he never judged the people over there," friend Justin Lambert said at Saturday's funeral. "He was just doing his job. He's going to be missed."

As a long procession of cars and walkers accompanied the casket to the nearby cemetery, Scio residents sat on their porches and children lined the sidewalk. An American flag was draped above the highway.

Dunham's parents, carrying the tri-folded flag that had draped their eldest son's coffin, and their three younger children were escorted by the Marines to an awaiting car.

"The Marine Corps have really showed us how much this means to them," said Cpl. Dunham's father, Dan. "They've been very good to us."

[Coramoor]

One of my brother's that just got back from Iraq was telling us how the media operate over there.

Everything you see is almost live coverage. Soldiers will be in their barracks watching the news, look out their window and see what is being reported on. The catch is, the media is just making shit up and reporting it like it's the truth.

Naturally, everyone is looking for good stories, but 99.999% will go out of his/her way to get responses from all sides of the issue. If one side or the other doesn't choose to comment or chooses to tell less than the truth and gets caught, it's their fault.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree b/c I think that's bs. I wasn't calling you honey. That was in response to a condescending post made towards me by swiss.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by Coramoor
I guess we will have to agree to disagree b/c I think that's bs.

It's always nice to be called a bullshitter by someone with no personal, first hand knowledge of a situation. So, OK, let's disagree.

But do me a favor.

Print this thread -- or commit it's salient points to memory -- then in about twenty years, when a definitive history of this conflict and it's coverage is written, go back and see where the BS really starts.

Like the Vietnam Five O'Clock Follies, I'm pretty sure you're going to find out that the PIO's are the biggest source of mis-information. Or at least, only telling part of the story.

As for your returning brothers, thank goodness that they're back safe, but unless they are at least field grade officers on a command staff, they probably know as little or less about the "Big Picture" than the reporters. I mean absolutely no disrespect for them -- but that's the way the Armed Forces operate. The grunts and company grade guys are just told to do it -- not why.

It ain't right, but it's the way things have been for years.

The truth is, that I would love to be wrong. But if history is any judge, I won't be.

Edited to fix gramatical error.

[DeltAlum]

60 Minutes aparantely had this story ready to go two weeks ago, but, at the request of the Military, agreed to delay it's broadcast due to fighting and tensions in the area.

When Arab TV aired the story, and the pictures showed up in newspapers, etc., the US Military, at that point, agreed to comment.

http://www.albasrah.net/images/iraqi-pow/iraqi-pow

So much for the idea of always wanting to "get the next big story" and air it no matter what the potential outcome for our troops.

The Denver TV station where I was employed for many years (which is owned by CBS -- although NBC when I was there) ran a sidebar to the network story last night. Our Medical Specialist, Dr. Dave Hnida, is a Reserve Major and is in Iraq as an Army surgeon and had a camera crew along when he went to one of our POW camps and treated some Iraqi's. The photographer was interviewed and said that they saw no mistreatment. All Iraqi's shown had their faces "fuzzed" out so they would not be humiliated as per the Geneva Convention. They also showed Dr. Hnida treating his patients/prisoners with great respect.

If reporters are making stuff up, why wouldn't my former collegues simply support the (confirmed by our military) charges made on the 60 Minutes broadcast.

Because they reported WHAT THEY SAW in fairness.

[RACooper]

Originally posted by Coramoor
One of my brother's that just got back from Iraq was telling us how the media operate over there.

Everything you see is almost live coverage. Soldiers will be in their barracks watching the news, look out their window and see what is being reported on. The catch is, the media is just making shit up and reporting it like it's the truth.

Funny... most of the guys that I know say they rely on the news to find out what is going on outside their area. As for everything being almost live coverage... hardly, take a big network like CNN, yes the do live spots with those grainy images, but then they replay them over and over (I have insomnia so I see a lot of repeats), or at least the exciting clips..... as for the media make most of the stuff up.. sorry but that smacks of BS to me... instead they are reporting on what they know or think they know of the situation, and while that doesn't always jive with the soldier's view, guess what, that's because the troops know stuff they don't.

In fact the only complaints that I have gotten was the lack of "positive" coverage - you know when things go right or people do good; but unfortunately bad news is good news in the reporting business.... the other was the lack of coverage of the other 'coalition' troops and their actions, because every little bit of info on the ground is helpful, and maybe they are doing something on a local level that can be used by others.

[DeltAlum]

See two examples of "good news" above reported over the past two days.

As for coverage of the "Coalition Partners," I'd say guilty on that one. It's because the American public is more interested in our piece of the puzzle. I have seen some coverage of the Brits, but not much of others except when they have taken casualties.

What is interesting to me is that BBC World News (TV) seems to favor coverage of American troops as well. Probably because the numbers are so overwhelmingly weighted with US Military.

[DeltAlum]

Following up on the Media vs. Military aspects. ( ) in the quote are mine.

"In February, (Maj. Gen.) Taguba (a military expert on prisons who had objected to the transfer of authority for the prisons from the MPs to Military Intelligence) submitted a scathing report on widespread and shocking abuses in the prisons that some officials believe stemmed in part from that change of policy. The report said certain military-intelligence officers and civilian contractors were directly or indirectly responsible for the mistreatment.

Extensive details of inmate abuse in U.S.-run military prisons in Iraq were first reported by The Associated Press as early as last October, but the U.S. military command in Baghdad would not then answer questions on the subject.

Similarly, says The New Yorker, the International Committee of the Red Cross and human rights groups had "little success" with repeated complaints to U.S. commanders about the treatment of Iraqi prisoners.

Photos of physical abuse and sexual humiliation of Iraqi detainees by military police were obtained by U.S. officials in February, leading to Taguba's report. The photos were made public only last week, by the magazine and CBS's "60 Minutes II."

(On the CBS Evening News one day last week, Dan Rather, explained the reason for CBS delaying the story on 60 Minutes. The story was ready two weeks before but Gen. Meyers (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, I think) called and asked that the story be delayed because of the climate in Iraq -- you will recall that was during the bloodiest month since the war itself. CBS agreed for that reason. The following week, Meyers called again (very respectfully, according to Rather) and asked again for a delay. CBS again granted the military request for the same reason. Finally, after some pictures were released in the print media, CBS went to the Pentagon who finally agreed to set up interviews and logistics for the network to talk to officers in Iraq involved with the story.)

[DeltAlum]

Interesting...

Wolfowitz Offers Apology to Journalists Covering Iraq
By THOM SHANKER
New York Times

WASHINGTON - Paul D. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, issued an unusual apology on Thursday addressed "to journalists covering Iraq," in which he expressed "deep regret" for saying correspondents in Baghdad were afraid to travel and, therefore, published rumors.

"I know that many journalists continue to go out each day, in the most dangerous circumstances, to bring us coverage of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan," Mr. Wolfowitz wrote in the letter of apology, dated Thursday. "Since the beginning of hostilities in Iraq, 34 journalists have given their lives; many others have been injured while bringing us that story."

Mr. Wolfowitz expressed "sincerest thanks" to correspondents who report on these issues, and "admiration for their courage."

"But, most of all, I want to extend an apology," Mr. Wolfowitz wrote.

During a House Armed Services Committee hearing on Tuesday, Mr. Wolfowitz criticized what he described as a partial picture presented to America and the world on the mission to rebuild, stabilize and install new political institutions in Iraq, and he cast blame on the news media.

"Frankly, part of our problem is a lot of the press are afraid to travel very much, so they sit in Baghdad and they publish rumors," Mr. Wolfowitz said in his House testimony. "And rumors are plentiful."

In his letter, Mr. Wolfowitz retracted that part of his testimony, writing:

"Unfortunately, in meaning to convey my frustration about the erroneous coverage of one particular news story, the statement I made came out much differently than I intended. And while I know reporters understand better than most that sometimes the best of intentions and the most elaborate of preparations can't prevent error, that doesn't for a moment change the seriousness of my mistake or the deep regret I feel that I did not instantly correct the record."

After his testimony, Mr. Wolfowitz's comments were rejected by reporters who have covered Iraq, and he was the subject of critical media commentary, including that from Aaron Brown, a CNN anchor, and Maureen Dowd, a columnist for The New York Times.

[IowaStatePhiPsi]

Originally posted by Rudey
They need to just level every Fallujah and Najaf and then ask if people are willing to talk and negotiate.

-Rudey

Or we could have never started this illegal war in the first place and then people wouldnt have to defend their homes and families from the occupying enemy.