|
|
June 10, 2005
"When I’m Reporting, I am a Citizen of the World.”That's a quote from CNN's Bob Franken. A tour through his press think shows why I ask the Big Journalism Deans: if schools like yours are supposed to spread the gospel, how do they know they have the religion right?National Review Online has a new media blog, and the editors are asking readers to help name it. My suggestion was Right Justified. I doubt they will use it. They’ve assigned a young reporter to the blog, Stephen Spruiell, 25. He has a Journalism degree, a Masters in Public Affairs from the LBJ School at the University of Texas, and a bit of Washington experience. Plus, he’s written pieces for the National Review. I predict he is going to do well if he stays with the media blog and develops it. This post explains his approach: “More than just looking out for liberal bias,” he says. Bravo. That would be an intellectual advance. Most who are sold on one or another bias charge will duck the question (and some of you will duck it too) but here it is, anyway— a hard problem in press criticism. You’ve told me how the press is biased, and you’ve also told me that a completely unbiased press is not possible in this world. In your view, what sort of bias should the American press have, given where it finds itself today? This is not answerable in the religion of the mainstream newsroom. If Stephen Spruiell wants to go beyond looking for liberal bias he might take a crack at it. His corner of National Review Online debuted Tuesday. On Wednesday he wrote a clever item about an odd passage in Alan Feuer’s book, Over There: From the Bronx to Baghdad, published May 24. Feuer is a New York Times reporter who was lifted out of the Bronx bureau and sent to Iraq at the start of the U.S. invasion. The book is “Two Months in the Life of a Reluctant Reporter,” and portions of it are satirical about being part of the press pack. The Feuer book, which I have not read yet, has gotten publicity for instances of literary license (see Regret the Error.) The book has a narrator. The narrator’s name is not Alan Feuer, but T.R., which stands for This Reporter. The book is voiced in the third person. “T.R” did this. “He” did that. Feuer is said to have been inspired by Norman Mailer, who was said to have been inspired by The Education of Henry Adams (1918). When Mailer did it his narrator was called “Norman Mailer,” or just “Mailer.” Feuer invents a new character T.R., which adds an additional layer of indefiniteness, and raises the question of what else might be invented. Matters aren’t helped when Feuer says he has written a “book of recollected memory, not recorded fact.” Skies darken for the author when New York Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis, in response to questions from a New York Observer reporter, says that “T.R.” is an unreliable narrator. She also says he was a reliable narrator back when he was reporting as Alan Feuer for the New York Times. “In the book itself, Feuer acknowledges that he has taken liberties with his reminiscences,” Mathis wrote in an e-mail response to the Observer. “We very much believe that is the case.” If I were Alan Feuer’s agent, I would be asking myself: how did we misplay this? (Book agent with an opinion? E-mail me.) Because if Catherine Mathis is calling you unreliable and you work for the New York Times, you miscalculated somewhere. One of those “reminiscences” she talked about interested National Review’s new media blogger, as it interests me. Here’s the way Feuer, reluctant reporter, described a disagreement with CNN’s veteran correspondent, Bob Franken: His quarrel with Franken had begun the very moment Franken had expressed his horror that Fox News anchors wore American flag lapel pins on the air. Which, if it happened that way, is quite the exchange. Thinking the story could be unreliable, Spruiell calls Bob Franken and asks him: did this happen? Franken doesn’t know he’s in Alan Feuer’s book. Franken says the story is not wholly accurate, but mostly. He says he didn’t say that being a patriot excludes being a journalist, or vice versa. Franken said, “What I said and what I meant is you can be a patriot and a journalist. My point was and is that we exhibit our patriotism by being journalists — that is, skeptics… What I said was, ‘When I’m reporting, I am a citizen of the world.’” I found this little tour through Franken’s press think mildly fascinating (especially the “citizen of the world” part) and also timely for things I am trying to discern at PressThink. In my last post on Watergate as “newsroom religion,” I described part of it: In the daily religion of the news tribe, ordinary believers do not call themselves believers. (In fact, “true believer” is a casting out term in journalism, an insult.) The Skeptics. That’s who journalists say they are. Of course, they know they believe things in common with their fellow skeptics on the press bus. It’s important to keep this complication in mind: Not that journalists are so skeptical as a rule, but that they will try to stand in relation to you as The Skeptic does. Bob Franken is saying, “I stand in relation to the U.S. military as skeptic does to unproven claim.” Attempts to question him about the exclusivity of this stance, other possible stances, or situations where “skeptic” doesn’t apply will raise fundamental problems of belief and professional identity that are, in fact, untreatable within newsroom religion or CNN’s professional code. Thus, a perfectly valid line of inquiry, “how does a citizen-of-the-world philosophy interpret the case of Danny Pearl?” (along with “You are American, Bob”) brings out in Franken a mild form of hysteria: “I think your employers at the New York Times would be horrified, horrified! to hear you say a thing like that.” By unanswerable within the religion I mean: there is no “What J-School professors taught me…” reply. No safe, standard or given answer within the professional code. Journalists learn instinctively to steer away from matters the religion cannot handle. Spruiell had read my post: Franken seems like a good journalist of the old school — a tradition that lives according to certain dogmatic principles, which PressThink’s Jay Rosen explored over the weekend in a piece about Watergate and journalism education. Rosen explained that such principles (such as constantly placing oneself in opposition to the government, seeing ones role as journalist as “carrying the mantle of the downtrodden,” etc.) are held to be “non-political” beliefs. Not “dogmatic” principles so much as ideas unconsciously, uncritically or superficially held. The preferred Watergate story I wrote about this week is an example of such an idea. “Afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted” is another. “We’re news, blogs are op-ed” another.
An embedded reporter is in a severe state of a dependency. You cannot take the language of an independent press into that state and expect it to work. (But if that’s all the religion has, you might commit that error…) My problem is not the cultural right’s problem with Franken and colleagues, also one of Spruiell’s complaints. He says that a “fundamental distrust of the military” has taken hold within the press. I doubt this. People in National Review’s orbit should start distinguishing between mistrust of the Bush forces by the press, and when that may be in evidence, vs. mistrust of the (career) military. Here’s a Trudy Rubin piece that will help. If you really had a “fundamental distrust” of the American miliary, would you put your life in its hands by becoming embedded? I recall Franken’s reporting during the initial invasion, and he seemed to me in fundamental awe of the United States military. One of Stephen Spruiell’s readers agrees. “When Franken was embedded with lead cavalry units during the initial Iraq invasion he was American and pro-American in spite of himself,” said E-mailer to NRO, Russ McSwain. What alarms me is how superficial “we’re the skeptics” is as self-understanding; and how thinly reasoned the religion can be. I believe it is trivial to call yourself a citizen of the world when you know about Danny Pearl, and what would happen to you if taken captive in Iraq. It can only be a pose, because on assignment that idea doesn’t get you out of Dulles. Franken’s qualifier, “When I’m reporting…” doesn’t help. Pearl was taken hostage when he was reporting, and not because anyone thought him citizen of the world. (Jew, American, reporter in that order.) If Franken believed what he said to Spruiell—being a skeptical journalist is a patriotic thing to do—then why would he need any “citizen of the world” category at all, even temporarily? Just be patriotic. The answer has to do with what I said earlier: Journalists over years of experience learn to steer away from what their religion cannot handle. Franken’s position is (in my paraphrase): When I am out there reporting, America is not my country because I have to be as skeptical of the U.S. position as any other. I have to doubt the claims of the U.S. military as I would doubt the claims of the insurgents. Therefore I report as a citizen of the world. But his religion, which tells him to disclaim all attachments, cannot compute Alan Feuer’s view, which I would call semi-attached. I paraphrase it, as it is close to my own: When you’re reporting you’re an American and you’re never not an American, which does not give you license to be credulous of state authority or pro-government in your report. It means you are part of the political community. You only distort things or lose touch if you pretend otherwise. Now here’s how Franken puts Feuer’s position, according to Spruiell’s notes: “My problem with ‘T.R.’ is that he comes from the school that you are supposed to accept as a premise what the military and government tell you. I concluded a long time ago that you are as skeptical of what they say as anybody who is advocating a point of view.” Right there— did you catch it? Franken puts his colleague T.R. in the (profane) true believer’s position (“accept as a premise…” ), thus taking the skeptic’s role (holy) for himself. The religion also says to approach all questions of attachment (you’re never not an American) as issues of de-tachment (“you are as skeptical of what they say as anybody.”) Fluency in the faith returns when you do it that way. Similarly, if someone presses any particularistic ID upon you (“You are American, Bob”) you immediately deny it, for purposes of your reporting, and revert upward to the more “general” category (“citizen of the world.”) Anytime you are accused of taking the view from somewhere, your faith requires you to say no, not true. You then re-assert the view from nowhere, the correspondent’s lonely burden. And while all this is familiar, the unfamiliar thing is that rival belief systems are today out there bidding for journalists. Take 25 year-old Stephen Spruiell: blogger, reporter, critic, and, if he plays his hand well, future asset and traffic generator to the National Review site. Why isn’t he in the J-pipeline and headed for the St. Louis Post Dispatch or Chicago Tribune? Or take this guy, Ron Brynaert, a tenacious (lefty, stand alone) investigator with an instinct for where information and proof and the jugular are. He’s a natural: Why isn’t he on someone’s I-team? One answer is: they don’t find room for themselves in the religion. Rival belief systems won them away. Maybe they find Big Journalism an unreliable narrator. Maybe they don’t buy what recent J-school grad Daniel Kriess (himself on his way to a PhD program) called, “the crusading oxymoron of non-political populism.” And that’s why I keep asking the Big Journalism Deans: if schools like yours are supposed to spread the gospel, how do they know they have the religion right? After Matter: Notes, reactions & links… Mullahs: This is a Hoder Watch. So watch it. If anyone fits the category “citizen of the world,” it might be Hossein Derakhshan, also known as Hoder. He’s the free-thinking Iranian writer and blogger (also a resident of Toronto, New York, the BBC and cyberspace) who decided to take a chance and return this week to Iran in the run-up to the elections there. Hoder, a leading voice amid the explosion of political blogs in Iran, will no doubt be watched by the regime and could face arrest or harrassment. See his post: Going home, finally. He’s asking for support, which means writing about his trip as a way of warning the regime that we’re watching, as well as donations if you are so inclined. You now understand the reason for: Mullahs: This is a Hoder Watch. So watch it UPDATE, Sunday am: Hoder e-mails: “Thank you so much Jay. I’m really honoured. I’m now in Tehran in my parents home. Everything is ok. But hoder.com is indeed filtered!” At NRO, Stephen Spruiell gives an answer to my question: what sort of bias should the American press have, given where it finds itself today? See: A Journalism of Transparency. (June 13) In comments, dialing in is Harry Shearer, comedian, radio host, and press blogger for the Huffington Post: You quote a National Review writer thusly: “Readers expect a certain amount of American-ness in their reporters. They expect that since the source of these reporters’ liberties is the U.S. Constitution, then perhaps they owe the U.S. a tiny bit of loyalty.” Good questions. See Brian O’Connell’s reply. First to comment on this post was Oliver Willis: “Why should Spruiell bother going into journalism when he can sit back and draw a nice paycheck from the conservative apparatus for simply echoing the ‘liberal bias’ charge with his fellow right-wingers?” I asked Willis: In your view, what sort of bias should the American press have, given where it finds itself? His reply: The media should be analyzing claims and researching them against the factual data. Plain and simple, but even this simple function is not done by the modern media, preferring instead to throw its hands in the air and make the claim that “it’s all the same” and simply allow those with the loudest megaphone to set the terms of the debate. Right now, the right’s megaphone is loudest which is why I’ve been trying to get my side to get equally loud…. Willis at his blog (Beat the Press) says he now agrees with the Bush White House: the press is just a special interest: “…it should now be clear to progressives that the media is most definitely a special interest group that you need to slap around in order to get democracy accomplished.” Steve Lovelady, managing editor of CJR Daily, in comments: I don’t think this is real tricky. Right. This I would call the “soft” anti-intellectualism of newsroom religion, the same sort of attitude that calls a think piece a “thumbsucker.” It’s more of a pose struck than a serious position, however. “Franken is claiming to be a citizen of the world, a citizen of everywhere. Instead, he is a citizen of nowhere.” Ernest Miller responds to this post at Corante. He concludes: “Wouldn’t it better and more honest to say, ‘When I’m reporting, I am fulfilling my duties as a citizen of the United States’?” Mark Anderson also has a response at his Poor Richard’s Almanac: American news media is unquestionably one of the most parochial, narrow-minded news media systems on earth (They certainly fall short of Britain, France, Germany, and Japan in range of widely disseminated opinion). The idea that the most serious problem facing it is detachment from the US boggles the mind. The most serious problem? I don’t know where Anderson got that. Jeff Jarvis responds to this post: At the Temple. The problem with this objectivity doctrine is that reporters and editors didn’t just make themselves adherants of a religion, they made themselves monks, even gods: higher beings who do not suffer from the human foibles of opinions and viewpoints and who think having open conversations with those who do is below them. Read journalism professor Andrew Cline’s confession: I haven’t been teaching the religion. In short, the press used to want us to succeed, saw themselves as part of it, and it showed. Even when you read the great Ernie Pyle’s work, while it was often skeptical, you had no doubt for an instant that Pyle considered himself an American first and foremost. Esmay points to Arthur Chrenkoff, “a Polish-born Australian” who is doing “the job our own press should be doing every day,” by which he means news about progress and signs of life in Afghanistan and Iraq. On that theme see also my post from May, 2004: The News From Iraq is Not Too Negative. But it is Too Narrow. Previous PressThink posts on the religion of the newsroom:
Posted by Jay Rosen at June 10, 2005 5:32 PM
Comments
Why should Spruiell bother going into journalism when he can sit back and draw a nice paycheck from the conservative apparatus for simply echoing the "liberal bias" charge with his fellow right-wingers? Well, Oliver: maybe he won't be echoing, even though he could. He says he's aware of the problem. That's a step. Oliver, help us out: In your view, what sort of bias should the American press have, given where it finds itself? If Mr. Franken's standard of being a citizen of the world or a "global journalist" applies, then why doesn't CNN/Franken give the same attention to abuses committed by the insurgents that they do to those committed by US troops? For example: we've had a number of suicide bombers where the insurgents have targeted funerals or restaurants. Those attacks receive one day's attention and then we move on to other stories. But if US actions led to a bombing of a funeral or a restaurant, it would be a headline story for a week or more. And if that destruction had been deliberate, it would be a sensation for weeks on end. Proponents who say on the one hand that they are world citizens cannot say on the other that the US "must be held to a higher standard" than the insurgents. Or that greater attention must be given to transgressions by the US as opposed to enemies of the US. But they do. All the time. SMG Posted by: SteveMG at June 10, 2005 8:20 PM | Permalink Jay, I think its about the distinction between "trust, but verify" and "guilty until proven innocent". There are different flavors of skepticism, with some more congruent with uniquely American traditions than others. Unique looking toward the past, but not necessarily the future. There is some hope that a future journalist could truly be both a "citizen of the world" and also faithful to the uniquely American traditions that contribute to the well-being of that world, but we're not quite there yet. Posted by: Bezuhov at June 10, 2005 8:21 PM | Permalink Tough questions. My complaint with reporting about the military was (and is) that reporters don't understand military details and usually don't bother to find out. Take a recent example: the recent release of some more of JohnKerry's records. Some reporters are trumpeting that he received accolades from his commanders, when the truth is that the phrases cited are stock standard phrases from the officer fitness reports that reportin.g seniors use all the time. Any military officer would recognize that these phrases do not indicate that the respective commanders necessarily thought more highly of Kerry than of their other officers. Thus, a lack of understanding is leading some reporters to draw wholly erroneous conclusions. And so it goes. What is so wrong about reporting the facts and not one's interpretation of them? Especially when the interpreting is done by someone who lacks a basic understanding about the subject area? Posted by: Rex at June 10, 2005 8:37 PM | Permalink Jay: The media should be analyzing claims and researching them against the factual data. Plain and simple, but even this simple function is not done by the modern media, preferring instead to throw its hands in the air and make the claim that "it's all the same" and simply allow those with the loudest megaphone to set the terms of the debate. Right now, the right's megaphone is loudest which is why I've been trying to get my side to get equally loud. Take for instance the recent release of John Kerry's military records. They echo exactly the information he said they would contain but the right says "no" and the media - instead of saying "yes, actually, they do" - follows along with the right wing script. Frankly, we can do all the hoping and pining for the long lost responsible media but it isn't ever coming back. The press is useless and has to be played. "'We exhibit our patriotism by being journalists — that is, skeptics.' (Franken.) Makes sense." No, it doesn't make sense. "Being a journalist" should mean taking the role of relaying facts to someone not on the scene and therefore not in the position to observe those facts personally, i.e. being a "reporter" in the literal sense of the word. Being a skeptic should be a tool, one of many, to achieve that end, but it should never be the end in itself. I think that's where many journalists go wrong. They get so enamored with the fun of being professional skeptics and analysts they forget their job is actually to report facts. That's why I think the embedding process was so critical. There absolutely had to be someone on the ground observing firsthand what was happening. The job of an embedded reporter was not to analyze the entire war from their position with the lead elements of this or that division (despite the fact that some seemed to think it was). Their job was to literally gather the facts and report what they saw so the raw material would exist to do a meaningful analysis later. Without that firsthand knowledge, we would all have been in the dark and analysis would have been pointless. "'Wearing an American flag while on the air leaves the impression that we are believing the U.S. government and not believing those who challenge the U.S. government.' (Bob Franken.) Weird, pre-emptive statement." Yes, very weird. The American flag didn't come into being in 2001 when the Bush administration came into power. Administrations come and go, the flag is eternal. It was and is, by any reasonable standard, a symbol of the country as a whole and the people who live here. If it stands for anything beyond that you might say it stands for our Constitution and system of government. It saddens me to think that someone would be embarrassed to show allegiance to either one of those, or to the people they are purportedly serving in their role as reporters. Posted by: kcom Another way of reading Franken is this: "When I'm reporting I want my true identity to be hidden." As TR may or may not have pointed out at the time, Bob can't change that he's American, so his "citizen of the world" comment is merely an act of camoflauge, not a change in identity--that he is fooling himself most of all (or only himself) with this disguise only make it more interesting. I guess this dovetails with Jay's point--what else are you hiding by not owning up to it, or with the false mask of impartiality? A lifetime voting record for Democrats? I mean, I'm not saying there's such a thing as "liberal bias," (tho of course there is): that's just an example. I guess he could also be hiding that he doesn't vote at all, or that he follows the teachings of an obscure cult. Just what are the politica thought patters inside his head through which all this supposed pure information flows and is framed on its way toward his mouth and then our ears? Posted by: Lee Kane at June 10, 2005 9:22 PM | Permalink Here’s what I see: bias in American media does not run strictly Left and Right; media bias is either pro-establishment or anti-establishment, regardless of who sleeps in the White House. I prefer an anti-establishment bias. Posted by: Ryan Sholin at June 10, 2005 9:22 PM | Permalink PS. What stuns me about Franken's comment and about what Jay is revealing about the mindset of "traditional" journalists is their (the comment and the mindset's) really stunning lack of intellectual sophistication and the lack of self-knowledge thus revealed. You realize these guys are probably not at the intellectual level required to write, say, a decent literary novel--perhaps even to understand one. Yet they are the eyes and voice of the country. And I say this as one who just made a post (above) rife with typos and possibly one or two grammatical mistakes. Posted by: Lee Kane at June 10, 2005 9:29 PM | Permalink Taken at face value being a "citizen of the world" is a perfectly reasonable approach to journalism. The problem I have is the uneven application of the skeptics approach: We are expected to completely accept the accusations prisoner abuse at Gitmo from an al Queda member but scoff at US military denials. A true "citizen of the world" would put as much skepticism into the accusations of an al Queda operative as with the US Govt. Posted by: Seismic at June 10, 2005 9:39 PM | Permalink Jay, I think the key to understanding Franken’s reaction to wearing an American flag is to reverse the relationship you wondered about. You said you don’t think of the flag as a symbol of the US Government, and imply Franken must in order to explain his, as you put it so well, weird, pre-emptive statement. Actually, I think it’s quite possible for Franken to think of the flag as a symbol of the country, and the culture, as a whole, and still recoil in horror at Brit Hume wearing it on his lapel while reporting. It’s possible Franken stretches the umbrella of skepticism about the country to include skepticism about the government, not the other way around. Many, many reporters seem to have taken the “be skeptical” directive and applied it, in excess, to everything traditional about our culture. The way we eat, the cars we drive, the things we do for leisure, the way we organize our economy, church-going, the criminal justice system, etc. Now, clearly not every tradition we have is an unvarnished good, but the skepticism doesn’t, as far as I can read it, allow for any good at all. The Boy Scouts are a horrid, chruchish bunch of gay-bashers, not an outfit that tries to teach young boys to be decent men. Cars are dangerous sources of pollution and societal rage, not things that allow ordinary people freedom of movement to a somewhat miraculous degree. A market-based economy produces oppression and inequality, not jobs and prosperity. You can, I’m sure, add to the list. I find the people who equate journalism with skepticism are often better described as hyper-critics than mere skeptics. Skepticism is, like so many things, good in moderation and terrible in excess. The press has taken it to excess these days. Franken perhaps wonders, how you can admire American society (by wearing a flag) while being a true journalist (that is, an unrelenting critic of everything about it)? I think this view, that journalists must be skeptical of all things American, goes much farther than mere dislike of Bush et al in explaining the weird inability shown by so many media outlets lately to place relatively minor things like a dog leash on a prisoner in context with gross atrocities like Daniel Pearl’s murder. Or hijacking airplanes to crash them into buildings. Or any of a number of other macabre things our enemies have done. Of course, it is necessary for the Skeptical Journalist to place himself (and his profession, and the foundations upon which it’s build – such as the 1st Amendment) outside of the system he is critiquing. One of the things I admire about your site is you make an effort to keep Journalism within the system it observes. Posted by: John Hawkins at June 10, 2005 10:25 PM | Permalink One other problem with the "citizen of the world" journalism - your viewers/readers for the most part consider themselves "citizens of America". When they see a "citizen of the world" journalist they see someone who sees the world in non-American terms and they look elsewhere for their news. If you don't believe me look at the declining viewship for network news or declining circulation of the major newspapers vs the rising success of Fox News or the blogosphere. Posted by: Seismic at June 10, 2005 10:39 PM | Permalink Your decision to interpret the problem as one of religion is interesting, especially considering that most of Big Media's problem isn't skepticism, which is understandable in any system of belief, but cynicism. Skepticism is expected within the church and much effort is expended to deal with it, but cynicism is hopelessly nihilistic. When it comes to belief, it's one thing to state, "I don't understand." It's entirely another to state, "What a load of crap you liars are peddling." If I may, I'd like to trump Mr. Franken's (and many others) statement that they are a citizen of the world by noting that I am a citizen of the universe! I mean, why be limited by mere planetism or galaxyism? But seriously, the problem I have with such a statement is that it assumes one can divorce oneself entirely from one's historical and cultural context. I'll leave aside for the moment whether that is practical, but not the question of what form such a detached state of "enlightenment" might be. What exactly is a citizen of the world? And what is the basis of its morality? There seems to be a serious epistemological question underlying Mr. Franken's desire to question the veracity of all sides equally. How does he know what he thinks he knows? I am profoundly skeptical of official sources, but I have come to learn that even official American sources can be trusted to a point on almost everything. What level of trust can we assign to anything the terrorists say? Does Mr. Franken truly believe they operate on the same plane? I must admit that I find the hubris associated with being a self-proclaimed citizen of the world somewhat incongruent with the humility displayed in every news report that mentions the reporter's name at least three times. Such detachment! On another point, I almost pity Oliver these days, thinking that yelling the loudest somehow equates to being right. Jeez, I guess might really does make right, huh? But, perhaps that is a good stance for a cynic who has abandoned all pretense to objectivity to take. My apologies for rambling a bit. Posted by: charles austin at June 10, 2005 10:43 PM | Permalink I don't think this is real tricky. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at June 10, 2005 10:55 PM | Permalink I see the term “citizen of the world” as indicating belief in the reporter’s ability to achieve a sort of “Olympian detachment” that allows the reporter to gaze out upon the world, see all the facts, discern the pattern that they form, and report that. That would be wonderful. If they could do it. But few (if any) really can. So they fake it. Reporters mainly wear the same blinders that the rest of us wear. Those blinders are: Ignorance of the subject, simple prejudice, a mostly unconscious belief system, time pressure, and egoism. And like others, they can rarely see or compensate for their own blinders. Thus, instead of letting the facts determine what story will be reported, they let an often unconsciously chosen story determine what facts will be reported. And when they do, it’s pretty obvious to those of us who have different blinders and different “fields of vision” that certain things have been left out. And we say to ourselves, “How could he miss that? It must be biased reporting.” And it is. In a way. I’m somewhat sympathetic to the problem. But not at all sympathetic to the “media monoculture” that lets it thrive. Posted by: Tom Paine at June 10, 2005 11:26 PM | Permalink It's ridiculous to claim that a constant anti-American bias is a sign of patriotism. Merely reporting events in perspective would vindicate America so far as the War on Terror goes. As it is, the constant exaggeration of all America's faults and diminution of the faults of its enemies is not patriotism or even "reporting as a citizen of the world" -- it is in effect active collaboration with the enemy. Posted by: Evil Pundit at June 10, 2005 11:26 PM | Permalink You are correct that it's more a religion than a political stance, because it's all oppositional ideology and no practical plan. They are not operating on the same platform of politics. It's comfortable to view yourself as a martyr to the cause when you are opposing the US because they do absolutely nothing in retaliation. Today I heard a CNN interview of an Iraqi woman who is in the US as an announcer for Al Hurra. Her father and brother were spirited away by Saddam's men in 1992 for nothing, probably because he wanted the father's money. The father was executed and the boy died as he was used to clear mines in the Iraq-Iran war. This year her sister was killed by friendly fire in Baghdad. Sad, but not the same thing. "You lost a father and brother to Saddam and a sister to the Americans," Sesno said. How could anyone assert the two are equivalent? Only a true believer. Posted by: PJ I didn't suggest that "a constant anti-American bias" is a sign of patriotism. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at June 10, 2005 11:44 PM | Permalink Hi Jay, I'm having problems trackbacking to your post. Posted by: Test at June 10, 2005 11:51 PM | Permalink Personally, I barf when I hear the "citizen of the world" silliness. It is an attempt to disassociate oneself from one's country and claim membership in some sort of global elite. "Citizen of the world" sounds nice and post-everything, laden with worship of the exalted status of "world" organizations like the UN, and against such evils as pre-emptive wars kicked off by such un-PC, Neanderthal racist nationalists as George Dubya Bush. Being a "citizen of the world" means you can mingle with the highest circles of wink-wink, "everyone knows it's true" circle of sophisticated anti-Americans and casually disown your country. See Eason Jordan... Sorry dude: if you're a "citizen of the world", how can you claim patriotism in the next breath? Patriotism for what? The UN? The EU? Certainly not the US - the "world citizen" regards their passport as a bit of trivial flotsam left over from the unfortunate days of the nation-state - until they get in trouble... Posted by: Foobarista at June 10, 2005 11:51 PM | Permalink What I find rather stupid about Franken's comments is that he can be as jingoistic and credulous as anyone when the mood strikes. His Terri Schiavo coverage was embarrassing, and his early reporting from Guantanamo was company line. I recently stumbled into a correspondence with Alan Davis of the Institute for War & Peace Reporting, which trains reporters in trouble towns across the world. I think his organization could be very useful in the US, and he's working on some assessment tools that I hope to apply to US journalists if he'll permit. Meanwhile, poke around his site to get a feel for people doing good journalism under exceptionally difficult circumstances that, unlike the ones our own press operate under, are not self-imposed. I can't do better in responding to the right-wing whining here than Jay did in an earlier post quoting conservative, patriotic, pro-military blogger John Cole responding to Hugh Hewitt and others carping about the coverage of US military abuses and atrocities: "I am really beginning to think many of you guys out there don't want an independent media- you want a damned public relations firm." Not being a big picture guy, the question of press religion strikes me as at best irrelevant and at worst sick-making. It doesn't matter whether or what you think the higher meaning of journalism (or any other religious vessel) is if you can't get the day-to-day details right. The only benefit of it is to the believers, who get to absolve themselves when they screw up. Or get Howie Kurtz to absolve them, if they're not also bloggers. Serious if repetetive question, Jay: religiosity aside, what's the purpose of journalism schools and are there alternatives to fulfilling that purpose? Posted by: weldon berger at June 11, 2005 12:28 AM | Permalink Hmmmm. "Take for instance the recent release of John Kerry's military records. They echo exactly the information he said they would contain but the right says "no" and the media - instead of saying "yes, actually, they do" - follows along with the right wing script." Only a credulous fool believes that Kerry released all of his records. His interview with Tim Russert explains it all. He signed his SF-180 and had his records released to the US Navy, which is under federal obligation to release nothing without specific approval by Kerry. And then Kerry went through the documents and created a package of acceptable documents which he then forwarded to the Boston Globe and LA Times. Both of which were firmly planted in Kerry's .. ahem ... side. Who really gives any serious credibility to the idea that the author of a fawning biography could write anything neutral about Kerry? MSM Crediblity--, decremented by one. Modern journalism, differently the same. Posted by: ed at June 11, 2005 12:30 AM | Permalink "I don't think this is real tricky." Oh, I see you are member of the religion. "Obviously, the job of the reporter is to report what he sees in front of his eyes, whether it redounds to America's credit or not." Obviously. The problem is that this is most certainly not what is happening. The reporter has no use for anything that redounds to America's credit. If challenged on this, the reporter will answer with one of PressThinks classic homelies, "No news is good news." That is to say, the reporter believes that things that redound to America's credit aren't newsworthy, and they demonstratably act this way. That might be a standard, except that the press willfully breaks it when it comes to reporting on something that they do believe in. America is just not one of those things. "Reporters (in Iraq or anywhere else) have one responsibility, as John Kifner, probably the best reporter at the New York Times, explained it long ago: "Go. See. Come back. Tell." That's really about it." And again, I agree, but that's most certainly not what is happening. They are not going. They are not seeing. Hense, they can never come back, and they aren't telling what they saw. Instead, the average press reporter now stays, establishes what he believes to be true, then cherry picks quotes that support the truth he believes. He writes a story like a student in English 101 writes a book report having read the cliff notes. "And if that reporter's work turns out to seem especially tough on America, it's because he is an American, and he has higher standards for the country that is the world's one true last hope than he has for other countries -- higher than the standards that he sets for, say, a Pakistan, or a Brazil, or an Ireland, or a Vietnam, or an Iraq, or an Israel." Here is where it is evident you belong to the religion. Just as the sign of holiness in the press religion is detachement, the venal sin of the religion is hypocracy. In fact, some would say the only sin of the religion is hypocracy. Neil Stephenson writes about this brilliant in 'The Diamond Age'. You see, for a person who believes in complete detachment and total skepticism, the greatest crime you can commit is to first establish an attachment to something, proclaim it as truth, and then fail to live up to that standard. That is because you can only judge someone by there own standards. Whereas, anyone who sets a very low standard for themselves is judged moral precisely because they don't try to do good, anyone who tries to do good is judged immoral because no one can live up to the highest standards. In short, the US because it sets the highest standards for itself, is self-evidently the worst country in the world. Further note that your answer expressly contridicts the given answer that, 'I'm a citizen of the world.' If you are indeed a citizen of the world in respect to your reporting, you can't also hold America to higher standards than Pakistan, Brazil, France, Saudia Arabia or anywhere else. So your answer can't possibly explain why the reporter in fact does hold America to higher standards, finds accusations like 'American gulag' creditable, and yet ignores the very real gulags of North Korea or Cuba. "And what he reports back is whether we are living up to those high standards that we set for ourselves. Is that a bad thing? Not in my book." It need not be a bad thing, but if it gives the audience an incomplete and flawed picture of the world, then its not reporting factually. It's becomes an effective selective bias in your reporting against America. "Is it patriotism ? It seems to me that it is." It seems to me that if that is patriotism, it is indistinguishable from treachory? If it wasn't patriotism, how would you be able to tell? Posted by: celebrim at June 11, 2005 12:33 AM | Permalink "And if that reporter's work turns out to seem especially tough on America, it's because he is an American, and he has higher standards for the country that is the world's one true last hope than he has for other countries -- higher than the standards that he sets for, say, a Pakistan, or a Brazil, or an Ireland, or a Vietnam, or an Iraq, or an Israel." What you describe is, in fact, constant anti-American bias. By always requiring that America must satisfy a higher standard than all other countries, you automatically report it more negatively than any other country. This in turn results in cases such as the breast-beating hysteria over minor incidents at Abu Ghraib, compared to the near-silence on much worse, more common terrorist atrocities. Such reporting, over time, portrays the US as evil, and in so doing, assists the terrorist cause. Posted by: Evil Pundit at June 11, 2005 1:09 AM | Permalink Oliver Willis in comments: "Why should Spruiell bother going into journalism when he can sit back and draw a nice paycheck from the conservative apparatus for simply echoing the 'liberal bias' charge with his fellow right-wingers?" There's your problem in a nutshell, Prof. Rosen. No one, it seems, can resist drawing ideological lines instead of, if not "objectively," how about "abjectedly?" think anything through without running it through their ingrained political filters. Flip the name and party affiliation in that statement and what do you get? "Why should Oliver bother going into journalism when he can sit back and draw a nice paycheck from the liberal apparatus for simply echoing the 'conservative bias' charge with his fellow left-wingers?" "...if that reporter's work turns out to seem especially tough on America, it's because he is an American, and he has higher standards for the country that is the world's one true last hope than he has for other countries -- higher than the standards that he sets for, say, a Pakistan, or a Brazil, or an Ireland, or a Vietnam, or an Iraq, or an Israel." Is the reverse true? Should American journalists be held to higher standards than those of, say, Pakistan, Brazil, etc.? For example, say you have a magazine that purports to be a non-partisan and fair watchdog of the national media. Say your magazine is a big advocate of transparency in the media. Say you appoint as the supervisor of your "non-partisan" magazine the editor/publisher of one of the country's most ideological, left-wing periodicals. Say you don't disclose the appointment of this new supervisor until bloggers start making it an issue and force you to come clean. High standards? Low standards? And are the only patriots/heroes here those bloggers who report back on whether journalists are meeting the high standards that they set for others? Posted by: bobcat at June 11, 2005 1:28 AM | Permalink I have a few comments on your post, which I liked. First, obviously, the type of detached skepticism Mr. Franken is suggesting is more ideal than reality. Certainly there are good journalists who approach information critically, but I doubt in an honest moment they would say that their journalism is completely separate from who they are and all the baggage they carry. Posted by: ian at June 11, 2005 1:29 AM | Permalink Just a link, to Tamim Ansary's What Does It Mean to Be Patriotic? And a question - if we replace "journalist" with "scientist", does the resultant scenario shed light on the original one? and another question - if you wrote a PressThink analyzer to calculate, for each post, how many comments elapse before Kerry's military service becomes the topic of discussion, and graph it over time, what would the curve look like? "World citizen". Was that what CNN was when it was jockeying for access under Saddam's Iraq? Looking the other way to avoid putting itself in the middle of troublesome moral dilemmas (and thereby putting itself in bigger ones)? It's true I think that reporters don't really distrust the military per se (about which they are mind-bogglingly ignorant anyway). When problems arise they are quick to frame them as a products solely of administration policy. That's always a safe duck to throw the ball at, while swearing up and down that you "support our troups" as the fashionable bumper magnet goes. You don't need to know a thing about military history or the realities of occupation to do that. That's what the glib phrase "afflict the comfortable" often boils down to--stick to the safe targets and really go to town on them. It's not skepticism. An Al Qaeda training manual advised that captured terrorists should lean on the torture button long and hard. They know what the weaknesses of our press system are. Terrorists falsely claiming abuse or that someone was mean to their Koran: not really news. Army investigations into those claims: Big news! Where there's smoke there's fire! Rumsfeld torture memos! Etc. "People in the National Review orbit should start distinguishing between mistrust of the Bush forces by the press, and when that may be in evidence, vs. mistrust of the (career) military. ... If you really had a "fundamental distrust" of the American miliary, would you put your life in its hands by becoming embedded?" You mistate the issue of mistrust. The US Military has proven very effective at defending itself, and anyone embedded with it, against getting shot or otherwise hurt. Not 100% effective, but really, the Iraq invasion and the following battle against the terrorist elements has had remarkably low casualties compared to previous periods of combat. And, despite the false fulminations of the Eason Jordans and the Linda Foleys, media personnel are remarkably safe with US Forces. So, yes, a reporter can trust his personal safety to the US military. He'll get fed, watered, and protected to the same degree or better as the military he's with. The fundamental mistrust I think we in the "National Review orbit" speak of is the media's constant denigration of the military's purposes,intentions, and competence, the press's willingness to immediately believe and repeatedly publish military transgressions both real and imagined, while seeming to do little to either provide any context among the overall operation, or to provide a similar "skepticism" of the terrorist opposition. We get front page descriptions of car-bombings, with nice sidebars making sure we know another GI got killed and what the total is, with assertions about how it shows the terrorists are showing they remain beyond control; but little attention given to the status of several thousand projects rebuilding the country (unless one of them has a setback), or the increasing prosperity of the non-Sunni areas. Newsweek falsely attributes Koran flushings to GIs based on incredibly weak to non-existant sourcing; maybe using a little the fervor that NYT used in digging out the CIA's prisoner transport planes would've provided the correct story the first time to press, instead giving propaganda points to our enemies, and having to be thrashed into backpedalling and minimally apologizing Yes, there is valid reason for the "NRO orbit" to suppose there is a "fundamental distrust" when the operating rule of main stream press organizations seems to be "We'll run with the first hint of bad news, and apologize for errors only if it's beaten out of us." I do not think it is the NRO crowd that needs to differentiate mistrust of the "Bush forces" and distrust of the "career military." It is pretty clear that the overwhelming focus on the negative parts of the military's Afghanistan and Iraq operations are being against the President. Pardon us if we don't see a difference between mistrust of Pres Bush and mistrust of the military when the military is being used as the bat to beat Pres Bush with. Pardon us if we think the press might be grossly, blindly biased against the military when the head of major news organization, (already admitted to biasing reports about a totalitarian regime) and the head of journalist union both falsely accuse the military of targeting journalists, and it takes herculean efforts by bloggers to get anyone to pay attention. The more fundamental issue of mistrust that you need to deal with, though, is not the media's overlapping distrusts of this administration and the military. It's the the rather well-justified mistrust by US citizens of the main stream media. Checked your circulation and poll figures lately? elb
Posted by: EricLB at June 11, 2005 2:01 AM | Permalink Wow, Jay! That first paragraph really puts it where it should be. I don't think that I, or most conservatives, have ever just wanted media to tell us only what we want to hear. All we want is to be able to read news without noticing a consistent slant. We all have a sense for when we're being fed a line, and when we watch a presidential press conference and hear 10 questions in a row asking why he hasn't apologized for being wrong about WMD in Iraq, it shouldn't be surprising that we wonder why there isn't more diversity. Reporters who are bewildered that they aren't trusted anymore, should re-read the tale of the boy who cried wolf. Posted by: AST Would the life be worth reading if media bias dissapeared all together? May the different hues reign and may the best man deliver reason and great readership ... If I were to nominate a good citizen of the world it would have to be the one evil age number ;-) David Hoffman, A&S '66, has become the libertarian godfather of independent news media around the world The Long, Strange Trip of David Hoffman Posted by: Jozef Imrich I read that piece by Trudy Rubin linked in the main post. Did anyone else? Did anyone else notice that she thinks that the Newsweek Koran desecration story had something to do with Abu Ghraib? And I quote: "Which brings us back to the subject of Newsweek and Abu Ghraib. The newsweekly was dead wrong to run such a controversial item based on one unnamed source who later changed his story..." That error got all the way through that rigorous fact-checking process profeesional journalism touts so often these days. It's difficult not to see it as a Freudian slip that tells you how Rubin and her paper really view the military. As for Rubin's thesis that media mistrust is directed solely at the civilian leadership (i.e., the Bush Administration), not the regular military, I note that she completely avoids addressing the hysterical tone of the coverage of the Koran desecration allegations generally. Nor does she address the unspoken assumptions behind the press coverage of Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, Bagram, the Sgrena shooting, etc. -- that the military will not adequately investigate allegations of abuse; the creduluous acceptance of those charged with abuse that they were following orders; the credulous reporting of allegations by former detainees without noting that Al Qaeda trains its terrorists to claim abuse or that the FBI caught them lying on any number of occasions; that detainees must be treated like criminal defendants in America (the Amnesty International position, which undermines, rather than supports, the Geneva Conventions); that abuse is widespread compared to the number of detainees processed, and so on. Rubin notes that "[i]n a world where everyone has Internet access, you can't keep prisoner problems a secret." I would note that in such a world, members of the military blog about events that the media covers. Consequently, the whole world can discover the myriad ways in which a reporter shapes a story and draw conclusions about the attitude of much of the press about the regular military. Rubin is either avoiding the problem or worse, does not recognize it. Posted by: Karl It is simply not possible to be a patriot and a "citizen of the world". The notion is absurd. It is The Big Lie that immediately impeaches Franken's journalism. As a "citizen of the world", Franken sides with the rest of the world when it clashes with American interests. He ends up singing the anti-American gospel in glorious multi-cultural harmony with the rest of the world. The dangerous part of this is that "world citizenship" is a faith that isn't limited to Franken. It permeates traditional journalism, the dominant media outlets, and the political left. It is the root cause of the bitter political divide in this country. We are divided between the pro-American right and the anti-American left. As for this comment: If you really had a "fundamental distrust" of the American miliary, would you put your life in its hands by becoming embedded? You touched on something important here. The truth is that journalists do NOT have a "fundamental distrust" of the American military. They know that they can trust the military with their lives. However, as "citizens of the world", they distrust the pro-American right. Since the pro-American right is currrently in power, the military is an instrument of pro-American foreign policy. The media does not trash the military because they don't trust it. On the contrary, they trash the military because they DO trust the military to execute pro-American policies faithfully, humanely and justly. Posted by: HA at June 11, 2005 6:30 AM | Permalink Oliver, Why should Spruiell bother going into journalism when he can sit back and draw a nice paycheck from the conservative apparatus for simply echoing the "liberal bias" charge with his fellow right-wingers? Wow. That is a breathtaking example of hypocrisy coming from a loathesome hack who is a paid mouthpiece for anti-American bigot and activist George Soros. Posted by: HA at June 11, 2005 6:36 AM | Permalink Unless you are paranoid you cannot leave your nationality (Or where you grew up and formed your opinions) behind when you write. It is part of your being. To try do, so it would seem to me, would lead to overcompensating. Is there a list of basic guidelines (morals) a journalist should follow when writing/reporting/researching a story. Posted by: davod at June 11, 2005 7:50 AM | Permalink It’s not immediately apparent to me why citizens of the world, the galaxy or even the universe should hold different societies to different standards. But I’m sure that there Church of Journalism has among its canons reasons for this disparity. Diana West has an interesting take on the differences that Citizens of the World see between the Koran and the Bible, especially as it is treated in Guantanamo. Posted by: moneyrunner This is ultimately what it means to be a citizen of the world when you are a reporter at war. This is the sort of behavior that were I to witness it on the battlefield would cause me to advocate targeting journalists who consider themselves "citizens of the world". Some might be appalled that anyone would advocate targeting journalists but to me anyone who watched an American Unit be ambused is aiding and abetting the enemy and deserves not only to be shot but to be shot in the field. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/press/vanities/fallows.html
Granted you're an American"-at least for purposes of the fictional example; Jennings has actually retained Canadian citizenship. "I'm a little bit at a loss to understand why, because you're an American, you would not have covered that story." Ogletree pushed Wallace. Didn't Jennings have some higher duty, either patriotic or human, to do something other than just roll film as soldiers from his own country were being shot? "No," Wallace said flatly and immediately. "You don't have a higher duty. No. No. You're a reporter!" Jennings backtracked fast. Wallace was right, he said. "I chickened out." What drives reporters to believe that they are above the very institution that insures their ability to live another day much less to report? Exactly whose side are they on? Wallace is clear and I would be interested in knowing how everyone feels about this. Pierre Legrand Posted by: Pierre Legrand Question for Steve Lovelady: why should we hold the American government to higher standards than other governments? If the American government sent thugs to beat up women after soccer games, I'd like it reported; I wish someone in MSM would hold the Iranian government to that standard. Ah, but perhaps I'm just not sophisticated enough to understand their culture. Posted by: Nancy at June 11, 2005 9:17 AM | Permalink Great discussion with many thoughtful points. Bob Franken holds an American passport and is protected while travelling in foriegn counries by treaties and agreements the USA has with other governments. If Franken is taken hostage or killed, will his family say he was a citizen of the world and therefore it is the UN resposibility to apprehend and prosecute the culprits? Obviously, holding oneself as a Citizen of the World is a silly and idealistic construct, and not useful, even for the sake of objectivity. He was born and educated in the USA and holds American ideals (from which, naively, he has extrapolated into seeing himself as a COTW) and it is precisely the ideal of freedom and the enforcement of the US Constitution that has created an economy and a system whereby Franken is employed and can report freely. At what point will journalists like Franken take sides in a conflict that pitts freedom of the press vs. suppression of the press? The inability to make the distinction between that which has enabled him to be skeptical, and skepticism on cruise control, is the problem with this mindset. Posted by: Frank O at June 11, 2005 9:55 AM | Permalink The interesting thing about "skepticism" as practiced by the "press" is that it self-defeats the notion of Olympian detachment and makes the reporter not an observer but an actor. In fact, the reporter essentially pushes aside the other actors -- save the one who is his focus -- and places himself in the role of the nemesis. It is not then the U.S. military, Bush, Rumsfeld, et al, against Saddam, French aspirations for international influence and corrupt members of the French oil-politico establishment, etc., etc. in some context of looming terrorist armaggedon--it is the U.S. military, Bush, Rumsfeld, et al against FRANKEN. Anyone who observes the U.S. media know this to be true--the press's passion is to play skeptic to its host (the U.S. and its institutions) while nary a glance to the context and other actors on the stage, their imperfections, motivations, etc. Thus we are not given stories of imperfect American men and women struggling mightily to do their best against other forces of even greater corruption, in some thick fog of war, but inherently bad-actors who must be kept in check by...FRANKEN. This is why the journalistic practice in America is so horribly broken and why, thank god, many-to-many communictation technology (ie., the Internet) could not have appeared on the scene more quickly. I wonder what the country would be like if we'd had it during Vietnam..not that we would have won that or the war would have turned out differently, let's say, but the country's understanding of itself would be so much richer--with the focus shifting from LBJ, MacNamara, etc., being the forces of "evil" to understanding how leaders, with not bad intentions, operated, made good and bad judgements, in a complex international situation and how we might do it better next time. Posted by: Lee Kane at June 11, 2005 12:11 PM | Permalink You ask "what kind of bias should the press have". I have no problem with press bias. My problem lies in the notion that people are bias free and that news organizations don't allow their politics onto their news pages. The NYT, "All the news that's fit to print." is a joke. They've run 40+ Abu Ghrabe stories and I've yet to note one (I may have missed it) story with a positive spin toward the job our military has done in avoiding civilian casualties or in rebuilding Iraq. The majority of the rebuilding, by the way, was necessary not because of war damage caused by us, but because of infrastructure neglect caused by Saddam. Cut the "We're fair!" drivel and simply admit your posture. Most of the "bias" complaints will stop. Posted by: Michael Becker at June 11, 2005 12:14 PM | Permalink First to state the trivial: Certain amount of skepticism of any source makes sense. Just remember the last time you read a newspaper story of a local event you experienced directly and wondered how someone could get so many things wrong. Posted by: Pavel at June 11, 2005 12:26 PM | Permalink The phrase 'citizen of the world' is not a claim of Olympian objectivity, but rather an implicit admission that the world is to be construed as whatever stands in opposition to the US. Skepticism is to be directed at everythring American. Castro, Chavez, Mugabe, the PLO, Chirac, the UN, China, NK, AQ, anyone or anthing can be believed as long as that person or entity is also skeptical about(inimical to) the US. Mr. Lovelady, just what is the standard by which you judge the U.S.? How does that standard differ from the one you use to judge other countries? And why do you have different standards of moral judgment in the first place? Does the nature of the universe and the nature of knowledge change once one steps outside of the U.S.? If you do not base your ethics on metaphysics and epistemology, on what do you base your standard of judgment of the ethics practiced by mankind and why are there different ethical requirements for different sets of men? Skepticism is a bad place to start when judging the truth or falsehood of anything. It begins with a negative -- doubt -- without having any particular reason for one's doubt. Doubt is not a primary. One must have a reason to doubt. Critical analysis is what is required. For that, one must possess a certain amount of knowledge about that which one is analyzing, and a standard by which the information is judged. It is here that most reporters fail miserably. They show an arrogance and hubris demonstrated only by the ignorant, and prove the old saw that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. They display this ignorance, not just for their American audience, but for the enemy as well, who counts on it. Skeptism allows the media to go after the administration, but gives no perspective to the facts in the news. Critical analysis using a rational standard, on the other hand, would compare the handful of abuse stories coming from American sources with the actual torture and murder of the enemy. It would attend to the fact that reported abuses are not SOP in the military; they are reported because they are NOT standard, but are anomolies which are not allowed to go without investigation and punishment. Actual torture and murder by the enemy, on the other hand, is not only standard procedure, but such barbarity is proudly advertised. The media nods its collective head and briefly, if at all, tut-tuts its displeasure over the kidnappings, beheadings, and the murder of innocents. Then it screams for weeks, with pictures and vast moral indignation, over a handful of personnel getting their jollies humiliating their prisoners. I was appalled by such things, but not nearly as appalled as I was by the sight of Nicolas Berg having his head hacked off on video, or the murder and mutilation of four civilians, with the requisite pictures of them hanging from a bridge in Fallujah. These pictures, like those of the destruction of the WTC, disappeared quickly, however, unlike the pictures of prison abuse. What perverted sense of morality equates these actions and finds making fun of prisoners to be the worse offense? Is there no objective standard of behavior that makes one more onerous than the other? The self-serving prattle about being a "citizen of the world" reveals that the individual actually has no standard for his pronouncments whatsoever, and is therefore not equiped or qualified to make judgments about anything. Posted by: JMB at June 11, 2005 1:28 PM | Permalink One insidious possibility is that more than a few reporters' (and pundits') claims of official skepticism about the U.S. military may be mere cammoflage for anti-U.S. (military) bias. Such bias is evident not only to clear-eyed media watchers - - note the following admission against interest from the dominant liberal media: "There is, Hugh, I agree with you, a deep anti-military bias in the media. One that begins from the premise that the military must be lying, and that American projection of power around the world must be wrong. I think that that is a hangover from Vietnam, and I think it's very dangerous." - Terry Moran, ABC News White House Correspondent, interviewed on the Hugh Hewitt Radio Show, May 18, 2005. If you could, wouldn't it be interesting to question, under the influence of truth serum, pretended "objective" journalists about how their biases truly affect their work product? Posted by: Trained Auditor at June 11, 2005 2:12 PM | Permalink Gosh. You'd think folks might report this the same way they do the weather or a traffic tie-up. Boring ... factual ... and nothing more. Alas ... Posted by: Michael at June 11, 2005 2:41 PM | Permalink It is one thing for a journalist to be aware of his personal and cultural affiliations when going about his business. It is another to act like some sort of NASCAR driver, sporting symbols and logos, going out of his way to wear his affiliation on his sleeve, as it were. Surely, if a journalist uses his lapel pin to provide the visual cue--to his sources, his viewers, his colleagues, to whomever--about his core professional allegiances, then the appropriate logo to sport is that of the news organization he is representing. Frankel should wear a CNN button not a blue United Nations flag. Imagine watching a report on CNN, for example, about a dispute between the United States government and the United Nations. For an anchor to decide to wear the Stars-&-Stripes on his jacket while narrating such a report would be nothing except tendentious. How does that help CNN do its job? How does that help the viewer understand the issues at stake any more clearly? Why add any symbolic distractions to a job that is already difficult enough? Posted by: Andrew Tyndall at June 11, 2005 2:46 PM | Permalink Jay, it troubles me a bit that you are so dismissive of Steve Lovelady's position. What a reporter tries to do is really not so different from what an anthropologist tries to do. You talk to a lot of people, gather as many facts as you can, try to understand the concepts underlying those facts, and avoid wasting a lot of time thinking, "Hmm. This doesn't fit into my personal belief system." That approach doesn't make anthropologists or journalists "citizens of the world," nor does it endorse or reject any particular set of cultural beliefs. Objectivity isn't a pose; it's a technique for trying to clear your head to help understand new and unfamiliar material. Is it perfect? Of course not, no more than anthropology is. Monographs and news stories are muddled by all sorts of biases, the most important of which has nothing with liberals and conservatives but simply with habits of thinking: commitment to the idea that facts exist independently of observers, and that a careful observer can discern what those facts are. I don't expect reporters not to have opinions. It's just that in the big world, their opinions don't amount to much, except to the extent that they may help readers sort out the bias inherent in human observation. And I don't care whether the home-plate umpire grew up hating the Yankees. I only care that he calls the balls and stikes correctly. Posted by: David Crisp at June 11, 2005 2:58 PM | Permalink Well David explain how you feel about Mike Wallace's stand regarding not alerting a US Unit about to walk into an ambush? Is that the sort of "objectivity" you believe good for the profession of journalism? Pierre Posted by: Pierre Legrand at June 11, 2005 3:02 PM | Permalink Journalism is a significant component of civic life, acknowledged explicitly in the design and underlying philosophy of the U.S. and other democracies, especially Anglosphere ones. Sustaining and upgrading that civic life is what journalism is or should be about. This allows plenty of scope for both patriotism and skepticism; transparency is important, even crucial, but not the essence. Reinforcing the positive and combatting the negative is a pretty good approach to any activity or enterprise, including this one. To some extent that begs the question about what is "positive", but that's where transparency comes in. Knee-jerk hostility and cynicism is merely trying to elevate combatting a particular, often covert, version of the "negative" to 100% of the mandate. This is hopelessly unworkable, and is leading directly to the self-destruction of journalistic credibility. Enlightened patriotism is a balancing act. A balance beam or arm needs equal weights or leverage at both ends. Posted by: Brian H at June 11, 2005 4:46 PM | Permalink A friend of mine has the interesting notion that our press fulfills its watchdog function only when Republicans are in office. A reporter (as the writer of the story, rather than the person--people have all sorts of biases)should have the bias of someone who knows what relevant, verifiable facts it is reasonably possible for him to know about the story at hand. Posted by: Katherine at June 11, 2005 6:28 PM | Permalink Thanks, everyone, for these thoughtful comments. Weldon: I agree that John Cole's observation, "I am really beginning to think many of you guys out there don't want an independent media- you want a damned public relations firm," is a critical one for Bush supporters who are also media critics to grapple with. The monotony of the attacks and the breeziness of the assumption that the press is somehow anti-American, or anti-military suggest to me a desire for a pro-American, pro-military press; and that would be no different from a PR function. So it seemed to Cole. Serious if repetetive question, Jay: religiosity aside, what's the purpose of journalism schools and are there alternatives to fulfilling that purpose? The primary purpose of journalism schools is to train and educate future journalists so they can do the job, and cultivate in them the habits of mind and strength of character they will need to do a good job. A second purpose would be teach new recruits what meeting the public interest means, and how it differs from personal interest, "human interest," political interest,the interests of a particular social class, and the economic interests of those who own the press. A third has to do with the faculty of J-schools, who ought to contribute intellectual capital, informed criticism, new thinking and other knowledge-based challenges to the workaday world of journalism. A fourth might be serve as a forum for reflection and debate, as this blog attempts to do. Alternatives? Of course there are alternatives. Between 40 to 50 percent of the field never went to J-school at all. I doubt that number will move much. One of the most commonly used alternatives is to get into Harvard, Yale or Princeton, use connections or the pedigree to land an internship at the Washington Monthly or New Republic, parlay that into a staff position somewhere as a writer and let your by-line carry you from there. Among those who took that route is Nick Lemann, dean of the Columbia J-School. It's a credit to him that he's joined up with the professional school. For the future, I believe J-Schools may have to begin "extension" services, like agricultural colleges, in which the challenge will be to educate members of the public-- like yourself, Weldon. The Schools are not set up for this, and--who knows?--I may well be the only member of the faculty nationwide who believes there's a need. For the record, I am becoming more and more discontented with the J-school's record of progress, and with the community of educators and former journalists who run it. I think these schools are failing and some radically different approaches ought to be explored. I should add that in my five years as chairman of a Journalism program I did no better than the norm, and failed miserably in making signifcant changes. In fact, I would give myself an F on that score. Obviously I think J-Schools have the religion wrong, as well. (Though not entirely so, and with some over-due broadening things could improve.) Jay -- "How do we know if we get it right?" Simple -- the world is OUTRAGED whenever there is genocide, and ACTION is taken to stop the genocide. 1975 - Killing Fields - Press failed (thanks, Watergate?) It's also Amnesty I's failure, and the UN failure. Failure for the same reason -- partisan politics INSTEAD of the good of the world. Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at June 11, 2005 6:50 PM | Permalink One place where journalists need to rely MORE on their own "biases" or opinions more, btw, is in how they place their stories in relative importance. Now, obviously, I don't mean, "let's put this above the fold because it hurts Bush!" or because it helps Bush. I mean they should ask themselves, based on the reasonably verifiable facts they have, how important is this; how important is it for people to know this? I would call that judgement,not bias but like all judgments it is influenced by the judge's bias. Right now they seem to have decided that this is much too "subjective" a way to rank stories, and the only "objective" way to rank them is to ask, "how many other people are talking about this, and at what volume are they talking?" Or perhaps, "what ratings does this kind of story get?", or "is this the sort of story we think the American people will care about?" So I suppose the second answer to the question about bias is: the individual biases of the reporter or of the editor, insofar as he finds, after an honest and sincere effort, that he cannot remove it from his stories or his editorial decisions without abdicating the responsibilities of someone with his job or his position. In the reporter's case that moment would be: when removing all taint of personal "bias" would require him to pretend not to know whether something is true or false when in fact he does know, or would require him to omit relevant facts about its truth or falsity. In the editor's case that moment would be: when removing all taint of personal "bias" would be an abidication of his responsibility to use his best judgment to decide which stories his news organization should cover, with what prominence. Posted by: Katherine at June 11, 2005 6:55 PM | Permalink Zzzzzzz, booooring NOW ON SPRINGER!!! FAT DIVORCED LESBIANS!!!! Signed, Posted by: John Doe at June 11, 2005 8:00 PM | Permalink More rage against Steve Lovelady (who has been PIMPING (by his def) for his own rag, implicitly lying on the masthead about who he's being lazy and receiving a check from for some 20 months.} Rage because he's lying about standards. But we do NOT have higher standards. They're the same standards: Life, Liberty, Free Speech, Free Religion, Human Rights, etc. What Americans have is higher expectations of performance, expectations that the US comes closer to the standards. And gets more Olympic gold medals. And has lower inflation than other G8 countries, and has higher employment, and has higher home ownership rates, and accepts more immigrants. SAME standards, better performance. It is BECAUSE the USA comes closer to those high standards, that it IS, on performance, morally superior to Pakistan, France (10 000 dead in summer?), Vietnam, etc. The USA is often the BEST -- but not perfect. Just what ARE the standards, Steve? (And why don't any press reports SAY what they are???) I'm sick of Abu, because the press AVOIDS talking about real standards (as above); so maybe I missed it. Why aren't the standards discussed? Because the Leftists don't really care about standards, or about the Iraq (or Vietnamese) people. They care about hurting their US political opponent. Like the Nation editor who's been Lovelady's secret boss for so long. Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at June 11, 2005 8:14 PM | Permalink Steve Lovelady - "I suggested that reporting back what you see is a sign of patriotism. Yet it is the reporters who do exactly that who take the most heat -- most often from upset readers who want those same reporters to paint a picture that corresponds to the official version of reality." I disagree. What the readers want (at least this reader) is a report on everything that is going on, not just the parts that make America look bad. WE WANT CONTEXT! Is that so terribly difficult to understand? I don't think you'd get nearly as much heat from upset readers if they saw you covering the rest of the story with as much eagerness as you cover the upsetting parts. With the advent of blogs it's dazzlingly clear that so much more is going on that we don't hear about from the mainstream, Steve Lovelady-type press. Why is that? What rule is there in journalism that you can tell half the story and then pat yourself on the back for doing a good job (and being patriotic, no less)? You, as an industry, are letting us down day after day after day by not giving us the whole story and that's why we're leaving you. You say you don't want to become a mouthpiece for the administration but somehow, it seems, the only alternative to that role that you can divine is to become a de facto mouthpiece for the insurgents. I'm sorry, but there has to be a middle way and you desperately need to find it. Give us the bad things happening in Iraq and give us the good things, and with enough information we can figure out the rest. The American people have an inherent wisdom that will get them through this but not if they don't have all the facts to work with. Be a reporter and report what's going on. All of it. To quote a wise man I heard once, "I don't think this is real tricky." The Iraqi election is a good case in point. If you only watched the big media in the days before the election, the outcome of that day tended to come as a shocking surprise. "Wow, people were excited about voting and actually turned out to vote in great numbers despite the danger." For people who didn't rely on the one-note wonders of the mainstream press droning on endlessly about every single bombing, to the exclusion of all else, the outcome was not nearly as shocking. It wasn't a given, by any means, but it wasn't nearly the huge surprise it seemed to be to others. That's because we paid attention to sources that covered the whole story. So, in addition to, and not instead of, the reports of bombings and shootings we also read pre-election polls that indicated high support for voting among the general populace, we read Iraqi bloggers and military bloggers detailing real conditions on the ground, and we learned the context of the election. And we didn't learn it from you. And in that, you let down the rest of your audience, because by only bringing them part of the story, the worst part, you didn't give them the tools they needed to understand the big picture and to make an informed judgment about what was happening in in Iraq. I'll leave you with a question: How are we as a country supposed to decide where to go from here if we don't have a clear idea of where we are? What are we supposed to do if we can't trust our mainstream journalists to give us the whole story? Posted by: kcom at June 11, 2005 9:06 PM | Permalink Note finally: aspiring journalists sometimes end up not as journalists not because they don't believe in the religion, but because they believe it (with some caveats) and believe the press has for the most part utterly stopped living up to it. Posted by: katherine at June 11, 2005 9:13 PM | Permalink Finally, Moral Hazard of a Free Press – an example. Weldon: I agree that John Cole's observation, "I am really beginning to think many of you guys out there don't want an independent media- you want a damned public relations firm," is a critical one for Bush supporters who are also media critics to grapple with. Let’s imagine an “ideal” objective, balanced press (B), plus two others: (A) Pro – American, the US is great, the enemy is scum – a damned PR firm; and (C) The US illegally invaded and is guilty and deserves punishment; any and all resistance is justified, any collateral damage from resistance is American fault (including beheadings like Perl and Berg). Americans bad, insurgents good. (Al Jazeera type). If you could wave a magic wand and get one such press strategy, which would it be? (B), of course – objective, balanced. But what if there was a dirty little secret: the press is a player in politics (15%?), AND a player in war. Now Weldon, John Cole, and Jay – do you still choose (B) objective press instead of (A) public relations, when that doubles the Americans to die? I believe these choices and tradeoffs are real today, but very unclear about the numbers of additional killed. Still, anybody and everybody who wants the fewest Americans killed has to support (A). Weldon, how many American lives are YOU willing to sacrifice for a more objective and balanced press? I expect that few will be willing to accept the form of this question – but isn’t the condemnation of Leni Riefenstahl and HER public relations precisely because of the deaths? Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at June 11, 2005 9:14 PM | Permalink I agree that John Cole's observation, "I am really beginning to think many of you guys out there don't want an independent media- you want a damned public relations firm," is a critical one for Bush supporters who are also media critics to grapple with. No. What we want is honest brokers of the truth. Or, at the very least we would like to see blatantly leftist, anti-American, useful idiots properly labelled. If I can no longer trust my media outlets to give me objective truth, at least give me the proper context in which to put their "reporting". I'll start answering your questions, Tom Grey, when you apologize for and retract your statement in these columns that United States soldiers--with justification, you said, but without orders from above--shoot to kill journalists because they recognize an enemy when they see one. (A war crime, by the way.) In case you don't remember, this is you talking: I'm sure Jordan believes that some of 12 journos killed by US actions were "targeted". I suspect some, at most 9 but prolly less, actually WERE judgement calls by the soldier pulling the trigger, and the soldier decided to fire thinking he was firing on an Enemy -- an enemy journalist. Until I see some serious backtracking on that accusation--or proof, of course--I have nothing to say to you and your increasingly psychotic speculations. You're a phony champion of the military and no one associated with it would want to get within 50 yards of you. Clear enough? Anyone that thinks that the US Military shouldn't be held to a higher standard than lawless insurgents or terrorists just doesn't get it. And there's no sense in even trying to argue against that belief because to those people the Bush Administration can never do any wrong. The same goes for the plethora of comments claiming that the stories of Koran abuse are only coming from members of al quaeda. If you take the time to read Brigadier General Jay Hood's report you will see that a US Military Chaplain complained about it though only "a portion of the temporary file was discovered." (link) And then the question remains: why aren't these same commenters also taking the Bush Administration to task if they released members of al Qaeda from Guantanamo Bay? (Thanks for the link and the awesome blurb, Jay!) Posted by: Ron Brynaert at June 11, 2005 10:04 PM | Permalink Hmmm. What is really most amusing to me is that the full effects of journalisms self-imposed cannibalism have not yet become apparent. But the riptide is starting to flow as more and more veterans pass through Iraq and see for themselves the incredible difference between the reality there and the fiction being reported. Consider there are at least 250,000 uniformed US military in Iraq and Afghanistan. Consider that there are at least 50,000-100,000 contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan. People get rotated in, people get rotated out. Each month another 10,000 or so new faces join the military and have a chance to get sent to Iraq and Afghanistan. Then there is the secondary element to this. The families and friends of US soldiers, and contractors, in Iraq and Afghanistan. For each one soldier or contractor there might be as few as 10, or as many as 100+, other people influenced by that person's direct experiences in Iraq/Afghanistan. Experiences that will contrast with the reporting done by the MSM. And the more time passes, the more bad and biased reporting done and more soldiers and soldiers families come to distrust the MSM. It's a curious cycle. Because it is easily argued that the entire creation of the MSM, and modern journalism, came about from the veterans of WWII. Who returned home as voracious news consumers who also had an enormous amount of respect for reporters from the example given Ernie Pyle, Murrow and others. When the veterans of the GWOT come marching home, how will they view the modern journalist? How will they act as news consumers? And what level of respect will they have for modern journalists? Frankly I think we can see the effects right now in the dramatic decline of many news sources. It's one thing to deceive people who do not have access to first hand accounts. It's quite another to try and deceive those who have actually walked those alleyways. It'll be interesting to see just how far journalism can fall. Posted by: ed at June 11, 2005 10:48 PM | Permalink What I want first is to win the damn war. Free press is secondary to winning the war. It was also secondary to winning the war in WW2 and we managed to survive. What I am seeing here are a bunch of journalists who think that their desire to be journalists trumps my desire to survive this war. This entire idea that we absolutely must have a free press above all else in this war is absurd. We must have a responsible press, a press that doesnt act like Mike Wallace who declares that his right to be a journalist trumps the rights of those US Soldiers to return home to their wives and children. And no simply reporting facts does not aleviate any journalist from the responsibilty to support his country by not divulging information that could injure soldiers and lose battles. This entire Abu Garib farce is exactly that... We are at war. We are at war with a group of people who have been remarkably effective with very little in the way of advanced arms. To underestimate our enemies ability to inflict severe damage to our country is so arrogant that I have a hard time believing anyone would induldge it, especially since so far our current enemies have accomplished far more than any three of our former worst enemies. Would we be indulging in this navel gazing if we were standing outside of the wall of our village with a horde of barbarians ready to decend upon us? If not why not? Is it because we would know the folly of doing anything that could cause us to lose? Any journalist who causes the death of one US soldier damns the rest of journalism. Pierre Legrand Posted by: Pierre Legrand at June 11, 2005 11:00 PM | Permalink Tom Grey is indeed a psychotic wingnut lunatic. I see it's finally becoming clear. How come these nutcases are never banned? Posted by: Ed Jones at June 11, 2005 11:02 PM | Permalink Hmmm. Heh. Leave it to Leave it to Austin Bayto write it better than I can. Posted by: ed at June 11, 2005 11:02 PM | Permalink I agree that John Cole's observation, "I am really beginning to think many of you guys out there don't want an independent media- you want a damned public relations firm," is a critical one for Bush supporters who are also media critics to grapple with. Fine. Let me grapple more explicitly than I did in my first comment. When the press runs for a week or two on the Koran desecration story, is it demanding PR for those stories to note that Al Qaeda are trained to make claims of abuse? Is it demanding PR for them to report the FBI investigations that revealed detainees were lying about being beaten? When the press reports that the military investigated and confirmed 5 cases, is it demanding PR for them to give equal emphasis to the finding that the detainees were forund to have desecrated the Koran 15 times? When the press reports the number of detainee homicides and debate ensues over whether the problem is widespread, is it demanding PR to ask that they put that number in the context of the number of detainees who have gone through the system? When it comes to claims of torture and abuse, is it demanding PR to hope that Citizens of the World be as skeptical of the claims of terror suspects as they are of U.S. troops? For that matter, as the question of the standard to be applied to U.S. troops versus terrorists has come up, let me address that one head-on also. I think that everyone should be held to the same standard. I do not think we should judge U.S. troops by the standards of terrorists, but I would have the terror groups judged by the high standard we rightly expect of U.S. troops. Applying this standard allows us to condemn cases of torture and abuse by U.S. troops while not excusing barbarians for being barbarians. Posted by: Karl David Crisp: Jay, it troubles me a bit that you are so dismissive of Steve Lovelady's position. What a reporter tries to do is really not so different from what an anthropologist tries to do. You talk to a lot of people, gather as many facts as you can, try to understand the concepts underlying those facts, and avoid wasting a lot of time thinking, "Hmm. This doesn't fit into my personal belief system." Here I don't think my friend Steve Lovelady has a position, just a pose. It's the "whaddaya going on and on about, it's all pretty simple" shtick. I said it was part of the anti-intellectualism of the newsroom, and it is. To suggest that "Go. See. Come back. Tell." says everything that needs to be said about the responsibility of a journalist in a situation like the one reporters face in Iraq is either idle or fatuous-- your pick. "That's really about it," Steve adds. Is it? What responsibility does a reporter have to convey realities in Iraq that he cannot see? Is there a glib four-word answer to that? Having said as much, this part from Steve I agree with: "The job of the reporter is to report what he sees in front of his eyes, whether it redounds to America's credit or not." "Any journalist who causes the death of one US soldier damns the rest of journalism." Pierre Legrand: any idea how many journalists have been killed in Iraq? Tom Grey: Good information saves lives. Useful idiots such as you are responsible for every single one of US soldiers killed, wounded and maimed in Iraq, not to mention the tens of thousands, at least, of Iraqi civilians dead at our hands and every unnecessary death incurred in Afghanistan because of resources diverted to Iraq. You want to start assigning blame for body counts, boyo, look in the mirror, assuming you find a reflection there. And you should be blowing kissies to the press for their utterly irresponsible coverage of our government's lies about their intentions and intelligence before the invasion. If the press had done even a passable job, we wouldn't be in this war and you wouldn't have this opportunity to bathe yourself in other people's blood and call it patriotism. Posted by: weldon berger at June 12, 2005 12:30 AM | Permalink Jay, why does the number of journalists killed in Iraq have anything to do with the desire for "our" journalists to be responsible and at least nominally factual? I observe that journalists decide all the time to censor themselves for the greater good. For example, they often will not name the race or religion of the perpetrators of various crimes under the theory that their racist and bigoted audience cannot be entrusted with the truth. So, why then do they feel the need to magnify the deeds of a few at Abu Ghraib, or the complete fictions at Guantanamo? Why weren't the headlines pointing out that it was Muslims that were flushing Korans? At some point, one must wonder whose side the press are on. They are definitely on a side, and many people are concluding that it is not "ours". Jay the question of how many journalists have been killed in Iraq would have more meaning to me if I wasn't absolutely sure that most of them had Mike Wallaces attitude regarding US Soldiers lives. I refuse to feel sorry for those journalists who have some doubt about whose side they are on. See I look into my three kids eyes every single day and that is my yardstick of how I feel about people who endanger them just one little bit by careless reporting. Then I wonder just how the parents of those soldiers in Iraq defending us feel and after doing all of that I dont have any space left over for the passing of confused journalists. I have in fact mourned the passing of a couple of journalists but far to few were worth my sorry. Thats cold and I know it but we are at war and if more journalists acted like they cared if we won I might feel differently. Pierre Posted by: Pierre Legrand at June 12, 2005 2:28 AM | Permalink "The job of the reporter is to report what he sees in front of his eyes, whether it redounds to America's credit or not." The reporter is not doing this. The reporter is reporting, repeating, and exaggerating everything that hurts America, and systematically ignoring anything that redounds to America's credit. It's good to see that so many people on this thread have a firm grasp on exactly how the media are letting us all down. However, merely talking to journalists is insufficient to produce reform. After all, these people are convinced tyhat they are already fair and balanced when the opposite is true. Instead, we must look to their paymasters. Ultimately the media exist to make money, and their money comes not from subscribers, but from advertisers. It's time to start targeting the advertisers who support enemy propaganda in the form of "news". Posted by: Evil Pundit at June 12, 2005 4:23 AM | Permalink Jay Rosen, The monotony of the attacks and the breeziness of the assumption that the press is somehow anti-American, or anti-military suggest to me a desire for a pro-American, pro-military press The only monotonous and breezy assumption is that the press is not dominated by anti-American bias. It clearly is. In the 1930's, the NY Times sent Walter Duranty to the Soviet Union and then published Duranty's pro-Soviet lies on its pages. And for publishing Soviet lies, the Times and Duranty were awarded a Pulitzer prize by the journalistic establishment. To this day, the Pulitzer has not been revoked. And the Times has not returned it. So it comes as no suprise to me that a member of the Journalistic Establishment would deny the anti-American bias of the media. These rationalizions must end for the good of the country, the world and even the media itself. And what would be wrong with a pro-American bias? That doesn't mean that the media would have to spread lies the way the NY Times has. No, all they would have to do is to put events in the proper persepctive because the truth itself is pro-American. Posted by: HA at June 12, 2005 7:39 AM | Permalink Donald Sensing wrote a good piece on media bias: http://www.donaldsensing.com/?p=132 Posted by: HA at June 12, 2005 8:10 AM | Permalink "The deadliest country for journalists in the last decade is Iraq, where 36 journalists have been killed, all since the beginning of hostilities in March 2003. Another 18 media support workers were killed in Iraq during that time." -- Committee to Protect Journalists "Jay, why does the number of journalists killed in Iraq have anything to do with the desire for 'our' journalists to be responsible and at least nominally factual?" Why? Because a lot of you don't know very much about the people in the press whom you're attacking and condemning as anti-American. You don't understand their motives or principles or sacrifices. (Do you really think their willing to die to "get Bush?" It's absurd, yet asserted repeatedly.) You proclaim yourselves "absolutely sure" about what's in the heart of news people when you should be absolutely cautious about the generalizations you are making. You show no modesty or sense of proportion in your fiery condemnations. You wallow. You project hate. You object to unsubstantiated charges by Eason Jordan and Linda Foley, and then make ridiculously overblown charges--like American journalists are opposed to victory in Iraq--but the contradiction doesn't bother you. You make blanket statements about things like the coverage of the Iraqi elections that are virtually fact free, while screaming all the while for "just the facts." You pretend to be tough when you aren't doing--or risking--what those correspondents are doing. You would be helped by thinking about those 36 before indulging yourself next time. And based on much of what I read here you have no earthly idea why they put themselves in such danger, nor do you seem interested because asking the question might disturb the comfort of your ideological enclosure. That's why. The focus on American failings versus the atrocities of the insurgents/terrorists in Iraq (and other places) belies a certain disregard for the seriousness of the enemy. Its like reporting on abuses in a school. The focus is almost always going to be about teacher or administration abuses, not child initiated abuses. And even if the children are abusing one another, or being excessively rebellious, it is still the responsibility of the adults. Yes, kids pick on one another, and defy the authority of the teachers. But what else can you expect? They're CHIDREN. They are not fully functioning independent moral entities who must be held accountable for their individual actions. They're CHILDREN. This same attitude applies to all enemies of the USA since the end of the Cold War. We are so militarily and economically dominant that we have adopted a paternalistic viewpoint toward the rest of the world. The "Citizen of the World" terminology belies this paternalistic point of view. If journalists truly believed in the existential threat to our entire way of life posed by the terrorists, they wouldn't claim such "world citizen" status. And they would be much more critical of those posing the threat. But they do not, even after 9/11, believe that America is truly threatened (if even they will admit that individual Americans are so threatened.) Yes, the insurgents/terrorists initiate the great majority of violence, both towards the US Forces and toward their own fellow Arabs. But what else can you expect? They're TERRORISTS. They are not fully functioning independent moral entities who must be held accountable for their individual actions. They're TERRORISTS. The very Pose of "world citizen" belies an absolute belief in the current superiority of America. It is under this guise that journalists can justify their hyper-critical point of view towards all things American - and not only American journalists, but foreign journalists as well. It is very much the same position adopted by the adolescent children of the very wealthy who disdain and despise the very parents who provide them with every comfort and convenience. Hyper-criticalism is an indulgence - a luxury of the coddled, protected, and well-heeled. As such, we can take comfort in the fact that a less critical press might indicate a weakening of American power and prestige in the world, as it would only come about when America had a true rival in world dominance. But for most Americans, the perpetually adolescent attitude of the American press has become tiresome - especially in a time of war. And especially when some Americans do perceive an existential threat to our way of life. At the minimum, the terrorists have the potential capacity to force America to respond to a future attack in a manner which we would rather not employ. Finally, the journalistic pose of "world citizen" unwittingly puts the journalist in the same supra-national position as the terrorists. As you might recall, Bin Laden et al initially claimed to be merely a guest of the Afghan government. His organization, like those of Western NGO's was not restricted by borders or by national government authority. The genius of the Bush Administration strategy was to categorically reject this claimed supra-national status, and to demand that individual national government police themselves or lose their rights of sovereignty. Hence we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, bullied Pakistan and Lybia, and overtly threatened Syria, Iran and North Korea. This rejection of the terrorists rights to claim "world citizenship" has dramatically affected the world view of those who also claim such "world citizenship." Therefore, it is not surprising that entities such as Western NGO's, the United nations, the EU, those in the diplomatic service, and those in the profession of journalism feel threatened by the seemingly radical stance of the Bush Administration. It is not surprising that these organization and people would feel hostile toward George Bush himself. He threatens their world view. Simultaneously, it is also not surprising that many Americans have retreated into the safe haven of nationalism and have begun viewing supra-national entities with suspicion. In this environment, the very claim of "world citizen" seems irrational, unpatriotic, and narcissistic to many Americans. This is why journalists seem so disconnected from the very citizenry they purportedly serve. In a time of war, a certain tribal attitude is both inevitable, and necessary to ensure the survival of the "tribe." Any tribe member who loudly, proudly, and repeatedly disclaims his membership in the "tribe" cannot blame the subsequent suspicion of other tribe members on anyone but himself. To claim "world citizenship" at a time of war is to forfeit all claim on the protections and affections of every day Americans. That journalists are so blind to this reality can only be explained in the way Jay does in this article - blind adherence to journalistic dogma. Posted by: Scott Harris at June 12, 2005 11:22 AM | Permalink Jay, We cannot read their minds, we can only read what they write and hear what they say. Perhaps if they would stop treating every anti-American story like manna from heaven, some of us might feel differently. To the NYT and others, Abu Ghraib is the gift that keeps on giving. The pressies are trying to do the same with the Koran "abuse" stories. The real story should be how the detainees are more likley to abuse the Koran than their American guards, but you can't beat up Bush with that angle. Posted by: Gary W at June 12, 2005 11:28 AM | Permalink Hmmm. ""The deadliest country for journalists in the last decade is Iraq, where 36 journalists have been killed, all since the beginning of hostilities in March 2003. Another 18 media support workers were killed in Iraq during that time." -- Committee to Protect Journalists" Really? That statement doesn't explicitly state that the deaths were due to violence, just from the start of hostilities. Does this include Mr. Kelly, who died from DVT and not gunfire? What is their definition of "journalist"? Does it include local stringers who have extremely strong ties to local terrorists? Frankly I'm unmoved. I don't see any similar concern for the vast numbers of civilian contractors killed there, and in far greater numbers. "And based on much of what I read here you have no earthly idea why they put themselves in such danger, nor do you seem interested because asking the question might disturb the comfort of your ideological enclosure." They're there because it's the way to get ahead in their industry. Well if they're Western journalists. If they're local stringers then they're there because it's home. Defend the MSM all you like. It, and journalism in general, is doing the Great Swirly right down the toilet. Posted by: ed at June 12, 2005 12:00 PM | Permalink Hmmm. "For that matter, as the question of the standard to be applied to U.S. troops versus terrorists ..." Let's look at this supposed standard. The "standard" applied to the US military is one that no other army in the world could meet. Not France. not Germany. Not Britain. This standard is so ridiculously rigorous that the USAF is developing a **concrete** bomb in order to reduce collateral damage. In comparison the Russian army, when taking Grozny, regularly killed civilians and flattened over half the city. The estimated civilian casulaties are around 70,000 dead, wounded or missing. A "standard" that cannot be applied to more than one is not a standard. Posted by: ed at June 12, 2005 12:06 PM | Permalink "Frankly I'm unmoved." Exactly. And that's why you have no moral credibility in my book. That and your refusal to attach your name and identity to your brave words. On that score, every journalist with a by-line has more courage than you, "ed." Re; journalists deaths. Journalists who go into Iraq have courage--more than I--and journalists who come out of the Green Zone go among Iraqis have even more. It should be acknowledged that they are a diverse group, with diverse motivations and ideologies, and they act as individuals or as members of organizations that are only parts of journalism, not representative of the whole. When one discusses media "bias" or "the press" as an institution, it is possible to properly generalize, I think, but when one uses the death of an individual journalist as a rebut to press criticism it gives me pause. One journalist for a major newspaper may be in Iraq risking his life to "get the story," but another journalist back in New York working for the same newspaper, let's say, may be carelessly publishing stories that end up costings soldiers lives for no good reason. One does not absolve the other, I don't think. In fact, in some sense, one only throws the light more clearly on the actions of the other as reprehensible. I also have to wonder--does risking one's life with a misguided sense of mission absolve one from criticism about the mission and one's motives? That might be applied to some journalists as well as it is so often applied to the military, or no? Posted by: Lee Kane at June 12, 2005 12:33 PM | Permalink Just asking... If the journalists who go to Iraq are courageous, which I am willing to stipulate, what are the Halliburton employees? Are they merely contractors trying to make a buck at the expense of the downtrodden? Or might they also be service oriented individuals seeking to help rebuild a long-terrorized society? And if they are equally as courageous as journalists, and if they are dedicated to improving the lot of regular Iraqi's, is this not news-worthy? What of the progress they are making? Or is "GREEDY CONTRACTOR" the only narrative that resonates with the "courageous" journalists? Are journalists donating their time and efforts, and sacrificing their career ambitions to honestly report on the failures of America in Iraq? Or are they too, like the contractors, profiting from their experience in Iraq? And what is wrong with profit, even or especially when endeavoring to do good? Does profit or career enhancement negate the good? Are the soldiers just unwitting pawns of the overpowering government? Or might they too derive some emotional and spiritual satisfaction from doing right and doing good for both Americans and Iraqi's? My point is that the press seems to endow itself with a unique "nobility" to the exclusion of all others. It is this idea of unique nobility that demands the censure of the American public. Certainly, War journalists have a certain amount of courage, nobility, and sacrifice to do their job. But so also do the soldiers and private contractors. To claim otherwise is to earn the spite of the American public. And to many Americans, the press appears to be making just such a claim. Posted by: Scott Harris at June 12, 2005 1:01 PM | Permalink I think I'm beginning to understand the "citizen of the world" mentality in journalists, and it is tied to the sacred canon of "change the world". I didn't understand why journalists gave a pass to much worse atrocities worldwide and chose to focus on comparatively minor US infractions (Abu Ghraib was on the front page of NYTimes for a solid month, even though there was no "news" about it). The answer is that no matter how much NYTimes and WaPo fulminate about atrocities in North Korea, Yeman, Zimbabwe, etc. the press has no power in these countries, for obvious reasons. Mugabe just authorized the burning of a mosque in his country----why weren't there riots and deaths about this, when Koran-In-The-Toilet caused riots and deaths? The only way journalists can "make a difference" (TM) is to agitate in the open society of the US. Even Amnesty International has figured this out by making provocative statements that aren't even included in their report. They know the press will drool over(and will never ask questions, much less read the report) what they say, even if it isn't the truth, because it fits the worldview of the press.It's fortunate that our current President isn't concerned about what's on the NYTimes editorial page (me neither). I'm amused by how terrorists and assorted anti-war, anti-US, anti-Bush advocacy groups can play the US press like a tune, and GWB can't figure it out (regaradless of "decertification" of the press Har!Har!). Oh, yeah, I forgot, the press is just GWB's poodle. Thanks Rabbi Jay, for what you do here----PressThink is one of the few political/media blogs that allows diverse POV's. Posted by: kilgore trout at June 12, 2005 2:45 PM | Permalink Scott: Anyone who doesn't recognize the risk contractors are taking and pay it some mind when discussing them is a moral idiot. Same with the risks journalists are taking. "Frankly I'm unmoved" are the words of a moral idiot. My point is you have no idea how often "greedy contractor" has been the theme in news coverage from Iraq, overall. Do you? You certainly don't know and have made no attempt to find out whether it is "the only narrative." Have you? You have no sense of how often some of the more idealistic motives of contractors have been mentioned in news stories, either. Do you? I am not saying you haven't seen such stories, or that they don't appear. I'm saying you actually have no idea if that is a fair characterization of the coverage of civilian contractors. And yet you are perfectly comfortable basing your criticisms on the assumption that greedy contractor is the "only" story the press wants to tell. It's amazing to me how much some of you claim to know about what the press has actually said in its coverage-- with your "never" this, and "always" that. Aren't you embarrassed to be talking out of your ass like that? Lee Kane: "I also have to wonder--does risking one's life with a misguided sense of mission absolve one from criticism about the mission and one's motives?" Absolve from criticism? Who said anything like that? Is that a demand someone is making in this discussion? Seriously, Lee, where does that come from? I just wrote 2,000 words of criticism of CNN's Bob Franken. Who's absolving, or even suggesting, or even hinting in any way that journalists are beyond criticism of their mission or their motives? Thanks, Trout. Jay, you discount the moral credibility of press critics who have no sympathy for reporters killed in the line of duty. Fair enough. Just understand that the moral credibility of apparently anti-patriotic journalists (as I would argue, for example, are Mike Wallace, Peter Jennings and others who conceptually subscribe to the "reporting an ambush of U.S. troops is more important than trying to prevent the ambush" brand of citizenship) can be equally discounted by readers who become aware of those journalists' stance. Posted by: Trained Auditor at June 12, 2005 3:40 PM | Permalink Jay, During the Presidential Election cycle, we heard ad nauseum about Halliburton. The name "Halliburton" became almost an epithet. I am not suggesting that it takes no courage to be a reporter. Neither am I suggesting that members of the press are wrong because they profit either materially or career wise from reporting in Iraq. What I am stating unequivically is that the MSM has set themselves up as morally superior to all others engaged in the Iraqi enterprise. And that arrogance comes shining through in the bulk of reporting on and from Iraq. It is not that journalists are LESS noble, but that they are not more so than others. Wielding a hammer, a shovel, or a rifle is just as noble as wielding a pen. Posted by: Scott Harris at June 12, 2005 3:55 PM | Permalink You quote a National Review writer thusly: "Readers expect a certain amount of American-ness in their reporters. They expect that since the source of these reporters’ liberties is the U.S. Constitution, then perhaps they owe the U.S. a tiny bit of loyalty." Posted by: Harry Shearer at June 12, 2005 4:47 PM | Permalink Great answer, Scott. I agree with you to this tune: One of the "addictions" I see in mainstream journalists is an addiction to what I would call jolts of innocence. Journalists are constantly leveraging this party against that so as to portray themselves as between parties, in glorious neither nor-ness, no one's advocate, the pro skeptics, the stand backers, the army of the detached and so on (the lingo is long...) and each and every time one of these triangulations happens there is this jolt. Press: innocent, neutral, non-actor, non-factor. Equal skepticism for all. I tried to "catch" Bob Franken doing it in my post. When you are accustomed to doing this as part of your religion (my narrative, last couple posts) you run the risk of suggesting you occupy a position "above" the struggling players on the floor of politics. That would be your customers. It is an inherent trap in the language of the equal-skeptic-unto-all. It becomes more of one when your customers take arms upon a sea of troubles and see you participating with themselves, right on the floor as it were-- not "above." You have to be extraordinarily self-aware to avoid this trap. A lot of journalists (won't say all) disagree with me. They think it's easy. If I gore your ox and then I gore the other guys ox you will understand why I go-a-gorring. Politics comes down to who's ox gets gorred. Media criticism: much the same thing. Sort of strange Jay that its not obvious whose side the journalists are on isnt it? If I have to read their minds to figure it out then someone is confused and it aint me. Mike Wallace was on whose side in that question regarding the ambush of US Soldiers? You have refused to deal with this question and its at the heart of the disgust that most common people feel for the press. Obviously that Mike Wallace story has not reached mainstream American cause when it does expect tar and feathers at some big offices of MSM. But even though that particular story has not reached Mainstream America they understand which side much of the press is on. So then Jay which side was Mike Wallace on? The US? The Enemy? Or his own side? Mike Wallace is arguably among those most influential journalists on TV and that he has the morals of a guttersnipe should give you pause as a Professor. Did the professors of Journalism intend to churn out people like Mike Wallace? Did you think that the American people would think them noble? Am I supposed to feel bad if someone with the morals of Mike Wallace gets tapped in the war? If it walks like a turkey, looks like a turkey and smells like one well.... Pierre Legrand Posted by: Pierre Legrand at June 12, 2005 5:40 PM | Permalink No, Pierre, it's that you haven't been around during the numerous times I have written about the Mike Wallace story after one or another of the numerous times it has been brought into a comment thread here so that one or another proposition might be proven. It's not you. It's them. The 55 before you. After a while you get tired of the thing, but I am quite sure my derision toward Wallace, in that particular performance, is equal to yours. Harry Shearer is correct: the theology of those rights is that "we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights", and even as an atheist I agree with those words. Or more importantly I agree with the upshot that these rights are not for governments to grant or to take away, but are inherent in being human. The U.S. government exists to secure these rights. It follows that any failure of the government to secure these rights is ripe for criticism. Hussein's former government and Al Qaeda on the other hand are not known for securing these rights and thus not deserving, morally, of equal treatment from the press. "He said, she said" reporting might be sufficient for domestic politics (though many say no), but it is definitely not appropriate when reporting on a war between a government that secures rights and a government or group that does not. Posted by: Brian O'Connell at June 12, 2005 6:00 PM | Permalink Jay, that wasn't necessarily addressed to you, although I'm curious why you raised the number of journalists killed in Iraq in response to Pierre's rather intensely held position that a (presumably) U.S. journalist that causes the death of U.S. soldiers is damning his profession. Posted by: Lee Kane at June 12, 2005 6:49 PM | Permalink Hmmm. "Exactly. And that's why you have no moral credibility in my book. That and your refusal to attach your name and identity to your brave words. On that score, every journalist with a by-line has more courage than you, "ed."" Edward Royce. I'm still unmoved. Posted by: ed at June 12, 2005 6:53 PM | Permalink Hmmm. Oh and you didn't answer any of my points concerning combat deaths or the use of local stringers. Just a reminder from someone without a byline and thus no credibility to discuss journalists. I really wish now I had gone to j-school instead of being a US Marine infantryman. Then I'd have the ability to discuss journalism. But that's beyond my grasp now. sob. Posted by: ed at June 12, 2005 6:57 PM | Permalink Hmmm. BTW Mr. Rosen. I use a personally owned domain's email as authentication when posting. You can also hit up http://www.nsi.com and do a whois on the domain. That also has my home address and even phone number, as required by ICANN. So I admit I was a bit surprised about that whole "hidden identity" thing. Just a fyi. Posted by: ed at June 12, 2005 7:00 PM | Permalink Thanks for letting us know who you are, ed. A first and last name are good enough for me. That you are a Marine, is helpful to know, as well. I don't know what the breakdown is in the death figures, but I am pretty sure it can be found at the www.cpj.org site. Whether someone is a stringer and reporting the news or a staffer and reporting the news does not make much difference. How many who call themselves stringers are working for some hostile interest, I do not know. That does make a difference. There is a category for other personnel so the death figures for journalists do not include technicians, drivers, interpreters, fixers and so on. The discussion by Peter Jennings and Mike Wallace on the hypothetical of what they’d do if accompanying enemy troops during an ambush of American soldiers occurred in 1987. It ran on PBS as part of a overall discussion on ethic in America. It was hardly hidden from view, as some here suggest. It created a storm of conversation, soul-searching and more than a little hand-wringing in political and journalistic circles. But then, it was supposed to. I find it fascinating that an 18-year-old PBS program has generated such heat in the conversation here. That may be because it is so badly remembered. And because the ‘facts’ of those memories are skewed to reflect pre-conceived notions about reporters and journalism. Let's review: In October 1996, Frontline ran a program on “Why America Hates the Media.” James Fallows summarized the program thusly. Jennings at first was hesitant and said he wouldn't film the ambush. In deed, Jennings said, "If I were with a North Kosanese unit that came upon Americans, I think that I personally would do what I could to warn the Americans." Even, he added, as the very real cost of his life. Wallace, however, vowed he'd cover the story. That's what he was there for. He voiced surprise that Jennings wouldn't. Jennings changed his view, sort of. "I think he's right," he said. "I chickened out. I agree with Mike intellectually." He never fully, however, gave up the idea of warning American soldiers. Wallace was hammered by the military participants, seemingly enjoying their wrath. He then, however, acknowledged that if he knew about a murder about to happen, he would report it to the police. Asked about the inconsistency of that line of action with the hypothetical about the soldiers, Wallace acknowledged confusion. "Now I’m going back and forth as I sit here. It’s a hell of a dilemma to be in. Now I don’t know what I think," he said. It's interesting to note that earlier in the program, a former platoon leader, faced with the hypothetical option of torturing a prisoner to get information that would save some of his own troops, was castigated for his decision to do so. What does this tell us -- outside the fact that Mike Wallace is no ethicist? That perhaps there is a bit more nuance and complexity to the religion of journalism that has been acknowledged in these discussions. And that in blog world, facts rarely get in the way of a good discussion the morality of journalists. Posted by: David McLemore at June 12, 2005 7:11 PM | Permalink Hmmm. "And that in blog world, facts rarely get in the way of a good discussion the morality of journalists. " Which is similar to a discussion about the existence of God. For some it's an article of faith that it exists. For others, we demand proof. Posted by: ed at June 12, 2005 7:16 PM | Permalink Brian O'Connell nicely displays the attitude so neatly described by Scott Harris. Let's focus on the failings of the U.S. military instead of the inherent barabarism of terrorists. However, since the original topic is whether there is an anti-military bias of the press, let's take another round of questions (though no one defending the press seems able to answer my prior questions). Why is it that when Arthur Chrenkoff biweekly rounds up good news from Iraq and Afghanistan, only a tiny fraction of it comes from organiztions like The New York Times (despite the fact that they ran one of his pieces) the Washington Post, the L.A. Times, or TV network news? Trudy Rubin suggests in the originally-linked post (that manages to lump Gitmo in with Abu Grahib) that people are confusing criticism of the Bush Admin. with an anti-military bias. But even if the abuses at places like Gitmo are ordered from on high, members of the U.S. military are not supposed to carry out illegal orders. So Ms. Rubin may think there is a difference in the criticism, but one has a definite implication of the other, doesn't it? If the job of the press is to report what happens in front of them, isn't it incumbent on thepress to be transparent about the degree to which they rely on local stringers in places like Iraq? And to be transparent about the hiring process? I ask because a stringer working for CBS was detained by the military on suspicion of being involved with the insurgents. It was only at this point that CBS disclosed that he was hired on the recommendation of a "fixer" in Tikrit (Saddam's hometown) with whom CBS had (and may yet have) a long-standing relationship. Shouldn't readers have some minimal amount of information as to how much of a news story is the product of the person in the byline and how much is the work of someone who may well be a Baathist sympathizer? Bob Herbert of the NYT trumpeted unsubstantiated smears of U.S. troops from a conscientious objector that are contradicted by a milblogger who claims to have been at the scene, is that evidence of an anti-military bias? When a Marine Corps reservist claims that Rajiv Chandrasekaran, the Baghdad bureau chief for the Washington Post, got a story he witnessed completely wrong, should I take it as evidence of an anti-military bias? I could produce other examples, but maybe one more will suffice? Will two do the trick? Obviously, those who are covered by journalists often have complaints about that coverage. Some of those complaints may be unfounded. But can I conclude that every single complaint is unfounded? (Given the recent polling showing much greater confidence in the U.S. military than in the media, I think most would answer in the negative.) In contrast, where are the stories in which the major media has gotten a story wrong in a way that made the U.S. military look better than it is? Posted by: Karl Karl: I think you make an excellent case for transparency on the matter of hiring stringers as long as the safety of the stringers (who could be threatened for cooperating with Americans if they were legit, right?) is also taken into account, which should not necessarily trump other interests. "Some of those complaints may be unfounded. But can I conclude that every single complaint is unfounded?" Hell no. I think the question of why the media inspires less confidence than the military is a very good one, and ought to be more discussed in press councils, as should the absence of people with military experience and cultural smarts-- conversant with the military. I think these are major weaknesses in the newsroom tribe in a militarized age like ours. And they account for much of the resentment. The problem is, many journalists and the organizations they work for are seen as anti-American, not anti-American Military. And what evidence is there that they are not? They seem to have "faith" only in the America that was gestated between 1965 and 1975. The rest of us believe in the America that came about between 1776 and 1789. J-Schools teach them their greatest triumphs (during Vietnam & Watergate) are the templates for achievement in the field, and the ideology that was likewise "triumphant" in those years is also seen as the only way to believe. Somehow the idea that "We the people" are America got lost by most journalists, but not by "the people." And the people happen to be the customers and consumers of journalism. And they are not happy having their country/themselves trashed by believers in these false and/or dead "gods." Posted by: John Boyle at June 12, 2005 10:58 PM | Permalink Karl, perhaps I could have been clearer. When I wrote that Hussein's Iraq is not deserving of "equal treatment from the press" I mean that it did not deserve equal credibility or equal respect, and not that it should have been judged by an unequal- that is, lower- standard. Actually I think unequal standards is one of the main problems of the "objective" press. The U.S. is held to an impossibly high, idealistic standard which it will never measure up to. Others aren't held to this or any particular standard so they never fail to measure up. Multiculturalism, "the soft bigotry of low expectations", the racism of the left, Arab exceptionalism- it's all of a piece. Posted by: Brian O'Connell at June 13, 2005 12:32 AM | Permalink "And if that reporter's work turns out to seem especially tough on America, it's because he is an American, and he has higher standards for the country that is the world's one true last hope than he has for other countries -- higher than the standards that he sets for, say, a Pakistan, or a Brazil, or an Ireland, or a Vietnam, or an Iraq, or an Israel." This one seems to be a special target of the "America, Right or Wrong" crowd who want a press that doesn't tell them, for example, that an American intelligence failure led to 3,000 deaths at the World Trade Center, and that another intelligence failure has so far led to 1,600 Amercian deaths in Iraq. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at June 13, 2005 12:56 AM | Permalink Journalists should be biased against liars, cheats and bad presidents - no matter which party they represent. That also goes for bad generals, agents and soldiers who lie - or shoot journalists. Posted by: fast2write Personally I think the MSM has strayed to far from the Murrow Legend and Tradition. In Dan Rather's own words, "it was astonishing how often his [Murrow] name and work came up. To somebody outside CBS it is probably hard to believe...Time and again I heard someone say, 'Ed wouldn't have done it that way.'" (Dan Rather, The Camera Never Blinks) Maybe if more people within the MSM followed Mr. Murrow's example common citizens, like myself, would have more respect for them. If Ed were alive today I think he'd be a blogger. Posted by: Dan Irving at June 13, 2005 1:26 AM | Permalink Everyone here has that exchange and there isn't much that isn't clear about it. When asked about the scenario Mike Wallace's snap judgment was to stand by and watch soldiers get murdered. He felt strongly enough about it that he then browbeat Jennnings into adopting the same policy. Noticing that he might have let a bit more out of the bag about his feelings towards both the Military and the United States he backtracked. It was hardly hidden from view, as some here suggest. It created a storm of conversation, soul-searching and more than a little hand-wringing in political and journalistic circles. But then, it was supposed to. I didn't suggest it was hidden from view I suggested that it was not common knowledge, two very different items. That it happened some time ago means very little since in the interim it seems that the press has become even more antagonistic. Wallace was hammered by the military participants, seemingly enjoying their wrath. He then, however, acknowledged that if he knew about a murder about to happen, he would report it to the police. Asked about the inconsistency of that line of action with the hypothetical about the soldiers, Wallace acknowledged confusion. Yea confusion because to Wallace US Soldiers don't represent his fellow citizens, they represent the occupation force. "Now I’m going back and forth as I sit here. It’s a hell of a dilemma to be in. Now I don’t know what I think," he said. hehe..Yea boyo when you have managed to stick your foot in it, confusion is the best policy. It's interesting to note that earlier in the program, a former platoon leader, faced with the hypothetical option of torturing a prisoner to get information that would save some of his own troops, was castigated for his decision to do so. Not sure what the point of raising this exchange was but if you are attempting to compare the two situations you prove my point. In one situation the man is attempting to save his soldiers a completely understandable position and the other is a reporter trying to get a sensational story. You prove my point by believing there is something comparable about them. What does this tell us -- outside the fact that Mike Wallace is no ethicist? No it tells us that Mike Wallace is your typical "Citizen of the World Journalist". His first gut reaction was the truth of how he would act and that gut reaction is endemic to the profession, and furthermore it is the cause of the slide towards irrelevency of the MSM. That perhaps there is a bit more nuance and complexity to the religion of journalism that has been acknowledged in these discussions. Ah nuance, that is such a lovely thought. Exactly what sort of nuance explains Wallace's gut reaction? that in blog world, facts rarely get in the way of a good discussion the morality of journalists hehe..What facts were portrayed misleadingly by me in this discussion? Mike Wallace did indeed claim that he would stand by and watch as American Soldiers were murdered, he even went so far as to berate Jennings for not seeing the truth of the matter. Exactly how does the journalistic world "nuance" that? Jay thank you for your kind response. Sorry to be aggressive but I have friends in theater and know moms waiting for their sons. To imagine that any US journalist would even consider NOT alerting any of my friends or the sons of moms to an ambush is maddening to the nth degree. I have a somewhat different view of the utility of journalists in a war. Its sort of like having reporters in the middle of a fire while the fire is being fought. They serve no purpose except to get in the way and cause our sons and daughters to face increased danger. I realize that this is heresy in a forum like this but until someone proves why it is so important I will always be the critic of them. I would much rather see the model of US reporters in WW2 than what shenanigans being perpetuated right now. Finally to the poster who believes that those of us who attack the press only want good news about the war on terror. Bzzzt...your definition of bad news is not helping the war on terror. Want to do some good, explain why the bureaucracy is still fighting change. Dig into the Oil for Food programs, dig into Homeland security farce, show relationships between our enemies, dig into the failures of the CIA and FBI and try and stay away from the predictable story lines...hint if Haliburton comes up in your story ooops. In the end I respect the work of patriots, a patriot looks to find ways to fight the war better and genuinely reflects upon whether his story will benefit or hurt the overall fight. Your position on the battlefield is a privilege not a right, your reporting can cause people to lose their lives and when you dismiss that possibility as being subservient to your right to be a journalist no sane father can take you seriously. Pierre Posted by: Pierre Legrand at June 13, 2005 1:51 AM | Permalink Don't over-romanticize WWII journalism and assume that every American war correspondent in that conflict had either the talent or the ethics of Edward R. Murrow or Ernie Pyle. Take a look sometime at the *Chicago Tribune* story published shortly after the Battle of Midway about how the U.S. Navy's cryptographic service had cracked the Japanese codes. It was a masterful scoop by journalistic standards -- but it was also a huge breach of the security protocols agreed upon by the military and the press, and it caused incalculable harm to the American war effort in the Pacific. Posted by: Gregory Sager at June 13, 2005 5:46 AM | Permalink I am not aware of any charges by U.S. military that an improperly published story led to needless death of U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Are there such? Several of you seem outraged by this, and yet you aren't discussing any cases. Why is that? Hmmm. "I am not aware of any charges by U.S. military that an improperly published story led to needless death of U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Are there such? Several of you seem outraged by this, and yet you aren't discussing any cases. Why is that?" So it's your contention that 4.5 months of front-page wall-to-wall coverage of Abu Ghraib didn't help the terrorists recruit? Got any proof of this? Posted by: ed at June 13, 2005 1:42 PM | Permalink Hoder is really the anti-Eason Jordan, isn't he? All "citizens of the world" reporters should aspire to his example---it might improve the public's view of journalists and journalism. If it's not too late. Posted by: kilgore trout at June 13, 2005 2:21 PM | Permalink Contention? I asked a factual question. There was no contention. Have any officials of the United States military publicly charged that a story improperly published in the U.S. media led to needless death of U.S. soldiers in Iraq? That was the question. I said I had not heard of such charges, but others may know better. I am not familar with any single story being tied directly to the death of a soldier. There may be one, but I've never heard of it. However, there have been criticisms of the press by the military. For example, just two quickly: Since the news (based on this anonymous tip) was immediately reported on local news and amplified by CNN, the military authorities in our Rear Detachment were forced to send out an email confirming that soldiers were injured, but that no further information could be made available until families had been notified. Which just scared and upset more families and friends of Soldiers in our Division, because (thanks to HIPAA restrictions), the Army can't reveal any medical information without patient consent.Rumsfeld, Myers offer defense of war plan "My view of those reports, and since I don't know who you're quoting, who the individuals are, is that they're bogus," Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at a Pentagon press briefing. "They're false, they're absolutely wrong, they bear no resemblance to the truth and it's just harmful to our troops that are out there fighting very bravely, very courageously." Jay; Perhaps because what is in question is not any specific case, but a strategic reality. And in that sense, I get the feeling that your question may be insincere, as well as betraying “journalism’s” lack of insight into the reality of military necessity – which is an entire other area of contention. I would not doubt that somewhere in Afghanistan or Iraq, a captured terrorist has been found whose debriefing disclosed beliefs about outrageous, but phony, events acquired through news media, beliefs which incited him to enlistment, to action, or to greater devotion to his cause – which is killing Americans. I doubt there is any way to fact check this – because such information, if elicited, is usually classified, and pertains to the mind-set of individuals, acquired from many sources. Maybe, if you have any readers who are currently serving, or who have served, in Military Intelligence, you might get a specific answer. Why do you think all militaries have psychological operations sections, and have had for almost as long as there has been warfare? The Trojan Horse was a case of a head game with consequences. Campaigns of disinformation (as the Koran flushing story used by demagogues to incite riot) on the one hand, and morale boosting on the other, are considered essential weapons of war, and are often even decisive, as in Shakespeare’s Henry V: “We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; . . . That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day. . .” And as in General Patton’s resented assignment to a fictitious diversionary army in the south of England just prior to D-Day. Henry's outnumbered troops were so inspired, by mere words and by his stature, that they prevailed against all odds that day. The Germans were so convinced Patton was the only man for the invasion job, and that he was coming through the Pas de Calais, not Normandy, that they withheld their armored divisions from Normandy until it was too late. Psy-ops. Decisive. I can only speak as one who went to Vietnam in 1966 when this country was on its own side, and who spent 14 months there, protected from all TV, radio, newspapers and news magazines, and who returned home toward the end of the Tet offensive in February of 1968. What I was then inundated with by way of news had no even approximate correlation to the actual reality I had experienced on the ground – especially in its tone, it's doom-saying, and its hysterical oppositionalism. What I see now in the media is all - all – a carbon copy of what I experienced then. Bin Laden and his fascist acolytes do not need their own psy-ops service, they have ours (oops - "your's") although where Bin Laden puts his money is anyone’s guess. See, that crack is psy-ops, and should sound familiar to anyone who reads NYT Op-Ed. One of my favorite examples of how our enemies psy-ops and our own collaboration with it can intersect, is found in a Viet-Cong propaganda leaflet captured by a comrade-in-arms in the same area where I served. I think it is instructive. “Do try to avoid the unfortunate fate of the last GI killed in this war.” “. . . how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?” Posted by: John Boyle at June 13, 2005 2:56 PM | Permalink Jay, great post and discussion... I am struck by how your post connects to a similar debate that international aid agencies have been enmeshed in since attacks on aid workers spiked during the Iraq war. They too have a professional "view from nowhere" (theirs, of course, is tied to human rights) that they have found no longer quite applies to the world today. I had the privilege to learn a poignant lesson at quite a young age. On a study abroad in college in Soweto I was a) white, b) American, c) rich. All the while I had fancied myself a "citizen of the world" and a humanitarian. That experience taught me two things: that I was a product of my country, culture and its privileges, and that people defined me in relation to these things. "Go. See. Come back. Tell" ignores both the reporter's humanity, and, most-distressingly, her moral obligations. Let me explain. If I was in Iraq right now, as a journalist, and knew of an impending ambush on American troops my morals would dictate that I warn them. I would never second guess that decision. Similarly, if I knew that an Iraqi hospital was going to be hit by an American bomb I would act the same way. Those are the easy scenarios. Would I warn a group of insurgents of an impending attack? No. The trickier question is why not. And I would have to say that is because of a number of factors: despite my opposition to the decision to go to war, I believe that restoring security and establishing democracy will benefit Iraqis now that we are here; my loyalty, so to speak, is to the American soldiers who are in Iraq, and so forth. The fact is, and I believe this is what you are driving at, that unless reporters can articulate questions and responses like these, the "religion" of the "view from nowhere" is inherently untrustworthy. It does not articulate identity, it does not require journalists to act morally or ethically, it does not acknowledge that "Go. See. Come back. Tell" has implications. A "citizen of the world" mentality is useless because it is fundamentally dishonest or self-delusional. A flag pin on the lapel -- while a bit crass -- at least tells me where a reporter is coming from so I can evaluate her claims. Posted by: Daniel Kreiss at June 13, 2005 5:53 PM | Permalink Orwell once said that pacifism was only possible for those protected by the British Navy. Similarly, a journalist can only claim to be a citizen of the world because his American passport assures him the protection of the US government. It is simply absurd for a journalist to support freedom of the press while being neutral toward the only regime in the world that guarantees a free press. Posted by: Michael Kochin at June 13, 2005 6:00 PM | Permalink Thanks, Daniel. I would second your statement: "unless reporters can articulate questions and responses like these, the 'religion' of the 'view from nowhere' is inherently untrustworthy." That's it. John Boyle: I don't think the media innocent of playing an enabler's role in modern terror. Here's a passage from something I wrote with my own take on it: "Any news outlet — or any private individual, for that matter — who makes available footage of the actual beheadings is, to my mind, an accessory to the crime itself," says [Tom] Kunkel, dean of journalism at the University of Maryland. "Those are the individuals who are essentially finishing the work of the terrorists, by delivering their grisly 'message.' " This was said in the Los Angeles Times in June, "Web Amplifies Message of Primitive Executions." Jay, have you had a chance to read Michael Yon's blog and, if so, your thoughts? "So it's your contention that 4.5 months of front-page wall-to-wall coverage of Abu Ghraib didn't help the terrorists recruit?" * No, it's my contention that Abu Ghraib itself helped Al Qaeda recruit. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at June 13, 2005 7:14 PM | Permalink Jay, Nice to have your ear (eye). I may be over my head here, but I do have very strong feelings and a lot of bitter real world recollections in these matters. I am not so much disturbed by reporting of the Big Story and Real Events, even if these in some sense advance the terror agenda in that they, de facto, frighten people. 9/11 happened because a lot of people had their heads in the sand. And I am sensitive to Kunkel’s and your notion that some sort of self-censorship is needed – and in fact employed. If nothing else, there is some decency still left in the world. There is also editorial judgment – you can’t publish everything (at least not until the advent of the Internet) – and, even if you could, no one could read it all. But why would Kunkel’s warning, and “accessory” judgment, apply to beheadings by our enemies, but not to pornographic humiliations at Abu Grhaib? We protect the American people from the horrors committed by our enemies, why? Because to do otherwise is completing the work of the terrorists. But we (over) expose the American people to the more trivial “horrors” of our own misdeeds with an editorial moral outrage more suited to the murders (whose true nature is hidden), why? Isn’t that completing the work of the terrorists, even if they did not initiate the odious acts? The idea that journalists are de facto innocent bystanders in the retailing of terror, and in the implementation of the psy-ops agenda of its practitioners, ignores the fact that news enterprises make choices about what they cover, how extensively they cover it, how often thy re-invigorate the story with “new” information, how they play it in foreign editions versus domestic editions, and by what media they present it – (“a picture is worth a thousand words”). See the recent ACLU "victory" (for whom?) in getting even more photos, and now video, from Abu Ghraib. “ . . . terror incorporates news into its principles of action.” True, but to what extent do journalists have no choice but to cooperate with those principles of action? An example: Even if Issikoff’s Pentagon “source” on Koran desecrations had backed him up, and provided another “official source” to back that up, it was still not news. Why? Because there was no “event” in the story. All it was was allegations by a detainee – or detainees. Even if the FBI had heard the allegations and documented them, that is still not news, because they are still allegations, no matter who heard them and wrote them down. And the allegants had to be regarded with skepticism (of course they weren’t) – they are trained to create such disinformation. Never mind what your professor at Columbia told you, what did your mother say? “Consider the source.” The story that was retracted was never about any real events – it was about whether or not (1) an official source had (2) acknowledged that there was (3) an official report of (4) allegations having been made. Where, in God’s name, is the beef? An allegation is the “he said” half of “He said, she said.” It is a rumor. It is, in other words, propaganda – provided only that the originator of the “story” can get it propagated somehow. And then I would add, it is not even a matter of whether there were in fact actual events of Koran desecrations at Gitmo. Even if there were – so what? Who cares? How important is that? But there was a choice made here – an editorial choice about news-worthiness. And then what happens is that the reactions to the news story become news, and everyone reports and repeats all this in an ever widening splash of narcissistic symbiosis. Even though it was all about next to nothing to start with. And from this nothing, we are now faced with the possible closing of the whole enterprise, with enormous expense, confusion, political dissension, and a large wet kiss for our Islamofascist enemies. It is watching the horror movie doll “Chuckie” rubbing his hands in glee over in a half-lit corner. I don’t know what they are saying among themselves in Arabic at Gitmo, but if they have any new arrivals who have recently been watching TV or reading western news publications on the outside, what they are saying can be translated as “Man, are we ever getting’ over on the Big Satan!” Can you see why reasonable people might suspect that this enormous international firestorm was manufactured for some ulterior purpose beyond the asserted function of a news organization to inform the public about important matters? And why this kind of thing might be of use to our enemies, who are laughing all the way from their Swiss banks to their underground bomb factories over it? I am not for censorship. I don’t think treason and sedition laws should be invoked widely. Although, after the next big attack, if it comes, no one will care much about those niceties anymore. But responsible journalists have to get over the nostalgia for their own Vietnam era kind of aggrandizement. Things have changed. 9/11 changed it. You guys our on our side now, whether you like it or not. I have a photo of me in Vietnam in the back of a jeep manning an M-60 machine gun. The caption is “Defending Against A VC Air Attack.” It’s a joke. They had no air force. There was zero chance they were going to bomb New York, either. This is not your Father’s Vietnam. Or is it? I think of a friend of a friend, Sean Flynn, depicted in the movie "Frankie's Place," picking up an M-16 as the VC came through the wire and overran the position he was covering as a photo-journalist. He used it, too.
Posted by: John Boyle Ed and angry Steve Lovelady - I don't think the issue is helping the terrorists recruit. I think the issue is helping them by demoralizing our troops and the American people. They can recruit all they want. They are not going to win, unless we give up because we are made to be seen as the bad guys to ourselves. Steve seems already convinced. History will tell. Posted by: John Boyle Re: The North Kosanese Hypothetical I wasn't exactly surprised that an American reporter would accompany an enemy unit, but it raises questions in my mind about his objectivity. Surely, he must be aware of the Eason Jordan dilemma this creates. Is getting a story so important that you tacitly assent to be used to promote a dictatorial and oppressive regime in order to get it? I would hope that Western reporters would not be so worried about their world citizenship that they excuse or gloss over human rights abuses that would get an American a well-deserved prison sentence. Suppose you were a photographer in Iraq who had a tip that a suicide bombing would occur at a certain time and place. Would you be justified in going and shooting the explosion or should you warn the authorities? Mike Wallace seems to think you should go for the photo, but I don't think that even a citizen of the world is justified in doing so. Moral relativisms, such as "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is not objectivity. It's a mealy-mouthed cop out to cover the fact that you've checked your humanity at the door. Posted by: AST Did I miss something? Did someone embed with the enemy army? Did they justify it by claiming "one man's terrorist" etc.? I didn't think so. It seems there's ample interest here in using the 'world citizen' meme as evidence, nay, PROOF, that media coverage of any but the most pleasant aspects of American power are anti-American. You want to blame the messenger? Go ahead. It's been done before. But there would be no outrage at Abu Ghraib is egregious abuse hadn't occurred. Were the media supposed to ignore it? And just to reiterate: There is no North Kosanese Army. The 1987 program was an exercise in media ethics. Rather than an indication that reporters are rarin' to denigrate American values any ol' way they can, the North Kosanese discussion revealed that Jennings and Wallace were deeply conflicted. Even Wallace at the end of the program sounded less than convinced of being a 'citizen of the world." If only some in this discussion were a little less convinced that their biases are Holy Writ. Talk about the new faith. Posted by: David McLemore at June 13, 2005 11:24 PM | Permalink I think one of the problems with coverage in Iraq is this: too few reporters in too few places because it's too darn dangerous. As a result, reporters can't get close enough to apply any reportorial skepticism to insurgents. I think people wildly overestimate the actual number of reporters in Iraq from the US and international newsmedia. How many frontline reporters are there in the country? I would bet it's under 100. (By this I mean actual reporters in the country, not support staff, and not folks in a rear base outside Iraq, where many of the press briefings are held). Does anyone here know, or have some better information? And I would bet that those reporters can't really apply their skepticism to insurgents because getting within 500 feet of one would result in their kidnapping and death. All they can do, in the end, is repeat reports about bombings and people -- we don't know who they are, what they want, or where they came from -- coming up to checkpoints and opening fire. It seems to me we don't know much about the insurgents; the stories I read just say "insurgents did X." Who are they? Where are they from? Do they belong to some sort of organization? Are they Iraqi, or from someplace else? We don't know. As far as I can tell they're not holding press conferences. The whole thing reminds me of that long sequence in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid where they are being tracked by a bounty hunter. They keep coming at them, and Sundance keeps saying, "Who ARE those guys?" So the reporters report and apply skepticism to what's in front of them, and that's the US armed forces. If insurgents held press conferences they'd probably apply skepticism to that, and there's been a fair amount of debunking and "is it really him" research applied to tapes issued by people who may or may not be bin Laden. (I should probably disclose that I'm a lifelong Democrat and was against going into Iraq but for going into Afghanistan (and Iraq in 91)). Posted by: Lisa Williams at June 14, 2005 12:13 AM | Permalink There's a lot here that I'd like to discuss, but there is one nugget that is far more important than any of the others, and I don't want it to be lost in the verbiage.
This is fundamentally incompatible with being a "Citizen of the World" for reasons that should be obvious. Posted by: rosignol at June 14, 2005 12:27 AM | Permalink I just reread this thread from the top. One word reaction: Yikes! Also noted the CPJ report cited 36 journalist deaths, which would indicate that the number of journalists is higher than I thought. Still, I think the question stands: how many journalists in the country? Posted by: Lisa Williams at June 14, 2005 12:28 AM | Permalink Lisa, a quick spin of Google suggests that in 2003, there were 2,000-plus journalists from all nations accredited to cover the war in Iraq. Of those, about 500 were actually imbedded with military troops. Of the remainder, not all were in Iraq. As you noted, much of the coverage is reported out of Kuwait, Qatr and other areas outside theater. Again, as you noted, many of those who do report out of Baghdad rarely leave the Green Zone because of the significant risk. Posted by: David McLemore at June 14, 2005 12:39 AM | Permalink Lisa: There are large numbers of American militray bloggers, some coalition forces bloggers, and even some Iraqi civilian bloggers in English. Perhaps this is where I get my biases - first hand evidence. Posted by: John Boyle At what point does the "U.S. citizen first" journalist become the "citizen of the world" journalist when it becomes obvious that the U.S. (in the form of its government and corporate powers that be) have become corrupt? Hell, it doesn't even take the omnipresent "citizen of the world" objective point of view to reach that conclusion - as Edward R. Murrow did with McCarthy, Walter Cronkite did with Vietnam, and Cynthia Tucker did today with deposed HealthSouth founder Richard Scrushy, on trial for fraud. Even a patriotic journalism could consider it a duty to report the corruption. Here's a great quote from a recent exchange I had with a reporter for National Public Radio on the issue of police profiling of serial killers, an issue I've covered for The New York Times, Christian Science Monitor and Dallas Morning News. When she decided not to use me on the air, I said, cool and "Tell the truth." Her reply? "What's that supposed to mean?" Just tell the truth. It's really not that hard, if your editors and publishers have the same goal. If not, well, you get the U.S. media and press we have today. You see, her editor had a story line in mind and had already pitched it and sold in New York. So the story has to come in as it was pitched, whether reporting on the ground supported it or not. That's how all top down media works. Here's the kicker. You think someone at the top over at Fox News believes in the "U.S. citizen first" thing? If Roger Ailes was telling the truth in a recent forum at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, broadcast on C-SPAN. Could it be Fox News is not just a mouthpiece for the right, but a mouthpiece for the U.S. government and point of view? While CNN has always been about going global? Posted by: fast2write Jay are you funning with me? Holy smokes this sort of charge would mean the death of journalism in the US. But to use Mike Wallace's example does anyone think that Mike Wallace after witnessing the murder of American Soldiers would then go on to write the story as if he had a chance to alert them? Who would know if he simply said he was brought to the scene? The Terrorists? Naturally but discrediting their tool in the US Media would seem to be stupid even for that lot. Have any officials of the United States military publicly charged that a story improperly published in the U.S. media led to needless death of U.S. soldiers in Iraq But on the other hand there is a concerted effort to counter the US efforts to win this war by most US Journalists reporting on Iraq. This does indeed have the result of causing the deaths of US Soldiers. By the constant efforts to destroy the morale of the folks back home on this war. You cause the efforts in Iraq to be diluted and in being diluted they are less effective. But your worst affect is you give heart to the terrorists because they are fighting a war of will, not a war of arms, even those idiots know that we cannot be beaten on the battlefield. But we can and have been beaten by wearing down our will to fight. And the most effective tool in doing so in past wars has been that "holier than thou" Fourth Estate. This increases their will to fight which directly leads to US Soldiers dying needlessly. I will say it again, the presence of journalists on the Battlefield is a privilege not a right. You have no right to be on the battlefield and I see no use for you to be there. You do not have any utility to bring about victory the way journalism is being practiced now and anything that doesn't contribute to victory is contributing to chaos and death.
HOLY SMOKES there is NO North Kosanese Army???!!!??? SAY IT ISN'T SO! You funny guy...love me long time eh? Mike Wallace showed his true colors and in doing so he showed the true colors of journalism practiced at his level. Jennings at first tried to do the right thing then when reminded by Wallace of their elevated status as Citizens of the World remembered he had no responsibility to those who insure his right to live...much less broadcast. Abu Garib is a farce. And not because of a few people acting like asses, but because of the media using it like some sort of cudgel to beat up the war effort. That showed us something but not what you clever journalists thought it showed. It showed us whose side you are on. By using it and that Newsweek story to beat up on the US Military you directly caused more deaths of US Service men and women. I know that makes some warm and fuzzy because they see a Pulitzer waiting in the distance, but as a father who would be extremly proud of his son or daughter were they to join the military it makes me damn mad. Pierre Legrand Posted by: Pierre Legrand at June 14, 2005 3:30 AM | Permalink [commenter] I'm sure Jordan believes that some of 12 journos killed by US actions were "targeted". I suspect some, at most 9 but prolly less, actually WERE judgement calls by the soldier pulling the trigger, and the soldier decided to fire thinking he was firing on an Enemy -- an enemy journalist.
Until I see some serious backtracking on that accusation--or proof, of course--I have nothing to say to you and your increasingly psychotic speculations. You're a phony champion of the military and no one associated with it would want to get within 50 yards of you. Clear enough?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/04/08/iraq.main/ Would you care to speculate as to how many more like him are in Iraq? Is this enough to convince you that claiming to be a journalist does not preclude someone from being on the other side of the conflict? Oh, an d don't miss the followup: http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/04/17/iraq.main/ It's the very last item on the 'other developments' summary appended to a roundup. It's been a while since I was in a journalism class, but I seem to recall that position has some significance in a news story. Would you care to explain what it is? . Steve Lovelady:
I'm just guessing, but it looks like you'd rather talk about the screwups of the US government than about people who succeeded in killing American civilians by the thousands. Am I mistaken? If so, how? If not, why would you prefer to discuss one, and not the other?
To paraphrase an earlier comment, a 'standard' that is only applied to one thing isn't a 'standard'.
Try this: I wouldn't call you any of those things.... unless there were children present.
Jay, if you want an illustration of a LOT of what's wrong with journalism today, there it is.
Posted by: rosignol at June 14, 2005 6:30 AM | Permalink Few readers outside Australia are aware of the recent controversy in relation to news and blog posts by Dr Chrenkoff so here are a few links for your information. Tim Dunlop at The Road to Surfdom, who adds a discussion of the difference between journalism and trawling the internet in search of good news, as well as addressing Chrenkoff's false claim that he does "no commentary." Mr Chrenkoff's comments that he "doesn't do any commentary" and that he merely tries to "redress the balance" are palpable nonsense. The simple fact of presenting a highly edited selection of media and US government stories on Iraq under the heading of "Good news from Iraq" is itself a form of commentary. The idea that leaving out the "bad news"--part of the reality of what is happening--is merely "redressing the balance" is a joke. His blog is a transparent project of propaganda posing as a site of unbiased information (as he says, "I just save people the effort and present in a convenient form the other side of the story") Chrenkoff's Good News Watch Wall Street journalism or blog? There are many different news coming from Iraq some are worse than others Good news from Iraq: skylights installed in Fallujah schools ... Posted by: Jozef Imrich at June 14, 2005 8:49 AM | Permalink Mike Wallace showed his true colors and in doing so he showed the true colors of journalism practiced at his level. Well...no. You should know by now that wishing does not make it so. Whatever Wallace showed - and I lean towards it being the limits of smugness and showboating - it was not representative of journalistic practices. For that matter, neither is Bob Franken's world citizenship. What does the Only News Is Good News That Supports the Government crowd really want to do about bad news - the Abu Ghraibs, the Gitmos, the death toll in Iraq? Do they really want the media to ignore it? Posted by: David McLemore at June 14, 2005 10:34 AM | Permalink Hmmm. "What does the Only News Is Good News That Supports the Government crowd really want to do about bad news - the Abu Ghraibs, the Gitmos, the death toll in Iraq? Do they really want the media to ignore it?" Is having a guy standing on a box with a bag over his head worth 34 days of front page news? Here's a question then. What original investigative reporting has any reporter done in the past twenty years? People keep writing about how great journalists are and how important they are for the Republic, but what do journalists offer that is a value-add? What have they done that isn't essentially a rewording of press releases? Abu Ghraib? Well no. That was investigated by the military. Guantanamo? Well no. The only thing of substance to come out of it is the muslim version of "Piss Christ". Deaths in Iraq? Well no. The military reports that on a regular basis. So how about it? What value do journalists add? What investigation have they done that hasn't been piggybacked onto work by the military, intelligence services, FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies, etc etc etc. If all they do is reword press releases, then is that really journalism? Is the profession of journalism little more than an exercise in scrabble? Posted by: ed at June 14, 2005 11:14 AM | Permalink Hmmmm. "Did I miss something? Did someone embed with the enemy army? Did they justify it by claiming "one man's terrorist" etc.? I didn't think so." You must have missed the Pulitzer Prize winning photograph by a "journalist" for the AP. The close up shot of two Iraqi election workers about to get murdered. It was all over the blogs and proven conclusively that such a shot couldn't have been done without the cooperation of the terrorists. Or how about that CNN employee picked up for aiding terrorists? One man's terrorist, another man's journalist. Posted by: ed at June 14, 2005 11:19 AM | Permalink Hmmm. "Even Wallace at the end of the program sounded less than convinced of being a 'citizen of the world."" That is about as subjective a description as I have ever heard. Frankly I think I'd rather depend on something other than what Wallace is convinced of. Posted by: ed at June 14, 2005 11:22 AM | Permalink "Now I’m going back and forth as I sit here. It’s a hell of a dilemma to be in. Now I don’t know what I think." Mike Wallace, during 1987 roundtable on media ethics that has everyone all a-twitter. Doesn't sound like Wallace was all that convinced he'd still want to watch Americans killed from behind enemy lines, Ed. Everyday, people go out and gather news, absorb the details, reduce it to a workable length and produce it on deadline so you can bitch about it later. I have no interest in trying to convince you about the value of journalism.You're mind is to clouded with opinion and bias. But try to remember those early days of war when the Pentagon didn't make a complete accounting of the war casualties. They were selective in what in theater deaths were announced and didn't give out specific numbers on the wounded. And didn't until the media dug through Pentagon, Central Command and service records to give a fuller account. Now the Pentagon is more accurate. Good for them. If you really believe that government willingly and easily gives out evidence of its abuses and offenses, you're sadly mistaken. When you read your favorite blogs, notice carefully where most of the information comes from: newspapers, TV, news services and such. The media. Good stuff when it supports your viewpoint. Spawn of Satan when it doesn't. If you're view is truly that journalism is all stenography and waiting for press releases, I owe you an apology. I thought your POV was driven by ideology. Instead, you're just ignorant about how things work.
Posted by: David McLemore at June 14, 2005 12:12 PM | Permalink On the prior thread referenced I said something I am willing to apologize for: But, I guess Jay Rosen is happy, happy, happy to accept Saddam's standards of free press." It is clear Jay is not happy to accept Saddam's standards, and it is very rude to insult somebody on their own blog. I apologize for this. But I can't quite apologize for thinking it is OK for a soldier to kill an enemy journalist in a battle, for instance when he is standing with a video camera filming a terrorist attack against US soldiers, or even filming a beheading or a car-jacking assassination. The purpose of such enemy journalists is to be: Public Relations and Recruitment for terrorists. If they are successful, more innocent folk will die. This DENIAL of this issue, Jay, is perhaps what makes you upset. Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at June 14, 2005 12:32 PM | Permalink Thanks John Boyle and David for the pointers. I'm struck by the apparent contradictions in the thread; journalists just rewrite press releases, but they also recruit terrorists. They provide no value add, yet they are amazingly powerful. Eason Jordan should be tarred and feathered for suggesting that US troops targeted journalists, but others in this thread encourage the troops to do exactly the thing that would make Jordan's statements conclusively true (if that happened and someone reported it, would they have to join Jordan in the dock?). I guess this means as a nation we haven't decided what we think yet. I'm an incorrigible silver-lining seeker, so I would say: this means the American experiment is still going on, because the people in this thread are still thinking about America, the liberty to speak, and having an active debate about it centuries later. Posted by: Lisa Williams at June 14, 2005 1:13 PM | Permalink Hmmmm. "I'm struck by the apparent contradictions in the thread; journalists just rewrite press releases, but they also recruit terrorists. They provide no value add, yet they are amazingly powerful." 1. Because in order to make a rather crude point you're simply ignoring the easiest conclusion. That the power, and value gained, from modern journalism depends on how you are viewed by journalists. 2. Do they rewrite press releases? Sure they do. Just read any newspaper. Watch any tv news. The vast majority is simply a rehash of press releases. 3. Do they recruit terrorists? Sure they do. What possible purpose was served by putting Abu Ghraib on the front page of the NYT for 34 days straight? What purposes are served by endless repetitions of the same? Have we seen an expose of frat hazing? I've heard stories of frat hazing that was far worse than Abu Ghraib. The worst part isn't that the MSM are frankly so anti-Bush that they don't care what happens. It's that so many other local news organizations take their stories and pound them over and over again. What do you think happens when a local rag reprints a story from the NYT about torture? And does the local rag also include the convoluted definition of torture that the NYT uses? Christine Aguilera? That's torture to the NYT. But I seriously doubt that it's explained to the great unwashed. 4. Do they provide no value? Can you identify anything they've done of value lately? 5. Are they powerful? Sure they are. They can whip up anti-American attitudes with great efficiency. But then again they've had practice. Posted by: ed at June 14, 2005 1:25 PM | Permalink Hmmm. "* No, it's my contention that Abu Ghraib itself helped Al Qaeda recruit. " Really? After all the terrible things that Saddam did? After all the terrible things that each and EVERY SINGLE middle eastern government did, and still does, to their own citizens? What is the difference between them and Abu Ghraib? Those "tortures" aren't front page of the NYT and on every single tv screen. Abu Ghraib is. Posted by: ed at June 14, 2005 1:26 PM | Permalink Hmmmm. "But try to remember those early days of war when the Pentagon didn't make a complete accounting of the war casualties. They were selective in what in theater deaths were announced and didn't give out specific numbers on the wounded. And didn't until the media dug through Pentagon, Central Command and service records to give a fuller account." Yeah cause in wartime it's really necessary to know how much we're losing by. If that's the best you've got, which is still piggybacked onto work done by the military, then you've got nothing at all. As for "ignorance". There isn't enough sarcasm in the world to account for you. Posted by: ed at June 14, 2005 1:30 PM | Permalink Hmmm. Fact is that regardless of what squirming and shilling is done by journalists, more and more people are viewing them with suspicion. Will journalism survive? Not if Fineman @ Newsweek has anything to say about it. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8145093/site/newsweek/ "June 8 - I’m sitting here with a gloomy letter from Iraq, written by a high-ranking officer I cannot name in a branch of service I cannot name in a part of the country I cannot name. But trust me, because I trust him. Iraqis, he says, have no feel for or belief in the democracy we want to create, and our occupation is making them less, not more, capable of self-government." Got that? He can't provide the officer's name. He's anonymous. He can't provide the *service*, 'cause there's only 40,000 officers in the US military someone might figure out this guy's secret identity. And he can't provide what part of Iraq this guy serves in. Because 150,000 soldiers is too small a pool to hide in. Oops. My contempt is showing. Posted by: ed at June 14, 2005 1:39 PM | Permalink Actually it's even an issue of Truth. Half-truth pro-Terrorist: 4000 die? My VALUES say -- half-truth, pro-American, is better. Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at June 14, 2005 1:40 PM | Permalink So, Ed, you would have the media just ignore the bad news? Let the moms and dads back home stew in ignorance about how the kids are doing at war. Don't worry. The government will take care of you. They'll let you know what you need to know. Is that what you favor? Posted by: Dave Mclemore at June 14, 2005 1:53 PM | Permalink why do I get the strong impression that Rosen isn't blogging anymore, but is testing out chapters of his forthcoming book here? Virtually every major news organization has acknowledged that it "dropped the ball" on the Downing Street Minutes, but unlike minor dust-ups like the Newsweek/Koran story, DSM receives no attention here. Yet, in point of fact, the silence on DSM is far more indicative of what is wrong with the mainstream media that anything Isiskoff wrote, any minor failure by CBS to fully authenticate documents, or whatever Eason Jordan said and then immediately retracted... The real "religious" problem of the MSM may be that if something is self-evident to journalists and reporters who understand a topic (such as the fact that Bush "fixed" the intelligence, and that Bush has lied continually about the decision to go to war) its "old news". Posted by: p.lukasiak at June 14, 2005 2:50 PM | Permalink Hmmm. 1. DSM If you need to rely on the exact wording of half-remembered notes in a post-meeting meeting memo of a foreign government, then you've got more problems than inaction by the MSM. 2. "So, Ed, you would have the media just ignore the bad news?" Nice strawman. 3. "Let the moms and dads back home stew in ignorance about how the kids are doing at war. Don't worry. The government will take care of you. They'll let you know what you need to know." And what does it accomplish? Each and every single day we're hammered with just how many have died since the invasion. What good does it do? Can the military change things so the casualties end? Of course not, it's the cost that has to be borne. Would the military do anything to prevent those deaths? Of course they would, but you don't see that do you? The "news" is little more than anti-American propaganda and it deserves nothing but contempt. 4. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8145093/site/newsweek/ I notice you avoided the linked article like the plague. Posted by: ed at June 14, 2005 3:39 PM | Permalink What's with you people on the left? Why do you continually throw up straw men like "So, Ed, you would have the media ignore the bad news?" Who has ever said this? Most of us agree with our genial host that the news is not too negative, it's too narrow. lukasiak you are behind the times. David Sanger said yesterday that another "leaked memo" had come out that "explicitly states that the Bush Administration had made 'no political decision' to invade Iraq..." That's the problem with unnamed sources and leaked memos....we don't know the agenda of leaker, and we certainly aren't allowed to see everything so we can make up our own minds. So fulminate away, lukasiak, et al, there ain't no there, there...just what the leakers want us to know. Don't you feel used? Nah! Unnamed sources are pulling your chains, and you're lovin' it! Posted by: kilgore trout at June 14, 2005 3:49 PM | Permalink Hmmm. "Senate Issues Apology Over Failure on Lynching Law" "... There have been 4,742 recorded lynchings in American history, Ms. Landrieu said. Historians suspect that many more went undocumented. Although the House passed antilynching legislation three times in the first half of the 20th century, the Senate, controlled by Southern conservatives, repeatedly refused to do so. Senator George Allen of Virginia, chief Republican sponsor of the new resolution, called it "this stain on the history of the United States Senate." ..." Those damn Southern **Conservatives** who controlled the Senate. Too bad it wasn't Southern Conservatives but Democrats like Robert Byrd. Too bad the "Southern Conservatives" didn't control the Senate at all, but used the filibuster to prevent the legislation from passing. But the NYT prints the truth y'all! Cause we need that truth. That the NYT prints. But notice the NYT doesn't accurately identify those who were clearly in the wrong. Oh no that wouldn't be GOOD journalism at all now would it. Identifying them as Democrats wouldn't be proper. Indentifying them as associates of Robert Byrd, the Savior of the Senate, woudn't be excellent journalism. No those creeps must be Southern Conservatives. Funny I don't remember a damn political party called Southern Conservatives. I must have missed that in history 101. Can you feel the contempt flowing? I sure can. Journalists. Who the hell needs you? Posted by: ed at June 14, 2005 4:01 PM | Permalink Well gee I am the one who is simply reading his words and you are the one attempting to reinterpret those same words to be not so incriminating. Who is the one wishing again? Mike Wallace showed his true colors and in doing so he showed the true colors of journalism practiced at his level. Well...no. You should know by now that wishing does not make it so. Whatever Wallace showed - and I lean towards it being the limits of smugness and showboating - it was not representative of journalistic practices. For that matter, neither is Bob Franken's world citizenship. hehe...Yea showboating and smugness are certainly evident in his entire being. Your problem is you don't ask the next question. Which if you did would lead you to wonder exactly why he would believe that saying he would allow US Soldiers to die for his story would be thought of by him as showboating. Exactly who would be impressed by his "showboating"? What does the Only News Is Good News That Supports the Government crowd really want to do about bad news - the Abu Ghraibs, the Gitmos, the death toll in Iraq? Do they really want the media to ignore it? Careful you are letting your prejudice show through. Which btw if reporters were more honest about would lead to far fewer complaints by people like me. Bias is a natural human condition that by their own declarations journalists don't suffer from. If Dan Rather for instance would have before each story on President Bush declared openly that he was heart and soul against the re-election of President Bush I would have had far less to bitch about. Though I would still have been impressed by his sourcing. But back to the issue at hand. The "good news crowd" as you derisively label us simply believes that winning the war is a lot more important than your being awarded a Pulitzer. We simply believe that one is supposed to default to wanting the good guys to win. We expect that you will filter your news during wartime to those issues that don't strengthen the enemy. We expect that your own self interest might indeed lead you in that direction since the last time anyone checked the enemy didn't have a lot of tolerance for showboating and smug journalists. And that indeed instead of merely being disgusted by journalists behavior took matters into their own hands literally and chopped their heads off. Finally the "good news" crowd simply believe that when firemen (soldiers) are putting out a fire (terrorists) in their house its very bad form for the reporters to get in the way. We tend to want to get rid of reporters. Funny that. Pierre Posted by: Pierre Legrand at June 14, 2005 4:34 PM | Permalink A fascinating and helpful thread. Having journalists reflect upon and defend their own theories of professional responsibility has given me more sympathy for their dilemmas. I think much of the controversy is, as is often the case, about differing definitions for the dame terms and different assumptions - yes, biases. Modern communications media are so powerful (not politically, but psychologically) that those who employ them can be either too naive about that power, or too smitten by it. The problem is not so much about getting facts wrong, which happens all too often, but about portraying opinion as reality, and manipulating facts to support that view of reality. It is done so subtly and skillfully, often, sometimes involving only a phrase or a tone of voice, that one has to assume it is deliberate. This too easily becomes propaganda. I can only explain this by an example from the current news, and my "fisking" of it. Is the Boston Globe printing propaganda here, or reporting news? If your answer is, the facts are skewed and misapplied, but the story is true . . . then we see the problem. Boston Globe ''All together, these factors amount to a kind of referendum on one aspect of George Bush's policy, and that's the Iraq war," said Michael T. Corgan, a Boston University professor of international relations who graduated from and taught at the US Naval Academy and served in the Vietnam War. Parents, in particular, are simply not encouraging their children to go into the military because, for many, this means an immediate posting to Iraq or at least to forces in that region," Corgan said. Bunk, I say. Summarized from the article: Applicants for These classes made aplication to West Point starting in early 2001, through this year, 2005, respectively. West Point’s graduating class of 2005, the “Class of 9/11,” coincidentally had 911 graduates. An approximate 25% drop-out rate (this is not easy school) means about 1,250 are accepted each year. Even though this year’s applicants are 9% fewer than last year’s, there are still 9% more than in the class that applied before 9/11/2001, and practically the same number as the class the following year, which applied before the Iraq war was underway. The first two years of the Iraq war saw applications significantly higher than the first year after 9/11, when patriotic fervor was so high. And only this past year have the numbers approached almost exactly what they were in that first year after 9/11. This is hardly evidence of a loss of interest in serving in the military officer corps. They are hardly in trouble, with more than 8.5 applicants for every place. And comparing these applicant numbers to Harvard, Princeton and Cornell, as the article does, in search of an unflattering comparison, is a red herring. These elite Ivy League schools always get thousands more applicants than they can accept, and thousands apply knowing they have little chance of acceptance; kids playing the prestige lottery. And since young Army officers are at much greater risk of winding up in combat, and in riskier job slots in combat, than Navy or Air Force officers, the idea that this is some kind of negative referendum on Bush or the Iraq war is bunk. Why? Naval and Air Force Academies’ annual application losses this year are each more than double that of West Point’s, 20% and 23% less, respectively. If anything, these numbers show that, among young people interested in a military career, more are interested in one that may more likely put them in combat, eventually, than not. As usual, The Boston Globe does not know what its own reporting means, but has no trouble finding someone to agree with them, especially if the story manufactures an opportunity to knock the war and knock Bush. It doesn’t hurt if they can also make the best institutions of the military look like victims of the war as well. Giving the benefit of the doubt to someone with Mr. Corgan’s background, it appears that his comment was in answer to a question about shortfalls in military recruiting in general, not about fewer applicants to the service academies. As he has to know, “. . . immediate posting to Iraq . . .” is not in the cards for those now applying to the military academies. The only conflicts they will be engaged in for at least the next four years will be those overseen by the NCAA. It appears the Boston Globe cut and pasted into a story about the decline in service academy applications a politically loaded answer to another question about a related subject – recruiting shortfalls for the enlisted ranks. I’m sure service academy parents are glad to see how non-news about their children’s patriotic choices can be turned against the cause they may have to risk their lives for. Posted by: John Boyle I didn't avoid the Fineman column, Ed. I just didn't see the relevance. Was it that he used anonymous sources? Or that he said the war wasn't going well? It's a column, Ed. Fineman's opinion. And rather outdated at that. In October 2004, the Washington Post ran a story on a similiar theme. The reporter also used anonymous sources. Commanders voiced fears that many of Iraq's security forces have been penetrated by insurgent spies. As well as concerns that the reconstruction aid, thankfully finally flowing into formerly insurgent-held areas, is being ham-strung by bureaucratic red tape. Not to mention the unhappy news that new American intelligence suggests the insurgents now have 8,000 to 12,000 hard-core militants and more money than previously thought. And some not so anonymous. Such as Marine Lt. Gen. John F. Satler, who said, "If we can't stop the intimidation factor, we can't win." More recent news reports on the relative ineffectiveness of the Iraqi army also included named quotes. Such as Sgt. Joshua Lower, a 1st AD scout, who told the New York Times (in a story that ran June 13, "I just wish they'd start to pull their own weight without us having to come out and baby-sit them all the time. Some Iraqi special forces really know what they are doing, but there are some units that scatter like cockroaches with the lights on when there's an attack." I know it's bad news, Ed. And you don't have to like it. That's fine. You have an opinion, just like Fineman.
Posted by: Dave In Texas at June 14, 2005 5:09 PM | Permalink ed: you cannot post five six times in a row like that. It's just not possible to have an open forum and repeat posting in that way, no matter who it is. It will drive people away from you and what you are saying. Common sense applies. Kilgore, when someone continually argues that news reports that report bad news are more responsible for the death of American GIs and Iraqi civilians than the thugs doing the killing, I'd say it's not a straw man argument. It's a legitimate question. The fact that the argument simultanously reads that the media are too powerful and too anti-government AND are merely stenographers of government press releases is, I grant you, more than a little contradictory. But you get used to it in these conversations. Posted by: Dave Mclemore at June 14, 2005 5:17 PM | Permalink Hmmmm. "The fact that the argument simultanously reads that the media are too powerful and too anti-government AND are merely stenographers of government press releases is, I grant you, more than a little contradictory." Did I say "government" press releases? Or "press releases"? Kind of you to put words in my mouth to make your otherwise pointless argument. I'm glad I could be of service. Of course what makes that even better is the obliviousness towards the impact of tv cameras, orbital satellites and multi-billion dollar budgets. Not to mention the enormous credibility that American news organizations have in the world, when they're attacking America. Frankly I've said everything that I want say. There is nothing in modern journalism, nor it's practioners, worth defending. You go right on ahead defending it though. And each and every day journalists will wake up and drive another nail in their profession's coffin. Just go ahead and mark me down as clearly unimpressed. Posted by: ed at June 14, 2005 5:42 PM | Permalink I guess I'm getting a little late to this discussion, but I just want to say I agree with everything David McLemore said. If you're going to be angry with us for not being cheerleaders ... why don't you just save your blood pressure and not read us instead? Also: isn't there room in the world for media of all different perspectives? Reuters, based in the U.K., seems to really embrace the "citizen of the world" philosophy ... so to with CNN International. But look at local newspapers -- most tell their stories not just from an American perspective, but a local one as well. Posted by: derek rose at June 14, 2005 6:14 PM | Permalink Lovelady:The eye-opener of this whole thread is how few people seem to acknowledge the self-evident truth that we hope for more than the norm from those about whom we care about the most. Performance versus Standards. Good parents want higher performance from their children, against the same standards. The eye-opener is that you, and Jay, don't understand this. The Press coverage of Vietnam had an effect. Like the famous picture of a S. Viet officer executing a VC (who had recently murdered his wife & child, not usually mentioned in the story). Like My Lai. The car-jacking assassination Pulitzer shows the Press desire for the US to lose. The Press has an effect in Iraq. That effect, I am certain but cannot prove, is to have more Americans die; more Iraqis die ... even more unsure believers become fanatic suiciders and die. The Half-Truth the Press tells is all anti-American. If the Press really told the more Full Truth, showed Perl & Berg and compare, I wouldn't be here, even though I'd still think more Americans die than would die with mere PR. Free Speech is valuable, and even worth fighting for with a risk of dying (easy to say when I'm safe). Speaking Truth to ... allow murder is not so idealistic. And where is the Press on covering the UN in Kosovo? There's the most recent invasion/ occupation -- what are the lessons learned? (UN peace keepers like girls; young ones; preferably hungry) Much of the mess of the world is due to the US Press being more concerned about the imperfect 6% (out of 100%) of the US, rather than the missing 18%, or 45%, of the rest of the world. (thanks rosignol.) Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at June 14, 2005 6:38 PM | Permalink Actually it's even an issue of Truth. So I take it you're not of the Posted by: Steve Lovelady at June 14, 2005 6:59 PM | Permalink Steve, maybe I can explain your confusion a bit more. Your child comes home with a graded test of 100 questions: 94 - F. [of course, to get the grade, you take the raw score and divide by the standard, and that percent determines the grade A B C F.] I'm certain you don't really mean you want a "higher standard", but want a "higher performance", and want that higher performance to be so usual that you call it "standard".
And your values & beliefs; have any Americans died because of Press so far? Another nub is your intellectual cowardice in NOT answering the tough questions. Either the press has an effect on the death toll, or it doesn't. What do you believe? Any factual support? I don't have any for my belief it does. The Watergate myth says the Press brought down Nixon ... and got the US out of Vietnam. That's also my memory -- the Press helped the evil commies win. Those were the two alternatives (68-74): more US in Vietnam, or Evil commies win. No surprise, when the Leftist press (Steve Lovelady) is asked a clear question about their values (Truth, when it costs lives), they avoid the answer. And bring in a biblical quote -- I really think that's interesting, and suspect it's hypocritical. Are you a believer in the truth of Jesus Christ? Do you understand that you can repent of your sins, go, sin no more -- and Jesus will love you? Know Jesus as the truth, and it sets you free...
Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at June 14, 2005 8:53 PM | Permalink Jay, Posted by: Mark Anderson at June 14, 2005 9:22 PM | Permalink If a function of "the press" is to hold America to "higher standards", then why complain when America holds "the press" to higher standards? My sense is that the "higher standards" meme is really a defense of sensationalizing failures - on both sides of the "war on/by media". Sisypus - who's complaining? Many journalists think bloggers have improved journalism, and most think you've made us more accountable. Sounds good to me. Tom -- I'll take a stab at your question. I think the value of a free and independent press is, in fact, worth many thousands of lives. (Easy for me to say from the comfort of my bedroom, I know, but there you have it). This isn't an absolute judgment -- I think most journalists would agree you don't print information that'd endanger national security -- but obviously that's not what you're getting at. More like the choice CBS and Mary Mapes had when they decided whether or not to break the story of Abu Ghraib, right? I imagine that story certainly helped the terrorists' recruiting. Now a question for you: you say you'd be willing to give up a free and independent press if it would save 1,000 American lives. What other of our freedoms would you trade away to win the war in Iraq? If, say, you were in charge, and an adviser told you that by outlawing beer it'd show America's respect for Islam, thus hurting terrorist recruitment -- and likely saving thousands of American lives. Do you do it? Posted by: derek rose at June 14, 2005 10:02 PM | Permalink Everyone: Please don't put naked url's in comments. Make links. The longer url's screw up the columns and make for ugly pages. "Frankly I've said everything that I want say." No kidding. See ya down the road, ed. Bye. Tom: I will stick with the word "psychotic." You cook up any little theory you like to explain why. But thanks for apologizing for equating my standards of journalism with Saddam's. Of course that comparison was psychotic when you made it. Mark: I will write on the Downing Street Memo when I figure out what to say that's original. Right now it strikes me the reason the press has failed to jump on it is that it cannot figure out a way to do so and look (to itself, as well as critics it anticipates having...) innocent. And as I have tried to suggest, the production of press innocence is one of the religion's big jobs. Ironically, many right wing critics help out with the hysterical over-production of guilt. So you have the over-the-top production of innocence (Franken) and guilt (numerous comments here). Both have distorting effects. No, Tom, it's you who are confused. And it isn't "the press" which is killing American soldiers in Iraq -- indeed, much of "the press" is embedded with those soldiers, and thus totally invested in their cause. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at June 14, 2005 10:28 PM | Permalink It's interesting to observe that Steve Lovelady, who so rigorously asserts the existence of "objectivity" and its possession by himself and other mainstream journalists, is also often among the most rabid partisans in these debates and equals anyone in assembling his own idiosyncratic narratives out of a well pruned subset of "facts." I don't say to attack Steve Lovelady personally but raise it as an observation in the context of objectivity and its defenders and the difficulties that arise in claiming both truth and detachment at once. Posted by: Lee Kane at June 14, 2005 10:58 PM | Permalink On the "Downing Street Memo" as numerous commentators have pointed out it is hardly a smoking gun. Read it here. The hot phrase, in para 2, is the sort of anonymous comment that those who have pre-decided "Bush lied" will find only one way of interpreting. Those who feel Bush acted in good faith will read it another way--as an opinion, as unclear, as editorializing, etc. In the end, it adds little if anything to the debate--could this nebulousness be the reason it's ignored here? I think so, that and the fact that it's an outside (ie., British) and individual opinion about what was going on and there is no way of evaluating its basis. Hardly the same as if some Rumsfeld memo was found with Donald saying unequivocally, "fix the intelligence to support a war." Posted by: Lee Kane at June 14, 2005 11:13 PM | Permalink I'll let Steve Lovelady speak for himself. Though I don't recall him being a champion of objectivity. Facts. Truth. Honesty. Yep. But he's not practicing journalism here. He's talking. Partisan passion is allowed. Posted by: David McLemore at June 14, 2005 11:20 PM | Permalink Posted by: Rory O'Connor at June 15, 2005 10:44 AM | Permalink Reporters Without Borders Freedom of Expression Blog Awards Congrats Jay, and well deserved. As I mentioned above, PressThink is one of the few press/politics blogs that allows people with various POVs to air their views---or call each other names---whatever! Thanks again, for what you do here, and I'm happy to see you are receiving some recognition for it. Posted by: kilgore trout at June 15, 2005 3:25 PM | Permalink Congrats, Jay. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at June 15, 2005 8:09 PM | Permalink David -- Yeah, but would you trust one word on Iraq written by someone who had written what Steve wrote above? I wouldn't, and I wouldn't expect truth, facts or honesty from such a person--I would expect, however, shading, a careful, limited selection of fact and unintentional dishonesty, all motivated by an obviously passionately held political position. It's almost ludicrious to think that such emotionally rendered judgements and interpretations wouldn't show up in the journalists coverage, intentional or no. So we'd be getting a carefully disguised op-ed piece. Posted by: Lee Kane at June 15, 2005 8:10 PM | Permalink “Ironically, many right wing critics help out with the hysterical over-production of guilt. So you have the over-the-top production of innocence (Franken) and guilt (numerous comments here). Both have distorting effects.” Guilt, like most forms of pain, can have a useful warning purpose. If you feel it, it should give you a hint that you may need to change, and maybe even repair some damage done to others – and to yourself. If you’re convinced your guilt feelings have no basis in reality, therapy may help. If you know you’re right, you should be immune to guilt. Of course, it helps to believe in some immutable principles not of your own self-serving design in order to experience that immunity. This may be why people of faith often seem more at peace than people who challenge the stormy existential seas in home made rafts. If someone else is “producing” guilt in you (or so you think), maybe there is something wrong with your principles, if they are that easily undermined. I find a spiritually healthy attitude I discovered long ago works for me: it is none of my business what someone else thinks of me. One thing that helped sustain the agora in ancient Athens and the demos in old New England was that they all sang hymns from the same book – be it by Homer or by the appointees of King James. That’s gone now. A nation without a common faith, even in itself, or with contrary, ad hoc, tentative substitutes (like Holy Journalism’s overarching creed?) cannot remain civil for long. Little wonder common believers huddle together in sectarian tribes, consoling each other against the foe. E Pluribus Plures. I wonder who set up and who sustains this scenario, and why? I know it wasn’t around for the first twenty years of my life, which began as World War II came to an end. Posted by: John Boyle Lee -- Posted by: Steve Lovelady at June 15, 2005 9:12 PM | Permalink Would I trust Steve's reportage on Iraq? Because he has, in a public forum, expressed his personal views on the war's conduct? Sure I would. If you believe that reporters can only operate out of some mystical objectivity, than you are ready to believe that reporters can, indeed, be 'citizens of the world.' Every day in every municipality in this country with a newspaper, the news is put out by people who hold an amazingly diverse set of opinions. Just like the rest of America. Some favor the war. Some don't. Some are more interested in careers, and give a rat's ass about politics. And, by and large, the reportage is trustworthy, tied as it is fact, to honest assessment of those facts and printed on deadline. Is it perfect? No. It's an understanding of the day's events based on the knowledge at hand and condensed into the available space. Is it biased? Not really, though certainly a host of experiences, beliefs and varying degrees of understanding play a role. But folks in the biz really do try to get the story right as they can. I've seen fair and honest coverage of labor rallies by Republican reporters and anti-abortion demonstrations by arch-feminists because that's where the facts took the story. Believe if you will or not, I don't care. It happens every day. As for John's view of fragmentation of American culture, I'm sure there are many reasons. But to believe in some more unified America in past decades is to believe in a dream. I grew up in the same America as John and I too lived my first 20 years immediately after World War II. I grew up in a cosseted and divided America, where not only were we divided by race and class, but by matters of faith and geography. Whites didn't spend time with blacks. Or browns or poor whites. Protestants didn't associate with Catholics and neither had much room for the Jews. Muslims were those you marveled at in Look magazine or National Geographic. Sorry, John. America is a place that constantly reinvents itself. And more power to it. I have little nostalgia for the '50s. As messy and disjointed as our world may be, we now, at least, recognize that there are many, many more of all kinds of people we live with. And we're all in the same boat together. Posted by: David McLemore at June 15, 2005 9:36 PM | Permalink Steve, there's no contradiction between a demand for transparency and a rejection by some, like Lee, of reporting from someone like yourself who admits to a certain opinion. The ability to give differing weights to, or to outright reject, news from various sources based on their biases is the whole point of demanding transparency. It's not a bug- it's a feature. When reporters are putting a story together, they take note of the biases and subjective viewpoints of their sources in order to weigh the various accounts. How can the end user do with less? Regarding your journalists think of America as their child analogy (pretty ballsy in a thread where journalists have been accused of paternalism), I'd have an easier time swallowing that if every time Johnny got a B, the headline wasn't "Johnny Fails to Get an A Again". One other thing about the higher standard the US is held to- do foreign readers/viewers know about this? If the US press is extra-critical of the US out of love, some might miss the motivation and get the idea that the press is extra-critical because the US deserves it. Maybe this explains the BBC. Posted by: Brian O'Connell at June 15, 2005 10:47 PM | Permalink Thanks, Rory, Sir Trout, Steve Lovelday and others. Yours words are very much appreciated. Thanks for the link, Tim. I am closing this thread--one of the longest ever since the show opened--and the discussion can move to the new post, One Tribe in Press Nation. Thanks to all who participated, even if y'all are 96 percent male. |
|
Print![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://archive.pressthink.org/nav-commenters.gif)
