Letters to the Editor
-
No News
After all Glenn seems to think media should have known exactly what the situation in Iraq was.
They should have known better than to slobberingly holler "aluminuminuminum toooobes!" with no regard to consequences. Those consequences being >3000 Americans dead and 100x that many Iraqis.
What's the real story in Russia, Norh Korea, or Saudi Arabia, that we aren't hearing from the administration?
Check out, for instance, the BBC, Asia Times, al Jazeera, and other non-American news organisations. They have biases of their own, sometimes strong ones, but they don't a have direct interest in pushing some short term BS for whoever happens to be in USA office at the moment. Only in America did most people really believe Bush's lies. I did, I couldn't imagine the president would lie in such a big way.
BTW, the BBC is a far better source for the big American news stories than any of our own decadent and senescent news institutions.
-
Journalists?
Just so we're all on the same page, here's how it works.
1. Bush tells CEO of MSM that Iraq must be attacked.
2. CEO buys Lockheed, Halliburton etc. stock.
3. Bush lies to get into war.
4. CEO tells editors to go along with lies.
5. Editor tells "journalists" to report, not investigate.
6. "Journalists" take notes from Bush speech filled with lies.
7. "Journalists" report lies.
8. Country goes to war, CEO makes buttloads of dough, spreads it around to Editor, "Journalists".
9. Everybody wins*.
*except poor slobs in military.
-
The Arrogance of our Journalists
One recent incident in particular serves to show us the arrogance and insularity that is plaguing our journalists. Recently, the Washington Post "broke" the Walter Reed story, despite the fact that Salon itself had broken the story much earlier. When asked about this, Post reporter Dana Priest said she hadn't read the Salon reports. This is amazing. Surely, when researching their story, she and her co-writer would have done secondary research. Nexis, and even Google would have turned it up. Are they lying? Or don't they believe anyone else would have written about it and they didn't bother with secondary research? (more on this at Editor & Publisher, http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003552378)
Likewise, what do American journalists think whey they read stories written on the same subjects by their counterparts in other countries? They couldn't help but notice the disparity in style and substance. Do they care that someone at, say, The Independent (www.independent.co.uk) may be contradicting them? Do they even bother to find out why?
This problem isn't confined to the period between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq. It continues today, and began, to some extent, much earlier. We need to reverse this sickness before we can hope to change anything for the better.
-
The real story
What's the real story in Russia, Norh Korea, or Saudi Arabia, that we aren't hearing from the administration?
Right here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6540599.stm
-
I keep repeating myself
But the subject keeps coming up.
If you want to know in detail who got it right, who got it wrong and for good measure who's making excuses and who's coming clean then read this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Feet-Fire-Media-After-Journalists/dp/1591023432
Feet to the Fire: The Media After 9/11, Top Journalists Speak Out (Hardcover)
Its even more interesting because the interviews themselves are 2 years old and even less was known then, than is known now about how badly we were misled.
The bottom line is that Knight-Ritter is the ONLY news organization that wasn't either bamboozled or complicit in the misinformation campaign. Anyone else who denies that at this point is suffering from self-serving denial worthy of the worst alcoholic.
-
Sign of the times
You know Glenn, I really think that this general lack of accountability or responsibility is much broader problem for our nation in general. It could be argued that it's been a problem that's been increasing exponentially from generation to generation, but I don't really know for sure. What I do know is that this mindset is evident across the spectrum of professions and hits all aspects of American life.
The Church is not responsible for a "few rogue priests". Corporations are not responsible for a few rogue executives or accounting firms. A political party is not responsible for a few rogue members that clog phone lines during elections. I'm not responsible for parking in the handicapped spot to run in to the ATM for a few seconds. The list of examples is endless. People do it in the private lives, in their kitchens, before taking their kids to school in the morning. It's literally everywhere. It's a general feeling that in this hectic world with 24 hour news cycles, nothing is ever really all that permanent because nothing ever really has peoples attentions for more than that. Hell, eveyone is just too damned busy to really bother with it all right? And besides, there's always someone else to blame it on.
-
The MSM hasn't changed, but we have
I'd be interested to hear how other posters of my generation would compare MSM coverage of the Viet Nam war to that of Iraq. I recall having the same feelings of contempt for the bland recitation of government propaganda, the same disgust at the servile deference paid to lying politicians, the same revulsion at the persistent pimping of war-mongering demagogues. One difference now is that back then, it was only us dirty hippies who'd dare use terms like "propaganda" and "lies" to characterize the news media.
One memorable bellwether, however, was the slow and steady awakening of skepticism in the voice of Walter Cronkite, in his nightly recap of the evening news. From the Tet Offensive, to the Chicago Democratic Convention police riots, to the Watergate scandal, Cronkite's dawning awareness of government duplicity fractured the glaze of conventional wisdom. Through his somber eyes, many ordinary Americans began to see through the veil.
It seemed like there was a brief flashback of visceral understanding in the minds of some of the reporters covering the Katrina disaster. Shocking events taking place right before their eyes, outpacing the bureaucratic spin they were accustomed to regurgitating. It wasn't really a radicalizing experience, though, more like a brief glimpse out the door in the back of the sound stage, into the dark alley behind the network studios.