|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
 Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 7:38 am Post subject: 'Devastating' Moyers Probe of Press and Iraq |
 |
|
| Quote: |
NEW YORK The most powerful indictment of the news media for falling down in its duties in the run-up to the war in Iraq will appear next Wednesday, a 90-minute PBS broadcast called �Buying the War,� which marks the return of �Bill Moyers Journal.� E&P was sent a preview DVD and a draft transcript for the program this week.
While much of the evidence of the media�s role as cheerleaders for the war presented here is not new, it is skillfully assembled, with many fresh quotes from interviews (with the likes of Tim Russert and Walter Pincus) along with numerous embarrassing examples of past statements by journalists and pundits that proved grossly misleading or wrong. Several prominent media figures, prodded by Moyers, admit the media failed miserably, though few take personal responsibility.
The war continues today, now in its fifth year, with the death toll for Americans and Iraqis rising again -- yet Moyers points out, �the press has yet to come to terms with its role in enabling the Bush Administration to go to war on false pretenses.�
Among the few heroes of the film are reporters with the Knight Ridder/McClatchy bureau in D.C. Tragically late, Walter Isaacson, who headed CNN, observes, �The people at Knight Ridder were calling the colonels and the lieutenants and the people in the CIA and finding out, you know, that the intelligence is not very good. We should�ve all been doing that.�
At the close, Moyers mentions some of the chief proponents of the war who refused to speak to him for this program, including Thomas Friedman, Bill Kristol, Roger Ailes, Charles Krauthammer, Judith Miller, and William Safire.
But Dan Rather, the former CBS anchor, admits, �I don�t think there is any excuse for, you know, my performance and the performance of the press in general in the roll up to the war�We didn�t dig enough. And we shouldn�t have been fooled in this way.� Bob Simon, who had strong doubts about evidence for war, was asked by Moyers if he pushed any of the top brass at CBS to �dig deeper,� and he replies, �No, in all honesty, with a thousand mea culpas�.nope, I don�t think we followed up on this.�
Instead he covered the marketing of the war in a �softer� way, explaining to Moyers: �I think we all felt from the beginning that to deal with a subject as explosive as this, we should keep it, in a way, almost light � if that doesn�t seem ridiculous.�
Moyers replies: �Going to war, almost light.�
Walter Isaacson is pushed hard by Moyers and finally admits, �We didn�t question our sources enough.� But why? Isaacson notes there was �almost a patriotism police� after 9/11 and when the network showed civilian casualties it would get phone calls from advertisers and the administration and �big people in corporations were calling up and saying, �You�re being anti-American here.��
Moyers then mentions that Isaacson had sent a memo to staff, leaked to the Washington Post, in which he declared, �It seems perverse to focus too much on the casualties or hardship in Afghanistan� and ordered them to balance any such images with reminders of 9/11. Moyers also asserts that editors at the Panama City (Fla.) News-Herald received an order from above, �Do not use photos on Page 1A showing civilian casualties. Our sister paper has done so and received hundreds and hundreds of threatening emails.�
Walter Pincus of the Washington Post explains that even at his paper reporters �do worry about sort of getting out ahead of something.� But Moyers gives credit to
Charles J. Hanley of The Associated Press for trying, in vain, to draw more attention to United Nations inspectors failing to find WMD in early 2003.
The disgraceful press reaction to Colin Powell�s presentation at the United Nations seems like something out of Monty Python, with one key British report cited by Powell being nothing more than a student�s thesis, downloaded from the Web � with the student later threatening to charge U.S. officials with �plagiarism.�
Phil Donahue recalls that he was told he could not feature war dissenters alone on his MSNBC talk show and always had to have �two conservatives for every liberal.� Moyers resurrects a leaked NBC memo about Donahue�s firing that claimed he �presents a difficult public face for NBC in a time of war. At the same time our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity.�
Moyers also throws some stats around: In the year before the invasion William Safire (who predicted a �quick war� with Iraqis cheering their liberators) wrote �a total of 27 opinion pieces fanning the sparks of war.� The Washington Post carried at least 140 front-page stories in that same period making the administration�s case for attack. In the six months leading to the invasion the Post would �editorialize in favor of the war at least 27 times.�
Of the 414 Iraq stories broadcast on NBC, ABC and CBS nightly news in the six months before the war, almost all could be traced back to sources solely in the White House, Pentagon or State Dept., Moyers tells Russert, who offers no coherent reply.
The program closes on a sad note, with Moyers pointing out that �so many of the advocates and apologists for the war are still flourishing in the media.� He then runs a pre-war clip of President Bush declaring, �We cannot wait for the final proof: the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.� Then he explains: �The man who came up with it was Michael Gerson, President Bush�s top speechwriter.
�He has left the White House and has been hired by the Washington Post as a columnist.� |
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003574260
I remember the build up. I was quite taken in by all of the discussion, truth be told. I followed the debates, and very naively took the major players on both sides at face value.
Several years in, it is much clearer to me that it was an ideologically driven lie. So much so, that I feels silly even writing that sentence. But I am deeply troubled at how powerful nationalism can be, and how totalitarian the outcomes of a nationalist expression can be. Of course, this isn't limited to America, as all of us who have lived in Korea all know.
The media (and by "media", I mean most of the 'mainstream' media), I believe, should have known better. The did not do their job, in my opinion, and they ought to be dragged through the mud for their complicity.
The media should not ever cheerlead. It should criticize every action of every government with disregard of who is in the government. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm a raving lunatic. I froth at the mouth. I hate bushie, so nothing I say is valid.
You're right. You're all right. I am fanatically addicted to the rule of law. I am unredeemably a fan of the Constitution. I am forever locked into a belief that lies do not belong in government; that the people can, and should be, told the truth.
I hate Bush? Inexpressibly. And I ask: how can you NOT?
I hate Bush? More than can be stated. The blood of hundreds of thousands - more than 3,200 of them American soldiers - asks, how can you not?
I hate Bush? The billions in the coffers of Halliburton while they provide substandard service and siphon off every cent they can lay their hands on.... all while laying the groundwork for stealing the oil out from under Iraq... while getting paid more than five times their costs begs you, why do you NOT?
In 2000 I was depressed. Prior to the election, I and my friends worriedly discussed the possible election of Dumbya. We wondered why people could not see through this lying sack of shit. The man was a **failure** in every business venture he had engaged in prior to this campaign. He had allowed the muckraking of McCain. He was obviously, obviously going to attack Iraq if he became president. It was obvious.
After his election, I seriously considered (well, not really, but I did wistfully wonder at...) leaving the country and dropping my citizenship. The writing on the wall was that obvious.
First day in office? Ripped the guts out of ecological legislation, rolling back the clock a decade or two. Further? Ordered his staff to figure out how to get into Iraq. (While simultaneously disregarding **every piece of intelligence and planning left for him by Clinton regarding Al Quaida...**)
Then 9/11 happened. All we heard was Iraq and Al Quaida. A relentless drumbeat reinforced by, "Wha? We don' wan no stinkink war wit Iraq!" Lies.
The the lies came in cascades: WMDs; connected to Al Quaida; buying uranium; mobile chemical labs...
...yet the inspectors found NOTHING. The CIA found.... nothing. Nobody found anything....
And Blix asked for 3 to 6 months. But, no, a mushroom cloud would sprout in NY if we waited...
It was a lie. With a 95% certainty that there were WMDs... with no connection to AL Quaida... with but 3 to 6 months needed to avoid war...
we were lied to.
And they tapped our phones.
They took away habeus corpus.
They took away attorneys and trials.
They took away privacy.
They gave the rich a huge tax break, then they started spending the middle class into the poor house...
And the media was... silent. They worked with the CIA and the FBI. They soft-balled instead of hard-balled. They played don't ask, don't tell with our heritage and our future.
And still, there is a deafening silence.
Where are those calling a spade a spade? Where are those saying liar when the lies are said? Where are those willing to speak of the Emperor's new clothes?
WHY is it OK that more Americans have died "stopping" another 9/11 than died ON 9/11?
WHY is it OK that our phones were tapped?
WHY is it OK that **one man** can determine the fate of **any** man, woman or child in the U.S.?
WHY is it OK that the wealthy are not taxed, but are given tax breaks?
WHY is it that a president can give every major contract in Iraq to his friends and partners?
WHY is it that a failed policy is not called a failed policy?
WHY is it that the U.S. D of J can be turned into the private prosecutorial arm of the Republican party?
WHY has the media silent? Had they done their jobs, Bush would have never have been re-elected. Had they done their jobs, Iraq would never have been possible. Had they done their jobs, we would have known of the wiretaps a year earlier.
Etc.
Do I hate Bush? Bush is a puppet. He is a truly stupid man. I hate what the group of people going back thirty years together is attempting to do to my nation. I hate how so many have become unthinking and obtuse. I hate how so many fail to see, or even look, at what lies ahead.
Yes, I hate Bush. I hate Cheney. I hate them all. They are liars. They are thieves. They are traitors.
And if the media does not fully awaken from its slumber... they will be our future, too.
Last edited by EFLtrainer on Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:34 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Tell us what you really think?
Geeze, efl, try and stay a little on topic eh? I dislike him as well, but I posted about a lazy and nationalistic media.
I just love Friday on Dave's. Drunk posting all around! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
Tell us what you really think?
Geeze, efl, try and stay a little on topic eh? I dislike him as well, but I posted about a lazy and nationalistic media.
I just love Friday on Dave's. Drunk posting all around! |
Read again. I very clearly connected the two. If you bring up the media and their role, how do you do so effectively without mentioning the effects?
Drunk posting, indeed. I am home. With my wife. Perhaps if you laid off you might understand what you are reading? To wit:
| Quote: |
| And the media was... silent. They worked with the CIA and the FBI. They soft-balled instead of hard-balled. They played don't ask, don't tell with our heritage and our future. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 9:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
Drunk posting, indeed. I am home. With my wife. Perhaps if you laid off you might understand what you are reading? To wit: |
Laid off what? I have class in 7 hours, no booze for me.
But I don't think the media was in bed with anybody, but they were blinded by nationalism and afraid to be labeled unpatriotic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 6:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
Drunk posting, indeed. I am home. With my wife. Perhaps if you laid off you might understand what you are reading? To wit: |
Laid off what? I have class in 7 hours, no booze for me.
But I don't think the media was in bed with anybody, but they were blinded by nationalism and afraid to be labeled unpatriotic. |
Lay off whatever you drink that causes you to accuse others of being drunk because you don't like what they write. Get some ethics.
BJWD, you sometimes state things that are factually incorrect. I don't mean stating opinion based on info (we all do that; it's the point of conversation), but the actual stating of factually incorrect information.
FACT: The media themselves (did you not read the article?) are saying they let the administration get away with things they shouldn't have.
FACT: The NYT sat on the surveillance issue for a year.
There are other examples... etc. Argue the merits of playing along if you want, but there is no gray area on whether the media, in part or in whole, did or didn't do their jobs as we have come to expect them to do them. The following quote says it all:
| Quote: |
| Of the 414 Iraq stories broadcast on NBC, ABC and CBS nightly news in the six months before the war, almost all could be traced back to sources solely in the White House, Pentagon or State Dept., Moyers tells Russert, who offers no coherent reply. |
This violates basic ethics and morals in news reporting. What happened to independent verification? Two sources? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 7:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| for what it's worth BJWD... I appreciate your humility. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
