|
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 |
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2005 1:15 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Interesting sig, BB. Is that from her Unwisdom book?
And she has a law named after her which is highly appropriate to this part of the thread:
| Quote: |
Tuchman's Law states, "The fact of being reported multiplies the apparent extent of any deplorable development by five- to tenfold." In other words the chroniclers of a time in history, whether they are ancient monks or modern newspaper reporters always depict events as if their adverse effects are general and pervasive.
The fact is chroniclers and reporters always seek the sensational, because they want to write down things that are out of the ordinary, things that people will want to read. Ms. Tuchman points out in her foreword to "A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century", "Disaster is rarely as pervasive as it seems from recorded accounts. The fact of being on the record makes it appear continuous and ubiquitous whereas it is more likely to have been sporadic both in time and place. Besides, persistence of the normal is usually greater than the effect of the disturbance, as we know from our own times." |
http://www.indepthinfo.com/articles/tuchmans-law.shtml |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
My 2 Cent
Joined: 03 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2005 1:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
I had a look at the Herald-Tribune over dinner.
That's from the New York Times. Yeah, the mainstream media is really afraid to criticize Bush, eh?
(And yes, it's an Op-Ed, not straight reporting or editorial. But, unlike 2 Cents' citation of the Friedman piece, I'm not using the Rich column to argue that the US media is of one uniform mind on the Iraq war. I'm simply saying that if, as he suggests, the entire war coverage was being dictated by pro-Bush people, stuff like this wouldn't be getting published in the New York Times).
http://lettrist.blogspot.com/2005/11/dishonest-reprehensible-corrupt.html |
Yeah this is the thing OTOH --n ow you are just being a total smartass. When I lived in Seoul, I actually subscibed to the IHT so I am well aware of its scope -- which by the way is slightly different and a little more internationalist that the NYT. Regardless, I always enjoyed reading it.
I never said the New Yorker was some type of underground magazine, or even alluded to that, so you can cut out the snear and condescension. What I did say is that Seymour Hersh is not in the mainstream -- you're twisting my words -- as usual. Perhaps you should read what I say instead of finishing my sentences for me. Hersh was man who Richard Perle said was "closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist" -- yeah I think that sums up spin in the highest order.
You patronise me about my respect for the BBC -- I also have great repect for the work of the other well known public broadcaster PBS, which does its best as a non-profit indepenedent media outlet, bashed by partisans who want to cuts threaten its funding. Shock, horror --- its an american network too!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PBS
| Quote: |
Although state and federal sources account for a minority percentage of public television funding, the system remains vulnerable to political pressure. Kenneth Tomlinson, chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, in November 2004 in Baltimore, told PBS officials, "They should make sure their programming better reflected the Republican mandate." Tomlinson later said that his comment was in jest and that he could not imagine how remarks at a fun occasion were taken the wrong way. A report whose results were publicized in November 2005 sharply criticized Tomlinson for the way he used CPB resources to "go after" this perceived liberal bias.
Kenneth Tomlinson, who took over in 2003, began his tenure by asking for Karl Rove's assistance in overturning a regulation that half the CPB board have practical experience in radio or television. Later he appointed an outside consultant to monitor the regular PBS program NOW with Bill Moyers. Told that the show had "liberal" leanings, Moyers eventually resigned after more than three decades as a PBS regular, saying Tomlinson had mounted a "vendetta" against him. |
Also there is a large degree of deference is given to all US officials which you don't get in Europe. An Irish journalist, Carol Coleman gave Bush a challenging interview last year and he officially complained about it, as he too used to getting softballs from his lapdog media drones in Washington. Abroad US journalists are always shocked at how international jouranlists address politicans... in the states foreign press are always shocked at how pathetic the US press corps are in respect to their officials. If you have seen their interviewing style, and want to get answers from a tough interview I would rather see Tim Sebastian over Tim Russett any day of the week. In crude terms: Hardtalk Vrs analingus.
I also read the CNN statement before I posted the FAIR link. So how much coverage did the protest in Washinton get outside of CNN that weekend of the huricane? What about the other protests throughout the year I mentioned already? Cindy Sheehan has been demonised by the pundits and due to her well-reported 'gaffes' (remember H Dean's rant overplayed ranting 'gaffe') -- she is now protrayed as part of the demented fringes (trape around these boards and see for yourself).
Here is the NBC DVD boxset I mentioned 5 pages ago:
Perhaps you can enlighten me as to the journalistic merit in this box-set.
You asked me to cite an non-editorialist using words like 'freedom' and 'liberty' -- have you been paying attention to the news generally?
Remember the Marlboro Man of Fallujah last year? A young soldier who had a smoke dangling out of his mouth who became a propaganda icon. Here is what Dan Rather said of him:
"for me, this is personal.... This is a warrior with his eyes on the far horizon, scanning for danger. See it, study it, absorb it. Think about it. Then take a deep breath of pride. And if your eyes don't dampen, you're a better man or woman than I."
http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20041213&s=klein
Bucheon Bum, I'm glad the media have been doing such a wonderful job in informing the public about the secret deals with Moktada al-Sadr and his militia. So the quid pro quo -- US forces are left alone as long as they stay out of his areas leaving fundamentalist justice to be meeted out -- terrorizing of women and locals, summary excutions on the streets, strict codes of islamic law imposed on a populace which had more freedom than before the US interferred. So this is put into context is it? Fully reported and made aware is it? Considering the most Amercians still think Saddam and Al-Quida were related in ANY way (they were not), I think you overestimate how effective and factual and contextual the MEDIA is -- (pudits are media too)
by the way what is Fox news? If a FOX newsreader reports a comment made by a rogue state dictator and then sarcasticall adds :'yeah right!' after the quote... does this still count as newsreading?
Anyways, the previous post mentioned de-regulation of the media. I mentioned it also : politicans and coroporte vested interests. But I suppose that fairness, accuracy, and the common good can still prevail even in masssive profiit making media conglomorates.
Let's all just keep our fingers crossed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2005 2:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
HANG ON!
You're quoting Perle on Hersh?
I can't see from where I'm sitting... are you doing it with a straight face? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2005 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
You asked me to cite an non-editorialist using words like 'freedom' and 'liberty' -- have you been paying attention to the news generally?
Remember the Marlboro Man of Fallujah last year? A young soldier who had a smoke dangling out of his mouth who became a propaganda icon. Here is what Dan Rather said of him:
"for me, this is personal.... This is a warrior with his eyes on the far horizon, scanning for danger. See it, study it, absorb it. Think about it. Then take a deep breath of pride. And if your eyes don't dampen, you're a better man or woman than I."
|
I asked for an example of reportage. Here is Rather's quote in context:
| Quote: |
Of the photo at the time, CBS News Correspondent Dan Rather asked his audience on the CBS Evening News, "Did you see it? The best war photograph of recent years is in many newspapers today. ��See it, study it, absorb it. Think about it. Then take a deep breath of pride. And if your eyes don't dampen, you're a better man or woman than I."
|
So, you're asking me to believe that in the middle of reading a straight news item about the photograph, Rather looked out at the camera, addressed the audience as "you", and went on a weepy monologue about the soldier? I don't underestimate Rather's capacity for weirdness, but I find that a little hard to believe, since I don't think I've ever seen a news anchor of any political persuasion do that sort of thing("oh the humanity" notwithstanding). More likely, he was giving a commentary separate from the reading of the news, which is something I have seen anchors do. If that's the case, then it qualifies as editorial, not reporting.
| Quote: |
I never said the New Yorker was some type of underground magazine, or even alluded to that, so you can cut out the snear and condescension. What I did say is that Seymour Hersh is not in the mainstream -- you're twisting my words -- as usual. Perhaps you should read what I say instead of finishing my sentences for me. Hersh was man who Richard Perle said was "closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist" -- yeah I think that sums up spin in the highest order.
|
So lemme get this straight. The New Yorker is part of the mainstream press, you agree with that, right? But Seymour Hersh, who gets paid to write in The New Yorker, is not part of the mainstream press. How is that possible?
Oh, that's right. Karl Rove, who is apparently your authority on these matters, has called Hersh a terrorist so therefore Hersh isn't mainstream. Okay sure. But here's an item from Richard Nixon's famous "enemies list", compiled by Charles Colson:
| Quote: |
Ed Guthman, managing editor, Los Angeles Times national editor: Guthman, former Kennedy aide, was a highly sophisticated hatchetman against us in '68. It is obvious he is the prime mover behind the current Key Biscayne effort. It is time to give him the message.
|
So, by your reasoning, despite being the national editor of the LA Times, Guthman wasn't mainstream because Colson said bad things about him?
| Quote: |
Perhaps you can enlighten me as to the journalistic merit in this box-set.
|
I dunno. I haven't seen it. From what I read on Amazon, though, it sounds like a compilation of American war reporting. So, what you think of the box-set is probably gonna depend largely on what you thought of the war coverage itself. For what it's worth, here is NBC's own blurb, as well as the most detailed of the reader reviews.
| Quote: |
Book Description
Operation Iraqi Freedom marked a new era in television war coverage. On-the-spot reporting by journalists, photographers, and cameramen captured combat in ways that are nothing less than historic. Sharing the triumphs, tragedies, and daily routines of the soldiers, viewers crouched in the trenches, felt the vibrations of bomb explosions, tasted sands borne on fierce desert winds. We were there -- embedded among the troops, eyewitnesses to the horror of battle. Historic television. Historic journalism. NBC news captured it all and was the acknowledged leader among all the network and cable news organizations covering the Iraqi war. This book + DVD package written and produced by NBC News presents a chronological narrative of reporting from the field supplemented by interviews and anchored broadcasts from Qatar, Kuwait, and the United States. The book includes a Foreword by Tom Brokaw, an Introduction by an NBC military expert, and a special dedication to fallen colleague David Bloom. Thousands of hours of images and words have been molded into a concise, eloquent summary of the historic events of the conflict, further enhanced by the photographic and video record. The DVD contains approxiamately 2 hours of live coverage of the war broadcast by NBC News, MSNBC, and CNBC.
|
| Quote: |
Operation Iraqi Freedom was a war like none other, and this book captures that feeling. Many people worldwide were against the war and will probably pass by this book as a result. That's unfortunate because but no matter what your personal politics are, this book is is a stunning chronology of the good and the bad of Operation Iraqi Freedom. For one thing, the photographs are absolutely stunning. They show both sides of this war and the innocent Iraqi people caught in between a murderous dictator and the world's only Superpower. The book also has a very personal touch. I really enjoyed the photos of NBC anchorman David Bloom. Several detailed graphical maps in the book detail the journeys of the NBC reporters in Iraq and talk about what they encountered everyday from sandstorms to terrorist attacks. If you are the type of person who sees things on TV and feels like it's just a movie, then hopefully the personal tales of these reporters will shake you loose. There's a few books on the market now that try to capture this conflict in paper form, but they just don't come close. Too many of these books let their politics get in the way (imagine right wing Fox News making a book about war) or they were rushed to market to cash-in on the war. Not this book. It's a very eloquent and objective visual summary of the events of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The book also comes with a DVD which is pretty cool. Lots of nice animated graphics and emotional reports from the front line. I highly recommend this book no matter what your feelings about the war were. This book is beautifully produced. The quality of the stories, photographs and objective reporting of events is outstanding.
|
Make of it what you will, I guess.
| Quote: |
| Considering the most Amercians still think Saddam and Al-Quida were related in ANY way (they were not) |
Okay, this is interesting. From USAToday:
| Quote: |
Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it's likely Saddam was involved.
The belief in the connection persists even though there has been no proof of a link between the two.
|
So, in the same two paragraphs, the ultra-mainstream USAToday tells us that a) a majority of Americans think there is a link between Saddam and 9-11, and b) that no proof exists for this link. The second assertion kinda defeats the purpose of the first, if they're trying to promote the idea of a link, wouldn't you say?
And check this out, it's a round-up of news reports compiled by the Kerry campaign:
| Quote: |
WASHINGTON, June 16 /U.S. Newswire/ -- John Kerry for President today released the following highlights from tonight's network news coverage on the validity of the Administration's claims of ties between Hussein and al-Qaida:
CBS:
"It is one of President Bush's last surviving justifications for war in Iraq and today took a devastating hit when the 9/11 Commission declared there was no collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
'I think it's the clearest case of the administration misleading the American public to rally support for war and that misleading worked...'
...Those repeated associations left the majority of Americans believing Saddam was involved in 9/11. But the Commission today put the nail in that connection, or for that matter, any other al-Qaida acts of terror against America, declaring: there is no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida cooperated on attacks against the United States. The report is yet another blow to the President's credibility as he struggles to find the exit door in Iraq, and opens him up to new criticism on the wisdom to taking on Saddam with Iraq's leadership still at large."
NBC:
"But the 9/11 commission contradicts the White House today, particularly on claims that Iraq and al-Qaida were linked before the war... The report said that the meeting and other contacts between Iraq and bin Laden do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship.
...Critics say the president has gone out of his way to blur the lines between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks... It's clear this report is a blow to the president's rationale for war."
ABC:
"One of the Bush Administration's most controversial assertions that Bin Laden was linked to al-Qaida. Today the 911 commission said unequivocally, not so...
...The 9/11 commission staff report was categorical... But the Bush Administration continues to link the two... The commission found, however, that the only relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida was an apparent agreement not to attack each other."
Paid for by John Kerry for President, Inc.
http://www.usnewswire.com/
|
So, yes, a majority of Americans MIGHT(I haven't seen the latest polls) still think that Saddam was behind 9-11. However, I think you need to come up with a more credible explanation for this than simply saying "the mainstream media keeps telling them it's true".
Last edited by On the other hand on Wed Nov 30, 2005 7:57 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2005 10:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
Interesting sig, BB. Is that from her Unwisdom book?
And she has a law named after her which is highly appropriate to this part of the thread:
| Quote: |
Tuchman's Law states, "The fact of being reported multiplies the apparent extent of any deplorable development by five- to tenfold." In other words the chroniclers of a time in history, whether they are ancient monks or modern newspaper reporters always depict events as if their adverse effects are general and pervasive.
The fact is chroniclers and reporters always seek the sensational, because they want to write down things that are out of the ordinary, things that people will want to read. Ms. Tuchman points out in her foreword to "A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century", "Disaster is rarely as pervasive as it seems from recorded accounts. The fact of being on the record makes it appear continuous and ubiquitous whereas it is more likely to have been sporadic both in time and place. Besides, persistence of the normal is usually greater than the effect of the disturbance, as we know from our own times." |
http://www.indepthinfo.com/articles/tuchmans-law.shtml |
To be perfectly honest with you, I got the quote from someone else. I had no idea who she was. I just thought the comment had a lot of truth to it.
It's from her book In the March of Folly |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
My 2 Cent
Joined: 03 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
"for me, this is personal.... This is a warrior with his eyes on the far horizon, scanning for danger. See it, study it, absorb it. Think about it. Then take a deep breath of pride. And if your eyes don't dampen, you're a better man or woman than I."
|
So, you're asking me to believe that in the middle of reading a straight news item about the photograph, Rather looked out at the camera, addressed the audience as "you", and went on a weepy monologue about the soldier? I don't underestimate Rather's capacity for weirdness, but I find that a little hard to believe, since I don't think I've ever seen a news anchor of any political persuasion do that sort of thing("oh the humanity" notwithstanding). More likely, he was giving a commentary separate from the reading of the news, which is something I have seen anchors do. If that's the case, then it qualifies as editorial, not reporting. |
Like I said, what is the difference between reporting and and editorial these days? I gave you the example of the Fox newsreader saying 'yeah right!' after reading quotations from what are seen as anti-US figures. Let's face facts: the lines have become increasingly blurred. Dan Rather was weeping and wetting himself in wonderment over a US propaganda icon during a news telecast....and you're saying this is ok as its the 'opinion part' of the 21 minute evening news -- Hello?! Its the news!!! No journo in the States wants to be tarred with a 'liberal' bias -- considering Rather's Marlboro man insights were given only 2 months after the faked Bush Texas air-guard records (yet crux of allegation was true) lead one to believe that Rather was probably looking for brownie points to be seen as more 'balanced'. Out and out partsianship is always defended to 'balance' the so called leftist leaning media.
| Quote: |
So lemme get this straight. The New Yorker is part of the mainstream press, you agree with that, right? But Seymour Hersh, who gets paid to write in The New Yorker, is not part of the mainstream press. How is that possible? |
Just because an essentially cultural magazine gives Hersh a platform doesnt make him mainstream (Woody Allen also writes for the New Yorker). Hersh does stand firmly outside of the mainstream media, and the lickspittle washington press corps who are in large part in ideological lockstep with their government. His critisms of the 'mainstream media' are renowned... he is not part of it. He is not some hack beholden to access, enamoured with his own celebrity: he has earned his stripes as a hardhitting investigative journalist over the course of 35 years. Borne out of watergate, he didn't sell out - unlike limelight adoring types (woodward/bernstein) who masquarade as journalists while writing semi-fictional quotes, and biographies -- thankfully Hersh has stayed true to his profession.
| Quote: |
Oh, that's right. Karl Rove, who is apparently your authority on these matters, has called Hersh a terrorist so therefore Hersh isn't mainstream. Okay sure. But here's an item from Richard Nixon's famous "enemies list", compiled by Charles Colson:
| Quote: |
Ed Guthman, managing editor, Los Angeles Times national editor: Guthman, former Kennedy aide, was a highly sophisticated hatchetman against us in '68. It is obvious he is the prime mover behind the current Key Biscayne effort. It is time to give him the message.
|
So, by your reasoning, despite being the national editor of the LA Times, Guthman wasn't mainstream because Colson said bad things about him? |
I didn't mention Rove, but I did quote Peale, but fine then, as you like. You are now referring to Chuck Colson's top-secret enemies list?! So he had the LA times editor on this (secret) list - so what? You are going around the houses here and being being ridiculous. What I'm talking about is media manipulation and distortion: creating news, spinning news, and controlling news.
Simply put:
If I work for Sony and send out a press release inviting tv, radio and print to come and cover a Sony product launch, and they come and report on it... that would be creating news: this is creating a 'news event'. Embedded reporters in Iraq was also a news event.
Likewise, having spin doctors give their opinons and editorilise on the news, creates angles, and opinions that then get picked up by the media.... this is spinning the news.
If I am in power and my buddies who are buying into tv, print, radio, internet industries scratch my back... well i'll scatch theirs... this is the relationship that is in effect controlling the news.
| Quote: |
Book Description
Operation Iraqi Freedom marked a new era in television war coverage. Historic television. Historic journalism. NBC news captured it all and was the acknowledged leader among all the network and cable news organizations covering the Iraqi war.
|
War is a beautiful thing, and I'm so glad NBC were there to cover it in all its glory. The emblazoned words 'Freedom' with the rising of a new dawn in Iraq with old glory standing proud .... true world class journalism -- and comes at a great price for that special gift at Christmas!
Oh yeah, weren't NBC the same organization who fired renouned foreign reporter Peter Arnett in the war's first week becuase he wasn't 'patriotic' enough for american airwaves in wartime? If you are going to give me the offical reason that he was 'drunk on the job' or 'sleeping with Saddam' --- don't bother. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 1:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
It's from her book In the March of Folly |
I haven't read it yet, but that's the one:
The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam: A meditation on unwisdom (as distinct from stupidity) as a force in history.
Someone needs to write an afterword for a new edition updating it to 2005 (she's dead so she can't), and call it "plus ça change, plus cèst la meme chose". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
My 2 Cent
Joined: 03 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 2:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
On the other hand wrote
| Quote: |
So, yes, a majority of Americans MIGHT(I haven't seen the latest polls) still think that Saddam was behind 9-11. However, I think you need to come up with a more credible explanation for this than simply saying "the mainstream media keeps telling them it's true". |
There you go again OTOH. The above one was slipped in on one of your edits. I think its clear now to all concerend that you continue to try to protray me as someting I'm not. Again you competly misquote me, and twist what I said. Again if you would have the courtesy to read my actual comments before pracitically telling everyone or trying to make it out that I believe the media is no differennt to the soviet -- I do not.
I've given you plenty of quotes and example to make my arguement. What else do you want at this point? Why don't you try read what I said instead. The inherent issue with the media is of a much more subtle nature than the vulgar soviet style news-blackouts and wild conspiracy theories you and bucheon bum would try to have people think I believe in.
The mainstream media did pick up the Bush team's line on WMD, and the Al-Quada relationship. If it was not for the media picking up this propaganda, this myth... there would not have been the support for the Iraq war that there was. Judy Miller etc. Does any of this ring a bell?
What the 9/11 commision has since said, what the Bush/Cheney axis have also accepted, what Judy Miller has apologised for, matters little now; the damage has been done... no matter how many times it has been mentioned in corrections and retractions. I can't tell you why Americans remain believing in myths - I can't explain why polls indicate that most americans believe in God, or in aliens/UFOs either. Maybe in that 60%+, crazy muslim fanatic equals crazy arab fanatics in the eyes of orginary Americans ? Generally, Americans aren't that informed about the outside world, and that is maybe another problem. It has been recognised by various academics and observers that the media have sufficently failed to report foreign news before 9/11. Perhaps this ignorance has led people to jump so far of the mark in their worldviews? Maybe you have some credible suggestions as to why people continue to believe in this myth? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 7:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
On the other hand wrote Quote:
So, yes, a majority of Americans MIGHT(I haven't seen the latest polls) still think that Saddam was behind 9-11. However, I think you need to come up with a more credible explanation for this than simply saying "the mainstream media keeps telling them it's true".
There you go again OTOH. The above one was slipped in on one of your edits. I think its clear now to all concerend that you continue to try to protray me as someting I'm not. Again you competly misquote me, and twist what I said. Again if you would have the courtesy to read my actual comments before pracitically telling everyone or trying to make it out that I believe the media is no differennt to the soviet -- I do not.
|
The late edit was not an attempt to deceive. I got around to doing the neccessary research re: Saddam-911 reporting after writing my original post, and didn't want to keep making post after post. If you wrote your original reply before reading the edited version, I sincerely apologize. I wouldn't write something if I didn't want the other person to read it.
So as to avoid any further confusion, I'll try to do a seperate post for each seperate reply. Thanks for the lesson in net etiquette, and I'll be back shortly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 8:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The mainstream media did pick up the Bush team's line on WMD, and the Al-Quada relationship. If it was not for the media picking up this propaganda, this myth... there would not have been the support for the Iraq war that there was. Judy Miller etc. Does any of this ring a bell?
|
No argument from me there. A lack of critical thinking by the American media(or at least important sections of it) made the war politically viable for Bush. Meanwhile, on the other side of the Atlantic...
| Quote: |
British public support for the war in Iraq has dropped to 43%, from 61% last May at the end of that war, according to a poll released tonight.
|
So, despite allegedly being treated to an ongoing smorgashboard of critical media reporting about the war, 61% of Britons were still pro-war by the "end" of it. I can think of only three ways to account for this:
1. The majority of Britons KNEW the justifications were bs(having absorbed all the brilliant reportage of BBC, News Of The World, etc), but still supported the war for reasons unfathomable(to me anyway) or...
2. The majority of Britons had tuned out their superior domestic media in favour of the siren songs of CNN, FOX, etc(which doesn't say much about the majority of Britons), or...
(and here I think we might be approaching the heart of the matter)
3. The reporting in the British press wasn't as great as you would have us believe.
And one more nugget from the chest:
| Quote: |
But 41% of Britons thought Mr Blair had lied about weapons of mass destruction.
|
That's 59% who DIDN'T think he was lying. But wasn't Blair saying the same things as Bush?
http://www.breakingnews.ie/2004/03/16/story138624.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 8:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Quote:
So lemme get this straight. The New Yorker is part of the mainstream press, you agree with that, right? But Seymour Hersh, who gets paid to write in The New Yorker, is not part of the mainstream press. How is that possible?
Just because an essentially cultural magazine gives Hersh a platform doesnt make him mainstream (Woody Allen also writes for the New Yorker). Hersh does stand firmly outside of the mainstream media, and the lickspittle washington press corps who are in large part in ideological lockstep with their government |
Simply because Hersh is usually to the left of most of the mainstream media doesn't mean he isn't part of it. Look, the guy has written for UPI, the Associated Press, The New York Times, and now the New Yorker. And his books have been published by HarperCollins and Random House. I think he would pretty much fit into anyone's definition of mainstream, except possibly for yours and Richard Perle's.
Your argument basically boils down to saying that Hersh isn't part of the mainstream media because he's critical of US policy, while using as your definition of mainstream media "that part of the media which is not critical of US policy". Sorry, but that's not gonna fly.
| Quote: |
| (Woody Allen also writes for the New Yorker) |
Uh-huh. So does Steve Martin. What's your point?
Minor point(sorry for the edit):
| Quote: |
Borne out of watergate, he didn't sell out - unlike limelight adoring types (woodward/bernstein) who masquarade as journalists while writing semi-fictional quotes, and biographies -- thankfully Hersh has stayed true to his profession.
|
I think Hersh's ascension to the national stage precedes Watergate by a few years. He reported on My Lai in 1969. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 8:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I gave you the example of the Fox newsreader saying 'yeah right!' after reading quotations from what are seen as anti-US figures. |
Well, since you're just chomping at the bit to discuss the Murdoch press:
| Quote: |
French President Jacques Chirac has been called "a worm" by one of the UK's most popular tabloid newspapers in a withering front page attack - written entirely in French.
The Sun's editorial assault - which can only be seen on copies distributed in the French capital - is accompanied by a picture of their target superimposed on the body of an earthworm next to the headline: "Chirac est un ver."
|
At least the FOX anchor went for dry sarcasm. "Hey Chirac, you're a worm!" Yeah, that's classy.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2782393.stm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
My 2 Cent
Joined: 03 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 12:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
1. Another cheapshot. I never ever mentioned the NOTW as having brilliant war reporting. This is pathetic.
2. The thrust of my arguements is not a defence of UK journalism. You are playing the shell game now i think. I'm not even British anyways. Where are you coming up with this stuff? As Karl Rove would say: 'Lets stay on message.'
3. Tony Blair staked all his entire credibility by telling his public to trust him -- that he has secret access to information regarding a terrible WMD threat from Iraq. The rest as they say is history: the point is the UK public never bought into the non-existent Al-Quada link in the first place. Polls showing blair lying or not is inconsequential. its not same as polls showing Americans brainwashed and uninformed into believing AQ linkage when there wasnt and isnt -- even now, 3 years later.
OK let's nitpick then...1969 Nixonion era, Vietnam, Watergate era... These journo are of the same era, is what i was getting at. Actually Hersh's investigative NYT reports during Watergate was also legendary, and his work was considered more results orientated than the orginal scoops that first broke the story by the Post. But hey, lets not get into semantics.
Paraphrasing myself:
| Quote: |
| Just because New Yorker magazine gives Woody Allen a platform doesnt make him mainstream (Hersh also writes for the New Yorker) Allen does stand firmly outside of mainstream cinema |
Like I said already, Hersh is the one who regards himself as out of mainstream journalism, but you are the only one willing to argue with him about it? haha. OK you tell him then. Mabye he and some haircut like katie couric or tony blankley can do an investigative assignment swap sometime.
Chomping at the bit? Well if you want me to say the best-selling Sun newspaper reflects the very worst of the British culture:racist, zenophobic, sexist and imperialist, fine. But like Fox, it makes you laugh sometimes. However remember that Blair curried Murdock's favour in person pre-97 and even the Sun recognized their own power when they proclaimed Blair's Labour victory back in '97: It wuz The Sun wot won it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
1. Another cheapshot. I never ever mentioned the NOTW as having brilliant war reporting. This is pathetic.
|
Well, I didn't quite say that you did. I said that you were saying the British media as a whole had good war reporting(or at least better than the Americans), and I parenthetcally included NOTW as an example of British journalism. But yeah, I guess I could've picked a more elevated example.
| Quote: |
| Tony Blair staked all his entire credibility by telling his public to trust him -- that he has secret access to information regarding a terrible WMD threat from Iraq. The rest as they say is history: the point is the UK public never bought into the non-existent Al-Quada link in the first place. |
Well, I guess we can ask why the British media wasn't all over Tony Blair's case when he was going around claiming to have this secret information. And it does kinda make you wonder about the gullibility of the British public, if all Blair had to do was say "I've got top secret information" and the majority believed him. At least Bush felt obliged to present evidence(albeit of the dodgiest sort) for his claims. Admittedly, that's a seperate issue.
And yes, Americans bought the 9-11 link, Brits didn't. But I would point out that there was a bit of a difference in circumstances, given that 9-11 happened in the USA, not the UK. If 3000 people had been murdered in one fell swoop in London, would the British media have been taking a tone of cool, detached skepticism to the claims of demagogues trying to scapegoat an uninvolved nation?
| Quote: |
| The thrust of my arguements is not a defence of UK journalism. |
Well, the thrust of your argument has been that the foreign press is superior to the American press, and you have used the UK media as an example. So I've taken my own counterexamples mostly from that country's media.
| Quote: |
| Like I said already, Hersh is the one who regards himself as out of mainstream journalism, but you are the only one willing to argue with him about it? haha. OK you tell him then. |
Well, if Hersh ever tries to tell me in person that he's outside the mainstream media, I'll point out the distinction between being "outside the mainstream" and being "somewhat different from most other journalists in the mainstream". And I'll mention his Pulitzer prize and career with the NYT etc to support my point about him being included in the mainstream. Then I'll hit him up for the lunch bill. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
