| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Ubiquitous" |
| Date: |
15 Oct 2007 05:54:57 PM |
| Object: |
What media bias? |
A lot of bloggers have disparaged the media coverage of recent comments by
retired Ricardo Sanchez about Iraq. It's a standard media-bias complaint: that
stories play up Sanchez's negative comments about the war effort, while giving
short shrift to his comments about the media. We weren't even going to bother
writing about this, but a piece in Saturday's Washington Post expresses this
bias in such a clever way that we thought it merited recognition. It begins:
Retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, who led U.S. forces in
Iraq for a year after the March 2003 invasion, accused the
Bush administration yesterday of going to war with a
"catastrophically flawed" plan and said the United States
is "living a nightmare with no end in sight."
Sanchez also bluntly criticized the current troop increase
in Iraq, describing it as "a desperate attempt by the
administration that has not accepted the political and
economic realities of this war."
"The administration, Congress and the entire interagency,
especially the State Department, must shoulder the
responsibility for this catastrophic failure, and the
American people must hold them accountable," Sanchez told
military reporters and editors. "There has been a glaring
unfortunate display of incompetent strategic leadership
within our national leaders."
The Post does mention his criticisms of the media--but only in the story's
final paragraph:
Sanchez opened by criticizing the U.S. news media, saying
he was unfairly labeled "a liar" and "a torturer" because
of the Abu Ghraib scandal, and he alleged that the media
have lost their sense of ethics. He said that members of
the media blow stories out of proportion and are unwilling
to correct mistakes, and that the "media environment is
doing a great disservice to the nation."
So the Post closes by telling us how Sanchez opened. Earlier--at paragraph 10,
the story first mentioned the Abu Ghraib connection:
But Sanchez may be best remembered for being the top U.S.
general in Iraq during the period when the abuse of
prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison occurred and was later
revealed. Photographs of Iraqi detainees being humiliated
shocked many and provoked a reevaluation of the U.S.
presence in Iraq. After those disclosures, some enlisted
troops and Army Reserve officers were charged, but in legal
proceedings and official reviews no top commanders were
deemed responsible for the scandal.
Sanchez retired after more senior defense officials, fearing
that a public confirmation hearing would go badly in light
of the abuse allegations, decided not to give him a fourth
star. He is now a senior mentor at the military's Joint
Warfighting Center.
The Post could have mentioned Abu Ghraib in the first or second paragraph; it
might have led the story: _The former commander in Iraq who was forced to
retire amid revelations of abuse at Abu Ghraib prison accused the Bush
administration yesterday_ ...
Instead, the article tells us, in paragraphs 1-9, that a former commander in
Iraq criticized the Bush administration, and in the remaining paragraphs that
the guy who was forced to retire amid Abu Ghraib revelations criticized the
media. Very subtle editorializing--very impressive if you like that sort of
thing.
Today's Post carries an article titled "Al-Qaeda in Iraq Reported Crippled."
It's a generally upbeat report, though with significant caveats. What's
interesting is the absence from the story of one word: "surge".
--
The trouble with American journalism, in short, isn't that it's too
skeptical, but that it's too willing to throw skepticism to the wind when
it suits the agenda of proclaiming every war a Vietnam and every
Republican president a Nixon.
.
|
|
| User: "Almond" |
|
| Title: Re: What media bias? |
17 Oct 2007 06:30:09 PM |
|
|
In article <TMOdnbfQP8CEd4janZ2dnUVZ_t-gnZ2d@giganews.com>, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
A lot of bloggers have disparaged the media coverage of recent comments by
retired Ricardo Sanchez about Iraq. It's a standard media-bias complaint: that
stories play up Sanchez's negative comments about the war effort, while giving
short shrift to his comments about the media. We weren't even going to bother
writing about this, but a piece in Saturday's Washington Post expresses this
bias in such a clever way that we thought it merited recognition. It begins:
Retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, who led U.S. forces in
Iraq for a year after the March 2003 invasion, accused the
Bush administration yesterday of going to war with a
"catastrophically flawed" plan and said the United States
is "living a nightmare with no end in sight."
Sanchez also bluntly criticized the current troop increase
in Iraq, describing it as "a desperate attempt by the
administration that has not accepted the political and
economic realities of this war."
"The administration, Congress and the entire interagency,
especially the State Department, must shoulder the
responsibility for this catastrophic failure, and the
American people must hold them accountable," Sanchez told
military reporters and editors. "There has been a glaring
unfortunate display of incompetent strategic leadership
within our national leaders."
Everything is nice and dandy. He simply does not seem to
comprehend "da plan". Whatever he says, can be easily made
meaningless, or all softs of discrediting information published
to reduce him to dust. Simple as that. Meanwhile, all the media
will be singing a song, handed to them from above.
The Post does mention his criticisms of the media--but only in the story's
final paragraph:
Sanchez opened by criticizing the U.S. news media, saying
he was unfairly labeled "a liar" and "a torturer" because
of the Abu Ghraib scandal, and he alleged that the media
have lost their sense of ethics. He said that members of
the media blow stories out of proportion and are unwilling
to correct mistakes, and that the "media environment is
doing a great disservice to the nation."
So the Post closes by telling us how Sanchez opened. Earlier--at paragraph 10,
the story first mentioned the Abu Ghraib connection:
But Sanchez may be best remembered for being the top U.S.
general in Iraq during the period when the abuse of
prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison occurred and was later
revealed. Photographs of Iraqi detainees being humiliated
shocked many and provoked a reevaluation of the U.S.
presence in Iraq. After those disclosures, some enlisted
troops and Army Reserve officers were charged, but in legal
proceedings and official reviews no top commanders were
deemed responsible for the scandal.
Sanchez retired after more senior defense officials, fearing
that a public confirmation hearing would go badly in light
of the abuse allegations, decided not to give him a fourth
star. He is now a senior mentor at the military's Joint
Warfighting Center.
Sure, it is necessary to forever sacrifice someone,
just to show to all the clueless the "democracy at work".
All lies and perverted tricks of manipulation of public
opinion and outright propaganda.
--
The most powerful tool for usenet you have ever heard of.
NewsMaestro v. 4.0.1 Hail Democracy Release has been released.
Important feature additions and various improvements
and optimizations.
Web page:
http://newsmaestro.sourceforge.net/
NewsMaestro download page:
http://newsmaestro.sourceforge.net/Download_Information.htm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "z" |
|
| Title: Re: What media bias? |
07 Dec 2007 09:05:31 AM |
|
|
On Oct 15, 5:54 pm, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
A lot of bloggers have disparaged the media coverage of recent comments by
retired Ricardo Sanchez about Iraq.
"Q Yeah, or what if [conservative blogger] Hugh Hewitt called?
A That's when you start going, "Hmm . . ." Because they do reach
people who are influential.
Q Well, they reach the president's base.
A That's what I mean by influential. I mean, talk about a direct IV
into the vein of your support. It's a very efficient way to
communicate. They regurgitate exactly and put up on their blogs what
you said to them. It is something that we've cultivated and have
really tried to put quite a bit of focus on."
-Former White House counsel Dan Bartlett
http://www.texasmonthly.com/2008-01-01/talks-1.php
.
|
|
|
|

|
Related Articles |
|
|