Stop Making Sense
In a
post a couple of days ago, I posted a link to
a Reuters story which reported on muslims in the world being skeptical of the Newsweek retraction. At the top of the story the way it appears now, it says that a few paragraphs were added to include the White House response.
This is how it read before it became infected with White House propaganda (the
Cache knows all).
Since that response wasn't there when I included the link, I thought I would respond. Three paragraphs were added, so here they are (with my responses in
bold).The White House said the report based on an anonymous source had damaged the U.S. image overseas....Ummm, Okay, let me get this straight. A news story is what hurt the U.S. image overseas. WHAT THE FUCK?!? Do I even need to say it? Anyone with half a brain (which exludes most repuglicans) knows who damaged our image overseas, and those without half a brain (you know who) seem to be missing the part responsible for logic and reason.In Washington, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the story had not met journalistic standards by relying on a single anonymous source "who could not personally substantiate the allegation that was made."What if Newsweek relied on an anonymous source named "Curveball, " and then took his lies (along with other lies) and used that information to start war which has killed tens (or hundreds) of thousands of innocent Iraqis, 1,600 American soldiers, and hundreds of "cilvilian contractors"? McClellen feels journalism should have standards. What about government?"
The report has had serious consequences," McClellan said. "People have lost their lives. The image of the United States abroad has been damaged.""The actions of the Bush Administration have had serious consequences," Egghead said. "People have lost their lives. The image of the United States abroad has been damaged.
3 Comments:
There are some serious problems with this whole affair. I mostly agree with your comments, though I like to add a little of my humble opinions. (So this may be a little long - I hope you don't mind – you can delete it if you do.)
As for journalistic standards, the question is what standards to uphold. Unfortunately, such newspapers are funded/owned by corporations who rely on the government for support and more than anything else, most reporters would rather keep their jobs than their integrity.
With that said, I think that not only should Newsweek have checked their source more thoroughly, but if they really thought it was correct and newsworthy to publish, then they should stick to their guns and call out the desiccators. Media should be a check on the government and not just a propaganda rag.
News isn't "supposed" to be biased, (which is nearly impossible), but if your going to make accusations of people in the military blatantly trampling on others right to freedom of religion by utterly disrespecting that religion, then you better consider what you are doing first and how you're going to handle it. Especially if this religion is dominant in an area of the world which already has major issues with America because of our government's foreign policy.
Not only should both journalism and government have standards of integrity to uphold, but they also have responsibility for what they do.
Mysfit--I don't mind long comments at all. Always welcome. I agree, corporate control of the media has utterly corrupted the news business.
As Al Franken and others have pointed out, corporate media is biased only towards whatever will help them make money. Most people don't realize that the first priority of newspapers and television news programs is to make money. And they don't care who's in power.
In fact, the guy who wrote the article for Newsweek, Michael Isikoff, played a large role in exposing Clinton's infedelities during the 1990's.
I'm fairly certain that Isikoff wouldn't have relied the anonymous source without good reason. I think something else is going on here.
Besides, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if it did happen. I'd say flushing a Koran down the toilet is probably pretty tame compared to all the other horrorible acts committed. (Such as the report of a female interrogator smearing make menstrual blood on a prisoner's face, which is very disrepectful to their culture--in addition to being morally reprehensible.)
(another long one)
Ah, Clinton's infidelities - a total waste of the public's attention, the tax payers' money and the rest - what was more important was that he lied under oath but that just wasn't as entertaining, was it?
It's sad that over the past thirty years or so, the media's main job has transitioned almost entirely to making money - it's one of the reasons that we have such an over sensationalized view of our own country and of the world. I can't even watch the news as we get ten minutes aout people dying in Iraq and about thirty minutes about how Jennifer Anderson is pissed at Brad for whatever reason.
It was very telling that the news coverage of the war in Iraq was called the exact same thing as the military operation.
As for the Cuban prison - wow, I can't believe that actually happened - crazy. It seems that maybe we should stop using Cuba to hold our political prisoners.
So, Newsweek backs down, the government falls silent on the matter of Guatanamo Bay and the media hurredly tries to cover it ass by discrediting the reporter who did the story. Those who did the supposed act are declared innocent without trial, because of no other government official would back up the account of Isikoff's "unreliable source" - gee there's a surprise.
But in all of this, the Muslim world is in an uproar and the government blames the article - can they blame all the other anti-american riots in the middle-east on newspaper articles, do you think? There were riots in Europe when Bush went to visit - a newpaper article again? One of these days, our government has got to wise up and stop blaming other people.
Post a Comment
<< Home