Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

MediaCulture

Our Media Have Been So Wrong for So Long

By Jayne Lyn Stahl, AlterNet. Posted May 9, 2008.


In his new book, E&P editor Greg Mitchell offers a stinging indictment of the media's complicity with Washington's war-marketing machine.
Advertisement

So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits -- and the President -- Failed on Iraq, by Greg Mitchell, a collection of essays that date back from the lead-up to the Iraq war, in 2003, through this fall, is a compelling antidote to the cult of misinformation written by the editor of Editor & Publisher, a journal of the newspaper industry, and one of the oldest magazines in the country. The book features a preface by Bruce Springsteen, and foreword by Joseph L. Galloway.

As one who has been on the cutting edge of exposing the Bush administration's pre-emptive war on the media, Mitchell, the author of nine other nonfiction works, is among the first to broach, and critically analyze, the issue of "non-hostile combat deaths," as well as suggest the long term costs of this war not merely to our veterans, but to our national ethos.

We're treated to a first rate account not merely of a media complicit in the debacle that is Iraq, but one equally responsible for our continued presence in the region.

AlterNet recently caught up with Greg Mitchell to talk about his latest book...

Jayne Stahl: You quote one of your reporters writing that the "highest calling of journalism is not reporting. It's finding the story that would help prevent a war." Tell how this relates to your decision to publish an anthology of your essays about the Iraq war now.

Greg Mitchell: This is the first book to look at five full years in the life of the war, from the "run-up" to the "surge" debate last fall. But its aim is to serve as a warning and, in part, a lesson for future journalists. When I was back in j-school, which came just before Woodward and Bernstein emerged, we were taught that the first rule for reporters is to be "skeptical." Not necessarily critical or negative, but skeptical. This rule applies whether you are probing a local school board scandal, or the preparation for an invasion of another country.

You might be looking behind what a housing department staffer said, or maybe examining the facts as put forward by, say, a U.S. secretary of state before the United Nations. Same thing.

Of course, reporters and editors don't have it within their full power to "prevent" a war, but they can sure try to put all the facts out there so that those who are backing an attack at least have to face full public questioning and the wrath of the poll numbers, not to mention, confront their own conscience. I hope the book encourages more skepticism, at least.

Stahl: To paraphrase Daniel Ellsberg, who you interviewed (the very prescient piece appears early in your book), have the media learned the lessons of Iraq, or are we poised for another prefab invasion?

Mitchell: I've charted some improvement in the "skepticism" since the WMD and other Saddam threats turned up empty. Surely you would hope that many in the media would be outright embarrassed and vow not to let it happen again. Indeed, as each succeeding "crisis" has emerged, involving Iran or Syria or North Korea, for example, at least more in the media have raised questions, although not universally.

But there's still far too much "report the military or White House view and worry about the rest later" kind of reporting. And, as we saw after the Watergate/Vietnam era, the fervor for really hard-nosed, skeptical coverage can die quickly.

Stahl: In the spring of 2003, one of the questions you say you wished the press had asked President Bush at his last press conference before the war had to do with how many Iraqi civilians did he expect to die as a result of the war. Do you think we are closer to knowing that, and do you think we can expect less obstruction with respect to the flow of information from the next chain of command in Washington?

Mitchell: It's impossible to know the true civilian toll in Iraq, but we know that it is horrible enough, no matter what the number. It is certainly higher than the minimal "tens of thousands" cited by the White House and many in the press, but how far it goes into the hundreds of thousands no one can say. It's almost as if the surveys that have produced much higher numbers have been attacked as a way to cut off all discussion -- you know, we can't know, so why try? But we have to keep trying.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: so wrong for so long, media, iraq, greg mitchell

Jayne Lyn Stahl is a widely published poet, essayist, playwright screenwriter, and Huffington Post blogger. She is a member of PEN American Center, her nomination having been recommended by Nobel Laureate J.M. Coetzee.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from MediaCulture! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Tools: [Post a new comment] [Login] [Signup] View:
Call Me Skeptical but ...
Posted by: mmckinl on May 9, 2008 2:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The main stream media is always at the beck and call of their benefactors, the corporate hegemony that controls not only the media but much of Congress.

To portray the media as beguiled or mislead accomplishes exactly what they want, the excuse they really didn't know what was going on. From the reporters, to the line editors to the editorial board they knew the line, they knew the score. Knight Ridder was one exception but just about the only one. Curiously they didn't have ant real presence in Washington DC Newspapers. The NYT, Post, AP and all the major news networks were fully on board and embedded with the war propaganda.

The proof of this was the latest incident with Iran in the Straits of Hormuz where the public was left dangling while reports of a confrontation were streaming out of the Pentagon while the reports from the theatre were oddly missing. Again the Main Stream Media left the door open for another war. My only question is: Was Admiral Fallon fired for his decision not to engage?

The portrayal of the Main Stream Media or Congress as innocent or ignorant strikes me as being just a teentsy weentsy bit too pollyannish. They are bought and paid for. They play the game to get ahead and the promotions in the Main Stream Media prove it.

To this day they ignore or defend the indefensible. The Pentagon Pundit scandal promoted by Rumsfeld has been ignored even defended by the MSM. The Gaza story is treated like an act of nature not the persecution it is.

The Main Stream Media know exactly what they are doing ...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Call Me Skeptical but ... Posted by: andrushka
Nothing new about press collaboration
Posted by: Moonray on May 9, 2008 3:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was a newspaper editor for many years and often was appalled by the atmosphere of go-along-to-get-along that prevails in the media. You still see it everywhere, from the local weekly sucking up to its biggest advertiser to the wire services' echoing White House press releases in explaining situations abroad.

During the Vietnam War the media were a fount of misinformation and propaganda that helped keep that sorry conflict going far too long. The same criticism applies to the media in every significant military adventure the U.S. has launched in recent years -- Grenada, Panama, the Persian Gulf War, the current Iraq war, Afghanistan and several other, lesser incidents.

There is no cure for it. The mainstream media are part of the Establishment and will always side with the Establishment over dissidents and other inconvenient truth-tellers. All we can do is fiercely guard our access to information, especially the Internet, and try to improve our primitive government and society as best we can.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

FREE the MEDIA from CRASS GREEDIA!
Posted by: williameon on May 9, 2008 4:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All Media Conglomerates are
Complicit in The Deceit

Guilty as charged.
Disseminators of
Totally Improper
PROPAGANDA!

Corporate
Deception and Delusion!

Separate Man from the machine.
Humans are people.
Corporations are Tools used by the Wealthy to subjugate the Poor.

Citizens have rights.
Machines have none.

Revoke their Licenses and
Dissolve their Charters
Break up
The FAUX MEDIA

One Channel in any market, period and
One market per Person
Take the profit out and put the Information back in.

This is about our Survival, Real Journalism,
America’s Future, Truth, Freedom and basic Human Rights.

Information is the life Blood of Democracy
Right now it is Poisoned by Foul mouthed Bigots
Spewing lies, misinformation and worse.
Death and DESTRUCTION!

How do they get away with it?
Who pays them Billions to tell Lies?
Follow the money, Honey and the rest is easy.
They’re Corpirate Hand Puppets.

They focus your attention on anything but
The TRUTH while
The Corporations get away with MURDER!

You built the System, paid for it with your Blood, Sweat and Tears yet,
They Control it!
They get everything for free.
While you drowning in grief and your being swept away in a tidal wave of debt
Works for them!
For you?
It Hurts.

Their Rovien Propaganda Ministry spins a Web of deceit
The Delusion that we live in a Free country run for and by The People.
It is a lie.
Nothing could be further from the TRUTH

We live in a FASCIST STUPID STATE
A BANANA REPUBLIC
With a petty Puppet DICTATOR

Where Politicians lie and The Media swears to it.
Garbage in, Garbage out!
End Corporate Hypocrisy now.

The World is going to Hell in a Hand Basket.
See any problems or similarities here?
We are the victims now!
The Chickens (hawks) have come Home to roost

Yet the Corporations take no credit for it
For any of the mess they’ve created with their
Unbridled Imperialism.

Why should they?
That is the Beauty of the plan.
The Plum/Patsy in the pudding
They always blame it on somebody else.

Meanwhile
The BU__! SH__! Gets even deeper and
Starts hitting the fan.

Take back the Airwaves.
And
FREE AMERICA
FIRST!

Start over.
Purge,
Update then
REBOOT!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

They're not media
Posted by: ssegallmd on May 9, 2008 5:32 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The media (singular medium), as the name implies, are passive connections between news makers and news consumers, just as a medium in a seance claims to be a connection between the spiritual and material worlds, between ghosts and people.

But what passes for media in the US is not a passive medium. It is active. It is not only a filter of the news, it helps to create it.

What part of America isn't fraudulent?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Maybe they could grow Posted by: PaulK
No audience, no Advertising Revenues, No Media
Posted by: Purple Girl on May 9, 2008 5:50 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the media has played the 'Fourth Horsemen' in this Political Aremgeddon. the seductive, mind numbing Whore who serves to distract and placate the masses, while the other three Rape & Pillage Heirarchial Organized Religion, Big Gov't and industrial sized Money changers have finally gained the aid of Mass communication to disguise their Agenda and Goals- the enslavement of the masses. The perfect 'Drug'- Group Hypnosis and desception. Add to thatthe ability to cut off all attempts at dissent and Free though & Speech -Viola! You have achieved the Goal that has eluded all meglomaniacs in the past who had Delusions of Granduer of World domination.
But the media is their Weakest link- they not only thrive on attention, they are only Survive with attention from the Masses.Thus their archilles heel!As aperson who up to a year ago considered the computer nothing more tha a glorifid typewriter- I am now a true believer the internet is our last great avenue to defeat the Beast!The 'natives' are restless, hunger, tired and pissed and are setting their sights on the most frail of the riders. If they turn back now and start SINGING by turning States Evidence and turning over their well document evidence against the other three- they may get the immunity they surely hope for. Cave Adsum MSM - and the "I" represents the 'WE THE PEOPLE' (Your bread & butter).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

bozhidar bob balkas
Posted by: bozhidar on May 9, 2008 6:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
corporate media is controled by the ruling class; thus, it does what the rulers want it to do.
most of media scribes are zionists and extremely bellicose.
but that 'duty' comes at a price. these people don't work for pennies; they earn accolades and megabucks.
let's not be apologetic ab. these mercenairies.
as far as i have been able to ascertain, media even now opposes the aggression on mere perceptions: it's falure, not enough planning, tactical losses, etc., and not on a principle of- necessary-truth that no land has the right to attack another land under no known circumstance.
corrollary arising out of this desirable premise being that only people who do crime do time and not children and civilians.
it should be up to the world court to issue warrant for arrest of any person (s) suspected of criminal behavior.
if such people don't give themselves up, put a ransom of $mns or bns and send specialists after them.
in case of saddam, who only had 6bn enemies, he would have been quickly either a dead meat or would have run to world court for protection.
but media didn't want saddam, it wanted real estate. thank u

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So, Why Are We Still There?
Posted by: JohnJlws on May 9, 2008 6:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We have some incredible opportunities in our country, but these opportunities come with the understanding that we are responsible. The only reason FOX survives is that there is an audience and this audience supports its sponsors. The same can be said of any other organization peddling their wares to us.

We first started purchasing cable when Gulf War I broke out. CNN had the coverage and we wanted it. Now I look at the buffoonery that is CNN and I rarely watch their coverage, preferring MSNBC or PBS, even though MSNBC has its own “let’s make shit up” division and PBS sometimes is inane. I haven't, however, written a letter or protested the crapola that constitutes CNN "News."

We, me and you, have to be more critical of the garbage we are fed. There was this parallel march to war as the Bush Administration began to beat the drums on Iran. Most MSM seemed to jump into the fray with both feet and at least held the drums and took over when Cheney got tired of hammering them. Then the intelligence community “leaked” the word: “hey, this is bigger bullshit than Iraq” and someone somewhere reported it and the drumbeats grew momentarily silent (they're buiding again by the way--call your Congressional reprsentatives, write letters to them, write letters to the editor).

Sites like Alternet and Huffington and the alternative channels give a biased view as well, but it’s a contrary view and I’ve found the view to be fairly accurate (but Christ don’t take the word of someone writing on a blog--determine the accuracy of this statement for yourself). We have great opportunities in our country, but these opportunities demand education. And they demand we stand up as one and say “Not this time” when stupid begins to be the order of the day.

65% to 70% of Americans believe we should no longer be in Iraq. 65% to 70%. Wow!

So, if this were truly the case, why are we still there?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Mongoose Trick
Posted by: Spock on May 9, 2008 7:06 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gee, everyone seems to be catching on - and catching up. I have been saying this for years on my Mongoose Trick - Speaking Truth to Tyranny opinion page www.judoknighterrant.com. The program developed (at taxpayer expense, of course) was begun in 1948 immediately after forming of the CIA, and was intended to do just what we see today in news like that of Iraq. Glad to see everyone coming awake; the only trouble is, it's too late. National decline will be very swift now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Mongoose Trick Posted by: Dboy
Agreed
Posted by: BST on May 9, 2008 7:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Moonray, I was also a newspaper editor. I agree.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bad article and headline: Media is doing exactly what the owners expects it to do
Posted by: Ydotheyhateus on May 9, 2008 7:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i.e. sell the war and promote other neoliberal agenda of the ruling elites.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I get my news from foreign media
Posted by: kellysgarden on May 9, 2008 7:59 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I get my daily headlines from the German Press on the Internet. Clear back BEFORE we shock and awed Baghdad, the German media were saying there were NO wmd in Iraq. They would use sources and facts. Then, on the nightly news, we would all watch Cheney say Iraq had the world's worst wmd and Saddam wanted to use them on us and his neighbors. But there were never any facts or sources.

So I bacame convinced that WMD would never be found. I waited and watched anxiously after the shock and awe bombing to see if WMD would ever be found. But, the German media were vindicated.

Later, I read WEEKS ahead of the Abu Ghraib torture scandal in the German media. It was only later that the story broke here in USA. Obviously, the press new about it before Seymore Hirsch broke the story, but they kept quiet.

Then, my German friends emailed me to tell me that their media was reporting 9/11 to be an inside job. I at first reeled at that, but quickly decided that the German media had a 100% track record so far, and that I ought to look into the German allegations of 9/11.

Beyond the shadow of any doubt, our media is only pure propaganda. If the media of other countries has been so correct over the last 7 years, why in the world do we keep accepting the "intelligence failures" of our own media and pundits? When will we ever learn?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And Please Let Us Not Forget
Posted by: Gravitas on May 9, 2008 8:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That it is not just government propaganda that the media serves up! Hopefully, everyone has heard about the VNR - video news release. It is a commercial, within a newscast, often delievered at least in part by a newscaster, that is bought and paid for by sponsors. The public never knows this, they think it is (choke) "objective" reporting! So much of our health information that we get bombarded with starts in the marketing department of Pharma, and that includes major health studies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

bozhidar bob balkas
Posted by: bozhidar on May 9, 2008 9:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
65-70% of amers oppose occupation of iraq.
but how many billionaires and multimillionaires oppose the occupation?
or it might be even better to ask, how many MSM people, generals, politicos, priests, 'educators', who represent the billionaires, oppose the occupation?
of the 65% who want US troops back home, 98% might be working class people.
and working class people have never participated in the governance of US. they just thought they did.
and things can get worse. the iron grip on america by the ruling class may even tighten.
let's note please that balloting is one of the least important structural member of any governance.
that includes also US' and canadian governances; structurally being similar; tho not identical. thank u.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

All your commentors understand that media is a Corp Front
Posted by: marktab on May 9, 2008 9:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why doesn't Alternet. Your headline asks "Will the Media get it right?" Heck no! Of course not! That is like asking will multi-national corportations act in the interest of people and not profit. It is a dumb question. Alternet, you are guilty of giving legitimacy to the fraud. Go to the next level. Ask the author why he is writing the story as if it is news.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The 501(c) nonprofit corporate news outlets also suck.
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 9, 2008 9:23 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a real problem. We can trace the ownership of all the major corporate outlets back to a few conglomerates - Disney, Viacom, General Electric, TimeWarner and NewsCorp in the cable & TV area.

But who runs the foundations that hold the purse strings for all the left-wing and right-wing nonprofit news outlets? What is their agenda?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

USA Media - Owned by Big Money, Tied in with AIPAC
Posted by: sofla100 on May 9, 2008 9:38 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look at the American Media. The top 1% in America that owns 1/3rd plus of her wealth, they own the American Media. Of course, like FOX News, it's just an outlet for official elite propaganda for the masses. I am also amazed at how much news never gets reported or gets skewed. I remember living in Eastern Europe and Russia, and how often, on the local news, you would hear the stories of another Israeli incursion into the West Bank or Gaza. Then you would see the pictures of the dead children. Next, you would look for the stories off this off the US cable or media sites on the internet, and of course, none of what was happening was ever mentioned. Or, if it was mentioned, it would be severely skewed against the Palestinians. Israeli bulldozers mowing down slum homes of Palestinians "as a defense against terrorism." Or, some other related American/AIPAC twist on the news. Bottom line, look to the internet and alternative news media. We are being force-fed propaganda by the official American media.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bill Moyers on Charlies Rose Last Night
Posted by: CatDad on May 9, 2008 10:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There was an excellent interview on Charlie Rose last night with Bill Moyers...one of the last great American journalists and one of two good things to come from the state of Texas (the other being the late, great Molly Ivins). Moyers stated that there is no reward/incentive for journalists to challenge conventional thinking.

Journalists who challenge "conventional wisdom" will suddenly find themselves cut off from information sources. Yes, there is freedom of speech in the USA....yet, if you are a journalist and you want a decent job, salary and some prestige...you had better not rock the boat...because if you do, you'll end up being a freelance journalist at some independent free city paper or being a blogger on the Internet....speaking the truth from your studio apartment in a decidedly unfashionable neighborhood.

Of course, if you want to regurgitate the "conventional wisdom, just emulate Chris Matthews...with three luxury cars and a nice big house.....Selling out has its rewards.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Proper Goose & Propaganda
Posted by: Crazy H on May 9, 2008 10:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dang - no rightwing trolls weighing in to tell us how important it is to fool the enemy in wartime. I guess I'll have to argue w/ a straw man. ;-)

Propaganda does have it's proper use in wartime. To confound and confuse the enemy, and provide him with misinformation. There's even a legitimate use in keeping up the morale of the troops and the folks at home.

The biggest problems with that today are that we're not at war, and that the misinformation is aimed at misleading the folks at home rather than the enemy.

The "enemy" knows the facts better than we do, and the lies our corporate media are telling us are designed not to keep up our morale, but to keep us scared.

Okay, I'm scared.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

dipconsult
Posted by: dipconsult on May 9, 2008 11:06 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The worst offender in slanting news worldwide is Mr. Rupert Murdoch, the Australian now US citizen (to enable his US operations).

Besides owning a big hunk of Australian, British and US media (most notably of course, Fox TV) he owns The Weekly Standard, long the mouthpiece of the neo-conservative movement which, it is reported, Vice President Cheney liked to make sure was on the desk of key associates in the G W Bush Administration. Few people seem to realise that Mr. Murdoch , if not formally a 'neo-conservative', is their key 'fellow traveller'.

He has ruined our British press (e.g. see book "Good Times, Bad Times" by the last 'good Times' editor) and has big influence through his Sky News on our TV too. He continues to buy up US media - another purchase is on the cards right now. And that follows his purchase of The Wall Street Journal. His grip is on both popular and serious media - he is a proprietor who does not mind being known for controlling his editors,'bending' the news in blatant support for the lines he is peddling.

Urgently needed are far stricter rules limiting one owner's holdings of TV and press internationally as well as nationally.

Unfortunately circulation and audience figures so determine media profitability that even the best journalism can't buck the drive for profit: most humans just don't want to hear bad news about their own country and its incompetence, folly, and wickedness. So there's 'follow my leader'. And the leader all too often is Mr. Rupert Murdoch.

I speak as a Cassandra who twice reported from Vietnam (I was there in the year of the Tet with excellent Vietnamese (North and South), Vietnamese Chinese, and Cambodian sources from my 5 years in Indochina. The editor explained - sorry, but we had to spike your cables because your reporting clashed with our other material. My experience is typical: original reporting using impeccable sources is all too often spiked or downplayed because it clashes with the mainstream - a mainstream now even more controlled by government, using tame pundits(with government funded 'think tank' salaries), tame intelligence agents, tame generals, 'embedded' journalists etc.

I am also an Iraq Cassandra from September 2002 giving the reasons why an 'unauthorised' invasion of Iraq would all but certainly have disastrous worldwide consequences as well as likely to cause mayhem in fissiparous Iraq. Many far more eminent ex-diplomats and Middle East specialists were making the same points: possibly the most distiguished being Brent Scowcroft. But none got serious and continued front page notice. The 'regular' unsceptical media had no room for us - especially with the worldwide Murdoch empire baying for war!
---------------
Reported Brent Scowcroft quote, on TV 2002 - "An invasion [of Iraq] could turn the whole region into a cauldron, and thus destroy the war on terror."

But the Bush/Blair White House/10 Downing Street cut themselves off from 'nay sayers' no matter how distinguished, while stepping up their own pro-war propaganda, notably with Mr. Murdoch's invaluable assistance.

For us Europeans with no vote, Mr. Obama is our great hope because he can see America from outside - ( see e.g. his remarkable foreign affairs statement in July/Aug 2007 Foreign Affairs). But what chance has he once the Murdoch machine really hots up against him? Fox has already shown what it can do to 'bash Obama' when it cashed in that maverick pastor's egregious remarks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: dipconsult Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: dipconsult Posted by: CatDad
As long as so many Trad Media outlets are run
Posted by: arclight7 on May 9, 2008 11:44 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
by Zionists and Israel-firsters, expect more cheerleading for wars for Israel.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Way It Is
Posted by: fearn on May 9, 2008 12:32 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"In seventeen years of doing this, nothing bad had happened to me. I was never fired or threatened with dismissal if I kept looking under rocks. I didn't get any death threats that worried me. I was winning awards, getting raises, lecturing college classes, appearing on TV shows, and judging journalism contests. So how could I possibly agree with people like Noam Chomsky and Ben Bagdikian, who were claiming the system didn't work, that it was steered by powerful special interests and corporations, and existed to protect the power elite? Hell, the system worked just fine, as I could tell. It encouraged enterprise. It rewarded muckracking."

And then:

“I wrote some stories that made me realise how sadly misplaced my bliss had been. The reason I'd enjoyed such smooth sailing for so long hadn't been, as I'd assumed, because I was careful and diligent and good at my job. It turned out to have nothing to do with it. The truth was that, in all those years, I hadn't written anything important enough to suppress."
Award-winning US journalist Gary Webb, who's career was terminated by elite media and government smears when he did write something important enough to suppress. He subsequently committed suicide.
Info from MediaLens

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Delusional Left is 180 degrees out of whack on this issue.
Posted by: EagleX on May 9, 2008 2:32 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Empirical research shows conclusively that the main stream media is unabashedly supportive of democrats and hostile to conservatives, most notably the bush administration.

Harvard Study

UCLA Study

of course, when have Progressives ever acknowledged the veracity of serious academic research (from progressive universities!!!) when it contradicts their flawed view of reality.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Reagan's Legacy Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Delusional, indeed Posted by: Crazy H
» Bogus right-wing "media bias" studies Posted by: Joshua Holland
» May I add, Mr Holland... Posted by: photon's feather
Earth to Progressives, Earth to Progressives...
Posted by: EagleX on May 9, 2008 2:53 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“Most of the time I really think responsible
journalists, of which I hope I’m counted as one,
leave our bias at the side of the table. Now it is
true, historically in the media, it has been more of
a liberal persuasion for many years. It has taken
us a long time, too long in my view, to have
vigorous conservative voices heard as widely in
the media as they now are. And so I think yes, on
occasion, there is a liberal instinct in the media
which we need to keep our eye on, if you will.”
— ABC anchor Peter Jennings on CNN’s Larry
King Live, April 10, 2002.

“There is a liberal bias. It’s demonstrable. You
look at some statistics. About 85 percent of the
reporters who cover the White House vote
Democratic, they have for a long time. There is a,
particularly at the networks, at the lower levels,
among the editors and the so-called infra-structure,
there is a liberal bias....[Then-ABC
White House reporter] Brit Hume’s bosses are
liberal and they’re always quietly denouncing
him as being a right-wing nut.”
— Newsweek’s Evan Thomas on Inside
Washington, May 12, 1996.

— New Republic Senior Editor Hendrik
Hertzberg, March 9, 1992 issue.
“Coverage of the [1992] campaign vindicated
exactly what conservatives have been saying for
years about liberal bias in the media. In their
defense, journalists say that though they may
have their personal opinions, as professionals
they are able to correct for them when they write.
Sounds nice, but I’m not buying any.”
— Former Newsweek reporter Jacob Weisberg
in The New Republic, November 23, 1992.

“Everybody knows that there’s a liberal, that
there’s a heavy liberal persuasion among
correspondents.....Anybody who has to live with
the people, who covers police stations, covers
county courts, brought up that way, has to have
a degree of humanity that people who do not
have that exposure don’t have, and some people
interpret that to be liberal. It’s not a liberal, it’s
humanitarian and that’s a vastly different thing.”
— Former CBS Evening News anchor Walter
Cronkite at the March 21, 1996 Radio & TV
Correspondents Dinner.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

READ YOUR OWN POST!
Posted by: photon's feather on May 9, 2008 3:01 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Take a careful look at Cronkite's statement: "It's not a [sic] liberal, it's humanitarian, and that's a vastly different thing."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: AD YOUR OWN POST! Posted by: EagleX
» RE: AD YOUR OWN POST! Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: AD YOUR OWN POST! Posted by: EagleX
» More and more absurdity Posted by: photon's feather
Headline...
Posted by: The Old Hippie on May 9, 2008 4:01 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
 
The headline should read...

Our Media Have Been So “purposefully” Wrong for So Long

...as it is much more accurate, right?

Mike - - The Old Hippie at. . .
The Old Hippie's Groovy Site
The Old Hippie's Groovy Blog
“Frivolous Names - Serious Content”
 

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

October 2007 study by journalists for journalists that confirms liberal bias.
Posted by: EagleX on May 9, 2008 5:17 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
read them and weep josh, crazy, et al

rightwing" NYTimes reports liberal media bias

I am eagerly awaiting the next step for those that expose liberal hypocrisy and bias as proof of the veracity of my assertions.

censorship.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Right Wing Media Tactics. Posted by: CatDad
One quick point.......
Posted by: Turiye on May 9, 2008 9:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Helen Thomas still maintains an incredible belief in the Journalistic Code of Ethics, she is the greatest.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

An example of Progressive bigotry, emotionalism, ignorance, and intolerance, courtesy of Truriye.
Posted by: EagleX on May 10, 2008 7:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And you are someone whom is so bored they left they right-wing, self haters sites to cause condescension. Why people waste time with this sort of transparency, they never learn. Apparently you've never put boots-to-ground so I am assured you are a chicken hawk(they always cluck the loudest)assuring me of from whence you came you have lost your way as the Murderer in Chief put it"The Internets(sic)", keep him I've no need for the next to be charged with Treason.--Turiye

While, I have posted objective,independent, and rational sources to support my assertion that the media is unabashedly liberal. All of the opposition posts have been unsupported opinion and ad hominen attacks, like the one above.

Stay focused Turiye.

My former service as a Marine NCO is irrelevant to the debate.

However, the objective, independent, and rational sources I have cited to support my assertion of extreme liberal bias in the media is relevant. More importantly, note that I have not discredited my assertion by posting from conservative sources, on the other hand bloggers like joshua holland, crazy H, et al have throughly discredited their assertions by citing "data" from fringe progressive op-ed sources.

remember, I came here looking for knowledge and hoping to spread knowledge and found nothing but malice, ignorance, and intellectual rigidity.

I am moving on, I hope you guys become more tolerant and less rigid in your thinking, peace out:

NYTimes report on liberal bias in the media

Journalism.org research on liberal bias in the media

Harvard research on liberal bias in the media

UCLA research on liberal bias in the media

Pew research on liberal bias in the media


Journalism.org research on liberal bias in the media

MSNBC report on liberal bias in the media

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

bozhidar bob balkas
Posted by: bozhidar on May 10, 2008 8:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
let's simplify it please.
in canadian MSM, balfour declaration of '17. to my knowledge, appeared only once.
that not a single afghan had up to date hurt any canadian, had never been reported.
gulf of tonkin incident was reported as a fact.
"jews could and did make desert bloom"; implying, pals/arabs couldn't.
'67 aggression by israel is still a "defensive" war.
"israel had been created" (by god's will?)
that US had over a century or longer invaded dozens of lands, may have not ever appeared in canadian or US media.
folks, remember that US/canadian media often or always showed only fat russian peasant women?
but not any longer! for obvious reasons.
canadian media approbate collective punishment.
"israel always retaliates"; "has the right to defend herself"; pals always attack and thus couldn't possibly be defending themselves.
one could go on and on citing obvious lies but i desist.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And you're surprised why?
Posted by: rossbcan on May 11, 2008 5:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Media is a business. There is no profit in selling truth. Manipulating readers into accepting fake reality (fraud) is lucratively rewarded by those who manipulate us, advertisers and state propaganda. Follow the money trail:

Learn to THINK

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]