Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Grim milestone watch
I certainly appreciate that the press finally understands that there is a geopolitical relationship between the war in Iraq and the war on al Qaeda, but that does not make this headline any less asinine. Or offensive.
And to think that some people still wonder why the mainstream media has so little credibility.
5 Comments:
By 
D.E. Cloutier, at
Tue Dec 26, 09:38:00 AM:
Years ago, American papers made a reasonable effort to provide objective reports. Unfortunately, with the rise of the Internet, the industry had too many retailers of objective information in an interconnected world.
Many papers moved to analysis and predictions. Sadly, most reporters are surface thinkers. Their knowledge is wide, but shallow. In the case of predictions, most reporters have the skills of the average unsuccessful gambler at a racetrack.
Next, many American papers decided to copy the highly partisan British newspapers. Blogs have taken over that role.
Now SOME American newspapers are returning to basics.
Tom Glocer, CEO of (British) Reuters, said at a media conference in Tel Aviv on 11 December 2006: "...more than ever the world needs a media company free from bias, independent, telling it as it really is, without the filter of national or political interest."
Hopefully new dogs can learn old tricks.
By Andrewdb, at
Tue Dec 26, 11:51:00 AM:
Two comments:
1. How stupid is that headline? Think "Pearl Harbor" and you know the answer.
2. DEC - you talk about reporters with wide but shallow knowledge - that sounds like the deliberate design of the entrance exam to the US Foreign Service.
By skipsailing, at
Tue Dec 26, 12:35:00 PM:
There's a simple, straightforward method I use to discern the nature of truly bad actions.
I attempt to set the action on a scale that begins at malice and ends at ineptitude.
The press has managed to engaged in behaviors that define either end of the spectrum while continuing to keep the center.
At the malice end of my continuum is the NYT's decisions about revealing important state secrets. The SWIFT revelations were particularly egregious. This is malice, just plain malice.
At the incompetence end of the spectrum we have the coverage of the Lebanon/Irsaeli conflict. Al-Reuters distinguished itself as being particularly gullible, but most agencies showed their utter stupidity for all to see.
but most of the press is simply wallowing in the middle demonstrating a combination of malice and ineptitude that has the profits tumbling and the Americans disgusted.
The comparison to 9/11 was inevitable. Just like the "this is taking longer than ww2" it shows a desire to pander to the least common denominator. The malice inherient in such a vacuous comparison is clear, the ineptitude stems from the need to "keep it simple"
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Tue Dec 26, 06:38:00 PM:
But it's a valid comparison because on 9/11 it was our citizens that were killed but in Iraq it was...no, wait, let me try again.
It's a valid comparison because on 9/11 people were killed by Islamic extremists but in OIF they were killed by... hold on, it's right on the tip of my tongue here.
We should never lose more people in a war than we lost in peace. Hmmm. When people attack us, we should only get revenge up to the point that we, er, wow, this is harder than I thought.
The number is significant because the MSM likes to count how many dead we have, and use it as a stick to beat George Bush, whether the number has any significance or not.
By Country Squire, at
Wed Dec 27, 06:14:00 AM:
This article reminds me of a quotation:
"If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world but I am sure we would be getting reports from hell before breakfast."
- General William Tecumseh Sherman
