Howard Kurtz, of Reliable Sources, just asked why journalists always assume, as a default position, that the military is lying. Well, Howie take a look at the following juxtaposition.
“I could never see any criminal intent on the part of the M.P.’s to cause the detainee to die,” one of the lawyers, Maj. Jeff A. Bovarnick, later told investigators, referring to one of the deaths. “We believed the M.P.’s story, that this was the most combative detainee ever.”
NYT: Free Reg
NYT: Free Reg
At the interrogators’ behest, a guard tried to force the young man to his knees. But his legs, which had been pummeled by guards for several days, could no longer bend…When he was finally sent back to his cell, though, the guards were instructed only to chain the prisoner back to the ceiling.
“Leave him up,” one of the guards quoted Specialist Claus as saying.
NYT: Free Reg
And what’s worse:
Military lawyers noted that the autopsies of the two dead detainees had found severe trauma to both prisoners’ legs – injuries that a coroner later compared to the effect of being run over by a bus…Mr. Dilawar, weighed only 122 pounds and was described by interpreters as neither violent nor aggressive.
It’s stories like this that explain why journalists assume the military is lying. Of course, stories like Jessica Lynch don’t help either, nor does their ridiculous attempt to blame Zarqawi for every single thing that goes wrong in Iraq.
it started early on: http://wsws.org/articles/2003/mar2003/bbc-m29.shtml
I love your undrstated way with things:
“… stories like Jessica Lynch don’t help either”
(Say, remember the HERO Iraqi lawyer who got her rescued, said the Pentagon and press, and who was brought to the U.S. as a hero? What’s become of him? And why did Jessica refuse to meet with him, even when he went to her hometown? I’ve been so curious about that, but never seen any answers.)
Look at the width of those quotes. Way over 400px,
it’s shocking!
I had no idea that Pvt. Lynch refused to see him. Must have been during the heat of the campaign when I was too busy to read the news.
I would like to see Kurtz’s actual quote, but the obvious answer is because they have repeatedly lied.
Perhaps Howard Kurtz needs to take a refresher from Journalism 101. The job of any respectable journalist is supposed to entail the questioning and investigation of information, regardless of its origin. Otherwise, we might as well just reprint press releases and show pre-made video news releases — something that would never ever take place in America!
The difference now is that unlike in the leadup to the Iraq war and its early phases, the press is once again beginning to find its voice and not merely taking pronouncements from the military as unquestioned truth. That, however, is a far, far cry from “assum[ing], as a default position, that the military is lying.”
Journalists are in a tough spot, although they generally don’t complain about it: when they fail to report on the news, or make the faulty assumption that all government sources are inherently reliable, we give them endless grief; when they’re aggressive, apologists like Kurtz and the entire right-wing attack machine challenge them for bias and want to shut down their ability to report. They key is that our complaints are based around a desire to make journalists actually do their job, and to do it better. The right wants to prevent them from being able to do so.
Quibbles: “Pentagon” is more accurate than “the military”; and “interrogator” more accurate than “MP”.
Overall the “spokespeople” promote good news, and shade or hide bad. Always been that way, back to at least WWII, the big one. Why is Kurtz suprised?
OTOH, the public doesn’t really want to know, or is willing to ignore actions taken in combat. The only news here is that a fairly well-known writer can be so bloody ignorant.
Frank Rich is furious.
New York Times
Wonder why the tv news media is crap? Lougheed Martin has a big ad on CNN,
Exxon Mobile is advertising on “Face the Nation.” It is a bought and sold, done deal.
As someone wrote today on BooMan, “Who controls the media, controls the fates.”
While I’m grateful to see Frank Rich’s comments, and am very disturbed that even PBS and NPR are untrustworthy, I cannot conclude that those who control the media control our fates.
This probably wasn’t meant literally, but it struck me forcefully, so I think we need to step back and realize that the media isn’t everything.
Yes, they may control enough information that people support fateful action and inaction, which mightily influences our fate.
But fate is located in other places as well. The media does not control us or our fate. It’s not necessary to get too profound about the interaction of our individual natures, behaviors and choices, but it is important for us all to remember always, we have choices.
No one controls us. And no one controls fate.
.
Just listened to broadcast of Election Results for Rijnland Westphalen in Germany:
2000 2005SPD 43% 37%
CDU 37% 45%
For the first time in 39 years, the CDU gained the majority in important district with a population of 18 million [20%]. The poor result will lead to early general elections.
CDU candidate – possibly CDU leader Mrs. Angela Merkel.
Still very early in the evening – no BS loss of votes similar to Worlds greatest Democracy – but a very clear and accurate count in the German Election Results.
Oui – Liberté – Egalité – Fraternité
is a graduate of the Jimmy Guckert School of Xerox Jingoism.
Of course the Pentagon is always telling the truth. It’s right there in the photocopy. And if you’re having trouble reading that, I have a one-off photocopy of a White House press release that will clear it all up for you.
I wonder who replaces Howie’s toner cartridge for him.
By concentrating on what the media says or doesn’t, we’re missing the most important aspect of this story.
If the reports are accurate,individual Americans committed horrendous wrongs in our name. They engaged in unspeakable acts of cruelty to other human beings. That’s where our energy should be directed.
How is it possible for people to do these things? People who were raised in the same culture as the rest of us. We need to examine this. And do something about it.
how many people do you know, or know of, who have committed adultery and lied about it?
Now, ask yourself, how many people do you know that have hung a person from the ceiling and kicked them in the legs until they died?
Now, ask yourself, why one act merits removal from office, and the other doesn’t merit 5 minutes of time on CNN?
The media decides what stories they want to cover. Part of that decision is based on anticipated ratings. More people will watch a show about the murder of a 5-year old beauty pageant contentant than will watch a show about torture.
But it is more than that. Republicans are not treated the same way as Democrats. And it is a problem. But more to your point…
…it is the failure of our society and our government to cover and condemn these horrible acts that allows them to proliferate.
It’s certainly true that the media’s failure to prioritize coverage, and to cover these events with the full horror a decent society would feel, does contribute to a culture in which these brutal acts are thinkable and doable. I am not disputing the role of the media, I am suggesting that we consider the acts themselves.
Obviously you have considered the acts themselves and how the media contribute to an environment in which they aren’t sufficiently discouraged from occuring.
But all the discussion here has been about the media, not the acts. If we concentrate on this only as a subset of what’s wrong with the media, we fail to prioritize in the same way, and we wind up playing the same game as those who defend the media in these cases.
Am I making any sense? My first reaction when seeing this story was focused on the acts, not how they were or were not reported. Of course they are related. But my priority is to prevent such acts from happening. The exposure by media is one way, but it does not exhaust the contributing factors to how our fellow Americans could even consider doing these things. Because look at the facts—these were not battlefield conditions, their lives were not directly threatened, etc. I don’t have the answers. But I guess I was disturbed that the question hadn’t been raised, just the more or less usual complaints about how bad the media is.
and yet, I thought I was concentrating on why the Pentagon should not be believed and how they have used the media for their own purposes, rather than even considering the media as an independent agent.
in a fascist takeover or a coup that is taken over and
controlled is the media. If the media is not taken, the
coup fails. In the US, the right wing take-over
of the media has been by stealth over the years since
Reagan.
That doesn’t mean that the media cannot be taken back.
“Naturally, the common people don’t want war, but after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist government, or a parliament. or a communist dictatorship. Voice, or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of their leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works in every country”
The speaker is Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg Trials immediately following WWII. He was found guilty, but avoided execution 2 hours later by swallowing potassium cyanide on 15th October, 1946,
Goering was Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe, President of the Reichstag, Prime Minister of Prussia and Hitler’s designated successor.
Thanks, I have seen that quote many times on DKos.
It fits perfectly here.
All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce
the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.
It works in every country”
Rumsfeld could have said it.
Wolfowitz could have said it.
Perle could have said it.
All the Masters of War in the Bush administration have thought it.