Irresponsible Journalism

[mreye]

Ach, from what I recall much of that 13 pages was just flames back and forth, but if you think I'll find a pro-behedding post or two in there I guess I'll dig back into it again.  Thanks.

OK. I never sais there are pro beheaders. I said they seem to be that way. Big leap, Jim. Maybe I was a bit too harsh, but that's how it somes across to me sometimes. Way to focus on one single word in my post.

[FlaSoxxJim]

OK. I never sais there are pro beheaders. I said they seem to be that way. Big leap, Jim. Maybe I was a bit too harsh, but that's how it somes across to me sometimes. Way to focus on one single word in my post.

Let's let it be. We're all too inflamatory here sometimes.

 

The real point is that villainizing the media, the anti-war camp, etc., instead of proactively addressing missteps and misdeeds done in behalf of the war doesn't solve anything. And we can be sure that now that the media has been battered and accussed of not fact checking as aggressively as they should, from here on out all of the things that go wrong are going to be topheavy with fact after gruesome fact.

 

... and of course the media will again be accused of sensationalism and sabotaging the war effort by publishing all the the facts, the pictures, testamonies, etc. that have been demanded of them.

[mreye]

Let's let it be.  We're all too inflamatory here sometimes.

 

The real point is that villainizing the media, the anti-war camp, etc., instead of proactively addressing missteps and misdeeds done in behalf of the war doesn't solve anything.  And we can be sure that now that the media has been battered and accussed of not fact checking as aggressively as they should, from here on out all of the things that go wrong are going to be topheavy with fact after gruesome fact.

 

... and of course the media will again be accused of sensationalism and sabotaging the war effort by publishing all the the facts, the pictures, testamonies, etc. that have been demanded of them.

I'll let it be.

 

Let me be clear on this, though. I don't mind criticism, either in here or in the media. But when that criticism crosses the line to rooting against, that's when I have a problem.

[Rex Kickass]

You know, that kind of pisses me off.

 

LCR doesn't hate America, and neither do you.  Not so sure about Kip.

 

Seriously, you all have every right to question things, but whenever "conservatives" do, we get this slanted negativity about how we're labeling you all as "America Haters".  I don't think you do, but you certainly have a different perspective, which the last time I checked is ok.

 

I hope you weren't talking about anyone here, because I think that this has been a good debate for the most part.

 

That has nothing to do with Soxtalk. I think there is generally an atmosphere in the country that one side has to be right, etc... You're pissed at Newsweek or you hate this country, You're against the war or you want to kill everyone....

 

There's just not enough nuance in this world these days...

[southsider2k5]

That has nothing to do with Soxtalk. I think there is generally an atmosphere in the country that one side has to be right, etc... You're pissed at Newsweek or you hate this country, You're against the war or you want to kill everyone....

 

There's just not enough nuance in this world these days...

 

Now your just hating on black and white.

[Rex Kickass]

If it makes you feel better, I hate you all equally. :finger

[LowerCaseRepublican]

No more appropriate time to post this gem from "America the Book" by the Daily Show crew

 

"The candidate can choose one of two platforms, but remember - no substitutions. For example, do you support universal health care? Then you must also want a ban on assault weapons. Pro-limited government? Congratulations, you are also anti-abortion. Luckily, all human opinion falls neatly into one of the two clearly defined camps. Thus, the two-party system elegantly reflects the bichromatic rainbow that is American political thought."

[Texsox]

Haha.  Number One is the she, and her 5-year old brother is the he.  And the big news there is that I think today is the day he gets off of his training wheels!!

 

With the strong academic genes, I assumed the 5 year old was graduating 1st Grade

 

MrEye,

 

Some people here are more willing to accept that the US isn't perfect, makes mistakes, and is viewed with disgust and fear in many corners of the world. I would also agree that some people here have some sympathy for the oppressed people of many societies and their methods to free themselves from that oppression. I believe characterizing them as happy isn't fair.

 

Speaking for myself, I believe we should hold ourselves to the highest ethical and moral standards. I am outraged when we trample on other societies and their way of live and make assumptions that every person in the world wants to live like Americans.

[KipWellsFan]

It would be silly to cheer against the United States in Iraq. Unless the media has totally warped my mind in some way the insurgents are in the gravest way the bad guys, for lack of better term. Iraq becoming a fully developped democratic society would be the ultimate goal. I don't cheer for a bunch of allah fearing clowns who want to strip away all the progressive movements that a free people can make. Now are the United States under this administration the best choice for giving the population of Iraq this utopia? Clearly not, deal with your own problems of democracy first.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

It would be silly to cheer against the United States in Iraq.  Unless the media has totally warped my mind in some way the insurgents are in the gravest way the bad guys, for lack of better term.  Iraq becoming a fully developped democratic society would be the ultimate goal.  I don't cheer for a bunch of allah fearing clowns who want to strip away all the progressive movements that a free people can make.  Now are the United States under this administration the best choice for giving the population of Iraq this utopia?  Clearly not, deal with your own problems of democracy first.

 

 

We may not be the best choice, although I challenge you to find someone else with the willingness to make it happen, but as of now we are the only choice and without our leadership Saddam Hussein would still be burying thousands of his own people in mass graves.

 

Despite the media's single minded obsession with blood and death in Iraq there are a lot of great things happening over there. Too bad that your "allah fearing clowns" are getting all the press instead of those who are making things better for that country.

[mreye]

We may not be the best choice, although I challenge you to find someone else with the willingness to make it happen, but as of now we are the only choice and without our leadership Saddam Hussein would still be burying thousands of his own people in mass graves. 

 

Despite the media's single minded obsession with blood and death in Iraq there are a lot of great things happening over there.  Too bad that your "allah fearing clowns" are getting all the press instead of those who are making things better for that country.

That's what I'm saying. No, the route to freedom and democracy in the mideast may not be perfect, but something had to be done, IMHO.

 

Can you imagine today's media covering the attack on Normandy? 400,000 died there.

[kapkomet]

I said this in another thread, my cousin's over there right now and I am really excited about her attitude and the work they are doing over there. She's limited on what she can say but I can say that she's in the Sunni Triangle and that makes her job hard, but they are successful at what they are doing.

 

The media doesn't say that. Why? I don't think it's so much an agenda, but I do think it's sensationalism. Bad news sells.

[Rex Kickass]

Turns out Newsweek was right after all.

Oops.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...395.html?sub=AR

 

Nearly a dozen detainees at the Guantanamo Bay military prison in Cuba told FBI interrogators that guards had mistreated copies of the Koran, including one who said in 2002 that guards "flushed a Koran in the toilet," according to new FBI documents released today.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Turns out Newsweek was right after all.

Oops.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...395.html?sub=AR

Big surprise.

[KipWellsFan]

The Pentagon said last week it had seen "no credible and specific allegations" about putting a Koran in a toilet.

 

Lies

 

After interviewing a detainee, an unnamed FBI agent wrote on 1 August 2002: "Personally, he has nothing against the United States. The guards in the detention facility do not treat him well. Their behaviour is bad.

 

"About five months ago, the guards beat the detainees. They flushed a Koran in the toilet.

 

"The guards dance around when the detainees are trying to pray. The guards still do these things."

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4581383.stm

[jackie hayes]

Okay...

 

This doesn't really exonerate Newsweek. They used one source who wasn't sure what he saw. If it's true, so what?

 

Btw, were these documents that he had access to, anyway? These are FBI docs, wasn't he looking at Army docs?

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Lies

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4581383.stm

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/25/gitmo.quran/index.html

 

This is what a bunch of detainees are saying. What a bunch of horses***. Leave it to you guys to believe the detainees over our own people.

 

 

:rolly

 

 

What they have is a bunch of nonsense from the likes of the ACLU and Amnesty International alleging all sorts of crap and with nothing to back it up.

 

 

This is a non-story.

[EvilMonkey]

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3197097

 

Here is another case of sloppy journalism. The reported went to two 'anonomous sources' to find out if Rummy authorized the plane to be shot down. Hey here's an idea, call Rummy's office and ask them! Maybe if these reporters keep getting burned by these unnamed sources, they may start naming them. Assuming, of course, that the actually exist.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/25/gitmo.quran/index.html

 

This is what a bunch of detainees are saying. What a bunch of horses***. Leave it to you guys to believe the detainees over our own people.

:rolly

What they have is a bunch of nonsense from the likes of the ACLU and Amnesty International alleging all sorts of crap and with nothing to back it up. 

This is a non-story.

 

Nuke, the Red Cross has been discussing the various abuses that have been going on at Gitmo. But why should we believe them either?

[KipWellsFan]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/25/gitmo.quran/index.html

 

This is what a bunch of detainees are saying. What a bunch of horses***. Leave it to you guys to believe the detainees over our own people.

:rolly

What they have is a bunch of nonsense from the likes of the ACLU and Amnesty International alleging all sorts of crap and with nothing to back it up. 

This is a non-story.

 

But it's a real story when a 11 word sentence supposedly starts a riot half way across the world. Bull

 

Who do I trust? A government who's completely delegitimized themselves with lies or a bunch of unnamed sources. I trust neither.

[KipWellsFan]

Asked why he felt certain that this detainee did not affirm his allegation out of fear of retaliation, Di Rita said, "It's a judgment call, and I trust the judgment of the commanders more than I trust the judgment of Al Qaeda."

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,157705,00.html

 

[mreye]

Big surprise.

It's a big surprise that our troops abuse detainees? Is that what you mean? Sad that you assume the worst about them.

[FlaSoxxJim]

It's a big surprise that our troops abuse detainees? Is that what you mean? Sad that you assume the worst about them.

No, that's not it, Eye. It was obvious that there was a story here, but because of the nature of anonymous sources, when one central to portions of the Newsweek story backed off on comments he/she had made it basically left Newsweek dangling in the breeze. Ragardless of the limited nature of the Newsweek retraction, everybody out to see them and all "liberal-biased" media (the new Bogfoot) discredited has conveniently broadly interpreted their backing off as proof positive there was no substance to the story content.

 

In fact there have been these types of allegations since 2002, and regardless of statements that terrorist dtainees are 'trained to lie,' there is a lot of coroborating evidence in the FBI reports and elsewhere. Bashing the use of anonymous sources is such an easy attack strategy, but anonymous sources have been and always will be important media resources. Sources choose to remain anonymous for many reasons. I know I don't need to get into them - this is a smart audience that selectively chooses to be naive to how stories are broke when it suites them to do so.

 

The clinging to the flimsiest strands of 'plausible deniability' and the attacking the of sources of troubling reports rather than trying to demonstrate any semblence of accountability and fix anything is simultaneously laughable and truly worrying. As I said earlier, the unintend backlash of all of this is that the next reports of military misdeeds, things not going according to plan on the war fronts, etc., are going to be supported by an avalanche of coroborating details so they are less easy to scoff off. And of course, this will also be seen as irresponsible journalism by those that think some of our actions, inactions, and missteps are best left unrevealed.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

No, that's not it, Eye.  It was obvious that there was a story here, but because of the nature of anonymous sources, when one central to portions of the Newsweek story backed off on comments he/she had made it basically left Newsweek dangling in the breeze.  Ragardless of the limited nature of the Newsweek retraction, everybody out to see them and all "liberal-biased" media (the new Bogfoot) discredited has conveniently broadly interpreted their backing off as proof positive there was no substance to the story content.

 

In fact there have been these types of allegations since 2002, and regardless of statements that terrorist dtainees are 'trained to lie,' there is a lot of coroborating evidence in the FBI reports and elsewhere.  Bashing the use of anonymous sources is such an easy attack strategy, but anonymous sources have been and always will be important media resources.  Sources choose to remain anonymous for many reasons.  I know I don't need to get into them - this is a smart audience that selectively chooses to be naive to how stories are broke when it suites them to do so.

 

The clinging to the flimsiest strands of 'plausible deniability' and the attacking the of sources of troubling reports rather than trying to demonstrate any semblence of accountability and fix anything is simultaneously laughable and truly worrying.  As I said earlier, the unintend backlash of all of this is that the next reports of military misdeeds, things not going according to plan on the war fronts, etc., are going to be supported by an avalanche of coroborating details so they are less easy to scoff off.  And of course, this will also be seen as irresponsible journalism by those that think some of our actions, inactions, and missteps are best left unrevealed.

 

 

Here are your "abuses" of the Koran.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/26/quran/index.html

 

What a bunch of horses*** this whole argument is. The detainee who made the charge now says he didn't actually see this alleged flushing but "heard about it somewhere".

 

These allegations of Koran abuse are flimsy at best and are getting more so with every passing day.

Edited May 27, 2005 by NUKE_CLEVELAND

[KipWellsFan]

What a bunch of horses*** this whole argument is.

 

True

 

It's amazing how a story about how newsweek f***ed up gets infinitely more coverage than the story of an innocent man being killed in US custody via his legs being beaten so badly that a clot stops his heart.