All the President's Men (Redux)
A conservative Republican president, surrounded by yes-men, wiretaps his opponents to gain political advantage. The Washington Post, working with anonymous sources within the administration, exposes him.
Sound familiar?
Peep this.
posted by Dan at 9:25 AM
8 Comments:
Ah yes, the Washington Post..... You have to love a rag that would rather portray brave Marines in a negative light instead of reporting on a story that depicts Iran and Syria involvement in the Iraq insurrgency.
Is Jayson Blair writing for these guys now?
December 15, 2004 6:18 AM
So you're saying they're wrong?
Anyway, the Washington Post actually published the first article to expose Jayson Blair on April 29, 2003. I had to Google the date, but I do remember reading that article at the time. While searching I also came across an op-ed piece from the hyper-conservative National Review noting that "the Post is fair enough to all sides to make a difference" and should supersede the NY Times as America's premier newspaper.
http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz051603.asp
December 15, 2004 6:46 AM
Angry American - what relevance does Iran & Syria's involvement in the war - which is far from unconnected to the history of US meddling in the region - have to the legitimacy of coverage of US forces' behaviour in Iraq? Prefixing 'Marines' with 'brave' makes the assumption that they're all brave, upstanding warriors in a just war. Which they're not - not all of them, anyway.
The Post has, to my mind, been one of the more centrist publications of late; the implicit claim that they are selectively choosing to cover the war so as to cast the worst light on the US is, frankly, ridiculous. While many US forces may be brave, many of them have also violated the Geneva Conventions and besmirched the reputation of the US through their actions in a war that lacks justification, aim, or utility.
December 15, 2004 7:28 AM
Dear Dan,
I really don't have any personal misgivings about the Washington Post and for that matter I really don't care if the Post is right or wrong with regards to the story to which you were referring....it just sounds like sour grapes to me anyway and I don't have time for that. I try hard to scan many different news gatherinig sources in order to make intelligent decisions for myself as not to be influenced by whatever staff writer got tasked with that a particular story. I was mainly trying to spark conversation.
I also wanted to bring it to your attention that a news source, as well respected as the Post, thought it was more important to report on suspected abuses by American service men and women than to report on the human intelligence gathered from the Falluja offensive that indicated two other countries in the region were supporting terrorist activities in Iraq. Activities that are killing Americans as well as hundreds of innocent Iraqi citizens. Furthermore, yesterday the interim Iraqi government began proceedings to bring to trial Chemical Ali, a Baathist regime member responsible for killing thousands of Kurds in the mid 80's. This is an important issue because it could serve to refocus the attention on why military action in Iraq was necessary. Yet information on these topics was hard to find and was rarely front page material. Like I said my frustrations are not directed only at the Post. I find this to be an issue for many media outlets.
As to the next contributer to this string. You are correct that I should not have prefixed "Marines" with "Brave"........I should have prefixed "American service men and women" with the prefix "Brave". For that matter, British, Polish, Japanese, etc. service men and women also deserve this prefix. I respect your opinion that you feel the war in Iraq was unjustified. You probably also feel that the war in Afganistan was justified and the administration "dropped the ball" by not pursuing UBL into the mountains. I hear this argument a lot as I work in a bastian of liberalism. I cannot change your mind on this issue so I will not try. I will only say that I obviously disagree. But it is wrong to deny the sacrifices made by our soldiers based on reports of suspected abuses by members of our armed forces. Do soldiers step outside the rules of engagement from time to time?. Of course, they are human. The military has its own code of justice and it does well in policing itself. I do take offense in the media highlighting suspected abuses because these soldiers are then subjected to trial by public opinion. Based on your comments implying that some of our American soldiers are not serving honorably, it seems these reports have indeed tainted your attitude toward our troops. I have seen all the same pictures you have of prisoners being mishandled and, god forbid, humiliated. The soldiers responsible will be held accountable. But let's be perfectly frank here, the prisoners were not beheaded or burned to a crisp and hung from a bridge. These are the offenses have been committed by the enemy. It is true that some soldiers have been accused of killing unarmed and wounded insurgents (so far I have heard of two separate incidents involving a total of three soldiers). This, I would suspect, is outside the rules of engagement. But I submit that we are not qualified to judge these men. This must be left to the Uniformed Code of Military Justice.
"Some people live an entire lifetime and wonder if they have ever made a difference in the world, but the Marines don't have that problem. "
--Ronald Reagan--
December 16, 2004 7:19 AM
Normally I don’t pay much heed to sites like this one, but this work is compelling, very well cited, and worthy of few minutes for folks who think that the Post is completely impartial in the reporting of news. It provides a good example of how subtle (and not so subtle) prejudices are conveyed in Post reporting.
The pew research center did a recent survey of Journalist and their leanings.
December 16, 2004 11:12 AM
Angela,
Spend more than two minutes on that site and their agenda hits you like a hammer. Did you notice that every single point they disputed was in regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? EVERY SINGLE ONE? Did you notice that their "In the News" section consists entirely of links to the Washington Jewish Weekly? Did you notice that their "About Us" section is more or less an anti-Palestinian screed?
Nobody's pretending that the Post is totally unbiased. It isn't. But anyone with a strong agenda could pick apart a news source and find perceived evidence of bias. We do need to question our media, but we need to do it fairly.
Rob,
I'd like to welcome you to this discussion and encourage your participation on the blog. As to your comment, I'm going to have to side wholly with Angry American. Of course there are going to be gross abuses by individuals within the military. That's tragic, but citing their number as "many" and implicitly equating it with the number that aren't criminal (also "many") is a huge injustice to our armed forces. On the whole, they are a brave and selfless group who've volunteered themselves (in some cases their lives) to the service of their country and its way of life. Those who've dishonored themselves can and should be dealt with. The rest should be respected and thanked.
Anyone reading this blog can see that I disagree completely with the action that's being taken in Iraq. That said, the fault for that action lies not with the soldiers, but with their commanders in Washington.
December 16, 2004 12:33 PM
"Normally I don’t pay much heed to sites like this one, but this work is compelling, very well cited, "
I started off with a qualification. Yes I read the entire thing. Yes I realize that it is entirely concerned with the conflict in Israel. Yes its a Jewish site. It is also well cited and documented which allows you to look up their sources and see if what they claim is legit. They are providing a very particular example of a bias in the Post regarding Israel. I think the fact that it is a specific example of bias makes it stronger because it can provide a glimpse into a trend without going off on random tangents on the hundreds of topics that make up the liberal/conservative debate. Yes it is reductionistic, but that is also its strength. They provide fairly convincing evidence that the Post words stories to reflect a certain bias in respect to Israel. Since no one has done a large-scale study on the Post to reflect the totality of topics discussed in the news, we have to rely on preliminary evidence. Is this solid evidence? No. Does it interest me is seeing a bigger, comprehensive study done? Yes. Does it make me think more carefully about subtle verbal nuances when reading a story by the Post? Yes.
Here is one example of the 110 they list for the year 2002.
1. An AP dispatch was altered from "Israeli troops fired tank shells and machine guns yesterday, killing a Palestinian woman…" to "Israeli troops killed a Palestinian woman…" Yes, the woman was killed, but the Post makes it sound as if it was deliberate. ("Israeli troops kill 2 at Gaza strip farm", 5/26/02)
December 16, 2004 2:14 PM
A group who's sole purpose is to find bias within the Post has somehow managed to do that. Shocking. I wonder if they ever considered hiring Ken Starr as a witch-hunt consultant.
Tell me, Angela... where was the AP story printed within the newspaper? It's a wire report; was it buried in the back? Could they have shortened it only because of space issues? For that matter, aren't there other plausible reasons for abbreviating it? Is one website, dedicated to finding fault, going to examine those other reasons? Is the Post, who incidentally employs their own ombudsman, represented at all?
I think it's amazing that this thread, started only to point readers to a story about the Bush administration's underhanded attempts to damage an international opponent, has turned into an attack on the troops and the Washington Post.
December 17, 2004 5:32 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home