Irresponsible reporting
 

No, this is not about Newsweek.

This is really not a big deal, but it irks me none the less.

This is an odd story. This guy showed up on a British beach in a wet suit (not a wetsuit, a wet suit) with all the tags cut out. He doesn't speak and when given a pad of paper, he drew a grand piano. So they brought him a piano, and he played, which seemed to calm him down. It's been 6 weeks, still no talking, still no one's identified him, still no communication at all, other than playing the piano. Odd.

But here's what irks me about this article. Notice the caption under the photo. "British authorities ask the public for help to determine the identity of a man, an apparent piano virtuoso, who has not said a word since being found on a beach over a month ago."

Okay, now read the article. "Steve Spencer said the man 'is not the virtuoso that he has been portrayed in the press. He knows a small number of tunes and plays them over and over'"

Man that bugs me. Totally unimportant, but it's such shoddy journalism.

GD, agreed. I had been following up on this story since it broke on BBC last week. I think many (hospital audience and press alike) were eager to draw parallels with the David Helfgott story (as portrayed in the movie Shine).

I realize this thread is not about Newsweek per se, but if it is about shoddy journalism, of course that ties in.

The journalists of today typically do not just want to report the news. They want to make the news by being the person to break the big story. They want to be famous. They want to be the next Woodward or Bernstein. They want to find the conspiracy or the hidden truth and be the first to report it. In a world of 24 hour news stations and internet news sites and newspaper and local news and the nightly network news - they want to get noticed. The way to do this is to be the first person to report on the found "piano virtuoso" or to have a story published about the desecration of the Quran by US troops. (Interestingly, it is not reported where these Muslims got the copies of the Quran - being the US government.) Then the reporter becomes the story - being interviewed about how they broke the big piece, showing up on Larry King or Hannity and Colmes. This is why the New York Times reporter.....drawing a blank on his name, but he's the guy who was fabricating all sorts of stuff and got caught....did it. This is why Isikoff went with a huge story that had one unverified and unnamed source (I won't go so far as to say he made it up). Newsweek went with it because they wanted to be first. It's the same thing that happened with CBS and the forged documents.

Reporting actual news isn't enough. It must be sensasionalized. It must be the big story. It must be first. And accuracy be damned. It is things like this that continue to erode the confindence of the public in the media at large. This is not a good thing.

Edited to add: What gets reported in this way is typically negative stories. Reporters get famous most quickly by reporting news that will "bring someone down", a la Watergate. Political leanings come into play, whether to the left or to the right. I doubt you would find Isikoff writing a questionable and unverified piece putting any positive light on anything to do with Iraq or the war on terror.

I majored in Journalism in college, at least until I discovered it didn't interest me as much as I thought it should, and we used to take random newspapers from across the country for critical analysis. Our local paper, the Spokesman Review, was held up as a barely disguised gossip rag/political cattle prod for the ruling clan of Spokane, the Cowles. (They own the paper). That was twenty years ago, and it's still the same today- they are now being taken to task for their series on our mayor, and their role in creating the story as opposed to simply reporting the news. Anyway, the Christian Science Monitor and the Cleveland Plain Dealer were the two papers that achieved the highest scores for quality of reporting and adherence to ethical journalistic priciples. (I know, a bit of an oxymoron these days). I believe they are still two of the most respected papers out there.

This line of discussion, and scaeagles mention of Jayson Blair (the NY Times guy) makes me think of this column from the Chicago Tribune. It's nothing earth shattering, but the assistant city editor mentioned is my cousin. I thought it was pretty cool that his name was brought up as a counterpoint to one of the worst demonstartions of lack of journalistic integrity.

I, for one, do not trust our media. In fact, I am more likely to rely on BBC for my info, but even then I'm not 100% confident with it. It's sad when a chunk of the country looks to blogs for their news. They should be able to believe what's printed. I also think that the Bush administration controls our media.

I find it ironic that the Bush administration can blast Newsweek for relying on one unreliable source when Bush did the same thing to justify his war in Iraq. (From Thinkprogress.org) McClellan’s issue with the Newsweek story was that it was “based on a single anonymous source who cannot personally substantiate the report.”

Here's a quote from 4/05/04:

QUESTION: Does it concern the President that the primary source for the intelligence on the mobile biological weapons labs was a guy that U.S. intelligence never every interviewed?

MCCLELLAN: Well, again, all these issues will be looked at as part of a broad review by the independent commission that the President appointed… But it’s important that we look at what we learn on the ground and compare that with what we believed prior to going into Iraq.


What was that bible verse about casting the first stone? Or the one about a plank in your eye... No one in this administration should be blaming anyone for making mistakes...

QUESTION: He’s the president of the United States. This thing he told the country on the verge of taking the nation to war has turned out to be, by your own account, not reliable. That’s his fault, isn’t it?

MCCLELLAN: No.

[White House Press Briefing, 7/17/03]

Oh, right. They don't make mistakes.

Yes, the whole Muslim community hates us because of Newsweek... Yeah....

GC, if the media is controlled by the Bush administration, who controlled it before his administration? Is it a new phenomena? if they do control the media, how then does this story get published? Are you suggesting outlets such as the NY Times are friendly to Bush and his administration? I see so much negative press about the Bush administration out there (whether deserved or not isn't my point) that I cannot bring myself to believe that the media is being controlled by the Bush administration.

I would suppose the difference in going to war in Iraq and the Newsweek story, at least to me, is that instead of one unnamed source, the intelligence services of the UK, Russia, and Egypt all told us the same thing that the CIA believed regarding WMD. But again, that isn't the point.

The Muslim community hated us before the Newsweek story, most certainly. They hated us before 9/11 and before Bush was elected. What this story does, however, is give propaganda to extremists who believe the retraction is government control of the media. It is fuel for the fire that has long been burning and, sadly, will continue to burn for a long time.

I really think this describes our current media situation:

We really do live in an age of hysteria. No one reports the news anymore, they report stuff and check facts later, consequences be damned.I quit watching the news the day we invaded Iraq (again). If it's that important someone will tell me (is Regan still dead? How about the Pope?). I do read the news online but you can't get heads or tails from it. Even the stuff coming from other countries has a bias and as all things, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

The question in my mind is....

Why did this unnamed source not dispute Newsweek's version of events before the story went to press? There seems to be no question that Newsweek went to this source while still in the process of putting this story together.

Why is Newsweek protecting this unnamed source who has subsequently hung them out to dry?

One of the chief editors of Newsweek was on Nightline last night. Man, they put him through the wringer. Although he finally (after much prompting), admitted Newsweek was wrong, his principle justification was this:

They had taken the article to the White House Administration for confirmation. Because the administration had only commented on a different section of the story, and not the section about the Koran, Newsweek took that as "confirmation" of the truth of the Koran story, thus they were basically in the clear to publish an incendiary anecdote.

Today, I heard on the radio that no one would be fired at Newsweek for what happened.

I think if an administration has enough money, they can control the media. I think Clinton did it before him and Bush Sr. before that. It is not a new phenomena.

I think a story like this gets published because it really happened. I believe that Rove, someone, got to Newsweek and told them to back track on the story because they knew of the backlash it would cause. I mean, for awhile, it looked like they weren't going to retract it. Why not?

I think the NY Times isn't friendly to Bush but they have let him get away with a lot. The whole lead up to the war, they didn't question him nearly hard enough. That goes the same for NPR as well. I'm equally as frustrated with the left and right media. I don't trust any of it.

Bush deserves his negative press. There'd be more if the media actually honestly covering his administration accurately. Which they aren't. They're terrified of being labelled anti-Bush therefore anti-American.

How do you get everyone to be on your side anyway, if you're Bush? Label the media as 'liberal'. All of the media as 'liberal'. Give them a label and they'll remember the label not the organization. There is no liberal media. There was prior to 9/11. There isn't one now. There's even a move right now to get rid of PBS because they're too left leaning. Never mind that they're being funded by people who agree with what they are saying.
Click here.

If the media actually did its job, everyone would know the name Jim Guckert aka Jeff Gannon and the scandal surrounding him and the Bush admin. Google him and find out... But no one knows anything about the gay male prostitute that was given money to lob soft questions at McClellan at press conferences. Why? Because the media is covering it up to protect Bush.

I am with GC on this one. Too close to the CBS thing, and smells like Rove, or his ilk. We'll see.

This administration is far more involved in the manipulaton of the press than most realise. They've pretty much got their own 'news' site- fox, and they have repeatedly been snagged for paying reporters to push their agenda: CS Monitor article .

I'm reading online now that the Whitehouse is refusing to accept a mere apology for this fiasco, never mind that we are supposed to give them a pass for acting on trumped up/erroneous reports themselves. Their actions have hurt far more than this story has, and God help them if anyone from the inner circle is implicated in this.

Perhaps the administration was attempting to verify it themselves? It is not possible for every action taken throughout the military or intelligence community to be known by those in charge. If I'm in the administration and this story comes to me, I'm making calls and talking to people who were there trying to find out if there is any validity to it.

I suppose that depends on your political point of view. I personally believe that more honest coverage of the administration would end up in stories much more positive of what his administration has done. For one example, there is not nearly enough press about how well Iraq is going. Still some violence and things to deal with? Certainly. But it is going better than anyone expected it to. Just over 2 years since the invasion and the new government is functioning.

I could be mistaken, but isn't PBS partially or primarily funded by tax money with some contributions from viewers to boost their budgets? I don't follow PBS at all, so it is possible I am wrong.

I thought that story was well publicized - all over the media outlets I see, such as cable news evening talk shows, etc. For the most part, the public is not informed about such things because the public, at large, is ignorant. A poll I heard about today contained that only somethin like 14% of people could identify freedom of the press as gauranteed in the first amendment. Pretty sad.

As we all have our political leanings, I doubt that any of us will ever be satisfied with the slant of given news stories. We will always be outraged over lack of coverage of something we think important.

Yeah, except that they didn't really act on trumped up/erroneous reports. They just pretended that they were the victims of faulty intelligence.

Just over 2 years since the invasion and they still haven't succeeded on what was billed as goal #1, the most important post-invasion goal, build a stable, effective police force that can control the violence and isn't masacered on a near daily basis.

That is very sad. I'm thinking not enough people in our country read newspapers either.
Or the over-coverage of something we don't give a dang about. I mean, Michael Jackson? That's not news. Just tell me the verdict and we'll all move on...

I don't know the answer about PBS. I will look into that.

Now the following isn't mean to be a slam or a snide remark: What good has Bush done for our country? Besides holding certain big business CEOs accountable for fraud, I'm stumped.

I do have to disagree with you that Iraq is going well. I can't even imagine what the Iraqi death toll is. I physically hurt when I hear about someone dying over there. All for nothing...

I completely agree with you regarding over coverage of certain things. Michael Jackson, Scott Peterson, OJ Simpson......ridiculous. It doesn't bother me much because I am able to turn it off.

I hesitate to go into what I think Bush has done that has been good for our country. Not because I don't have strong opinions about it (I also have strong opinions about what I think he has NOT done well or at all), but because the thread is about irresponsible reporting, and I'm not interested in changing this into a debate of me against most of the population of the LoT, especially considering it has all been hashed out before with me and Sac, GD, Scrooge, et al, during the election season.

(Not intending to discount the intelligent contributions of MickeyLumbo, Nephy, Kevy, (insert name here) to the conservative point of view, just pointing out the primarily left leaning politics of those who post here.)

I was just thinking today that there hadn't been a good political debate here in a while. Pleasant surprise! And good points made by all. Granted, the line about Iraq going well almost made me choke on my sandwich but...

Concerning the OP, I agree with those that have said that it really boils down to it all being about ratings and money and getting the story first. The idea of a "liberal media" though is a myth invented by the neo-cons, an easy way to discredit any bad news that happens to come out. It's a pretty ingenious tactic.

I find this unlikely. The Pentagon responded to Newsweek when they were verifying their story, but they made no mention of the Koran charges.

After watching this administration, I find it more likely somebody saw the need to throw up chaff in light of the increased attention the media is giving to the Downing Street minutes.

As Conyers wrote in his letter to Scott McClellan today...

It should be known by the Pentagon, should it not? This was after all a Pentagon investigation we're talking about.

*rubs eyes*

HUH?

Seriously, that's REALLY reaching.

Partially, not primarily. PBS receives give or take about 85% of its funding from non-government sources.

Isn't it nice we can always find something to agree on. I'll end with that.

:cheers:

But its still the peoples money being spent on the programing, if it is from taxes or from contributions by viewers like me. The govt is just a trustee of the tax monies it collects, it still belongs to the people, as that is what the country was founded on, a govt of the people, for the people, by the people, and all that jazz. But I'm tired(physically, as well as tired of all the left vs. right stuff, lets just have a celebrity death match and decide this once and for all). Namaste.

I guess I have to change the subject a bit....

First, there was no way we'd hand the government function over to the Iraqis by the June 30, 2004 deadline. We did.

There was no way they'd have an election. They did.

There was no way we could clean out Fallujah. It was. And the terrorists that fled to the Syrian border have recently been decimated again.

There was no was the Iraqi factions could sit down together and work toward a common government and constitution. They are.

Yes. It is certainly going better than the left would have us remember or believe.

Regarding PBS, why should the government spend anything on it? Let the free market decide if it should survive. It provides no service that cannot be found elsewhere in the free market.

Yes it does. It provides programming that I will actually watch - as opposed to the crap that commercial television provides. The same goes for commercial radio vs public radio. Besides, the amount of taxpayers money spent on quality educational programming is under $1 per year. Big whoop-load of money for something so good. Or, maybe I can just go to Taco Bell instead.

Well, like I said, I don't watch PBS, but I figured that their political discussion programs are similar to what you'd find on any cable news network, and their nature and science programs could probably be comparable to the Discovery or Science channel, and the history channel probably is more extensive than PBS has time for.

yeah, but not everyone has cable

Oh, that's just because a generation ago the silly powers that be decided that we needed a little more culture and world-view in our lives. The three all powerful networks were dishing out the same stupid game shows and soap operas, and there was very little children's programming. New, innovative shows such as Sesame Street and imports like Upstairs, Downstairs, etc, had very little chance to get on the Big Three. You may not agree with PBS's existence, at least the slight amount of public funding they get, but we all owe them a huge debt. Sometime when I'm bored I'll get a list of shows that you would know, and might not have were it not for PBS.

PBS is largely driven by private citizen donations and corporate sponsors. The small amount of government funding is a bargain, especially for what we have gotten in return. Remember, Scaeagles- every great nation has encouraged arts and culture- those that don't, aren't.

Personally, I will be forever grateful to PBS. Were it not for them, I might not have developed my love of all things Python, and I never would have seen such great shows as Faulty Towers, Dr. Who, The Black Adder, The Red Dwarf, and so on.

First, are these the examples of the good news that the media doesn't report? I've seen every one of them get major coverage. It would seem that even the liberal media is willing to report anything positive that occurs in Iraq.

But...

As GD attests, there are also major problems with the Iraqi police force.

From September: And yet, just 3 months earlier, Rumsfield stated that there were 206,000 security forces at work.

Furthermore, we are no closer to pulling out and turning over control to the Iraqi people. Hundreds of Iraqis are being killed every month, 400 in the past month from 127 car bombings. Our soldiers are still dying there, at least 10 in the last two weeks. And a recent report by the UN and Iraqi government shows that the living conditions of the Iraqi people has significantly deteriorated since the US invasion. More than half still have no access to clean drinking water, money is running out in the the hospitals, contributing to a rising infant mortality rate, more than half of the people surveyed reported that they could see sewage in the streets where they live, and 23% of the children suffer from malnutrition. These are all conditions that have worsened since the US invasion.

You paint a optimistic picture of the progress in Iraq but I don't think the Iraqi people would agree that things are going well.

That is probably a true statement. It's also true that it's going much worse than the hawks ever could have imagined 26 months ago:

"Any military presence, should it be necessary, will be temporary and intended to promote security and elimination of weapons of mass destruction; the delivery of humanitarian aid; and the conditions for the reconstruction of Iraq."

- The White House,
March 16, 2003, Statement
of the Atlantic Summit



Incompetent and arrogant fvcktards, every single one of 'em.

Oh, I didn't say everything was going exceptionally well and as planned. I certainly wish that the Iraqi security forces were larger at this point. But what is the definition of temporary? I suppose if I were one of the soldiers absent from my family two years would seem beyond temporary. In the big picture, though, two years doesn't seem that long. I understand a couple of years at least will still require our presence, though I believe that we will certainly begin troop reduction there soon.

Our commitment in Bosnia was supposed to be less than a year. Korea - approaching 50 years there (though I really do not know the circumstances surrounding the cease fire there and our continued military presence). We've stayed in Europe for 60 years now post WWII (due to some bungling, I believe, from FDR and Churchill when dealing with Stalin).

The major mistake made in Iraq (and I understand many think the major mistake was going at all) was underestimating the number of foreign terrorists that would come in from Syria, Iran, wherever.

I took a while to consider your post. Yes, I agree that once these things took place, they were major stories. I suppose what I....feel? believe?....is that the length of time prior to the events happening allowed for massive amounts of negativity from the media in how they would never happen. We'd never turn it over by the deadline. We'd never have a successful election there. For months and months and months. So the buildup to the events had a major part, and once they happened, it was covered, and the media moved on.

I also dislike how the media thinks they are more important than national security or the security of our troops. As one recent example, certain members of the media were outraged when they were misinformed about the time table for the assault on Fallujah. They were intentionally deceived, knowing the terrorists monitored our media, to see what the defensive strategy of the terrorists would be when the invasion really happened. I wish I could recall the "journalist", but some big shot in the media was asked if he would have reported on D-day beforehand with details if he known prior to the actual invasion of Normandy. He said yes. To me, that's sad.

The arrogance of the media is amazing to me as well. Regarding the Newsweek story, some members of the media are mad that the administration would dare to second guess them. one reporter asked Scott McClellan "who made you the editor of Newsweek?". So it is OK for the media to second guess and criticize the government all the time, but the government can't criticize the media when the blow a story that causes anti American violence over seas?

Anyway, MBC....you make valid points about the good things that happen are reported. I believe it is the negative spin prior to the events that bother me.

LOL...What is the definition of "should it be necessary"?

What's the definition of a 'fvcktard'? People post that all the time and I don't get it.
???