Irresponsible reporting

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

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.

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

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by gemini cricket

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Just over 2 years since the invasion and the new government is functioning.

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.

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

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.

That is very sad. I'm thinking not enough people in our country read newspapers either.

Originally Posted by scaeagles

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.

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...

[Scrooge McSam]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Perhaps the administration was attempting to verify it themselves?

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...

The question is: are you categorically denying that the mistreatment of the Koran occurred, or are you simply denying the Newsweek report is accurate on hyper technical grounds?

Originally Posted by scaeagles

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. It is not possible for every action taken throughout the military or intelligence community to be known by those in charge.

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

Originally Posted by scaeagles

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.

*rubs eyes*

Originally Posted by scaeagles

But it is going better than anyone expected it to.

HUH?

Seriously, that's REALLY reaching.

Originally Posted by scaeagles

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.

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

Originally Posted by scaeagles

For the most part, the public is not informed about such things because the public, at large, is ignorant

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

[Scrooge McSam]

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?

[Sheila]

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.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

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.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

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...

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.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

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.

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:

Pentagon documents and Democratic congressional sources dispute President Bush's claim, made Saturday, that nearly 100,000 "fully trained and equipped" Iraqi soldiers, police officers and other security personnel are at work, Reuters said yesterday. The Pentagon documents show that of the nearly 90,000 people now in the police force, only 8,169 have had the full eight-week academy training. Another 46,176 are listed as "untrained," and it will be July 2006 before the administration reaches its goal of a 135,000-strong, fully trained police force.

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.