Irresponsible reporting

[Gemini Cricket]

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....

[scaeagles]

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.

[BarTopDancer]

I really think this describes our current media situation:

Originally Posted by green day

Dont wanna be an american idiot
Don't wanna nation to drive the new media
And can you hear the sound of hysteria?
The subliminal mind fvck america

Welcome to a new kind of tension
All across the alien nation
Everything isn't meant to be O.K.
Television dreams of tomorrow
We're not the ones who're meant to follow
For that's enough to argue

Maybe I'm the ****** America
I'm not a part of a redneck agenda
Now everybody do the propaganda
And sing along to the age of paranoia

Don't wanna be an American Idiot
One nation controlled by the media
Information age of hysteria
It's going out to Idiot America

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.

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

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 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.

[wendybeth]

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.

[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...

[scaeagles]

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.)