Newsweek and the "Liberal Media"

Remove all ads!

It seems that the thread on the Newsweek story about prisoner abuse and the Koran has over run the topic a bit into the realm of the tired, old conservative charge that the media is "liberal." This is about a 40 year old charge and still counting for those who find great political use in this phony charge.

I ran into this brilliant essay while researching this "well-known" charge. Of course that charge is made mostly in the media itself, if that makes any sense, or by the "right wing meida." Somehow this right wing media is in some way separate from the "media" that is decidedly "left wing" or "liberal."

This is from the essay:

Sounded like a good idea, unless one believed that George Orwell's "1984" was really a "utopia."

But the plot thickens here in the US:

In other words, now whoever has the most money and media access gets his message out. Not a good idea for most Americans unless one belongs to the tiny margin of Americans who are among the rich and powerful.

So the equation has changed radically in the last 20 years. So the old charge of "too much liberal media," from the old Vietnam days, is no longer relelvant. To be sure there are rank-and-file journalists who are holdovers from those days, and are still being pumped out of journalism schools in the USA, but guess who their bosses are?

Yes, their bosses are corporate America. And as one may suspect, the coverage is pro "Corporate America."

This is quite a good read for those who are interested in where the media is going at the moment. But it appears to be headed anywhere but "left."

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-liberalmedia.htm

[ May 20, 2005, 20:36: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

So the problem is about money. It figures that the rich folks would try to buy the media so that they can have their propaganda spread out among the people and make it harder for opposite views to be heard. They get both at the same time--more time for their agendas, and their critics silenced...

 

I never really took the Newsweek snafu to be a case of "liberal media"...to me it seems more a case of careless media.

There are so many news outlets available to the public these days, and in the face of cable news networks and internet, the older outlets find that they are struggling to exist. The venerable newspaper, news magazine and the 6:00 network broadcast are scrapping to stay alive and retain some semblance of viability in this new era of instant access.

This sense of urgency causes them to be careless, maybe even reckless, as is evidenced by the CBS disaster over President Bush's military record and now this Newsweek story.

I agree with Chandos that although individual reporters tend to be Liberal...the ownership and management of these news corporations may tend to be Conservative...likely that will lead to cancel out most incidents of true media bias.

What we have is a desparate media...desparate to break the big story, expose the scandal and get the scoop. That's why the same media that was so eager to attack President Clinton is able to turn around to attack President Bush.

Desparate and reckless. Be careful what you believe.

 

Newsweek made a mistake, they brought a story that in their particular case was unprovable, but has happened in other cases. What the White House makes of it is pure impertinence. They put it as if their standing in the Arab world is at another new low because of Newsweek.

Right: America would be widely loved in the Muslim world had only Newsweek not printed that story. Newsweek is denying America the kisses and hugs of 1 billion Muslims by reporting that a GI dropped a Koran in a toilet. How, after Abu Ghraib, can anyone believe an American prison guard would do such a thing? Shame on the press.

And as bad as it is anyway, they can't have made it much worse too, so what? Of course I don't expect the White House to admit that, they never admit anything anyway, and would lie even if it was in their own best interest to tell the truth, but I find their usual "Who, me?!" sickening, again.

[ May 24, 2005, 15:57: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

YOu do have a good point, Ragusa, but the fact is that the media is so eager to print anything inflammatory and anti-American that they don't check their facts properly first. As has been mentioned before, they likely don't do this on a "left-right" ideological basis, but rather on a basis of "let's get a big scoop so we can make money". That still doesn't make it acceptable for them to be so irresponsible.

 

Examples, please?

 

Ooops, I misread the story, anyway its more information.

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

[ May 26, 2005, 16:57: Message edited by: Cesard the Fir Bolg ]

 

The article doesn't say it is true, it says that a detainee made such an allegation.

If every allagation made by every prisoner in the world was believed to be true, there would be no prisons because there would be no one to run them.

I do agree that Gitmo needs to be shut down, or at the very least they need to allow more observation by the international community as this has become a "he said she said" scenario, and keeping these detainees without independent observers hurts the credibility of those who are being accused of committing these acts.

 

AMaster, my example is the whole Koran in the toilet issue -- it turned out to be untrue.

Dan Rather, in his very fair, balanced and even-handed approach to neutral reporting, jumping on ANYTHING anti-Bush before checking his facts.

On another note, though, when the media publishes something, and a bunch of psychos reads it and goes charging out and kills some innocent people, who is responsible? I say . . .

The Psychos! THEY did the killing, they are responsible. Blaming the media for the killings and other depredations of ignorant criminals is ridiculous, but it happens.

It happened to a female journalist in Nigeria during a beauty pageant -- she wrote a joke in her column, and the reasoned, holy, balanced response of some Muslims in the country? They killed approx. 19 people. Who got the blame? The journalist. Un-frigging-believable. She had to take refuge in Norway of all places. (No slam against Norway, BTW, it's just that a person should not have to flee halfway around the world because of some killers that the government should put a leash on).

 

LKD,

There is a difference between the way it should be and the way it is.

A woman should be able to walk stark naked through Central Park (FYI: a huge park in New York City that is known to not be safe at night) with a $100 bill stuck to her forehead, without being harmed, but I wouldn't want my wife to test it!

If you are contemplating publication of an article that will incite that minority of the Islamic faith that are prone to extreme violence, you better make sure that the article is worth the cost. Writing about frivolous or unproven allegations that will push their buttons is ill advised, as it accomplishes nothing in the social realm, and it could cause a lot of people a lot of misery, or possibly their lives.

That is part of the definition of responsible journalism.

 

Well, the Koran cases were so utterly unsubstantiated that now the Pentagon Confirms Koran Incidents. Hadn't Newsweek kicked them in the balls on this, they'd probably forgotten to mention.
Had Newsweek referred to these cases, their allegations of Koran abuse had been substantiated - after all, they were referring to hearsay anyway.

It's preposterous: The Pentagon and White House defenses go along that line: 'That Newsweek claimed the Koran abuse, which never happened, happened on Nov. 17, 2002 13:00, wheras it actually happened on Nov 17, 2002 at 16:35 - that clearly proves that they scandalously lie, do serious injustice to the U.S. government and the brave men and woman in the military, and only underlines their evident liberal bias and journalistic incompetence!'

The point that another prisoner (who's still being held at Gitmo) has recanted his accusation of Koran mistreatment is just 'one case less'. With the condidions there in mind, it is unconvincing anyway. Who knows, maybe the Pentagon offered him uncuffed and undisturbed sleep, and access to direct sunlight in return ...

But then, they would never do such a thing, right?

[ May 27, 2005, 11:30: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

I agree, Darkwolf, in that journalists should check facts before printing stuff. But what about opinion pieces, which was what Daniella wrote in Nigeria? Is freedom of speech only applicable as long as Muslims agree with you?

And Ragusa, you're right that the US are lying dogs, no question, but why don't you ever comment on the fact that Muslim fundamentalists actually BEHEAD people -- innocent people, many who cannot be classified as combatants (not that it's OK to behead sodiers and air it either) -- and air it on the net? Which is worse, insulting someone's religion (which is wrong, no doubt) or slowly sawing off someone's head with a rusty knife?

I think people are FAR too quick to forgive terrorists and FAR too quick to jump on the Americans.

 

Ragusa,

You are making it sound like it was actually flushed, very misleading...

There are 5 documented cases of the Koran being "mishandled", and they involved things like "standing over the Koran" during an interrogation, stacking two of them on a television, and touching the holy book during what was deemed to be part of the duties of the soldier. There is even a account of a detainee claiming a guard dropped a Koran (oh the horrors!), but it turned out the detainee dropped it and blamed it on the guards.

People being held against their will are prone to making false accusations.

The lesson that his story is teaching is that we should never have given the detainees Korans in the first place.

 

Darkwolf, I just heard a whole other kettle of fish being opened!

Whining minority groups count ANYTHING as "abuse" or disrespect -- they will be demanding all Muslim guards because they are offended at the (possible) Christian orientation of their guards -- or, horror of horrors, maybe one of the guards is Jewish! Call the lawyers, you let a Jew near me, that's abuse!

The detainees would not have been kept alive by any other nation in the same circumstances.

 

Depaara,
IIRC I heared the 'but they BEHEAD people' line on FOX the other day. How low can you get to find comfort in such an argument: 'We Americans suck, but the crazy Islamists are much worse!' There is neither shame nor pride at FOX I take it.

Because in that case there's no doubt that they are just petty murderers, it doesn't require further mention or elaboration, as long as no one here's a Salafi and thinks otherwise.
Islamists are doomed, not because the U.S. will defeat them -- I strongly doubt they will -- but because they don't have answers for the pressing problems in the Arab world. The Arabs will get sick of their pointless carnage rather soon.

As for the U.S., they could do better and should do better, and that's why I'm angry about their government's pathological dishonesty and blundering, and their ideologiocal blinkers, not to mention the rightwing noise mashine supporting them.
It's because of their as cynical as irresponsible belittling 'Oh, it's just abuse' that I post.

And there's yet another thing. A lot of Americans still wonder about 'why do they hate us. It's instructive to listen to those people in the Arab world who are angry about the U.S., sure, some get their Koran wrong and are crazed zealots, but there is a 'base' of issues between the U.S. policies and the Arab world, on which millions of muslims agree on, and ignoring that costs the U.S. sympathy every day. America ignores that at it's own peril.

[ May 27, 2005, 22:40: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

I've never said that the Americans shouldn't do better -- I've made it clear that I think they are grossly vicious, cruel and otherwise dumb. European countries, during their time as superpowers, certainly had a much worse track record, as have pretty well any powerful nation during its time of ascendency. I'd say that for imperfect people, the Americans are doing better than many others have done in similar positions. I guess I'm just an optimist -- I look at the good people accomplish as well as try and find their faults.

 

Very interesting. In fact, couldn't the Islamists be painted with the same brush as Al Queda? One group of Islamists kicked the nation with the most powerful army in the nuts. They've made an example out of two nations already and told anyone that refused to support them to **** off. How long before the US demands another "sacrifice". If the feeling becomes that it is inevitable, then the people, fearing the debacle in Iraq, might get rid of the Islamists, and try to bring in a government more palatable to the idea of kissing American ass...

 

Gnarff,
you really seem to buy in on that, if the Arabs are just afraid enough of America's 'loose cannon', they'll dispose of their Islamists to prevent regime change and become nice US suck-ups.

It just doesn't work that way.

Pressure from outside unites. Imagine France sending troops to Texas to enforce gun control to get the idea. The U.S., as an outside ower intruding into Arab affairs, generate resistance, and that in part expresses itself on the platform of Islamism (which is about the only platform for opposition in Arab countries to express themselves anyway), and in particular as islamist terror targeting the U.S. over particular U.S. policies.

If the policy idea you formulated reflects actual U.S. foreign policy, the low standing of the U.S. should make you ponder: The U.S. can't change a region without the people in there helping them. Just intimidating them isn't going to win them over for that enterprise. Whoever thinks othersise is on opium.

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. To be able to use their 'loose cannons' to their own benefit, the U.S. ought to learn something about firearm safety rules first.

The approach you're suggesting, and that some on the U.S. right propagate, is making things worse and then worse again as it only amplifies the root cause, and produces more of the same.

Quite disingenious, if you ask me. But it sure gives a good feel to imagine yourself as the tough lone rider bringing the bad guys to justice, and then riding into the sunset. But what makes you feel good isn't neccessarily going to make the problem go away.

 

We can change a region without cooperation. It just won't be, erm, any sort of positive change. Rather, it'd be more along the lines of "Hey, umm, Syria looks a lot like the moon now, what with them massive craters and fallout zones"

Gnarff, Rags is right; overwhelming force sure hasn't helped Israel resolve its Palestinian "problem," and I see no reason to think it'd be different for Merka.

 

Not afraid, but fed up. And not kissing US ass, but compliance only to get them to shut up. As long as the US buys into that mentality (or at least enough to keep the army in foreign nations), the US won't change...

So the perception of a big, dumb, self righteous loudmouth won't change anything?

One more stunt like 9/11, and that's what will happen. You can only taunt a visciuos dog so long...

Maybe if they get the oned on their hit list, execute them all and pull out. Let the "New Iraq" fend for themselves. Maybe then change will have been forced. If the new regime doesn't smarten up, then we have to endure that same **** again...