Comments on: Praise for bloggers, and a defense of MSM

By: GaijinBiker

GaijinBiker — Fri, 04 Feb 2005 13:47:53 +0000

That must be why people thought Bush had a plastic turkey when he went to Iraq for Thanksgiving in 2003... they figured it was for our plastic action-figure troops: http://ridingsun.blogspot.com/2005/02/finally-it-all-makes-sense.html

By: StinKerr

StinKerr — Fri, 04 Feb 2005 05:18:46 +0000

Okay, folks, go read this and tell me it wouldn’t sell. Read the in depth story the local paper did on it and tell me it’s not an Audie Murphy type story.
Now, show me an AP story concerning this. I’ll also be looking for the AP story when The Medal is awarded. Looking in vain, no doubt.
My agenda is to know what’s going on, good and bad. I believe that their agenda is to continue opposing the effort in any way they can. Some reporters are worse than others.
I recently read an AP story about Iraqi ex-pats in Michigan voting. Somehow the daily count of military deaths made it into the story by the third paragraph. I saw a similar story in the last few days that began on one subject and ended the opening sentence with an Iraq body count. Completely unrelated to the story but they worked it in.
There’s no agenda at AP? Pull the other one, it plays Mozart.

By: SCSIwuzzy

SCSIwuzzy — Wed, 02 Feb 2005 17:54:15 +0000

Joshua,
Great points. The MSM criticism I would offer isn’t of the AP, but of the networks and affiliates (cable and broadcast) that ran the photo with 15-30 seconds of verbage, and no mention of the oddities. As a result, I have coworkers this morning who were still talking about “that new hostage” because they saw a blurb on “a new hostage tape was released” type of story.
These same outlets will now hide behind the AP and not take any responsibility for failing to do any checks of their own, or simply say nothing at all. The world won’t end, of course, but it does nothing to foster trust among their consumers.

By: Finlay

Finlay — Wed, 02 Feb 2005 17:41:50 +0000

I agree that the media really didn’t get hoaxed per se. However I submit that the story fit inot the template that the media uses to frame stories in Iraq. The kidnapping of a US soldier would heve been pure gold for the media to spring into its mantra of quagmire, ever escalating casualties, insurgents are winning, etc.
Kooks around the world make specious claims all the time. Why did the MSM jump on this claim so eagerly? It fits a pattern is all I’m sayin.

By: jason

jason — Wed, 02 Feb 2005 15:37:31 +0000

nice post Josh. i thought that the coverage was fine, and not sensationalized in the way that many in the blogsphere were making it out to be. it just seems to be that in the same way that much of the bloggers critisize MSM for trying to be the post-watergate woodward/bernstein, many of the bloggers want to be the post-rathergate blog that catches a big screw up.

By: Eric Seymour

Eric Seymour — Wed, 02 Feb 2005 15:14:22 +0000

Those who want to see good news about Iraq in the media want it for a political agenda, too.
I agree that most people who complain about the lack of good news have a political agenda, but so what? If the coverage is unbalanced, it’s unbalanced.
I’d like to point out that “good news” is incredibly boring to a journalist because they are being constantly bombarded by it.
How are they being “bombarded” by it? I presume you mean that press releases are often written to portray the subject (in this case, the military) in the best possible light? OK, but is it acceptable for journalists to ignore stories they find “boring”? I think not.
Bad news is what journalists go after because bad news is the hardest for the public to get on their own.
No, bad news is what journalists go after because it sells. “If it bleeds, it leads” is the motto of TV news programs all over the Western world.
Want to know who’s been heroic in Iraq? Ask the White House or the Pentagon.
Does this argument work in reverse? “Want to know how many casualties we’ve had in Iraq, ask the Pentagon”? Of course not. If the media wants to claim to be giving a balanced account of Iraq, they must bring both the bad news and the good news on a daily basis.

By: Myopic Zeal

Myopic Zeal — Wed, 02 Feb 2005 14:08:46 +0000

GI Joe Hostage Roundup

I would be remiss not to at least mention this story. Everyone else has blogged about it, and since I don’t really have anything interesting to add, I’ll point you to some of those other sites if you’re looking for more reading and pictures.
Wizban…

By: Critic-at-Large

Critic-at-Large — Wed, 02 Feb 2005 13:59:18 +0000

A defense of MSM

We should be laughing at the desparate nature of these terrorists, not the press

By: Aaron

Aaron — Wed, 02 Feb 2005 13:28:36 +0000

Those who want to see good news about Iraq in the media want it for a political agenda, too. I’d like to point out that “good news” is incredibly boring to a journalist because they are being constantly bombarded by it.
Bad news is what journalists go after because bad news is the hardest for the public to get on their own. Want to know who’s been heroic in Iraq? Ask the White House or the Pentagon. They’ll give you piles of press releases for free. Want to know if there’s any bad news in Iraq? Those folks will all say “gee, none that I’ve heard. And don’t listen to the media.”

By: Eric Seymour

Eric Seymour — Wed, 02 Feb 2005 13:01:42 +0000

They scream because they can’t take pictures of coffins returning from Iraq and Afghanistan but they won’t cover awards ceremonies for live, heroic soldiers, Marines, airmen or sailors.
Very good point. IMHO, this is a much stronger criticism than the action figure story. Why does the MSM so rarely report the humanitarian work being done by the coalition–building schools, hospitals, etc.? Is it because they fear they’ll look like they’re doing the military’s PR work for them? Or do such stories not fit with their concept of the war?