BS: Media admits bungling Iraq coverage

Subject: BS: Media admits bungling Iraq coverage
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 06:16 PM

Media: fear of seeming unpatriotic undermined Iraq reporting

MIELIKKI ORG
Associated Press

BERKELEY, Calif. - Competitive pressures and the fear of appearing unpatriotic prevented journalists from doing more critical reporting in the lead-up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, according to reporters and other key figures at a conference analyzing the media's coverage of the war.

The journalists on the panels at the University of California, Berkeley, this week blamed the Bush administration for leaking faulty information, but said the media also has itself to blame for failing to report critically enough about justifications for the war in Iraq.

"The press did not do their job," said Michael Massing, whose scathing article in the New York Review of Books found the New York Times and The Washington Post particularly at fault for relying on Bush administration leaks that turned out to be false.

"The media was sucker-punched entirely by this administration," added Robert Sheer, a syndicated columnist for the Los Angeles Times.

The problem is that journalists fear they will be seen as unpatriotic if they challenge White House statements, Sheer and others said.

"There is no doubt that there is an atmosphere of fear in the media of being out of sync with the punitive government," Sheer said. "This has been the most shameful period of American media. It has been the most shameful moment for American democracy."

Complete article can be found here:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/the_valley/8230072.htm

Bloody cowards, I say.

Subject: RE: BS: Media admits bungling Iraq coverage
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 10:50 PM

So what's new?

Subject: RE: BS: Media admits bungling Iraq coverage
From: Amos
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 10:53 PM

LIke, this was unknown? I am glad to hear the media admitting they lost their integrity and sold themselves to the devil. It is human of them to admit it. But it was screamingly obvious at the time!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Media admits bungling Iraq coverage
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 08:54 AM

Isn't admitting they were wrong POSSIBLY (note: I'm not saying probably) a first baby step to work harder on getting it right than covering their butts with the White House press office?

Subject: RE: BS: Media admits bungling Iraq coverage
From: Alice
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 08:58 AM

For the same reasons it sucked in reporting about the Bush's obesession to attack Iraq, it sucked in reporting about Howard Dean's campaign. Because he was the loudest voice against the Iraq war, the media did not want to "appear unpatriotic", so they called him radical, angry, and generally made fun of him. Some media are now admitting that they bungled coverage of Dean, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Media admits bungling Iraq coverage
From: Amos
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 09:05 AM

Alice:

Couldn't agree more.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Media admits bungling Iraq coverage
From: Peace
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 02:55 PM

The media is a bloody disgrace. Need mostly men with suits and make-up and women with big tits and cleavage to report it. Hasn't been integrity in the news for too may years. There is NO MORE freedom of the press. Hasn't been for a long time.

Subject: RE: BS: Media admits bungling Iraq coverage
From: Peace
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 03:06 PM

Further to that little snit above, it is not in the best interests of present governments to have the truth reported. Every damn government in the world wants to put spin on it before it gets to the public. That is not the specific domain of just the USA; happens all over. That ought to tell us something. Locate who owns the media, who they sleep with and see if the NWO has anything in common with those owners. I would wonder how many media outlets are owned by right-wingers. Having said that, keep in mind that places like the 'cat are a medium for the free exchange of ideas. Keep in mind also that 90% of the world internet traffic is run through two places in the world. One of those places is in the USA. Let's all be nice, now.

Bruce Murdoch

Subject: RE: BS: Media admits bungling Iraq coverage
From: Peace
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 03:23 PM

And while I'm at it: Fundamental freedoms are being stripped from people and we do NOT see it happening to us. Freedom of information doesn't exist anymore. And expecting to get truth from the media is like expecting to get the truth from a pathological liar. If it happens, it will be quite by accident. I haven't respected the media as a bastion of free speech for more decades than I care to say. Filthy bastards: their cowardice is selling all of us out--and we can't do shit about it. Stop buying the friggin' newspapers, and stop listening to evening news. We haven't got enough of the truth even to begin filtering out the bullshit. Basically, we wouldn't know where to start.

I'll shut up now, and thank you for letting me get this off my chest.

Subject: RE: BS: Media admits bungling Iraq coverage
From: DougR
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 05:36 PM

Pretty broad accusation, "Media." Seems more like a group of media people that got together at a seminar and that's not the "whole" media.

Opinions, opinions opinions.

That's all.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Media admits bungling Iraq coverage
From: Peace
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 05:37 PM

Darn straight, Doug.

Subject: RE: BS: Media admits bungling Iraq coverage
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 01:38 PM

I agree.   Let's go back to the old days when all we had was three networks and Walter Cronkite told us everything we needed to know.   Lets eliminate the internet, talk radio, Cable news (or at least Fox News) and any other outlet where we can hear a differing opinion and make up our own minds.    People are much too stupid to be allowed to think for themselves.

PS:   The one exception will be the Mudcat Forum

Subject: RE: BS: Media admits bungling Iraq coverage
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 02:06 PM

Edward R. Murrow, Eric Severeid, Harry Reasoner gone. Walter Cronkite retired. Daniel Shorr still doing commentary for NPR.

Real newsmen, not puppy dogs waiting for their tummies to be scratched.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Media admits bungling Iraq coverage
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 02:29 PM

Couldn't agree more, Bruce.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Media admits bungling Iraq coverage
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 02:32 PM

I disagree with that depiction. There are many excellent journalists, especially print journalists, who don't kowtow to Washington's White House/Capitol/K Street revolving door elite.

You know, if you read the article folks, you'd see that a large chunk of blame was laid at the doorstep of the two main print organizations, the NY Times and the Washington Post. It looks to me like the Post is at least making some effort to clean up their act, if their reporting on the Clarke book/Bush attack is anything to go by.

Subject: RE: BS: Media admits bungling Iraq coverage
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 03:00 PM

This article: Democracy and the Media has a lot of information about who owns what (in the US) and how that effects what information gets out to the public and what doesn't. (Update since that article was written: CBS is now owned by Viacom.)

Subject: RE: BS: Media admits bungling Iraq coverage
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 03:01 PM

Oh, yeah, and UPI and the Washington Times are owned by the Moonies.

Subject: RE: BS: Media admits bungling Iraq coverage
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 05:11 PM

Very good article, Carol. Orwell's dictatorship rolls on, barely noticed as it extends its control. Unlike Orwell's vision, however, it is driven by centralized corporate power, not centralized socialism. A plutocracy, in fact. Orwell wrote about what he knew about best, but he hadn't seen this. You can control people very effectively with media and marketing, and that is what is being done in the name of "freedom". Its purpose is to destroy freedom.

- LH