Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Paging Armstrong Williams
No good news in Iraq? Hey, let's just write it ourselves:
As part of an information offensive in Iraq, the U.S. military is secretly paying Iraqi newspapers to publish stories written by American troops in an effort to burnish the image of the U.S. mission in Iraq.
The articles, written by U.S. military "information operations" troops, are translated into Arabic and placed in Baghdad newspapers with the help of a defense contractor, according to U.S. military officials and documents obtained by the Los Angeles Times.
Many of the articles are presented in the Iraqi press as unbiased news accounts written and reported by independent journalists. The stories trumpet the work of U.S. and Iraqi troops, denounce insurgents and tout U.S.-led efforts to rebuild the country.
Though the articles are basically factual, they present only one side of events and omit information that might reflect poorly on the U.S. or Iraqi governments, officials said. Records and interviews indicate that the U.S. has paid Iraqi newspapers to run dozens of such articles, with headlines such as "Iraqis Insist on Living Despite Terrorism," since the effort began this year.
Propaganda like this is pretty plainly counterproductive; people know when they're being condescended to, resent it, and proceed to assume everything the government says or does is part of the same nefarious conspiracy. But if we're going to play this game, surely we can do better than "Iraqis Insist on Living Despite Terrorism" (whatever the hell that means)? Headline from today's Korean News: S. Korean Military Authorities Urged to Fulfill Their Responsibility before Times and Nation. From yesterday's New Light of Myanmar: Union Day observed every year with aim of strengthening Union Spirit among national races. With the amount we're spending, can't we afford to stuff a few more words on top of the page?
|11.30.05 @ 9:13AM|#
Paging TallDave, paging TallDave. Please report to this thread for your spanking.
MP|11.30.05 @ 9:15AM|#
Independence Minded Iraqis Rebuke Terrorist Led Abominations,
Play Checkers
Story at 11
|11.30.05 @ 9:17AM|#
Like it'll do any good, joe. All you'll hear is a litany of, "Well, someone has to do something to counter the one-sided liberal MSM blah blah blah blah blah."
|11.30.05 @ 9:18AM|#
Look, it could be worse. It could be the bad old days of Saddam
Hussein, when journalists who wrote the wrong thing were put into
plastic shredders.
And don't even get me started on the rape rooms and aluminum
tubes!
|11.30.05 @ 9:19AM|#
Isn't this more circumstantial evidence that Bush really did want to bomb Al Jazeera?
|11.30.05 @ 9:24AM|#
OK, to be serious, this is just plain creepy. Yeah, I know,
previous administrations have probably done similar things, yadda
yadda. Fine. They were creepy too. They're all creepy. In any case,
I'm glad it's finally coming out. Yeah, I know, it's only coming
out because of the press's bias, yadda yadda. Well, then I guess
that bias played a useful role for once.
Anyway, a serious question:
Is this a sign that the news really isn't as good as some would
like us to believe, or is it a sign that the free press is
defective and needs to be circumvented by the state? If the later,
how can you justify circumventing them with deception rather than
an open approach?
|11.30.05 @ 9:27AM|#
thoreau, it's not nearly as creepy as it is pathetic.
In order to get Iraqis to write positive things about the
situation, we literally have to pay them.
|11.30.05 @ 9:29AM|#
As part of an information offensive in Iraq, the U.S.
military is secretly paying Iraqi newspapers to publish stories
written by American troops in an effort to burnish the image of the
U.S. mission in Iraq.
Pretty typical wartime stuff. This is just one of the things one
should expect of any war.
|11.30.05 @ 9:32AM|#
Kerry,writer, author, whatever you are. Please proofread your comments before posting. Words & ideas are your tools. Maybe they will have a usage check, or incomplete sentence check, or incomprehensible sentence check, in the future. Until then, use your brain, & proofread. I expect this level of writing in the msm, or neal boortz, not Hit & Run.
|11.30.05 @ 9:32AM|#
...people know when they're being condescended to, resent
it, and proceed to assume everything government says or does is
part of the same nefarious conspiracy.
Depends on how well its done. Yes, if we are talking the ham-handed
efforts of the Polish state to control the news during the
Communist era, sure, it blows up in their faces. But there are
numerous Cold War examples where government sponsored news was
discovered only years later and the sponsors were quite pleased
with the results.
Warren|11.30.05 @ 9:39AM|#
OK, this sort of thing offends me as much as anyone. But you all know that this has been going on since the birth of civilization, don't you. You do realize the same thing is going on in this country too. Don't you? Don't you!?
|11.30.05 @ 9:40AM|#
The articles, written by U.S. military "information
operations" troops, are translated into Arabic and placed in
Baghdad newspapers with the help of a defense contractor, according
to U.S. military officials and documents obtained by
the...
Obtained by whom?
|11.30.05 @ 9:43AM|#
Warren,
In the grand scheme of shit its really not that important it just
let's people strut around outraged. What? There is gambling in
here?
|11.30.05 @ 9:47AM|#
Hey, man, nothing to see here. Everybody's doing it.
And it's not as though anybody points to the suspiciously positive,
pro-US output of certain articles from the Middle East as a way of
arguing for certain policies.
Which reminds me, where is Michael Young, anyway?
(Oh no he di'int! Oh no he DI'INT!!"
gaius marius|11.30.05 @ 9:48AM|#
clearly, however, even though we would pay for trivial news bits
to be forged, we would never have paid to have a vastly more
important election rigged. never.
Headline from today's Korean News:
i would argue, mr howley, that american pennies are as likely as
not behind a fair number of south korean headlines as well. why
would our globalized government bother to let such matters go
unmanaged, after all? some of the ridiculous articles that emerge
from the press about north korea are
truly flabbergasting -- could only be governmental, i sometimes
think.
the confluence of government and media is one of the great lines of
development in western and westernized civilization over the last
century. where media was first dispersed and beyond control and
then collected and industrialized by capitalist moguls who were
often the enemy of government, the two have synergized increasingly
since d'annunzio. berlusconi took his media empire into government;
the united states openly harbors several propaganda centers in its
departments and only a few years ago infamously "embedded" (read:
coopted) reporters in the iraq invasion; and certainly the history
of the west in recent decades has been one punctuated with
sorrowful episodes of militant patriotism fuelled by outrageous
lies.
|11.30.05 @ 9:49AM|#
She had to remove an ad from the cut and pasted article fragment. Shit happens.
gaius marius|11.30.05 @ 9:53AM|#
But there are numerous Cold War examples where government
sponsored news was discovered only years later and the sponsors
were quite pleased with the results.
all the more reason to oppose it, gg. unless one imagines that what
are ostensibly democracies are best run the walter lippman way.
:)
|11.30.05 @ 9:57AM|#
joe,
I was thinking what you were thinking, but couldn't express it
(about Michael Young) as delicately as you did.
|11.30.05 @ 9:59AM|#
gaius marius,
Why do you find the concept of cannibalism bizarre?
...where media was first dispersed and beyond
control...
When was this period exactly? There really isn't a period in human
history where the state hasn't heavily influenced the press
(despite our pretensions otherwise). All one need do is look at the
17th and 18th century British press for an example. Also, how is
"embedding" any different than what Ernie Pyle did in WWII?
Hell, from the stanpoint of press freedom, we have a freer press
today in the U.S. than we have had any in ANY U.S. war. Any of
them.
|11.30.05 @ 10:01AM|#
Ruthless, you couldn't express it as delicately as THAT? What are you, an ogre? ;-)
|11.30.05 @ 10:02AM|#
gaius marius,
I'm not going to oppose what I know I can't possibly stop. See,
this is me compromising. Remember, we're supposed to compromise?
That's what thoreau and his gang of Democrats keep on telling us at
least.
|11.30.05 @ 10:04AM|#
joe and Ruthless have no argument and thus they instead choose to claim that Michael Young is a shill of the Bush adminsitration. Heh.
|11.30.05 @ 10:05AM|#
gaius marius,
By means of example, show me today's version of the silencing of
the "Masses" by the U.S. government in WWI.
gaius marius|11.30.05 @ 10:13AM|#
Why do you find the concept of cannibalism bizarre?
is it possible to get more relativistic than this comment, gg? :)
you may have hit your peak.
When was this period exactly?
from the dispersion of presses to every town in europe within a
century after gutenberg -- which the catholic church's refusal to
license printing presses facilitated, incidentally and maybe
accidentally -- to the advent of the steam-driven press in the
1820s, which made large unaffordable industrial presses effectively
able to flood out the output small local press shops, which had
previously produced highly decentralized issue.
the advent of expensive mechanical presses put the media quickly in
the hands of a handful of capitalists (eg w.r hearst), ending the
era of an uncontrollable press.
really isn't a period in human history where the state hasn't
heavily influenced the press
certainly that, gg, or at least it's always tried -- but it's
simply a lie to imply that nothing's changed from gutenberg to
berlusconi. the western press was created, dispersed, recollected
and industrialized, and now is being coopted by government over
that span.
many things don't change -- human nature, most importantly -- and
the gist of your commnents over the last few days has been to
highlight that. and i agree about human nature.
but the world has and does change profoundly as a result of free
will -- acting through technology and systems of social management,
for example.
|11.30.05 @ 10:14AM|#
joe-
That's a rather heavy allegation to level.
Warren-
I know that truth has always been the first casualty in war, but
there are numerous other bad things that governments have done for
a long time. I get pissed over those other things, why not get
pissed over this?
|11.30.05 @ 10:16AM|#
but the world has and does change profoundly as a result of
free will -- acting through technology and systems of social
management, for example.
gaius, for once I agree with you whole-heartedly.
Rich Ard|11.30.05 @ 10:17AM|#
Hakluyt*, do you really find this sort of thing
acceptable, or is this just an opportunity for you to take a
contrarian stance? I can never tell. :)
Hey, the 'bad guys' have newspapers on their payrolls - somebody's
got to get out the real good news.
* I spelled your name right this time!
|11.30.05 @ 10:20AM|#
people know when they're being condescended to, resent it,
and proceed to assume everything government says or does is part of
the same nefarious conspiracy.
Have you not seen Fox News, or their ratings?
gaius marius|11.30.05 @ 10:24AM|#
Also, how is "embedding" any different than what Ernie Pyle
did in WWII?
it isn't. but ww2 certainly followed d'annunzio, and fdr learned
the lessons of mussolini as well as anyone.
Hell, from the stanpoint of press freedom, we have a freer press
today in the U.S. than we have had any in ANY U.S. war. Any of
them.
i think this is a deep fallacy that many of us wish were true but
isn't. war reporting in the era before the industrial press was
perhaps less ubiquitous but certainly more free of control. in
american wars, only the early ones qualify as pre-industrial --
independence, 1812. even the civil war retained some aspects of
true press freedom, including the work of matthew brady,
particularly after antietam.
what we have now is less a free press than an ubiquitous one. the
speed and effectiveness with which government media outlets have
attacked the internet with an eye toward coopting it stands as
testament to the basic centralized idea. if they fail in that
attack -- and maybe even if they succeed -- you can bet that
information controls on independent content are in the
works.
|11.30.05 @ 10:30AM|#
gaius,
And, of course, Ernie Pyle and his ilk were quite open about the
fact that they were taking sides and working to further the war
effort, while the modern shills assume the mantle of objectivity
and independence while keeping their connections and agenda
covert.
It's the difference between a Ford salesman telling you to buy an
F-150, and a guy paid to sit at the diner in a plaid shirt and talk
loudly about his wonderful truck.
|11.30.05 @ 10:34AM|#
gaius marius,
Is it possible for you to avoid the nature of a question any more
than you have just now?
from the dispersion of presses to every town in europe within a
century after gutenberg...
Heh. Ok, someone has gotta teach you a bit about how the press was
actually dealt with by the state in Reformation, etc. Europe. Do
you know why so many books, etc. were printed in Switzerland?
Because every state outside of a few cities in Switzerland censored
the body of works being published in that state. Be it parts of the
HRE, France, or what have you. Even Luther (through his government
patrons) had the "press" or book publishers watched and had works
censored (Luther was scared to death of another peasant revolt
caused by his words).
No, printing in Europe, the sort where the printer was free to
publish what he wanted, was concentrated in a few towns in
Switzerland, and, after a point, in what would become the
Netherlands. There was no decentralization of a press free from
heavy-handed government interference until basically modern times
(the last fifty years) in most places. Until you account for what
really happened, your hypothesis means squat.
thoreau,
That's just the sort of people you hang out with.
Rich Ard,
Hakluyt, do you really find this sort of thing acceptable, or
is this just an opportunity for you to take a contrarian stance? I
can never tell.
Let me get this straight. I can't find something to be both common,
morally reprehensible, and at the same time not a big deal? Like I
wrote, if you are shocked by this then you haven't been paying
attention to any war the U.S. has gotten itself involved in. And if
this is a primary, earth-shattering beef, well, I think you have
your fucking priorities screwed up.
|11.30.05 @ 10:40AM|#
gaius marius,
Your basic problem is that you know very little about the
historical record but act like you do. You make these glaring
factual errors that completely undermine your commentary and you
pass over them like they never actually happened.
war reporting in the era before the industrial press was
perhaps less ubiquitous but certainly more free of
control.
Wrong! During the War of the French Revolution/Napoleonic wars both
Britain and France severely restricted press freedom, imprisoning
those who questioned the nature of the war, etc. Until you can
actually account for what actually happened your giant arc of a
hypothesis is crap.
|11.30.05 @ 10:41AM|#
Joe-Very true. I recently picked up a 1944 or 45 version of Pyle's Brave Men. On the front leaf is the imprint of the War Department. Pyle made no bones about which side he was on. As long as the bias is up front, I don't have a problem with it. Besides, Pyle could write.
|11.30.05 @ 10:44AM|#
gaius marius,
Honestly, anyone who would claim that printing presses in Europe
were decentralized and free of heavy handed state control during
the 16th, 17th, 18th, etc. centuries is smoking some good weed.
Hell, even the 18th century Parisian "grub street" press was
regulated by the state and was the focus of intense state effort my
members of the security apparatus.
|11.30.05 @ 10:48AM|#
The odds of two people simultaneously reading a relic of WWII, and being on the same internet forum must be astronomical.
|11.30.05 @ 10:51AM|#
Number 6,
For the most part embedded reporters in Iraq made no bones about
who they favored either - it at the very least easily seen in the
context, etc. of their reporting. The fact that Fox News, etc. had
little waving flags on the screen at all time, that MSNBC calls
itself "America's Channel," are all indicative of this.
|11.30.05 @ 11:00AM|#
Hakluyt-I can't say that I have. The only Pyle I've read were
some essays collected in a omnibus of good reporting. From what
I've seen, though, he was very good indeed.
As for the bias in modern media-That's kind of what I was getting
at with my Fox comment above. Pyle, at least, was primarily a
magazine writer, and didn't pretend that he was doing objective
reporting. My problem with outlets like Fox (I don't know enough
about MSNBC to comment) is that on some level, they pretend to be
"real" reporters.
|11.30.05 @ 11:09AM|#
gaius marius,
Dude, that is exactly the point you are arguing.
...a great deal did get printed and distributed that was not
controlled.
During the English Civil War? Or the regime of Charles II? I think
not. Even broadsheets were severely restricted in their use and
publication because when they were not they tended to allow for
such excited commotions that Cromwell or Charles II feared for
their heads.
certainly luther's theses is an example
Heh, which is why there was no independent press in any Lutheran
land.
Your hypothesis doesn't explain the facts on the ground.
Number 6,
...is that on some level, they pretend to be "real"
reporters.
I guess I'd want to know what a "real" reporter is then.
|11.30.05 @ 11:12AM|#
Number 6,
Anyway, its in part because of Pyle that we know how incompetantly
run the Allied efforts in Italy were.
|11.30.05 @ 11:14AM|#
gauis marius,
It takes a sort of naivete about the past to claim that the 18th
century was the true period of press freedom (or printing press
freedom).
|11.30.05 @ 11:14AM|#
Meanwhile, back in the 21st century, I have a few questions for
those who approve of this. (And I recognize the difference between
those who approve vs. those who don't like it but don't deem it
worth getting upset over.)
First, do you approve of it because you think the free press is
inadequate for the needs of a free society? If so, in what ways is
it inadequate?
Second, is active meddling by the state the best or only way to
deal with inadequacies of the free press? For that matter, is it
even a desirable way to deal with those alleged
inadequacies?
Finally, can any of this justify the use of deception as opposed to
more open methods, e.g. media that openly identifies itself as an
organ of the state?
Extra Credit: What do you think of PBS?
MP|11.30.05 @ 11:15AM|#
I guess I'd want to know what a "real" reporter is
then.
"real" reporters are purely objective. I don't think any such
reporter exists, but others like to think they do.
Sean Healy|11.30.05 @ 11:22AM|#
Um, Matthew Brady was Lincoln's personal photographer and was granted battlefield access directly by the president. Also, he is know to have staged several important photographs of the war dead for dramatic impact.
|11.30.05 @ 11:23AM|#
MP,
That's kind of what I thought he was driving at, but I wanted to
hear it from him.
________________________
Anyway, no one has stated that they approve of this (as far as I
can tell). We have had some accusations against Michael Young -
that he is a paid tool of the government.
Rich Ard|11.30.05 @ 11:26AM|#
from Hakluyt: I'm not going to oppose what
I know I can't possibly stop.
My mistake - I took this to mean that by not bothering to oppose
it, you deemed it acceptable.
thoreau: Extra Credit: What do you think of
PBS?
Y'know, the thing that's bothered me the most about NPR over the
years - and I'll admit I have it in the background most of the day
- is that during their pledge drives, there's no mention of federal
or state support; just that "listeners like you" (and on PBS, I
assume they still say "viewers like you") foot the bill. Those
listeners and viewers are mentioned as possible donors, though, and
not as having already paid for half the operating budget.
|11.30.05 @ 11:27AM|#
"real" reporters are purely objective. I don't think any
such reporter exists, but others like to think they do.
"Real" reporters don't need to be objective. They are people just
like everyone else and are entitled to their own opinions / biases
etc. A "real" reporter COVERS and REPORTS objectively. Real
reporters don't let their bias interfere with reporting the
truth/facts. For example, a "real" reporter will print a quote from
someone and then if possible present facts that refute the quote or
demonstrate that the source of the quote is being less than honest.
(Assuming the quoted someone is being less than honest)
At least that's a real reporter to me.
|11.30.05 @ 11:31AM|#
Rich Ard,
I essentially assume that whatever "noise" the government makes
this will be counter-balanced by other stuff. I expect it to
happen, I expect it to make some impact, but I don't expect it to
rule the day.
|11.30.05 @ 11:35AM|#
Hak said:
Let me get this straight. I can't find something to be both
common, morally reprehensible, and at the same time not a big
deal
Shouldn't "morally reprehensible" be, by definition, a "big deal"
?
I'm not going to oppose what I know I can't possibly
stop.
Reading this quote on a libertarian board is pretty funny, to me.
Will you then not oppose taxation because you can't stop it? And
the expanding powers of the state or our shrinking freedoms as
citizens? All of these seem like things that can not be stopped
don't they? What would happen if all libertarians took this
position.
(Granted, I don't want to make any assumptions about Hakluyt's
politics, but sine he is a regular poster on a libertarian board, I
feel its safe to assume that he has at the very least a libertarian
streak in him)
|11.30.05 @ 11:39AM|#
ChicagoTom,
Dude, I find PBS morally reprehensible, that is the idea that I am
being forced to pay for speech I don't believe in. Its not my
burning passion to take down PBS though because there ar bigger
fish to fry.
All of these seem like things that can not be stopped don't
they?
I'd say some are more likely than others to be stoppable - which is
the point of my statement.
|11.30.05 @ 11:49AM|#
I'd say some are more likely than others to be stoppable -
which is the point of my statement.
I'd say paid governemnt propaganda is much more likely to be
stopped by public opposition and the publicizing of it than
taxation or the expanding powers of the state. But feel free to
believe otherwise.
But that still doesn't explain your statement that well. If I read
it right, your statement basically is saying "I don't want to fight
a losing fight". But yet many libertarian causes are losing fights,
yet you still fight for/support them. So why is it that *this*
particular losing fight is one that you think isnt worth fighting
but say fighting taxes (now there's a lost cause) is?
Unless of course you can't muster outrage over morally
reprehensible things done in the support of a cause that you aren't
totally against?
gaius marius|11.30.05 @ 11:53AM|#
Even broadsheets were severely restricted in their use and
publication because when they were not they tended to allow for
such excited commotions that Cromwell or Charles II feared for
their heads.
agreed! and yet, gg, much important dissent -- even in these low
points, as opposed to the did make it into the press, did it not?
take milton's aeropagitica, for example. we cannot pretend that
press licensing and the stationers company under the stuarts or
cromwell was perfectly effective -- indeed, in a time and place
before national bureaucracy, because of the division of competing
interests between local authorities, such effectiveness was
impossible.
to claim that the 18th century was the true period of press
freedom
i think you're free now as ever to write anything, gg. what you are
not capable of doing is getting what you've written into the air
without it being drowned.
i would posit that an effective free press isn't simply a matter of
freedom to write. dissent must be heard to be effective -- that is,
there must be a discernable channel that is widely recognized.
these channels have been industrialized and coopted to a much
greater extent than was true in the 18th c, particularly in
england.
i'm free to write any ridiculous thing, as are you, and post it to
the web. but, in an important way, this is not effective free press
in the era of media inundation and complete choice. indeed,
inundation is the bane of an effective dissent -- people now simply
choose to read as fact whatever fantasy they want to believe.
controlled channels are diluted in circulation but in some ways
increase in power as reactionaries coagulate around them while
dissenters fractionate all over the web. (i think this has much to
do with why the now-famous rovian strategy of reactionary base
agitation works so well.)
Warren|11.30.05 @ 11:53AM|#
Thoreau,
OK I?m pissed off, but the only course of action I can think of is
to start drinking. My point is that this is only one example, and
not an especially egregious one, of an ubiquitous practice.
Propaganda in support of war is pretty disgusting, but no one?s
ever fought a war without it. People always throw WWII in my face
when I?m arguing for an isolationist approach to foreign policy, as
an example of a righteous war fought with righteous means. But
there?s plenty to criticize beyond interment, including much of the
propaganda that is sill believed and contributes to the notion that
we were so righteous in the whole affair. Compelling popular
television sitcoms to support the War On Drugs and other government
memes actually offends me even more.
gaius marius|11.30.05 @ 11:54AM|#
I'm not going to oppose what I know I can't possibly
stop.
and yet i shouldn't call this age and society decadent? :)
gaius marius|11.30.05 @ 11:56AM|#
much important dissent -- even in these low points, as
opposed to the did make it into the press, did it not?
sorry -- shoudl read much important dissent -- even in these low
points -- did make it into the press, did it not?
|11.30.05 @ 11:57AM|#
ChicagoTom,
I'd say paid governemnt propaganda is much more likely to be
stopped by public opposition and the publicizing of it than
taxation or the expanding powers of the state.
I'd say you are wrong. In particular instances you may be able to
end it, but that would be the extent of it.
So why is it that *this* particular losing fight is one that
you think isnt worth fighting but say fighting taxes (now there's a
lost cause) is?
Its an issue of utility and the return on investment.
Unless of course you can't muster outrage over morally
reprehensible things done in the support of a cause that you aren't
totally against?
Its well known that I thought the invasion of Iraq was uncalled for
and not necessary for the defense of the U.S. I still believe that
is the case.
MP|11.30.05 @ 11:58AM|#
ChicagoTom,
We all pick our battles. You can't fight everything at once. What's
wrong with simply registering an objection to something yet not be
particulary concerned about it? I find this act against my moral
code. But I find LOTS of things in the world conflict with my code.
I'm not going to spend my energy fighting all of them.
I'm with Hakluyt. I've now wasted more time explaining why this
hardly registers on my "pisses me off" meter than I thought the
issue was worth in the first place.
gaius marius|11.30.05 @ 12:03PM|#
Every age and society is decadent.
again, you disavow the power of free will in the face of human
nature? nature rules all -- nothing changes? i find this difficult
to reconcile with your view of free will as i understand
it.
|11.30.05 @ 12:18PM|#
"As for the bias in modern media-That's kind of what I was
getting at with my Fox comment above. Pyle, at least, was primarily
a magazine writer, and didn't pretend that he was doing objective
reporting. My problem with outlets like Fox (I don't know enough
about MSNBC to comment) is that on some level, they pretend to be
"real" reporters."
Let's not forget, we're talking about the newchannel whose motto
was "fair and balanced." They didn't choose to present themselves
as partisan rather than as objective; they pretended that being
partisan was being objective.
ChicagoTom, you define the honest alternative to this - "real
reporting" - brilliantly.
|11.30.05 @ 12:19PM|#
gaius marius,
Your effort to read into my posts what you want to see there is
truly laughable.
The point of my statement is that no age is worse or better when it
comes to decadence and indeed, to be more blunt, even if there was
an age that was more decadent (or less) you couldn't amass enough
data to make a firm conclusion about it anyway.
The 20th century looked worse because there were more people to
kill and better technology to do it with, not because the 10th
century was more enlightened or better.
Unfortunately you appear to want to live in a reverse "Star Trek"
universe.
|11.30.05 @ 12:41PM|#
Let's not forget, we're talking about the newchannel whose
motto was "fair and balanced." They didn't choose to present
themselves as partisan rather than as objective; they pretended
that being partisan was being objective.
Exactly. For once, I agree with you wholeheartedly, Joe.
gaius marius|11.30.05 @ 12:47PM|#
you couldn't amass enough data to make a firm conclusion
about it anyway.
i wouldn't say such evaluations are scientific, gg -- but then,
much of the truth about the world isn't evaluable in those
terms.
reverse "Star Trek" universe
lol!
I've never disavowed the power of free will.
i've never seen you explicitly do so, i know -- which is why it
surprises me to hear you say things like
no age is worse or better
truly, has no age been elevated by the collective action of free
will in concordia? this is not an explicit denial of free will, but
it surely does seem an implicit one.
|11.30.05 @ 1:03PM|#
gaius marius,
No, I simply accept that on average every age is going to have its
share of assholes and saints and those in between. People have free
will individually and we should expect that collectively they'll
exercise it in general patterns.
|11.30.05 @ 1:11PM|#
"Though the articles are basically factual, they present only
one side of events and omit information that might reflect poorly
on the U.S. or Iraqi governments, officials said."
I love this...how it assumes that there is some perfect news out
there that doesn't do this. Anyway there is only one kind of news
and it is always partisan.
Rich Ard|11.30.05 @ 1:49PM|#
And it's not my shift to pay for it,
joshua.
Hakluyt: "Its well known that I
thought..." Contain your hubris sir!
|11.30.05 @ 2:00PM|#
Personally, I am heartened by this news of progress in Iraq. The
Iraqi press is (as far as I can tell) free and independent in fact,
but biased, corrupt and unreliable. In other words, they've already
caught up to the USA. Yeehaw!
The day of the newspaper is so over, anyway. Smart people get their
news from nontraditional Internet sources, which are usually biased
too but also more transparent, fact-checkable/fiskable and
dispersed (hence harder to control).
Hit the blogs, people! Death to the Archaeomedia!
|11.30.05 @ 3:28PM|#
Rich Ard,
"And it's not my shift to pay for it, joshua."
crap i got out libertarianed!
anyway good point Rich.
|11.30.05 @ 3:32PM|#
How Marxist: there is no possibility of objective and truthful
language. All language is partisan, and no one should aspire to
fairness and accuracy. Truth is that which furthers the
cause.
I guess this is just an extension of the "with us or against us"
mindset.
Fuck that - give me reality-based media.
|11.30.05 @ 3:35PM|#
It takes a sort of naivete about the past to claim that the
18th century was the true period of press freedom (or printing
press freedom).
And a big honkin' pair of irony blinders to actually espouse such a
view on the internet...
|11.30.05 @ 3:39PM|#
"Personally, I am heartened by this news of progress in
Iraq. The Iraqi press is (as far as I can tell) free and
independent in fact, but biased, corrupt and unreliable. In other
words, they've already caught up to the USA. Yeehaw!"
Well said. I think that once the media convinced itself that they
were objective and unbiased, they inadvertently seeded their own
demise.
|11.30.05 @ 8:17PM|#
joe,
Surely you realize that acknowledging impossibility of complete
objectivity does not give way to outright subjectivity.
Chuck Simmins|12.1.05 @ 9:56AM|#
If you toss away the myth that news and reporting is some sacred, undefilable calling, this story becomes a non-starter. When I look at the front page of my local paper, most of the stories were not written by their employees. Newspapers use stories from AP or Reuters all the time. Providing content to newspapers is a well-established business. This link, part of a frame in the original site, demonstrates another method, the press release. I can assure you, from all the research I have done for both the Americans Aiding Americans project and the Stingy List project, that newspapers print press releases verbatim all the time. Guess what? Some of those press releases are written for companies that pay the newspapers large sums of money. Far larger sums than seem to be involved in the Baghdad story.
|12.1.05 @ 11:16AM|#
bachwards, I realize that. It's my opponents - the ones using
the impossibility of perfect objectivity as an excuse for writing
what the government pays you to write - who do not.
I consider objectivity to be something to strive for. Like
mediageek and Chuck Simmons, above.
gaius marius|12.1.05 @ 11:54AM|#
And a big honkin' pair of irony blinders to actually espouse
such a view on the internet...
again, mr mediageek, effective dissent isn't just writing stuff --
it's having it be read. who reads h&r? not the slightest
fraction of those who read foxnews.com.
|12.2.05 @ 12:45AM|#
Many of the posters here are doing exactly what Howley says.
They "...proceed to assume everything the government says or does
is part of the same nefarious conspiracy."
I can categorically affirm that there is a dastardly conspiracy at
work here. The United States Government is trying to wage
persuasive argument(Shock horror) and save blood & treasure by
fighting with words instead of bullets. If you do not make your
case, no one else will.
Now whether the Toulmin method is to be favored in the
money-for-writing business over a more Rogerian approach in light
of US aims is definitely questionable.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245