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?
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Paging TallDave, paging TallDave. Please report to this thread for your spanking.
Independence Minded Iraqis Rebuke Terrorist Led Abominations, Play Checkers
Story at 11
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."
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!
Isn't this more circumstantial evidence that Bush really did want to bomb Al Jazeera?
Look, thoreau, don't make me go all Salvadoran Option on your ass.
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?
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.
Finally! War coverage Shannon Love can approve of!
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.
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.
...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.
Albert Camus - Le R?dacteur
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!?
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?
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?
Obtained by the LA Times
Twba,
Thanks. Obviously a bad cut n' paste.
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!!"
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.
She had to remove an ad from the cut and pasted article fragment. Shit happens.
"i would argue, mr howley..."
Kerry Howley is, like, totally not a dude!
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. 🙂
joe,
I was thinking what you were thinking, but couldn't express it (about Michael Young) as delicately as you did.
mr howley
my apologies, ms howley! 🙂
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.
Ruthless, you couldn't express it as delicately as THAT? What are you, an ogre? 😉
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.
joe and Ruthless have no argument and thus they instead choose to claim that Michael Young is a shill of the Bush adminsitration. Heh.
gaius marius,
By means of example, show me today's version of the silencing of the "Masses" by the U.S. government in WWI.
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.
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?
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.
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!
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?
There IS no "right way," Rich. It's all just, like, your opinion.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Number 6,
We're reading the same book at the same time.
The odds of two people simultaneously reading a relic of WWII, and being on the same internet forum must be astronomical.
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.
Number 6,
True enough. Ever read Here Is Your War?
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.
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.
Number 6,
Anyway, its in part because of Pyle that we know how incompetantly run the Allied efforts in Italy were.
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).
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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)
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.
We call for the immediate abolition of death and taxes.
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?
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.)
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.
Chicago Tom- You explained objective reporting better than I could. Thanks.
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? 🙂
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?
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.
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,
Every age and society is decadent.
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.
"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.
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.
gaius marius,
Oh, and I've never disavowed the power of free will.
joe,
You are quoting Number 6, not ChicagoTom. My goodness.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
And it's not my shift to pay for it, joshua.
Hakluyt: "Its well known that I thought..." Contain your hubris sir!
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!
Rich Ard,
"And it's not my shift to pay for it, joshua."
crap i got out libertarianed!
anyway good point Rich.
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.
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...
"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.
joe,
Surely you realize that acknowledging impossibility of complete objectivity does not give way to outright subjectivity.
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.
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.
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.
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.