RSS/XML |
|
Essays |
Main Page |
Disclaimer |
|
|
Essays |
Main Page |
Disclaimer |
|
The Newsweek scandal brings media bias into sharper focus
Saith today’s Best of the Web Today, regarding the Newsweek scandal:
Glenn Reynolds gets it right:
If [Newsweek] had wrongly reported the race of a criminal and produced a lynching, they’d feel much worse-which is why they generally don’t report such things, a degree of sensitivity they don’t extend to reporting on, you know, minor topics like wars. . . . People died, and U.S. military and diplomatic efforts were damaged, because-let’s be clear here-Newsweek was too anxious to get out a story that would make the Bush Administration and the military look bad.
Journalists have to make myriad judgment calls, and this is far from the first time a news organization has jumped the gun and reported information that turned out to be false-though usually the consequences aren’t so bloody. But it’s fair to say this is an example of “adversary” journalism getting out of control. Reporters are not agents of the government, but it wouldn’t hurt if, at least during wartime, they were restrained by some sense of patriotism.
As I said, insitutionally, Newsweek wanted to believe the story that American interrogators had flushed the Quran down a toilet.
I’ve been saying it now for at least a year: it is too much to expect that media organizations and their coverage will be unbiased. It’s not even really possible, anyway.
No, as I have pointed out over and over, the real question facing Newsweek and all other media, including bloggers, is which biases shall they/we adopt, and why?
Media managers need to ponder very deeply one over-arching question when considering how to cover stories related to the war on terrorism:
One way or another, what you print or broadcast, what stories you cover and how you cover them, what attention you pay to what issues and how you describe them - all these things mean that you will support one outcome over another. Which will you choose? How will you support it? These are the most important questions of your vocation today. But you are not facing them at all.
Roger Simon is right: this war is war at its most basic: “It’s about civilization versus a death cult. Make a choice!”
Comments policy, read and heed!
17 queries. 0.343 seconds
May 17th, 2005 at 7:35 am
Whatever happened to “The truth shall make you free”?
Keep in mind that the only thing Newsweek has retracted is that their source is no longer sticking his neck out: The original report, that a U.S. official had told the magazine that investigators had turned up evidence confirming the Koran desecrations, was true and accurate at the time it was written. (Reporter Michael Isikoff is not exactly a shining example of liberal media bias, incidentally: He’s the one journalist who did more than any other to make Paula Jones a household name.)
Meanwhile, you appear to be arguing that Newsweek should have killed the story regardless of whether it was true, because (a) the report was unflattering to our men and women in uniform, and (b) the press should quietly censor itself out of respect for the military and for the good of the war effort.
I can endorse a press blackout “for the good of the war effort” in certain circumstances (mainly ones involving tactical surprise), but I’m not sure that the best way to deal with an Abu Ghraib situation is by trying to hush it up. That strikes me as being harmful to our democracy (it undermines the premise of a well-informed public), and damaging to our efforts to win hearts and minds by demonstrating how our system is better. I don’t see how it helps us.
And, frankly, an administration that was competent at diplomacy could turn this problem into an opportunity: Schedule a photo op of Bush with a Muslim-American cleric, show him handling the Koran in a respectful way, and have him read a verse. (”Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in God and the Last Day and does good, they shall have their reward from the Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.”) It’d move the ball a lot further forward than this strategy of playing gotcha games with reporters.
May 17th, 2005 at 8:02 am
TO: Donald Sensing
RE: Head-Banging
A little ‘quibble’. That’s Best of the Web Today.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
May 17th, 2005 at 8:20 am
What I heard Isikoff say on TV was not what Scott relates. What I heard Isikoff say
was that DOD’s public affairs office was given the story’s text to review before
publication and no one at DOD said the flushing story was false, therefore Newsweek
ran it.
“They didn’t say it’s false, therefore it must be true.” Hmmmm….
DOD should be faulted as well for not having foreseen the literally riotous consequences
of the story and for failing to advise Newsweek that it could injure America’s efforts
in the Muslim world.
And Abu Ghraib could havce been fairly reported without “hushing it up,” but to claim that
the media didn’t pile onto it like pro-bowlers going after a fumble is a bit blind. My objection
in the previous post was not that they covered it, but with the intensity, complete lack
of balance and obvious glee displayed in dishing out the dirt.
May 17th, 2005 at 8:20 am
Gosh, Chuck, thanks - one of the drawbacks of blogging is that there is
no pre-publication editor.
May 17th, 2005 at 9:41 am
TO: Donald Sensing
RE: Tell Me About It…
“…one of the drawbacks of blogging is that there is no pre-publication editor.” — Donald Sensing
I have problems lick that two. Which, I’m sure, your well awaaaare of…..
Regards,
Chuck(le)
May 17th, 2005 at 9:43 am
P.S. I attributed that “West” business to you’re wishful thinking about follow Horace Greeley’s advice. Tennessee may be nice and green and all, but the West is certainly the Big Country. I can get up on the Widows Walk of my house and see half-way to Kansas. As well as the in-laws cabin up in the Sangre de Cristo range…with the proper arty-type binos.