The risk created by the actions and inactions of the Bush administration (vehicle armor, troop levels, post-war planning) have done far far more harm to both the troops and the international reputation of the US than journalists have or are even capable of.

Given these facts, perhaps you'd like to clarify why your anger and that of the Prowar Rightwing blogosphere is focused where it is. In my opinion, it is purely an issue of political information managment.

Ari, You are judging the military's performance against a standard of perfection. Perhaps you heard of this: "No plan survives first contact with the enemy"?

vehicle armor: Deficiencies are being addressed.

troop levels: This is a feature, not a bug.

post-war planning: Many believe the "poor performance" was due to infighting between the Defense and State departments. Maybe so. I think things worked out relatively well considering the magnitude of the endeavor.

One last thought: Why is the performance of news media coupled with the performance of the armed forces? Is there some kind of invisible cosmic balance involved?

Ari,

Like I said, it's always politics to some people. Even if what you said was true (and it is not), do you support the media making unsubstantiated allegations such as this?

It boils down to a war of information, which at this point the US military and the Bush administration foreign policy team are losing.

The problem is there are no outlets putting out positive news on the US, while virtually all carry every negative story.

This is a tough one because the Bush administration already got caught making fake TV propaganda. But it must be fought none the less.

We are a force for good in the world, but the world just doesn't hear about it or see it. I trackbacked with my thoughts on why we should ignore anti-American sentiment now and focus on improving our message.

Cordially,

Uncle J

Bill,

What you seem to be purposefully ignoring is that the media couldn't operate at all if it were held to as high as standard as you appear to want (i.e., wanting "proof"). What constitutes proof? And should the media be held to a higher standard than the government or politicians?

The media will, and should, make mistakes, even if that endangers lives. Because the opposite is certainly true; witholding information could be just as dangerous as publishing it, if the standard is set unattainably high.

For example, how many civilian lives have been lost because the media fails to invstigate or widely publicize information relating to consumer product safety? What about intelligence information that was given by a single source (say an anonymous Mossad insider with whom a reporter has developed a connection) that predicted the bombing of a civilian marketplace? A military base?

I see your attacks as politically motivated, yes. This is a debate worth having, but not with folks who seek ultimately to have complete control over information dissemination to further their cause. The situation you are asking for will lead to a world that is made more dangerous by less information.

Ari,

So, because you are anti - Bush, and against the war (I presume) its OK with you if Ms. Foley accuses my uncles (2), son in law, and son of deliberatly murdering journalists. I can assure you they would not be a part of, tolerate, or quietly approve of murder. And since all are highly educated (undergrad degree's or greater), they are not to stupid to recognize conspiracy to commit murder. (not that those without degree's are)

What is required is PROOF. Ari, you are an alien being from another universe, prove you are not.

Barry

When I read this, it immediatly bought to mind a friend of mine. He's a married man, but he is widely known to cheat on his wife. One day, after a few too many drinks, asked him why he did this.

His answer surprised me; He said that since early in his marriage, his wife had been accusing him of having affairs. He said that he never did, until several years later when it occured to him that if he was going to get blamed for it anyway, he might as well actually do it.

Perhaps Eason Jordan and Linda Foley should bear the above in mind.

What constitutes proof?

Evidence, any evidence. Without evidence, a baseless accusation is no different from a lie. A media that doesn't need evidence or a media that has no credibility is useless.

This is just hot air - do you want media falsehood and lack of standards?

How about this?

Or this

Or this

Or this

Or this

Or this

Or this

Or this

Or this

Or this report from the Daily Howler, or actually ANY report from the Daily Howler.

This absolutely false, wrong wrong wrong continuing claim of "liberal bias" in the media, is truly a joke.

You simply look foolish and blind making it.

PD;

A government that doesn't need evidence or has no credibility is also useless. Or worse.

This issue was raised in a recent press briefing. Here are the relevant bits:

Q In context of the Newsweek situation, I think we hear the caution you're giving us about reporting things based on a single anonymous source. What, then, are we supposed to do with information that this White House gives us under the conditions that it comes from a single anonymous source?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to.

Q Frequent briefings by senior administration officials in which the ground rules are we can only identify them as a single anonymous source.

Q With all due respect, though, it sounds like you're saying your single anonymous sources are okay and everyone else's aren't.

Yes, if the media keeps crying wolf about this, someone will eventually take them up on it. Probably not the military, the discipline levels are too high. Someone else, someone sick and tired of the leftist anti-american bias exhibited by the media.
The media is on the other side, a fact which will eventually have a consequence.

Ari, your purported comparison to the oft-repeated, and oft-debunked claims of Bush administration "mistakes" in "vehicle armor, troop levels, post-war planning" is rather silly.

Even were that thread-bare attacks of any substance, you are trying to compare the media's inept and biased reporting of current events with the administration's ability to predict chaotic events.

Please, (if you haven't seen this post before), please look at it--at least once in your life:

http://whowilldietoday.blogspot.com/

Roggio (end of post): "Ms. Foley needs to provide the evidence of malice which she claims to have"

Ari (#1): "Given these facts [the risk created by the actions and inactions of the Bush administration], perhaps you'd like to clarify why your anger and that of the Prowar Rightwing blogosphere is focused where it is."

It seems that Ari is urging Foley to keep her evidence of the US military's murderous conduct secret. The reason that Foley need not reveal the evidence behind her accusations is that the Bush Administration has created risks.

Is it possible that acceptance of this sort of convoluted defense could lead some journalists to act as though they are unaccountable for what they say and report?

If, hypothetically, such behavior became common, mightn't it end up damaging journalism's reputation, and even harming the institutions that a democratic society must rely on?

Just wondering. I'm sure I'm missing something here.

Ari,

Nobody is arguing the importance of the media in bringing to light that which some would rather remain hidden.

Problem is, the MSM (or at least large chunks of it) seems so eager to "get" Bush (or the dreaded 'neo-cons' in general) that they are failing, more and more, to even meet to their own self-defined standards of journalistic integrity. You are not bringing things to light when you are making them up. You are not "informing" people by doing this -- you are lying and spreading propaganda designed to help bring about a disired political outcome. This is then further compounded by the MSM's repeated failure to acknowledge this behavior or trotting out the old "fake but accurate" line as though this is somehow a reasonable excuse that makes it all okay.

And when the media lies, and thereby costs the lives of innocent people, or impugns those who have done nothing wrong, they have something to answer for. Period.

If people are losing faith in the MSM, it is not the fault of some vast right-wing conspiracy. It is because people are beginning to look past the reporting to examine the agenda behind it -- and they are not liking what they see.

Hi, folks. On a related but separate point, has anyone seen the May 23 issue of the New Yorker? One of the feature stories is The Spy Who Loved Us, (story not available online). It is the story of Pham Xuan An a reporter for Time Magazine, and before that, for Reuters in Vietnam. He was also an intelligence officer for the Peoples Army of Vietnam (North Vietnamese Army) who retired as a General Officer in the 1990’s.

Do any of Pham Xuan An’s former colleagues feel betrayed or perhaps chagrined that their news coverage was being shaped by an enemy intelligence officer? Naaah! Says Frank McCulloch, who, as head of Time’s Asian Bureau, hired him: “ Was I angry when I learned about An? Absolutely not. It’s his land, I thought. If the situation were reversed, I would have done the same thing.” Richard Pyle, former head of the Saigon A.P. Bureau says: “An saved Time from embarrassing itself by publishing stories that weren’t true….” A notable exception is Peter Arnett, who was angry that the revelation of Pham Xuan An’s allegiance would give creditability to ‘right wing” claims that the media had been manipulated by the communists.

In light of the widespread use of indigenous stringers and cameraman in all recent conflicts; we should systematically ask the news media what their position is on employing those stringers who may be allied to one or more of the factions involved in the fighting and whether they think their readers deserve to know the loyalties of those people.

What do you folks think?

Patrick,

The reason I use the Internet for news is precisely this reason. I have no faith in the MSM. Yes, the internet can have bad, misleading, or false information. I have developed sources I trust to be truthful, but not mistake free.

Eason Jordan, of charge the military with targetting journalists fame, admitted the pre-war information CNN reported from Iraq was bogus, shaded to keep Saddam happy, and CNN in Baghdad. Why in the world would anyone believe CNN reports from anywhere? They have admitted they will report the news as required by the local murderers in charge. Do journalists get killed covering war? Of course they do. Do we kill them on purpose? Lets have the proof. The proof is not a dead journalist.

The use of questionable reporters, cameramen, etc. by MSM seems to always help the enemy when a republican administration is in power.

Barry

I agree with BooPear (like always). ;)
Our government needs its own propaganda wing to counterbalance the MSM, who have gone over to the enemy.
I think it should be an ultra TOP SECRET version of FOXNews, and hire at top dollar all my favorite cognitive neuroscience researchers, umm, and some really top drawer linguists, and, also stunning women newscasters. ;)

Patrick (#16):

The statement by Richard Pyle that you quote:

“An saved Time from embarrassing itself by publishing stories that weren’t true….”

Can be parsed two different ways. Depends on what, exactly, Time might have found to be embarrassing.

Patrick (#16)

Did Time know back then that An was an inteligent officer? It seems like a pretty slippery issue once you consider the possibility that everybody has their own agenda and as you state "may be allied to one or more of the factions involved." I don't think its necessarily wrong to seek opposing views. I also think that the media cannot be trusted to ignore evidence that their source may be compromised if it would get in the way of a story. Peter Arnett's form of disclosure leaves me cold:

The Ba'ath party, currently led by Saddam Hussein, has been in power for 34 years. Tariq Aziz told me the US will have to brainwash 25 million Iraqis because these people think exactly the same as Saddam does.

Maybe he is wrong, maybe not.

He's identified his source, but this is not "news," its pure propoganda. And since Iraq's population was roughly 25 million, how could Arnett suggest that Aziz might be right?

I would like the MSM to go on record as to whether their reporters will notify the proper public official if they have advance knowledge of a planned criminal act.

After having viewed the video not only does Ms Foley make the accusation that the military is targeting and killing all journalists with impunity she also blames the corporate media for the credibility of journalists.

"What is happening in the media is not the fault of individual journalists. Yes, there are some bad individual journalists in the mainstream media. There are also some very good individual journalists in the mainstream media, and it's probably, on balance just like any other profession.

But what's wrong is that there is a systematic corporate, ah, corporate, ahm, dissolution of what we know is credible reporting and journalism. And that what's really wrong and that's what we need to focus on, and that's what we have to fight."

I'm assuming she meant annulment or termination of a formal or legal bond, tie, or contract by the use of the word dissolution. Nayone have any clue as to what contract, bond, or tie she is talking about?

It's bad enough to accuse the military of blatant murder but she undermines her cause by following up with media corporations being the blame for journalists' credibility problems. This certainly is entertaining since I have yet to hear of any journalist screaming that what was reported is not what was submitted.

I've also yet to hear any journalist talk about journalists' Code of Ethics and what if anything should be done about journalists that ignore them.

"If people are losing faith in the MSM, it is not the fault of some vast right-wing conspiracy. It is because people are beginning to look past the reporting to examine the agenda behind it -- and they are not liking what they see."

BooPear that is it in a nutshell.

These stuff is getting very old. These "journalist" need to charged with treason.

> These "journalist" need to charged with treason.

No, what Foley did is clearly not treason, and not clearly treason.

There's a serious point beneath this arch comeback. For a person to be found guilty of treason (court of law or court of public opinion), there has to be a consensus definition of what "treason" is. Otherwise, it's only about show-trials and witch-hunts and McCarthyism.

As far as I can see, there's no applicable meaning to the word, and hasn't been for a long time (the Viet Nam era?).

This state of affairs has advantages and disadvantages. Not having to worry about prosecutions and persecutions certainly does help the press get reports out--even if some of us don't like the reporting, and do understand that some of it endangers Americans and America. Even if this isn't a Golden Age for responsible journalism, it is one for diverse journalism, especially if diversity is defined as reporting on and from the points of views of the West's enemies.

Right or wrong, per Wretchard, it's hard to see this situation changing any time soon. Attitudes are too entrenched.

"Blue sky" and "sunshine" will clean up the media.

The Internet and particularly the blogosphere are ruthlessly disintermediating the "media guild's" monopoly on what is "news", how it's formed, and whether it reaches the public.

In the process, the guild's arrogance, incompetence, and dishonesty are being relentlessly exposed.

Naturally, the pampered primadonnas don't like that.

T.S.

"If people are losing faith in the MSM, it is not the fault of some vast right-wing conspiracy. It is because people are beginning to look past the reporting to examine the agenda behind it -- and they are not liking what they see."

I'm convinced reporters for the MSM suffer from WoodStein Syndrome, the obsessive wish to bring down a president.

Then the really cool part. Hollywood makes a movie about you.

PD: Comment #19. Nope they didn't know he was NVA...from the story, they didn't much care though. And that is the point.

I have big problems when "getting the other side of the story" is presented as the opinion of an "objective reporter". In WWII you knew Ernie Pyle, or even Walter Cronkitte was on our side. If you wanted the "other side of the story" you could listen to Tokyo Rose or Lord Haw Haw or Goebels. You could choose to listen to to either one if you wish and you knew which side they were coming from.

In a country not at war, telling the police of an impending illegal act is a requirement of any citizen. In a war, that is spying. That is probably too much to ask.

But, by journalism's own standards it is not too much to ask them to be honest with their readers regarding who is giving them the news. I also think that each agency should have to declare what their policy is about vetting theit employees. If they don't have one, fine. If they do, I want to know what it is and how they enforce it.

Patrick:

Interesting suggestions. The job of journalist is rather like that of an intelligence officer, that they have to seek out a variety of sources, with a variety of backgrounds, and then milk out accuracy from a variety of motivations. both make errors of judgment, and right now it's the press errors that are a hot button topic.

No wonder we're so appreciative of blogs, at least no one is supposed to get it exactly right, just get something together that maybe will lead to something on the ball.

Today I was reflecting on the Vietnam big media events, when Buddhist monks set themselves on fire to protest the war, and soldiers hurt themselves trying to put out human torches. Waxed nostalgic, almost.

And today we're seeing Saddam's underwear as controversial. Dissolute, maybe, (possible root of Foley's silly word, 'dissolution' [thank you, USMC]), but more stoopid than revolutionary material.

The relationship between journalists and intelligence officers is historically closer than most realize, and forms the foundation of the Western model of diplomacy via the Venetian model.

I riffed a bit on the similarities and differences between journalists and intelligence agents in another thread recently, in response to a question from "Soldier Dad". We're actually a bit odd in the modern world, in that we think the two should no longer be the same thing. (We also think the postal service should just deliver mail).

Over the last 20 years, a new idea has developed that journalists owe no loyalty to their home countries. That they are neutral parties on the field of conflict, who take no responsibility for the effects of their stories and should be able to collaborate with the enemy without repercussions in pursuit of their work.

In a real war, where such notions have consequences, this notion will split journalism. The process has already begun.

I read Ms. Foley's transcript above, after listening to Tim Russert discuss the NEwsweek issue intelligently and with reference to his own practices the other night (I know his professional political background is solidly Democratic, but that guy is pretty much the gold standard for journalism)... just night and day. You're not even sure they're in the same busines - and maybe they aren't.

Joe, I read the linked comment. Soldiers Dad, much as I sympathize with him (I am retired military and as conservative as one can come)is wrong. The media do not operate under a "grant of license" from the govt. any more than we live "by your leave" from the gov. He is right that the people are sovereign. We grant the govt. power not the other way around.

Spies can legally be executed if caught. I don't have a lot of respect for anyone who holds their profession, whether journalist or businessman, to be more important than their country. On the other hand, it seems harsh and impractical to try to force every journalist into the role of spy. I wouldn't invite Bernard Shaw (the CNN correspondent who refused to be debriefed by the CIA when he returned from Bagdhad after Gulf War I) to dinner but I can see his point that report his observations to the CIA would endanger his life and lives of other CNN employees. He thinks it is more important to be a journalist than an American. Fine. Screw him and don't watch their network. I don't.

But, I do think we should press various agencies for their positions on these issues. For instance, every quote of CNN reporters, should be prefaced with the observation: Joe Blow of CNN, which has a policy of slanting news to placate the dictators of the countries they are reporting from, says...

I also thinke we need to press them on the issue of who their reporters, stringers and photogs are. As we have seen, these folks can be less than objective observers of events. We have a right to know what their position is.

As for journalists who are playing the role of spy...don't complain if you get caught or shot. Likewise if you are embedded with one or the other of the combatants. If you are a journalist riding with the Americans when they get ambushed, don't expect special treatment from the enemy. Likewise if you are traveling with the badguys and Americans take them under fire. If you are in between lines and you are on a hotel balcony with a telephoto lens and a cell phone in a war were half the combatants are in civilian clothes, you are stupid. Don't complain to me if you get shot....that is Darwin Award time. (for those who don't understand why I say that...anyone can direct artillery if they have two things...observation of the target and a means to communicate with the shooters. When you are under artillery fire your first instinct is to sink into the ground, your second is to shoot at any likely observation post until the artillery stops. If you expect people under fire to act differently you are staking your life on the belief in porcine flight...Darwin Awards time.)

Joe, wasn't Soviet mole Kim Philby's cover during the Spanish Civil War that of journalist?

Ill sum it up, Lefties are evil and they Lie.

This same woman will stand on a mass grave of kids and denounce the usa for preventing more of them.

She is doing her part to attack her enemy, the United States. she hates herself, she hates her country.

Perhaps we should re examine the doctrines of allowing Journalists on forien soil doing their part to attack us.

We would have bombed Tokyo Rose if we could, and she spent decades in prison.

Lurker,

vehicle armor: Deficiencies are being addressed.

JK: You say: "Over the last 20 years, a new idea has developed that journalists owe no loyalty to their home countries." May I suggest that this may be a cover of sorts? When journalists are being kidnapped daily by terrorists, isn't it a better idea to operate under this kind of a supposition? I would prefer it myself. Though with a name like Ruth, I'd probably better kiss my head goodbye. When traveling in the 60's I was advised by and Egyptian friend that I should not go to the middle east without expecting to be treated badly because of my name.

Patrick: as to "On the other hand, it seems harsh and impractical to try to force every journalist into the role of spy." It is my understanding that in a kinder, gentler world, this was almost the accepted secondary occupation. As to today, see above.

Ruth, not spy, even tho few would pass up a chance to help the enemy, but leftist boiling in hate of the united states dreaming of their beloved land of gulags.

Norm Geras laid out the mental pathology of the left, gave a very complete picture of the filter the left perceives reality thru.

It explains how they can stand on Baath Socialist mass graves of kids and denounce the united states.

Why sawing the head off an old Brit NGO thats been working with Iraq kids for 30 years means nothing to them, something that had the likes of the ITM brothers writing red faced how the tortured and murdered woman their kind old school teacher, but find a koran dunking as a big scoop.

Morally inverted,,, totaly inverted.

Twisted, and evil.

I think Patrick Walsh briefly touched on an important topic when he mentioned Ernie Pyle and Walter Cronkite in WWII. The success of Operation Overlord depended on deception and the success of that deception was determined from ULTRA intercepts. If either of those two items were released to the public, in the name of 'Journalistic Responsibility' imagine what the consequence would have been.

March 4th 2004, the NYT published an article titled 'How Tiny Swiss Cellphone Chips Helped Track Global Terror Web' that pretty much gave up the ghost on what was at the time, the primary method of terrorist tracking, behavior prediction, and determination of order of battle. Notice how the title specifically said 'Helped'. By putting this in the past tense, it somehow made it 'ok' and not a national security issue to print this. Be sure of this: When this article came out, that cell phone traffic dropped to nil, including that owned by OML.

Now some of us may hypothesize that this is some sort of sick, regenerative news feedback cycle where NYT makes more news (where the news for the NYT is how screwed-up Bush/Military/FNC/etc is) by screwing things up on their own. I'm convinced OBL would have been filmed in his Aquaman under-roo's by now if not for those ding-a-lings.

But looking back, what would have happened to Ernie Pyle if he gave up the ghost about ULTRA and/or Overlord while our dudes were in harm's way?

My point is, sometimes it's no ones damned business what the government is up to and how they're doing it. Chasing OBL is one of those issues that deserves absolute censor. BTW: Do you think the public really needed to know that Al-Z's laptop had been recovered? The value would have been better served by orders of magnitude in intelligence by keeping it secret rather than satisifying the curosity of some Minnesota Soccer Mom.