Andy Zipser, Editor of The Guild Reporter, the newsletter of the Newspaper Guild, has finally responded to inquiries about Linda Foley’s accusations that the US military is intentionally targeting journalists in Iraq and elsewhere. The response consists of a series of attacks against “right-wing attack-dogs” (the title of the screed is fittingly called “Right-wing attack-dogs savage TNG president for comments on Iraq deaths”) for daring to question the unseemly comments by the president of the Guild.
Mr. Zipser not only defends Linda Foley’s comments, he reasserts them by referring to accusations made by Aaron Glantz of Pacifica Radio:
Aaron Glantz of Pacifica Radio told Amy Goodman, host of the radio program “Democracy Now,” that in covering the war “I’ve had a gun pointed at me by American soldiers numerous times and felt that my life was threatened by an American soldier, simply because they were so scared and trigger happy.” Moreover, Glantz added, as Western journalists are so intimidated by such behavior that they pull out, “the Iraqi journalists who remain and the Pan-Arab journalists who remain are specifically being targeted by the U.S. military, I believe, when they broadcast controversial material.”
In the spirit of Eason Jordan and Linda Foley, Aaron Glantz provides no evidence to support his beliefs, we are merely expected to accept his argument from authority without question. Just as Mr. Zipser clearly does.
Mr. Zipser laments the “right-wing attack-dog” assault on University of Colorado “Professor” Ward Churchill for arguing “that the money changers at the World Trade Center had suffered the consequences of U.S. military aggression and unjust foreign policies.” Money changers, an interesting turn of phrase which speaks volumes about his views on those slaughtered by terrorists on 9-11. Besides the "Money changers", also referred to by Churchill as "Little Eichmans", what about the maintenance staffs, the restaurant workers, the secretaries, the police and firemen who sacrificed their lives to save those trapped in the burning towers? Money changers? Is it too far fetched to be outraged by such ignorant comments from Ward Churchill? Shame on you, Andy Zipser, suggesting so.
Mr. Zipser then openly pours contempt on Guild member Hiawatha Bray for running in an election for as a write-in candidate in his local Guild’s election. How dare he question the anointed leadership of the Guild, the honorable Linda Foley who has, according to Aidan White, General Secretary of the International Federation of Journalists, “did no more than speak out, eloquently and strongly, about the fundamental rights of media staff who are the victims of violence. In doing so she does great credit to the IFJ and her union.”
The message of the Guild is clear. Do not question the authority of journalists, nor require them to back up their assertions with facts. Innuendo will do. It is perfectly acceptable, even encouraged, to make such scurrilous accusations against the US military. Let your feelings guide you, and not the facts. Anyone who question the authority of the media are “right-wing attack-dogs” worthy only of contempt.
Hiawatha Bray, in response to Mr. Zipser’s defense of Linda Foley, clearly outlines the troubled path the media establishment is taking by not honestly dealing with statements made by the president of the Guild.
For me, the most worrisome aspect of this entire affair is the realization that few of my colleagues are troubled by this in the least. They seem to believe there’s nothing at all to fret about when a prominent voice in American journalism feels free to slander American soldiers. Of course, there’s a great deal to fret over, if you care about the state of our profession and the good name of our fellow citizens. Or, for that matter, if you care about how journalists will be treated by soldiers in future conflicts. Will these guys ever trust us again? Why in heaven’s name should they, when we lie about them, without shame?
However, it is more than just the servicemen and women that are losing faith in the media. A large majority of Americans do not view the media as trustworthy (more people trust the presidency than the media, by about 44% to 30%). The military, unsurprisingly has a confidence rating of 74%. The media continues to slander our military and does not correct their own irresponsible behavior, while the American public’s confidence in the military remains high.
This is a poisonous concoction for the media. For as long as they refuse to address the very real problems within their ranks and foster the notion that outrage against remarks by Linda Foley and Eason Jordan are merely the thrashings of “right-wing attack-dogs”, they are doomed to be considered untrustworthy by the public. They fail to recognize many concerned citizens are disgusted by their slanderous remarks.
Moneychangers, Bill? There's someone digging up an old term for "Joos".
I am truly astonished at how the camoflage of the anti-semitic fringe of the Left is just being abandoned. The Islamic fascists and the Left - the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of the 21st Century.
Absolutely, Robin. This is why I pointed this out (without saying so explicitly). Folks like Zipser aren't even trying to hide their comtempt any longer.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050621/tc_afp/usiraninternet_050621215121
I know, Bill. To your credit, I'm just less subtle than you.
Robin,
Actually, to your credit, perhaps I shouldn't assume everyone understands the context of the remark. Point well taken and I will keep that in mind.
Good freaking grief. This would be cute if it was from someone at a high school or college paper, but from the adult media??
Gobsmacked, I am.
A.L.
Well, that settles that -- 14 journalist and media workers killed covering a war, how else could that happen if they weren't targetted?
I'm not sure if I should be more outraged at the contempt for people who want a retraction or an explanation or that my desire for either has labelled me as right-wing!
Amusingly, A.L., if you recall the piece written by the interim Dept Chair of the Ethnic Studies program at CU Boulder defending Ward Churchill, it was the same incoherent drivel.
Good writing, one can almost hear the self-congratulatory cackling:
Report on us? We report on you! Ha, Ha, Ha.
BTW, why is "journalists" in irony quotes?
A.L,
Check your incoming e-mail for a message from me on the subject of MSM reporters and editors.
The subtitle of Zipser's tantrum is equally revealing: "Barrage of abusive phone calls, e-mails prompted by Sinclair, Fox and bloggers".
I think the last brontosaur sank into a tar pit with more dignity than this.
Trent, you should post that...that was appalling.
A.L.
A little off topic.
For those wondering you can catch "Democracy Now" among a host of other delightful programming on cable / satellite call letters FSTV. I've been reviewing FSTV as well RFD TV for the past few months now. I just happened to stumble on them while channel surfing.
FSTV is squarely against the current administration and makes no bones about. They promote most of the leftist agenda but do once in great while call the agenda to the carpet.
RFD TV is sort of like TV Land in that it brings back a host of the older music shows I grew up watching but it's mainly dedicated to farmers, ranchers and agriculture.
Joe (and anyone else),
Quick question - on your values:
Assuming the following is true:
"The killing of unembedded journalists in Iraq is one of those discomfiting facts, especially when such deaths come at American hands. To be sure, journalists in Iraq—of whatever nationality—have more to fear from the insurgents than they do from the U.S. military. As reported June 6 in a front-page story in The Washington Post, at least 85 journalists and other media workers, the vast majority of them Iraqis, have been killed in Iraq since March, 2003; only 14 of them were killed by American forces.
But “only” 14 is a troubling number nonetheless, and even more so given the government’s repeated unwillingness to objectively investigate the deaths. As recently as April 8, TNG-CWA and the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists again sent letters to President George Bush, calling on him to “heed the requests from journalists around the world for an independent investigation into the record number of deaths among media staff covering the war in Iraq.” And, as in the past, the plea was ignored."
And the Bush administration refused to allow an independent investigation on actual DEATHS of journalists.
What is the larger outrage, for you?
ACTUAL HUMAN BEINGS DEATHS, and a request to investigate these deaths, or an offhand comment that "slanders" the military?
Remember also that the military is not above playing fast and loose with the truth - the story of Jessica Lynch, and Pat Tillman come to mind.
I meant Bill.
Also, the REFUSAL to investigate those deaths.
As Trent's column pointed out if anyone whom is in the media doesn't come to a briefing to understand what the combat phase of the war is and why it is being conducted that way(security for the troops) those members of the media are going to have weapons pointed at them. When in Rome... or is it stupid does as stupied is.
Missed the mispelling of stupid.
JC,
"REFUSAL"?
What do you call this investigation into the Palestine Hotel incident?
Folks like Linda Foley just don't like the answers to the investigations.
So are you now going to accuse the investigation as being phoney? If so, what does that say about your values?
Bill, notice what I said:
"Assuming the following is true" - if these events have been investigated honestly, then these newspaper people should shut up.
But I will ask the question again - "assuming the following is true" - what value is higher for you?
And remember, there ARE incidents of the military not reporting the truth, as I noted above. I mean, when Tillman's parents criticize the army and what they said about their boy as phony, are you saying their values are screwed up?
Bill, treat it as a "What if?" question.
JC,
If they have evidence of this, then they should bring it forward and the proper people should pay.
JC: the story of Jessica Lynch, and Pat Tillman come to mind.
I'm glad, because God knows what would come to your mind if you didn't have Jessica Lynch (The horror! The horror!) and Pat Tillman.
There is one thing that could almost restore some of my faith in the MSM. The San Francisco Chronicle could screw the Newspaper Guild in contract negotiations until the sniveling deadbeats are coughing blood. That would make me write a happy letter to the editor for once.
Then their investigative reporters can take a look to see just how much Foley has stolen from the pension fund.
Problem with the "killing of journalists" is that it makes sense from the point of view of the US military.
Aren't those the same people who believe that Vietnam was lost because of the media.
You could argue that the US military does nothing bad but only Americans seem to believe that.
Sometimes you just have to link to another thread post
"a", your comment that killing journalists "makes sense" from the point of view of the US military is slanderous, false and grossly offensive. Not to mention among the stupidest things you wrote here - which is no small accomplishment.
I can give you grossly offensive but slanderous and false? It would be something i would contemplate doing if i was in the position of the US mlitary because journalists will not tell the side of the story you want to be told. Especially the arab journalists
Lets cut the theory and look at the plausibility. This is one of those boomerang charges that, much like Durbins, is meant to attack policy (ie Bush), but logic tells us policy must be carried out by operatives, in these cases US soldiers. How can 'the military' be targetting soldiers? If its a policy of some kind as alleged, it must be passed down from brass to officers to individual soldiers. There is a word for that, conspiracy. The reason this idea is impossible is because the amount of people required to know about it precludes it from being a secret. Its nice to take a shot at the military or Bush, but at the end of the day you are still accusing individual soldiers of carrying out illegal orders, any way you slice it.
So A thinks we are not getting the negative side of the story ?
Or, hard to translate, that nuronic inverter can be tricky.
The USA media is a mild form of the enemy media, they are telling the story designed to Americas failure, exactly like an enemy media would.
How long they can continue without being lynched or declared targets is uncertain.
Im finding it unconfortable that the enemy media is going to the extent that they are creating that as a moral imperitive.
Are the media attempting to destroy our 1st amendment, as it applies to them ?
They certainly destroyed half of the religion clause.
Im finding it unconfortable that my Libertine values are being undermined, freedom to the extent that those helping the enemy wanting to kill you are protected is not logically supportable. The Freedomist ethic does not extend to giving up your own survival.
Joes two posts on homosexuality provided other facets on the same object...Perhaps freedom can extend to the point where it becomes incompetent.
Im being asked to tolerate perversion forced opon my kids, using my own tolerance against me. Im being asked to tolerate enemy propaganda ops based on my own soil, making use of my freedom and securtity to undermine and put in danger those that provide it.
And they are doing all of it with a fabric of evil Lies ... It appears, my Libertine principle has some flaws.
.
One monor quibble: Aaron Glantz' first statement is "supported" - he's saying that he's had a gun pointed at him. Unless Glantz has a record of fabricating first-person experiences, we should believe that he's had a gun pointed at him by members of the US armed forces. Even though he works for Pacifica, the odds that he's fabricating such experiences isn't high.
However, note that his statement is nearly context-free. Anyone who goes places where the US Army doesn't necessarily want them to go is likely to end up with a gun pointed at them; anyone found in the company of Iraqi insurgents is likely to have end up with a gun pointed at them. What was Mr. Glantz doing when he ended up having a gun pointed at himself?
There's no question that the military will hostile to unidentified media people because they are often just terrorists with cameras filming attacks for training, analysis, and propaganda purposes. This doesn't mean they kill them but does mean they treat them as hostile. This isn't surprising.
Deliberate murder? That's another thing entirely and one I don't believe. See the comments elsewhere about the people with the camera being hostile but you can't just shoot them in the briefing from the Army Officer in Iraq.
Any cameraman pointing something that looks like an RPG launcher towards American troops in combat deserves to get shot.
Self-destructive stupidity of that magnitude should not be allowed to pass into the gene pool.
This is what I said on the subject in 2003:
http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/003932.php
Thanks Trent, durable post too.
Frankly, im not so understanding of the western Press embedding themselves with the Nazis and riding on the panzers,, ohh thats right, back then, our american media wasnt scumbag ingrates helping those that want to rape my girls and make me watch.
Or slowly saw at my neck and post to the world so the whole world, including my familly watch.
How do we know the beheading tapes wasnt made with the help of democrat party, media wing, film crews.
They are quite happy to sqat along side those targeting our troops, same difference.
[This post has been shortened by WoC Marshal Festus on June 24, 2005 05:33 PM. Questions? See Da Rulz in The WoC Comments Policy ]