Expect intense media focus on this.

NOT

I expect this to be the same sort of non-story the Swift Boat Vets were for the MSM.

Hugh Hewitt said this over on his blog today and it applies here:

The vanity of western media is that if they didn't see it, it didn't happen. That Iraq under Saddam wasn't so bad because MSM Baghdad bureaus didn't exist, and those that did (CNN's) censored the news.

It is easy to hide the truth if knowingly you turn your eyes away from it.

Ah, but in this case it's the US military against one of their own. Easongate - "The US targets journalists". Remember, the guy was wounded by US fire and then captured.

Actually,

I did hear alot of media speculation about the swift boats. I heard about them over and over again for about two weeks (which is an eternity in campaign season).

In the end, I beleive most of the media beleived that were full of s#!t, as did I.

Robin,

He also has attack information for AL-Qaeda in his video equipment, IIRC.

Trent,

A minor correction. IMO the MSM position is that "if they did not report it, it didn't happen", not that "if they did not see it, it didn't happen".

Trent, I take your point, but I'm not at all sure that the MSM sees that as damning at all.

but I'm not at all sure that the MSM sees that as damning at all.

Sadly, it has been a media value for going on two generations to hide with America's enemies in order to get a story. Even if it involved not informing an American patrol of an impending ambush...all for the sake of "getting the story."

This is a partial transcript from the Fred Friendly PBS Ethics in Government series, the episode titled Ethics in America- Under Orders, Under Fire [Ethics in the Military, Part I]

Moderator: You are safely traveling with an enemy unit as a foreign war correspondent. As fate would have it the enemy unit you are traveling with is about to ambush an American unit.

Jennings: As a reporter you have to make the decision going in that there is a possibility that you may come upon an American unit. My feeling is that, as a reporter, you have to make that decision before you went. And that if you are in, you are in. I would live in fear of coming across an American unit.

Moderator: So if you made that decision you would then film the enemy unit shooting the American unit?

Jennings: (Long pause thinking) No? I guess I wouldn't. I'll tell you now what I?m feeling rather than the hypothesis I drew for myself. If I were with the enemy I would do what I could to warn the Americans.

Moderator: Even if it means not getting the live coverage?

Jennings: I don?t have much doubt it would mean my life. I?m glad this is hypothetical. I don?t think I could bring myself to participate in that fashion, by not warning the Americans. Some other reporters may feel otherwise.

Wallace: Some other reporters would feel otherwise. I would regard it simply as another story I was there to tell.

Moderator: Enemy soldiers shooting and killing American soldiers? Could you imagine how you would report that to the American people?

Wallace: Yes, I can. (Talking down to Jennings) Frankly, I?m astonished to hear Peter say that. You are a reporter. Granted you are an American. But you are a reporter covering combat. And I?m at a loss to understand why, because you are an American; you would not cover that story.

Moderator: Don?t you have a higher duty as an American citizen to do all you can to save the lives of American soldiers rather than this journalistic ethic of reporting the fact?

Wallace: No. You don?t have the higher duty. You are a reporter. Your job is to cover what is going on in that war. I would be calling Peter to say, ?What do you mean you?re not going to cover the story.?

Jennings: I think he?s right. I chickened out. I agree with Mike intellectually. I really do. And I wish at the time, I?d made another decision. I would like to have made his decision.

Returning to the dialog from the ethics panel discussion at the opening of this paper - following the exchange between Peter Jennings and Mike Wallace the moderator turns to Colonel George M. Connell, United States Marine Corps, and asks his response to the dialog he had just heard.

Moderator: Colonel Connell, I can see the venomous reaction you are having in hearing all this.

Colonel Connell: (Angrily) I feel utter contempt. Two days later they (the reporters ? Jennings and Wallace) are both walking off my hilltop and they get ambushed and they?re lying there wounded. And they?re going to expect I?m going to send Marines up there to get them. They?re just journalists. They?re not Americans. Is that a fair reaction? You can?t have it both ways. But I?ll do it. And that?s what makes me so contemptuous of them. Marines will die going to get?(grippingly) a couple of journalists.

There is a reason why the American military views the main stream media as either in league with the enemy or as the enemy.

They are.

Please note the exhange in that transcript above happened in a 1987 seminar.

The media will report what it wants us to see; if the case against the cameraman is strong, the media will collectively conclude that there's no story, and will collectively choose to ignore it.

If the case is weak, it will be an instance of repression of the Press, and the media will be all over it.

Considering how little I've heard about it, I'd bet money the guy is as guilty as sin.

Geesus,

You guys are so US v. THEM. Media is a business, they'll go where the money/viewers is/are. I admit, journalists no longer have the high moral standards that they used to, and CNN plays alot of blame for that falling.

But now you have majestically, mighty fox, who does just as shoddy a job, but soothes the right ego.

If the news media thinks the story will sell, it will appear on air (and it wouldn't shock me to see it on FOX anyway, to decry their patriotism over other networks). Some americans are going to hear about the story, and if they get riled up, the story will break all around the country (with each station (except CBS, who'll be covering their butt) with the message 'we reported it first'.

That's an intereasting little segment Trent, and I agree, if reporters are out in a war zone alone (or with insurgents), they probably shouldn't be the immediate concern of military troops. But to say 'they're all the enemy' is hyperbolic and ridiculous.

"If the news media thinks the story will sell, it will appear on air (and it wouldn't shock me to see it on FOX anyway, to decry their patriotism over other networks)."

Doesnt explain why CBS spent all those months cooking up the Bush National Guard story but completely ignored the Swift Boat Vets who had serious accusations against Kerry.

That kind of thing happens all the time. I take the Bernie Goldberg position: its true the media doesnt sit around plotting to get Conservatives (although Bush might be an exception). But they are human and they will give more credence to charges the fit their preconceptions than those that dont. This is heavilly compounded because your average newspaper or television news room all have very similar backgrounds and preconceptions. There isnt, for instance, a conservative to go 'hey but what about this', or somebody with military experience to say 'wait a minute thats not quite right'. They are all a bunch of rich, powerful J-school grads that have lived in Manhattan so long they forget what it was like in Oklahoma even if they grew up there.

What I dont get is the hypocracy. Liberals scream and yell that Affirmative Action is critical to get many different voices and backgrounds into schools and businesses. But when it comes to professors or journalist it is apparently outrageous to suggest they have biases of their own that we should balance. Another case of do as I say, not as I do.

alchemist,

The newsies are clueless first and foremost. Bias and laziness have nothing to do with that - their ignorance of most anything is just amazing. These days only sports reporting can be relied upon as accurate.

Laziness has become more important in the past 10-15 years. I used to think that cost-cutting had resulted in the remaining field reporters being overworked, but more widespread knowledge of public relations techniques and "spinning" shows a staggering belief by PR flacks and designated spokesmen in the laziness and gullibility of the reporters they spin their stories to.

Please consider the possibility that you have unwarranted faith in the effects of competition and ratings on MSM reporting - ""... they'll go where the money/viewers is/are." Not.

Bias is merely how their ignorance and laziness is expressed. IMO bias is much more an issue with editors than reporters. The latter learn through experience what spin their editors want put on stories.

Used to be, the other news organizations would have reported on the fact that CBS had a terrorist on their payroll, and why is that. Did CBS know he was a terrorist, and how many other terrorists is CBS paying the rent for? My guess is that all of the news organizations are equally culpable about hiring people who shoot at American soldiers, and it will not be reported from that point of view. If nothing else, the media have each other's backs because they're all in the same leaky canoe.

Please note the exhange in that transcript above happened in a 1987 seminar.

Interesting, so about sixteen years before Peter Jennings became an American citizen (May 30, 2003 according to his biography in Wikipedia) he identified enough with Americans that he would feel compelled to warn them.

What’s Mike Wallace’s excuse (other than being Mike Wallace)?

I was in Tikrit when this incident occurred. As soon as I saw that the "fixer" CBS utilized was from the same area, I thought it reasonable to try and follow up and see who this guy was. Intent was to ascertain whether this was a coincidence or the person in question was actually facilitating the incorporation of insurgents and/or sympathizers into the media ranks to gain info/intel/propaganda.

Long story short - The request to outside organizations went no where and no name was provided.

If CBS truly wanted to do something to assist in righting this wrong and they have not already done so; they would give up the name of the Iraqi fixer so he/she could be questioned to ascertain their intent and motive.

Mark, you may find CBS's public statement yesterday interesting:

CBS News has been pushing for more information about why Hussein is being held, but has not taken a position on his guilt or innocence. "Our position from the beginning is we're not able to take a position, because we're stymied in finding out what evidence there is against him," says Doyle.

You investigate us? We investigate you.

One thing the media appear to be misunderstanding is that Iraq has an inquisitorial system of justice (as most of the non-English speaking world). Unlike an adversarial sytem, the judge investigates the evidence.

I'm also pretty sure that these calls for "due process" are the equivalent of ordering a steak in a vegitarian restaurant. Chances are you get nothing, but if you do, it won't be recognizable.

Here is a post on the 2006 congressional races which dramatizes the MSM's ignorance and laziness.

"This Globe story is unique in its sloppiness, for sure. It is hard to mistake Luzerne, Pa for Pittsburgh, Pa. I do think, however, the mistake with the map is indicative of the general problem that major news outlets have with covering these races: everything looks the same to them. From the Globe's perspective, PA 11 and PA 18 are indistinguishable. Nobody in the Globe's bureau knew enough about either district to pipe up and say, "Hey! Ya got that wrong, pal!" Similarly, nobody knows enough to comment intelligently on whether the Democrats stand a reasonable shot in any of the districts in question. They are just ignorant of the nuances of this topic.

... Apparently, it is asking too much of reporters covering the congressional races to actually learn a thing or two about the races that they are covering before they report on them. All we can expect is either of these templates and a failure to distinguish Southwestern from Northeastern Pennsylvania. We must be satisfied with the press using partisan spin as the foundation for unquestioning, vacuous, factually sloppy stories about the election."

Haven't you realized? News outlets NEVER comment on politics in other countries; they bring in pollitical 'experts' to do that for them.

When Lebanon split apart I knew more about the country than the Republican/Democrat PR guys that CNN got on the air... that's when I stopped watching cable news.