Many of you know that Winds team member Bill Roggio was one of the prime movers behind Easongate.com. In the wake of Newspaper Guild President Linda Foley's deliberate and equally-groundless repetition of Eason Jordan's charges, Bill and I have been discussing what to do.
Enter MediaSlander.com, the fruits of those discussions and concerted efforts by a number of bloggers. Special Kudos to Charles Goggin and USMC_Vet, who did yeoman's work in getting the site up and adding an excellent Linda Foley Timeline that includes her history of such statements.
MediaSlander.com's statement of purpose is simple and to the point:
"The goal of Media Slander is to hold journalists and bloggers to high ethical standards regarding coverage of the War on Terror and other military-related issues. We plan to achieve this by highlighting bias, rumor and falsehoods that have been creeping into military coverage under the guise of objective news.
We by no means advocate censorship or the deliberate suppression of well-researched and relevant stories about the war and the military.
As much as journalists feel that they are the guardians of the First Amendment, its true protectors are standing watch in Iraq, Afghanistan and places no one will ever hear about. Journalists owe it to the true gatekeepers of our liberties to be fair, balanced, relevant and accurate in covering them.
Signed,
The entire staff of MediaSlander.com"
Winds of Change.NET has written articles before on the poor quality of military coverage in the media, and why it happens. There's a war on, and whether incidents like Easongate, Foley's folly, or Newsweek's killer 'scoop' stem from laziness or malice is irrelevant; it's stuff we simply can't afford any more.
We've all seen the value of the blogosphere in holding the media to account - "bringing force to the balance," as it were. MediaSlander.com intends to help do exactly that for Foley's Folly and beyond, by consistently insisting on the same high standards among people who cover the U.S. military that we see, every day, among its troops.
How much more shadow media scrutiny can they take?
Bring it on! The bright lights we have all been shining on these folks and each other makes it much more likely the truth will out.
I know they hear the footsteps.
Cordially,
Uncle J
"There's a war on..."
And you wonder why Bush's vision of America is so often compared to Orwell's in 1984.
If there's really a "war" on, then let everyone sacrifice to pay for it, not just the middle and lower class.
If there's really a "war" on, then why not attempt to include all American's viewpoints in the hope of rallying broad support, rather than engage in constant internecine fighting.
If there's really a "war" on, why can't the Republican controlled administrative and legislative branches get a handle on non-defense spending and stop driving the deficit through the roof?
If there's really a "war" on, why hasn't the Republican controlled congress attempted to enact legislation strengthening domestic security further?
When the government truly acts like there is a 'war" on, then this kind of excuse can legitimately be used to defend the kind of guff you are advocating here. But until then, it's all just posturing, politics and power, and I am strongly against it.
Love it I just blogrolled it
Great job you all are doing. I am very grateful. It is about time we took up the offensive side of the field.
Thanks for the tips at the top for us HTML users! LOL. Have a great day.
By the very creators of Orewllian regimes, the left ...
The slope on the income tax that has a slim upper percentile pay the majority isnt enough ?
Include the views of failure decline and defeat ?
Those against the whole project ? Do elections mean anything ?
We agree here, its make me angry too, they think the growing economy will grow us out of the deficit, well it has done that in the past, if they cap spending, but still, yeah it sucks.
Well, they havem from the patrot act to the money given to the states (who are expacted to run their own affairs, remember) is it enough ? would we tolerate it? we would sure welcome closing the border eh ? So yup, we are not really that far apart here.
Should we re open FDR's internment camps ?
Just kidding.
Just what "guff" is that, in particular ?
Posture is important, and its not all we are doing, perhaps you have noticed. flag drapped coffins comming back is sure evidence of a war going on somewhere, you should be happy its there and not here, we had a taste of it here, and didnt like it very much.
Good decription of the democraps, its all they seem to care about, not that the other side dont, but its not all they are doing, unlike the ankle biting unhelpfull democraps.
Thats quite clear, supportable reasons however, are a bit less in evidence.
If there's really a "war" on, then why not attempt to include all American's viewpoints in the hope of rallying broad support, rather than engage in constant internecine fighting.
Who is engaging in "internecine fighting" by branding every single action in the "war" (which you seem to refuse to recognize is occurring) as a LIE LIE LIE?
Ari is "strongly against it". He is strongly against defending the military from baseless accusations. I am shocked, shocked, I tells ya!
Ari (#1):
Sorry, but this comment confuses me. Is it possible that you are using a non-standard browser, and your submissions sometimes end up under the wrong post?
Joe Katzman is writing here about certain journalists making deliberate charges of grave misconduct on the part of the US military (and others), and repeating them. In some high-profile cases, these individuals have been unwilling to place their exact words on the record. In all of the cases described, the journalists have been unwilling or unable to point to evidence that would back up their claims.
I'd suggest that such conduct is reprehensible in times of war, and also in times of peace. This would hold true whether one views the current conflict between Militant Islam and Enlightenment-based Liberal Civilization as a war, a "war", or--for that matter--as discourse.
That would mean that comment #1 is an extended non sequitor. Or that there's an obvious argument that I'm just not getting.
Well said, AMac.
Bill: He is strongly against defending the military ...
Ari isn't against defending the military, per se. Ari is just against being FOR anything.
I'm getting really sick of this crap.
Put up or shut up time:
I know a number of current and future military lawyers and have connections through military friends to retired and active folks who wear stars on their collars; I go to law school a few steps from the Army's legal center and school. I've applied to become a USMC judge advocate myself, although they haven't yet told me if they'll take me or not.
Anybody who has credible evidence of the American military murdering journalists, forward it to Joe and he can send it on to me (or, if you have physical evidence, ask Joe to contact me and we'll work it out). I'll deliver whatever you have in person to the people with the power to initiate investigations and prosecute.
You don't have to give me your name, or have the evidence analyzed publicly, or anything like that. Just get it to me and I'll get it to where it needs to go.
OK?
OK, AMac, I'll try to make this simple for you to understand.
The "Guff":
"The goal of Media Slander is to hold journalists and bloggers to high ethical standards regarding coverage of the War on Terror and other military-related issues. We plan to achieve this by highlighting bias, rumor and falsehoods that have been creeping into military coverage under the guise of objective news."
The "Excuse":
"There's a war on, and whether incidents like Easongate, Foley's folly, or Newsweek's killer 'scoop' stem from laziness or malice is irrelevant; it's stuff we simply can't afford any more."
Bill, I would say that in your/this particular case, it is Journalism that needs defending against baseless accusations, not the military. And "baseless" is a biased and loaded term, to be sure, that you are only applying in an effort to neutralize opposition viewpoints presented in the "MSM".
I suppose you feel personally empowered by the notion that you had a role in "Easongate", but try not to get too carried away by delusions of grandeur.
Ari: it is Journalism that needs defending against baseless accusations
Explain this remark, please, and illustrate with examples.
Raymond, comment #5 is the best thing I've ever seen you write.
And Ari's kind of funny. I guess in his world, untruths, incompetence, and malice while covering the U.S. military are just fine. The tone of his commentary certainly indicates a certain sympatico approach. I must say, however, that his excuses for promoting same are weirder than anything I could make up.
Personally, I see it as partisan loyalty to a power structure whose episodes of slant, incompetence, and malice make his political job easier. And tune it right out.
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on. And so we put this thing in gear, and drive....
Include the viewpoint that America is not at war in gaining international support for a war coalition? Thanks, the internecine fighting serves America better.
Wow.
This is so cool.
Let the memetic warfare commence!
Sterrike Two !
Well Ari, that is neither Guff or example of a search for pardon or subsitute, and as for defending the media propagandists, only fools and the desperate defend the indefensable.
But dont feel alone, your not the only poor leftist soul around who is tortured into knots with angst on the loss by the left on the information monopoly.
You have far more important losses to deal with than that, and untill the left can defend themselves in a free information enviroment, I suggest a new tactic ive not seen them practiced enough at.
Learn to make arguments that withstand scrutuny.
Untill you do, those other loses will accumilate.
As long as the free flow of information is your adversary and illumination remains toxic to you, your not going to fare well in the new enviroment.
Climate change, my man, those who cant adapt, will perish.
Indeed, Joe, Ari's position seems to be that dishonest reporting is just an opposition viewpoint.
Which of course means that journalism is in his mind just another political movement. Hmmmm, I'm feeling some odd sort of deja vu...
Ari should read about the people Orwell was actually writing about...
Rob,
Are you willing to make that offer to the MSM? It would be nice if they can be provided an offer to produce the evidence to someone who will make sure those who are "targeting journalist" are brought to justice.
My guess is they have nothing. They continue to use the Palestine Hotel as "proof" as the military knew the journalists were staying there. But if they took the time to read Thunder Run - by none other than a LA Times reporter, they would find out exactly how that mistake happened.
Anyway, if you are interested in making that offer to be posted on MediaSlander - let Joe know, I'm sure he'll find a way to get your offer to Linda Foley and others who continue to make these false allegations.
Good luck on your career.
Cheryl
Ari (#11):
Thanks for the clarification. You should be pleased, I guess, that you aren't alone in feeling that way.
For my part, I take the assaults on my civilization by barbarians kinda personally. This, even though that civilization has glaring injustices, and its defenders are flawed. And even though its assailants are a diverse lot, some in the thrall of violent religious beliefs, others devoted to secular faiths of Western origin, like Ba'athism.
If journalists lie and those lies aid the barbarian causes, it's wrong in my book. Wrong because lying is contrary to the notion of the Fourth Estate. And wrong because aiding the barbarians is wrong.
There's another possiblity. Per comment #10, maybe all this commotion will prompt some of the journalists in question to get serious, and put genuine evidence on the table. Who knows--maybe the troops, er, the military, is engaged in conspiracies to murder American journalists in Iraq. If that's where the trail leads, I expect that's where mediaslander.com will go.
I prefer evaluation of falsifiable evidence to listening to yet another Wacky Conspiracy Theory. How about you?
baseless:
Having no basis or foundation in fact; unfounded.
From The Dictionary.
Facts are a matter of opinion? And we're the ones with Orwellian delusions?
"If there's really a "war" on, then why not attempt to include all American's viewpoints in the hope of rallying broad support, rather than engage in constant internecine fighting."
Very intellectual use of impressive language and vocabulary, Ari. Too bad you don't have a clue.
To include 'all American's viewpoints' is akin to putting ice on the stove. Whatever you get, it'll definitely be watered down.
Your lament on feeling unrepresented and screaming for 'all American's viewpoints' is usually how a liberal Euro-socialist thinker carps about when no longer in the majority.
FLASHBACK: Circa 1992, Ari wore sandwich signs in Manhattan decrying Democrat majorities in both houses and the presidency. No really, he did.
Ari, call Lindsay Graham or John McCain if you want simpathy. Or, just turn out the lights, close your eyes and reach in front of you. There's a clue out there somewhere...try and grab it.
Go shop crazy someplace else. We're all stocked up here.
I no howe to speel symputhy. Shulda axd Ari.
Soory.
Interesting new blog.
But one would think that a group of bloggers setting out to "monitor" the "MSM" would actually read the "MSM" from time to time.
Or for that matter, you folks here.
Rather than continuing to trumpet things as "bogus scoops" such as Newsweek's story.
This is just silly, you must understand this, right?
Tell me, just how neutral will this site be?
Will you blog about this lack of journalistic integrity?
Or this lack of journalistic integrity?
Or this lack of journalistic integrity?
Or this lack of journalistic integrity
Or this example of journalistic sloppiness?
Or this example of suspicious journalistic silence?
Come on guys. You have to join reality here.
Even the FBI records now show a consistent reporting of the Quran abuse, since 2002
"Ari" writes, 'And "baseless" is a biased and loaded term, to be sure, that you are only applying in an effort to neutralize opposition viewpoints presented in the "MSM".'
Baseless, as in, reporting that 15 people died when there's no evidence that anyone died? Baseless, as in, reporting that documents are legitimate even after its proven they are not? Baseless, as in, reporting that Bush had family help to get in the Guard when there is proof positive that he did not?
The new American left - as in, redefining the English language into meaningless gobbledygook.
Nick,
I apologize -- I believe I got the order incorrect. I think it is Duty, Honor, Country -- vets out there, please correct me.
However, it does not take away from Honor and what it means to these vets and active duty military.
They take it seriously.
Cheryl
JC -
We already know that you believe the Koran-in-the-toilet story with a burning ardor. No Thuggee fanatic ever abased himself before an effigy of Kali with more earnest devotion. Not one of us would question your faith in this factoid.
In short, this information has previously been communicated to us.
But the topic at hand is Linda Foley accusing the military of murdering journalists. I'm interested to know if you believe that, too.
Glen,
While I'm sure your psychic powers are amazing, it might be useful to actually go to the record of what I wrote.
I would amend my previous comment to "flushing down" is ludicrous. Who knows what actually happened?
At any rate, you only destroy any credibility you aspire to, by misrepresenting what I have said.
Also, "the topic at hand".
This is my POINT, yes?
That the "topic at hand" is always incredibly biased, in that equal or worse cases of misrepresentation, lies, or lack of integrity, is ignored.
Pot calling the kettle black, is what I'm saying.
Seriously, how can any analysis here be taken seriously, if the coverage is so skewed?
Caveat that: Props to Joe on the Tillman post.
Sorry JC, none of those examples amount to anything.
As for neutrality, its irrevelant.
Facts come before opinion, and are not interchangable.
You know, scrutiny and review, core elements in meritocratic projects societies and systems, is quite Darwinistic.
Who would ever have thought the left would live in cold trembling fear of Darwin.
Irony,,,, now theres a word.
Attention all large cold blooded creatures .....
You will pardon us if we dont accept your guide to what is interesting or what opinions to form im sure.
Ahh, diversity, who thought the left would fear that too.
There comes that word again.
Try walking around with a power fist and go read some chomsky, that might help.
JC: Who knows what actually happened?
Running a crap story and then claiming "Who knows what actually happened?" is not good journalism. And it is not a credible defense of Newsweek, nor does it indict Newsweek's critics in the slightest.
As for your laundry list of FOX atrocities, I have to agree with Raymond. Pretty thin gruel. But let's pretend it's hearty and chunky for the moment.
The reason that left-liberals have lost all critical capacity is that their response to every criticism is to scour around for evidence (no matter how strained and silly) that everybody is doing whatever they were accused of doing.
And as we all learned on the third grade playground, two wrongs make a right.
Or as the left would put it: Two wrongs make me right and make you a hypocrite.
Cheryl (and anyone else who's interested):
My offer is open to any and all, to post or repeat wherever they like. I don't have the power or influence myself to cause an investigation to occur, but I can promise to put any actual evidence in the hands of people who do.
Of course, I'm sure that most journalists have far better contacts inside the military than I do: they have the numbers for top level people whom they use for anonymous quotes. So in some sense my offer is a tad pointless. But it's still open.
Ari says "I suppose you feel personally empowered by the notion that you had a role in "Easongate", but try not to get too carried away by delusions of grandeur."
I really wish the media would stick to reporting to the facts instead of accusing our military of crimes which they have no evidence, and hurting the war effort.
If you state again that my motivation for doing this is for personal gain, I assure you we will have serious problems. Understood?
I'll tolerate your other silliness, but not that garbage.
I dunno, Bill, you SHOULD feel proud of what you did. You SHOULD feel empowered, and you should be able to claim credit.
You stood up and exercised your responsibilities as a citizen, remained truthful throughout while insisting on the truth (i.e. video), and brought greater accountability into an area of the public sphere that has been used to having very little.
Any kudos you get from that are well deserved and well earned. That what being a real citizen MEANS.
If you DON'T feel personally empowered by that, and you AREN'T interested in exercising the responsibility that comes with such power into the future - then call me because we gotta talk....
And don't worry, folks, we won't get carried away with delusions of grandeur.
Not with media examples of that very quality making up most of our mission fodder.
JC (#25):
> Tell me, just how neutral will this site be?
After following the links you provide, I think you meant to ask
Rather than respond to the question (it kind of answers itself), I’ll comment on the interesting links you provide.
> Will you blog about this lack of journalistic integrity? links to a Media Matters critique of a Fox TV anchor asking Trent Lott why a compromise was needed when "we" had the votes for the nuclear option.
> Or this lack of journalistic integrity? is about a Media Matters claim that Fox anchor Sean Hannity repeated a mischaracterization by judicial nominee Charles Pickering of how John Kerry had attacked him.
> Or this lack of journalistic integrity? criticizes a Fox News report on Uzbekistan that neglected to mention evidence of U.S. rendition of over 100 terrorism suspects to its brutal and corrupt government.
> Or this lack of journalistic integrity is a bad link.
> Or this example of journalistic sloppiness? goes to a Daily Howler piece on how Big Media is botching one detail of the 14 Senators’ memorandum on filibustering.
> Or this example of suspicious journalistic silence? is from ace dick Corey Pein’s fine publication [/sarcasm], on the media’s passing coverage of the not-very-newsworthy July 2002 Rycroft memo (discussed in WoC comments here, and following comments numbered 36, 83, 103, 104, 106, 120, and 124).
> Even the FBI records now show a consistent reporting of the Quran abuse, since 2002.
Funny, I was struck by Claims of detainee abuse shown in records in the (paper) paper this morning. Strangely, Baltimore Sun reporter Gail Gibson hardly mentions al-Qaeda training, and ignores its 60-page photocopied manual’s instructions to detainees. (Lie! Claim abuse!). See this excellent & obscure report by Katherine McIntire Peters; I guess this instance will have to await the launch of media-misinforms-by-omission.com.
So, JC, the first link that’s relevant to the remit of the new website is about the ugly rendition procedure that the Clinton Administration devised, and the Bush Administration has pursued. I hope (but doubt) that the media will couple increased coverage to serious consideration of the issues raised by Heather MacDonald and Mark Bowden.
Your second relevant link is to the Baltimore Sun’s incompetently incomplete description of Koran “abuse” claims. Gibson’s “fake but accurate” professional-courtesy defense of Newsweek’s discredited report is misleading, but not a clear example of media slander.
Amac,
Just saw this now - I'll respond later, but at any rate, re: Newsweek -
I'll say, for this one rare instance, I'll let John Cole speak for me.
You are asking good, thoughtful, and relevant questions, however, which I appreciate.
JC,
I'll call your link and raise you this one.
Hmm. . . allegations that a Koran might have been flushed. I remember when Time Magazine, ABC News, the Washington Post, and the Associated Press were investigating allegations that John Kerry had an affair; they couldn't confirm the story, so they printed the allegations anyway.
Oh, that's right, they didn't print the story.
JC (#37):
Re: Newsweek, one can start with the original Periscope item.
Below is all the text concerning the Koran (emphasis added):
JC, I agree with some of John Cole's post you cite. If "Piss Christ" doesn't have me raging in the streets, I'm unlikely to conflate treatment of the Koran with genuine torture.
That said, the new Reuters/Baltimore Sun/ACLU/etc. reports hardly exonerate Newsweek's reporting. Look at what Isikoff claimed he knew versus the new, diluted claims being made yesterday and today. Concerning Newsweek, it sounds like a variant of the "fake but accurate" defense.
As an aside, my understanding was that the Newsweek retraction was about the unconfirmable allegations of a single anonymous source. Yet the original Periscope item used the plural sources.
good service