Posted on 07/06/2004 1:23:18 PM PDT by Pikamax
This is a follow-up to my post yesterday, in which I noted that the Los Angeles Times had falsely claimed on its front page that Paul Bremer had failed to give a farewell speech to Iraq -- and implied that this alleged failure was due to cowardice:
L. Paul Bremer III, the civilian administrator for Iraq, left without even giving a final speech to the country — almost as if he were afraid to look in the eye the people he had ruled for more than a year.Although I rarely write the Reader's Representative any more, having been frustrated too many times in the past with her usually stubborn refusal to acknowledge a mistake by the paper, I did write her about this one. My e-mail, sent yesterday, read as follows:
Your paper reports today in a front-page news analysis that Paul Bremer didn't give a farewell speech. It then suggests that Bremer was afraid to give such a speech.I have not heard back from her; I will let you know when I do. However, I am not optimistic, based on the response that another blogger has received on the same issue.
Better tell the folks at the San Francisco Chronicle. They quoted from the farewell speech the Times says Bremer didn't give.
Better tell the Iraqi bloggers who thought they had seen a speech by Bremer -- and were even moved by it.
Patrick Frey (aka Patterico)
http://patterico.com
Yesterday, another blogger on the East Coast published a similar post -- albeit one far less restrained than mine. (Link via the Ranting Prof.) Jason Van Steenwyk's entry, directed at the folks at the L.A. Times, began by saying, "Thank you very much for demonstrating what a clueless bunch of twits you are." He ended his post with a single word: "Dumbasses." (And you guys thought I get angry about this stuff!) In between, Jason made (independently, it appears) the same observations I had just made, noting the offending Times quote about Bremer's supposed cowardice, the Iraqi blog post that appears to refute that quote, etc. Read his post; it is entertainingly unconstrained in its vitriol.
Jason apparently did something I used to do when I got angry about a Times article: he e-mailed the reporter directly. (I stopped doing this, mainly because the reporters usually did not respond to me. The "Reader's Representative" may take weeks to respond, but she will respond. Also, I like for the Reader's Rep to read my evidence before the reporter gets a chance to inject his or her spin on that evidence. But I understand Jason's desire to stick the mistake directly in the reporter's face.)
Anyway, Jason has already heard back from the reporter -- and just look at the disingenuous drivel that reporter included in her response e-mail. If any of you were wondering how a newspaper can defend a statement that Bremer "left without even giving a final speech to the country" when, in fact, he did give a final speech to the country . . . well, wonder no more. Here are the relevant quotes from the reporter's e-mail to Jason:
On the day he [Bremer] left and the day or two before that when I accompanied him on trips, he gave no farewell speech of the kind that one might give on the day or two before leaving.If she would have been so "delighted" to cover such an address, one wonders why she did not. As I point out above, other Western reporters did.
. . . .
Western reporters who follow Amb. Bremer would have been delighted to cover an event billed as a farewell to Iraq. However, I will gladly look at the material you have forwarded me and if indeed I should have included a qualification I will discuss doing so with my desk.
So: it appears that the paper is going to defend itself on two ridiculous grounds:
Of course, these qualifications were not present in the offending front-page quote. It's sophistry -- which tells you something about the paper's commitment to accuracy above all else.
This is not encouraging. However, keep in mind that this is not the paper's institutional response; it is a preliminary response from one reporter. I'll let you know when I hear more.
UPDATE: A commenter at "Oh, That Liberal Media" says the Reader's Rep is on vacation, so I have forwarded the e-mail to the reporter (Alissa Rubin) and editor John Carroll.
Posted by Patterico at 11:02 AM
Sadly, writing letters to the "Reader Representative" (gag me with a spoon), just serves to confirm that people are reading their miserable commie rag. Besides that, they laugh at you.
If the link to Jasons' piece is "He's steamed more than before" on the Ranting Prof, it won't open for me. Too bad, I'd like to read it.
FMCDH(BITS)
Have you seen a transcript of Bremer's farewell speech?
I would really like to read one because of the reaction described on Iraq the Model.
The liberals were saying Brenner didn't make a farewell speech. Funny. FoxNews carried it live. The lib media said he sneaked out in the nite. Well, it was night here, but around 10:30 a.m. Bagdad time, full sunny day. (I even had a screencap of him walking from the building to the awaiting vehicle, as the articles of sneaking out at night and not giving a speech started to circulate. The ones who missed the speech were the lib media who weren't invited to it.)
Libs lie and then deny, even when the truth smacks them in the face.
Of course, that's the point of "News Analysis." It's a way to put a Pravda or Völkischer Beobachter style editorial on Page 1 -- something even Pravda doesn't do anymore. Of course, the VB doesn't exist these days, but with Alissa Rubin and the LA Times adopting its editorial standards, its mission on Earth is fulfilled.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
No! Don't send your comments directly to the reporter. She'll just delete any negative e-mails. Send comments to here editor.
Sophism has such a bad name because it tells you what happens when you start from the premise that you are wise. Namely, if it is a given that you are wise then no facts or logic are necesssary to prove that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong - that is a given.Thus the need for the more modest claim of the love of wisdom - "philosophy" - rather than wisdom itself. And since it is impossible to be unwise and simultanteously to be objective, any claim of objectivity - or criticism that someone else is "not a journalist, not objective" is sophistry.
Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate
Maureen Dowd made much of the same assertions about Bremer sneaking off in the dead of night. Of course, it is the official policy of the New York Time Ombudsman that they are allowed to make stuff up on the OP/ED pages of the New York Times...
Oh, the LAT is simply getting in practice for lying about the election. Bugging out in the face of the enemy is a subject they lie about and this newspaper paerson probably just got her Kerry lies confused.
Surprise sovereignty announcement catches reporters, world leaders off guard
By Tarek El-Tablawy, Associated Press Writer
WBZ News
Monday June 28, 2004
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) Before the first cup of coffee, there were signs the news conference suddenly convened Monday morning was more than advertised a simple briefing by U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer.
Journalists were caught by surprise when they finally realized what was up the formal handover of sovereignty from the U.S.-run occupation to the Iraqis two days earlier than expected.
Rumor quickly spread among the journalists escorted to a conference room in the villa housing interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi's office: "The handover´s today!"
Only six of Bremer's 25 advisers knew of the decision ahead of time. Bremer informed them earlier Monday that the Coalition Provisional Authority ruling for more than a year was dissolved.
At about 10 a.m., the news was confirmed by coalition officials who insisted on secrecy. Then, at 10:26 a.m., the transition became official.
"You have said, and we agreed, that you are ready now for sovereignty," Bremer told Allawi, Iraq´s interim President Ghazi al-Yawer and the other dignitaries gathered in the room. "I will leave Iraq confident of the future, confident the Iraqi government will be ready now to meet the many challenges" that lie before it.
Foremost among those challenges is the deteriorating security situation car bombings, kidnappings, assassinations. For weeks, coalition officials had warned that insurgents might try to disrupt the transfer, which was expected to take place Wednesday.
Mortar shells exploded near the Green Zone on the day the new government was announced June 1. This time, officials were not taking any chances. Even when the handover was still set for Wednesday, officials had announced no formal schedule of events and had told reporters they would be given only 24 hours' notice.
When coalition officials confirmed the handover was imminent, journalists were told not to release the news until noon, Baghdad time. They were instructed to hand in their cell phones and two-way radios. The delay may have been planned to give Bremer time to get to the airport and catch a flight out of the country.
But word leaked out at the NATO summit in Istanbul, Turkey, that the handover would be advanced by 24 hours. That set off a mad scramble as reporters tried to retrieve their phones from security guards. A few reporters managed to leave the conference room and get their phones. Irate security guards slammed the door and kept most reporters inside.
An Arab reporter pleaded with a security guard to let him get his phone. The harried guard snapped to a colleague: "I´m not going to be left in here with them." At least 30 minutes after the ceremony and briefing were over, reporters were finally allowed to leave and retrieve their phones.
The announcement also caught world leaders by surprise, though they quickly welcomed it.
"We learned of it during the session this morning," said Catherine Colonna, spokeswoman for French President Jacques Chirac, who had opposed the Iraq war. "We took note of it, of course. The transfer of sovereignty is a highly awaited and important event."
A senior U.S. official in Baghdad, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Bremer and Allawi began discussing an early transfer 10 days ago but only made the final decision Sunday.
[NOTICE POSTED ON THE WEBSITE: In the interest of timeliness, this story is fed directly from the newswire and may contain occasional typographical errors.
The LA Times belongs on the same list as the New York Times, who continued to claim that the 9/11 Commission said there were no ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq, even as the Commission members themselves were making it clear that such ties were indisputable in other articles in the same edition.
There are serious consequences when major media outlets deliberately and with malice aforethought, lie to the American public, and there needs to be an accounting.
We are in serious trouble if we allow this practice to continue unchallenged.
The LA Slimes just committed fraud by printing this lie.
People buy their rag and advertise in it because it is supposedly a newspaper that prints news stories.
When they print deliberate hate lies like this, they are defrauding their subscribers and advertisers.
One of these days some conservative lawyers will clean their clocks re these acts of fraud.
George W. Bush will be reelected by a margin of at least ten per cent
Brit Hume highlighted this post almost word for word last night on his program. Gee, I wonder why these liberal rags are having subscription woes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.