Why we don't believe you [excellent summary of recent mainstream press malfeasance]

Townhall ^ | August 28, 2006 | Mary Katharine Ham

[John Jorsett]

Does the mainstream press ever wonder why conservatives distrust them so much?

If so, they need look no further than the “fauxtography” scandals of the last couple of weeks. Conservative bloggers have been hard at work sniffing out suspected fakery and staging in the photos sent back on the newswires from the Israel/Hezbollah conflict, and the investigation got pretty smelly.

First, there was Reutersgate, in which the international news organization had to pull a photo and fire a freelance photographer because he clumsily Photoshopped thicker smoke into the skyline of Beirut.

This incident got bloggers wondering what other photographic evidence of Israeli aggression had been Photoshopped or staged into existence, and just how complicit the news media was in the fakery. They came up with a photo by the same Reuters photographer, in which he had added flares to a photograph of an Israeli plane, and called them missiles.

But that was just the beginning. There was Green Helmet Guy, who seemed to be ever-present at the sites of Israeli “atrocities,” always making the most of the evidence of civilian casualties. He even played director to international news crews and photographers, showing them how to get the best shots of Lebanese casualties.

Then there was the “Passion of the Toys,” in which brand-new toys—poignant symbols of childhood innocence—seemed to keep popping up, perfectly framed by the destruction of war, yet strangely unscathed by it.

Oh, but it doesn’t stop there. Later came the “unluckiest multiple home owner in Lebanon,” photographed on several occasions, weeping in front of her several homes, bombed by several Israeli airstrikes. Then, we have the New York Times’ pieta, in which a rescue worker was carelessly identified as a victim of an airstrike when, in fact, he had been injured while working in the area. And, the flaming tire atrocity. And, the time Hezbollah bombed an Israeli ship in Australia.

Finally, this week, there was the ambulance attack that maybe wasn’t. There’s strong evidence to suggest that the two ambulances allegedly hit by Israeli airstrikes on July 23 were not exactly pulverized by missiles, as we were led to believe.

Reuters fired its fake photographer, which was the correct response to such deception. But, beyond that, there has not been much comeuppance for photographers and reporters involved in airbrushed, faked, and staged news.

The mainstream media’s response to the allegations from blogs has been more along the lines of Greg Mitchell’s, editor of Editor & Publisher, a trade magazine whose mission it is to cover “all aspects of the North American newspaper industry, including business, newsroom, advertising, circulation, marketing, technology, online and syndicates.”

Mitchell’s response to accusations from bloggers—instead of answering the charges and refuting evidence—was to get very defensive, claim that “rightwing bloggers” were only attempting to smear photojournalists as a group, and then proceed to smear rightwing bloggers as a group for daring to point out the dishonesty of some photojournalists, and raise questions about how business is conducted in the Middle East.

You can see Mitchell’s response to the accusations, here and here. You can see the deconstruction thereof, here and here. All are worth a read to really understand how the mainstream media deals with accusations of fraud, and how cavalierly it tosses aside some of its most avid consumers’ concerns. Here’s a typical paragraph from one of Mitchell’s pieces:

Time does not permit a point by point documentation of the dozens of ludicrous, or at least completely unproven, examples of doctored or staged or otherwise manipulated photos on the Web. Have no fear, I will soon return to this subject, but in the meantime, feel free to plunge into the blogosphere. If you go deeply enough, you may feel you are back on the Grassy Knoll. One of the most-linked sites in this controversy, EU Referendum, goes so far as to suggest that a kind of Hollywood "film-set" was improvised at the site of the Qana killings "for the benefit of both Hezbollah and the media."

I would highly recommend you go through the links I’ve listed above and decide for yourself whether the accusations are “ludicrous,” particularly the video of a Hollywood film-set improvised at the site of the Qana killing, “for the benefit of both Hezbollah and the media.”

Instead of addressing concerns and refuting evidence, Mitchell calls bloggers a bunch of Grassy Knoll-ers intent on discrediting “the media as a whole.” This is not the way to win trust with your audience.

Mitchell then went on to discredit himself within the space of just a couple hours.

On Friday, the Confederate Yankee blog brought attention to a column Mitchell had written in 2003, in which he confessed to making up news as a young reporter. He had been sent out to do a story on Niagara Falls, and found himself unable to talk to tourists to get quotes. So, he sat on a bench and made the quotes up. He confessed his journalistic sin in the wake of the Jayson Blair scandal.

Many other blogs picked up on the 2003 column, suggesting that Mitchell might be sympathetic to faked news because he himself had been a faker.

Several hours after Confederate Yankee’s post went up, that blogger noticed the text of the 2003 article had been changed. The lede had gone from this:

Since the press seems to be in full-disclosure mode these days, I want to finally come clean. Back when I worked for the Niagara Falls (N.Y.) Gazette (now the Niagara Gazette), our city editor asked me to find out what tourists thought about an amazing local event: Engineers had literally “turned off” the famous cataracts, diverting water so they could shore up the crumbling rock face. Were visitors disappointed to find a trickle rather than a roar? Or thrilled about witnessing this once-in-a-lifetime stunt?

To this (additions in bold):

Since the press seems to be in full-disclosure mode these days, I want to finally come clean. Back in 1967, when I was 19 and worked for the Niagara Falls (N.Y.) Gazette (now the Niagara Gazette) as a summer intern, our city editor asked me to find out what tourists thought about an amazing local event: Engineers had literally "turned off" the famous cataracts, diverting water so they could shore up the crumbling rock face. Were visitors disappointed to find a trickle rather than a roar? Or thrilled about witnessing this once-in-a-lifetime stunt?

The column had been edited, without notation, within a couple of hours of bloggers calling attention to it, to emphasize Mitchell’s youth and inexperience at the time of his ethical faux pas. Luckily, several bloggers and the Internet preserved the original piece.

So, it seems someone went back and altered a three-year-old column to reflect more positively on Mitchell, once it got a bit of attention from the “Grassy Knoll,” “rightwing bloggers.” Makes all those “ludicrous” accusations of dishonesty of the mainstream press seem not so ludicrous, doesn’t it?

Mitchell now has not just his industry’s malfeasance to answer for, but his own malfeasance, which he admitted to in a 2003 column, and which was then compounded when someone altered his three-year-old copy to protect him.

Changing copy three years after it has been published, without providing a “correction” or “clarification” note, is entirely unethical by the very standards of the newspaper industry Mitchell is charged with covering. Dan Riehl, another blogger, has evidence that Mitchell may have been altering copy in his latest E&P column, as well.

Rightwing bloggers are predisposed to distrust the media, as are most conservatives. The fauxtographers and defenders like Mitchell are giving us no reason to be encouraged. The mainstream press’ stock is in credibility. The right course is to answer, quickly and thoroughly, any credible charges against them, so as to preserve that stock.

Instead, with the notable exceptions of David Perlmutter and Jim Pinkerton, the mainstream media seems content to blame it all on the Grassy Knoll while half of its readers find news coverage is greener on the other side.

This is why we don’t believe you.

[John Jorsett]

Today's bloggers are doing the job Editors are paid to do. Makes me wonder if Mitchel and his editor buddies spend the work day hanging out at the "Gay Bar."

The bloggers from the Northern Alliance Radio Network show do a feature called, "The Week in Gate-keeping," which mocks the argument that the mainstream press is superior because it has editors and fact-checkers to keep the mistakes out. It's my favorite part of their show.

[Zechariah_8_13]

The woman reporting from (and paddling in) her boat when 2 guys walk in front of her is one of the best laughs I've had in awhile. I watched it 3 times in a row! Classic.

http://www.righttrack.us/2005/10/14/

[WoofDog123]

"On Friday, the Confederate Yankee blog brought attention to a column Mitchell had written in 2003, in which he confessed to making up news as a young reporter. He had been sent out to do a story on Niagara Falls, and found himself unable to talk to tourists to get quotes. So, he sat on a bench and made the quotes up. He confessed his journalistic sin in the wake of the Jayson Blair scandal."

Folks, this is the RULE, not the exception. If it isn't a quote by a public personality with the ability to make a stink, it is a fabrication.

[driftless2]

Lib "journalists" obey the motto that even if some piece of news doesn't fit their preordained view of how things should be, they will print what "should" have happened. Who cares about just printing what really happened, it's what should have happened that counts. So if the facts don't jibe with their prejudices, change the facts.

[6ppc]

See my tag line.

[Paul Ross]

Bump!

[ArGee]

Not to mention Dan Rathergate, CNN's skyhook scandal,exploding pickups and CNN's admission that it didn't report news from Iraq during Hussein's reign to protect their access.

You misspelled a$$es in the above sentence.

Shalom.

[saganite]

LOL!

[AliVeritas]

How could you forget White T-Shirt guy?
http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/media-claimed-white-t-shirt-guy-was-girls-father


Video at bottom of post of his home resplendent with Hez decor.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Rightwing bloggers are predisposed to distrust the media, as are most conservatives. The fauxtographers and defenders like Mitchell are giving us no reason to be encouraged. The mainstream press’ stock is in credibility the naive credulity of the audience. The right course is to answer, quickly and thoroughly, any credible charges against them smear, distort, and obfuscate all charges of tendentiousness, so as to preserve that stock.

The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing . . . It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. - Adam Smith

Half the truth is often a great lie. - Benjamin Franklin

[george76]

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

For me the most outrageous truth about the media came with the abduction and release of the FOX journalists.

What did you hear when they were captured? Their families appealed to the barbarian gangs that they had captured the wrong people, ie the media.

You heard how they were in Gaza to "tell the Palestinian" story, that they sympathized with the "Palestinians" etc. The appeal was that the barbarians had captured their allies.

What's wrong with that? (</sarcasm>)

Obviously that is what they mean by "Fair, balanced, and unafraid." Unafraid of people who aren't dangerous to them, that is . . .

[Grampa Dave]

Makes the hair on my arms and the back of my neck rise up:

[george76]

Pinch is killing his grandfather's paper.

Pinch would have helped Hitler.

He really is a POS.

[beckysueb]

I'm sure there are tons more examples.

The news lady (Soladad O'Brien?) in the canoe durring a northeast flood and 2 workers walked behind her on camera in barely more then ankle deep water.

[PGalt]

Great post, thanks for the ping. Outstanding FReeper comments! BTTT!

[Milhous]

It's always fun to contrast Time's cover treatment of its pet Hitlery:

with Time's cover treatment of people it hates:

[Tench_Coxe]

"fauxtography"

You know, this should have its own entry on Wikipedia.

[Milhous]

Props to jiggyboy for bring the wiki article on journalism sacndals to my attention.

• 1 High-profile journalism scandals
  • 1.1 Walter Duranty, The New York Times (1930s)
  • 1.2 Janet Cooke, Washington Post (1980-1981)
  • 1.3 "Waiting to Explode," Dateline NBC (1992)
  • 1.4 The Oregonian's coverage of the Packwood scandal (1992)
  • 1.5 Bob Wisehart, Sacramento Bee (Mid 1990s)
  • 1.6 Stephen Glass, The New Republic (1998)
  • 1.7 Patricia Smith, The Boston Globe (1998)
  • 1.8 Operation Tailwind, CNN NewsStand (1998)
  • 1.9 Mike Barnicle, The Boston Globe (1998)
  • 1.10 Michael Gallagher (1998)
  • 1.11 Jay Forman, Slate (2001)
  • 1.12 Bob Greene, Chicago Tribune (2002)
  • 1.13 Christopher Newton, Associated Press (2002)
  • 1.14 Houston Chronicle Light Rail Controversy (2002)
  • 1.15 Brian Walski, The Los Angeles Times (2003)
  • 1.16 James Forlong, Sky News (2003)
  • 1.17 CNN coverage of Iraq and Eason Jordan (2003)
  • 1.18 Jayson Blair, The New York Times (2003)
  • 1.19 "Gropegate", The Los Angeles Times (2003)
  • 1.20 Jack Kelley, USA Today (2004)
  • 1.21 Stephen Dunphy, Seattle Times (2004)
  • 1.22 The Oregonian's coverage of the Goldschmidt scandal (2004)
  • 1.23 The Boston Globe's Fake "GI Rape" Photographs(2004)
  • 1.24 The ABC News election memo (2004)
  • 1.25 Mary Mapes, Dan Rather and "Memogate" (2004)
  • 1.26 Eason Jordan, CNN (2005)
  • 1.27 Fake American hostage, Associated Press (2005)
  • 1.28 Eric Slater, Los Angeles Times (2005)
  • 1.29 Mitch Albom, Detroit Free Press (2005)
  • 1.30 Barry Schweid, Associated Press (2005)
  • 1.31 Barbara Stewart, The Boston Globe (2005)
  • 1.32 Diana Griego Erwin, Sacramento Bee (2005)
  • 1.33 Chris Cecil, Cartersville Daily News (2005)
  • 1.34 The Daily Egyptian's fake orphan (2005)
  • 1.35 Bush administration journalism scandals (2005)
  • 1.36 Jim Van Vliet, Sacramento Bee (2005)
  • 1.37 Tim Ryan, Honolulu Star-Bulletin (2006)
  • 1.38 Hassan Fattah, New York Times Abu Ghraib photos (2006)
  • 1.39 Michael Hiltzik, The Los Angeles Times (2006)
  • 1.40 Paul Bradley, Richmond Times-Dispatch (2006)
  • 1.41 Philip Chien, Wired News (2006)
  • 1.42 Adnan Hajj, Reuters (2006)

[Milhous]

The bloggers from the Northern Alliance Radio Network show do a feature called, "The Week in Gate-keeping," which mocks the argument that the mainstream press is superior because it has editors and fact-checkers to keep the mistakes out. It's my favorite part of their show.

Gn 22:17 your descendants shall take possession of the gates of their enemies

Anyone With A Modem Can Report On The World

. . .

[Hillary Clinton] said, "We're all going to have to rethink how we deal with the Internet. As exciting as these new developments are, there are a number of serious issues without any kind of editing function or gatekeeping function."

Newspaper sale$ decline should be blamed on the Journos

. . .

People who work at journalism full time ought to be able to do a better job of it than people for whom it is a hobby. But that's not going to happen as long as we "professional" journalists ignore stories we don't like and try to hide our mistakes. We think of ourselves as "gatekeepers." But there is not much future in being a gatekeeper when the walls are down.

Study: Web is the No. 1 media - 06/06/2006