Posted on 06/03/2007 9:26:11 AM PDT by pabianice
Yet Top Media Ran More Than 6,000 Stories on Abu Ghraib Abuses
ALEXANDRIA, VA—The U.S. Defense Department released photos last week of an al-Qaeda torture chamber in Iraq, which showed various torture tools—blow torches, meat cleavers, hammers, drills, metal files—drawings of torture methods, and photos of actual victims found in another house in Karmah who had been burned, mutilated, and tortured in myriad ways.
To their credit, CNN and Fox News Channel ran stories on the declassified material. Yet nine days since the material was released, neither ABC, CBS, NBC, The New York Times nor The Washington Post has run a story with the photos of this shocking evidence of al-Qaeda’s barbarism.
Concerning the top media’s silence on the al-Qaeda torture chamber in Iraq, MRC President Brent Bozell issued the following statement:
“The elite media’s liberal bias is abundantly clear in this case. U.S. soldiers raided several al-Qaeda safe houses in Iraq and discovered stacks of evidence about how al-Qaeda tortures its victims. The tools, the drawings, and the photos are gruesome and clearly show what type of enemy the U.S. is facing.
“Yet most of the liberal media are deliberately silent. This is the same self-righteous liberal media that ran more than 6,000 stories and countless photos of Abu Ghraib and the abuse of prisoners there by several U.S. soldiers. Where are they now? Why will they not show the American people what al-Qaeda is actually doing in Iraq right now? Whose side are they on?
“Al-Qaeda’s crimes are a thousand-fold more brutal than anything done by any derelict U.S. soldier. Yet it’s obvious now that the liberal media want to focus on U.S. misdeeds, and alleged misdeeds, and theoretical misdeeds instead of giving the truth to the American people.”
To view the photographs and drawings declassified by the U.S. Defense Department, visit this site, http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0524072torture1.html
The MSM didn’t “just” destory careers, they destroyed the reputation of the American military in an attempt to unseat President Bush in the 2004 election.
Michael Moore had similar images ready to “break” in his movie F-911. But the MSM beat him to the punch.
Nick Berg was murdered because of the media’s hype of those photos (the NY Times ran Abu Ghaib stories on the cover for 30 consecutive days).
Nick Berg was kidnapped PRIOR to the AG story breaking but his captors used the news as an excuse to release a video of his decapitation. Another prisoner had escaped the previous week and spilled the beens (he was a KBR employee) and so the hostages presented a security risk to Al Qaeda. The MSM gave them a ready excuse to show their dedication and brutality.
Even today you can find art projects that expose the “horrors” of Abu Ghraib. I’d like to see someone expose the horrors of Al Qaeda’s torture and Saddam’s rape rooms.
It goes back further than that. George Orwell was disgusted that the Socialists (of which he had been) refused to decry abuses in Stalin's USSR even though they would readily denounce American and British policy during WWII. He dioscusses it at length in an introduction he wrote for Animal Farm (you can find it reprinted in the 50th anniversary edition).
Headline = Good! ...let’s hope they keep their mouths and fingers to themselves on this!!!
I’d forgotten about that - thanks. Walter Duranty lives on.
The formula is that (6000 - 15)/6000 x 100% of the Mainstream Media stories are faked or overtly biased. That works precisely out to 99.75% of Mainstream Media being fake or heavily biased.
You don't understand the simplest thing about journalistic objectivity. The rule of journalism is that you select your stories on the basis that they are too unusual and/or too scary to be ignored.That is encapsulated in the famous dicta,
Journalism makes no secret of these dicta; journalists will tell you that that is how they select their stories for reporting and for emphasis. Now here we have two different stories, Abu Graib and al Qaeda torture.
- "'Man Bites Dog,' not 'Dog Bites Man,'" and
- "If it bleeds, it leads."
- Al Qaeda torture isn't at all surprising, everyone knows it happens all the time. And torture of foreigners, by other foreigners seven time zones from America, is not scary to Americans. So the al Qaeda torture story is strictly "Dog Bites Man," and not worthy of the attention of American Journalism.
- Abu Graib, OTOH, is just the opposite. It has:
- behavior which is completely unexpected of American officials anywhere,
- behavior which would be terrible if done by American officials anywhere, and
- behavior which reflects discreditably on the people - Republicans - whom Americans who want things done count on to get things done, right (nobody who actually cares about the government's getting the government's job - control of the power of the sword - done right would ever vote Democratic. Democrats just don't care about the government's controlling the power of the sword; they take that for granted. Bread and circus is all that matters to them).
So ever-parochial American journalism considers itself perfectly objective when, following its time-honored rules, it reacts with a "ho hum" to the discovery of an al Qaeda torture cell in Iraq, after having made a mountain out of a mole hill over Abu Graib. The reality is, of course, that their analysis of the case is profoundly contemptuous and dismissive of any interests other than their own.
Oh, I think it’s the KGB/FSB. Have you noticed how closely their reporting and activities reflect Putin’s positions? Their coverage of Cuba, Venezuela, Iraq, Iran, China, Israel and US politics is virtually indistinguishable from Putin’s positions.
Dear c_i_c,
Your calculations may be a bit off. You are comparing the two stories over different time frames. Since the AQ torture chamber story is less than one month old, you need to compare the number of stories in the first month of the AG torture story. The value may not be 99.75%, although I suspect that it will still show a significant media bias. Furthermore the AQ torture story will be buried, while the AG torture story will continue until the last American leaves Iraq or there is a Democrat President - whichever occurs later.
Interesting!
I stand by my math, however.
It has never gone unnoticed on my part that the “mainstream press” plays the part of establishment gadfly for the sake of personal gain, all under the guise of objectivity. That’s why they suck on a mendacious level. I don’t trust their paragraphs for a moment, let alone purchase their tripe.
Selecting stories “on the basis that they are too unusual and/or too scary to be ignored” is not “journalistic objectivity.” I doubt the latter even exists.
Of course it is not objectivity. But it is journalistic "objectivity." It is what journalists put for objectivity.I doubt the latter even exists.
The conceit that journalism is objective is laughably absurd. Journalism puts its own interest forward as if it were identical with the public interest. That is the very definition of self interestedness, and self interestedness is an antonym for objectivity.
Let’s keep tugging at their mask. Yank it plumb off their stupid face. That’s what this post is about.
Of course. My point is that it doesn't matter how many times you document the fact that journalism is "biased" about particular stories. Because journalism just changes the subject. The real action that I care about, have cared about since I stopped getting the AIM report because they had convinced me - is about not whether but why journalism is "biased."I put "bias" in quotes only because a newspaper is entitled to promote whatever interests it wants to. That's what First Amendment freedom of the press is. But of course broadcasting is censored - we accept the duty to shut up in exchange for the right to be able to receive the licensed broadcasters' signals - and as such, broadcast licensees have the burden of proving that they are "broadcasting in the public interest as a public trustee."
Broadcast licensees have responded to this mandate by mirroring the big newspapers, which claimed to be objective. That bought them cover from The New York Times et. al. The Times is hardly disposed to question the objectivity of someone who is mirroring The New York Times.
But since the rules that The New York Times and the rest "objectively" apply are rules which promote the self interest of journalism, calling that behavior "objectivity" is logically absurd. And the only place where logic might prevail over the propaganda power of Big Journalism is in court. My only problem, besides the power of Big Journalism to subject judges to flattery and derision, is the fact that my logic is radical - it's valid IMHO, but it is hard to propose a remedy that a judge wouldn't laugh at the idea of imposing.
And of course I'm not a lawyer, just a FReeper. I developed this logic over many years. And documented it here.
It’s as laughable to require judges to apply law to professed practices of objectivity as it is to expect the same of scientists. Perhaps “false advertising” statues might come into play but, like you, I am not a lawyer. The human capacity to accept positive statements on the face of things brings an indictment of its own, applicable to all literate beings.
Also, where's N.O.W. when all these women in Iran are getting threatened with having their throats slit about how they dress??? The double standard is deplorable!
Also, where's N.O.W. when all these women in Iran are getting threatened with having their throats slit about how they dress??? The double standard is deplorable!
This darn laptop! Sorry about the double posting!
BTTT
marker
I'm not a lawyer, but all Americans have a right - indeed, a duty - to know the law. Otherwise, how would we know not to break the law??? A lawyer only has to be able to look up the whole law to be able to advise his clients - until he goes out in public, and acts in his own behalf. Then he has to know the whole thing.The human capacity to accept positive statements on the face of things brings an indictment of its own, applicable to all literate beings.But the logic of broadcasting seems pretty crazy. I have a duty to not transmit radio waves which might interfere with my neighbor's reception of the transmissions of a licensed broadcaster. That's fine for my neighbor's sake, you would say - until you look at the First Amendment and realize that while it certainly implies that you have the right to listen to whoever is willing and able to talk to you, it doesn't say nor imply that the government has the right to make it possible for certain individuals to be able to talk to you, while most people are obliged to shut up. The First Amendment implies that I don't need a license to talk to you in person nor to print something and send it to you. Where does the government get the authority to set up noblemen known as broadcasters who have a right to be hearable whenever they speak, while requiring me to shut up?
These noblemen defend their "right" by claiming to speak in the public interest, and claiming to be "objective." I think I have disposed of the claim of journalists - all journalists, not just broadcast - "objectivity;" any such claim is pure arrogance. That claim of objectivity is all well and good, if made by a newspaper which enjoys no governmental license to print apart from the First Amendment which applies as much to you and me as it does to the Sultzberger family. But it becomes discriminatory and actionable, from my POV, when that same claim is made by someone who has the sort of position of trust which a broadcast license represents.
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
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.