NETS AND TOP PAPERS SILENT OVER AL-QAEDA TORTURE HOUSE

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

So the actionable feature of the offense - when broadcasters claim objectivity for themselves yet speak otherwise - is due to the wide range and ease of hear-ability?

The actionable offense is actually committed by the FCC when it prosecutes people for "broadcast piracy" - presuming to reserve the right of freedom of the press - if broadcasting is "the press" - to some few "licensees" when freedom of the press implies that there can be no such thing as a requirement for a "press license." It is that which is at the root of unconstitutional setting up of media kingpins by the government. So the FCC is the first one to be sued. And that goes double for the Federal Election Commission, when it enforces laws which purport to control what you can say about an incumbent politician within a few weeks of an election - and under what conditions you can use your own money to propagate your political opinions in "the press." If in fact the FCC rules requiring radio transmission to be "in the public interest" are not ruled a complete sham, then the FCC has a duty actually to enforce those rules. And legitimate FCC regulation cannot impose a "Fairness Doctrine" which is "fair" in the same way that "journalistic objectivity" is "objective."
The only possible standard which could approximate fairness would be the philosophical standard. Since Socrates, it has been known that arguing from a claim of superior virtue is arrogant. The "Sophists" of ancient Greece argued from claims of superior wisdom ("soph" being the Greek word of wisdom). And of course if I am wise and you are not wise, then whenever we disagree I am automatically right and you are automatically wrong; there is no point in my wise self having to argue with a donderhead like you. And that is the essence of "journalistic objectivity" - journalists dismissing any challenge to their perspective with naked PR power, thinly veiled with fraudulent claims of objectivity which boil down to the fact that all journalists are in cahoots to promote their own interest by equating the interests of journalism with the public interest.
In contrast to the sophists, the "philosophers" disavowed any claim of superior wisdom and claimed only to love wisdom, not to possess it ("philo" = "brotherly love" as "Philadelphia" = "city of brotherly love"). If you love wisdom but do not claim to possess it, you are open to facts and logical argument. And that is what is missing from "objective" journalism. Journalism which claims to be objective claims superior wisdom - and is, demonstrably, sophistry. But the implication of a requirement for the FCC (and FEC) to reject sophistry would be a requirement that the FCC police its licensees to eliminate - not, as is current practice, to promote - "objective" journalism.
That would not eliminate journalism, but it would eliminate what establishment journalists call "journalism." What would remain would be broadcast show hosts who discuss the issues and debate facts and logic. What would remain of broadcast journalism would be talk radio.
Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate

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.

All patently false. How does everyone "know" it happens all the time since it is NEVER reported? TRUE torture IS scary to Americans and why are you speaking for all 300 million of us? It is precisely BECAUSE of the bullsh!t distortion of Abu Garib that the torture at the hands of Al Queda is news. "American Journalism" as you call it doesn't think it's worthy, as apparently you don't, but actual, compassionate conservatives do. Your moral relativism is showing.

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.

patently false. How does everyone "know" it happens all the time since it is NEVER reported?

Certainly you have a point, if you are talking to me. But then, I was speaking in the voice of Big Journalism in that piece. For the sake of my argument it is irrelevant whether or not "everyone knows" that Al Qaeda are an abusive bunch of thugs. Because my point is that the use of that assumption to justify softpedaling a story is illegitimate if you are going to put your journalism forward as an exemplar of objectivity. True or false, that assumption tells us nothing of the actual significance of the new information. It should be reported because it is important, not because it is surprising or because it is scary.
My point is that journalism doesn't report everything, and we all accept that it cannot report everything. But when you do not report everything, you leave open the possibility that "half the truth may be a great lie."
Big journalism systematically uses "objective" standards for determining which stories get reported, and which stories get emphasized - and which stories do not make the cut. But those "objective" standards are calculated to promote Big Journalism in general and the particular organ thereof for which a journalist works, in particular. So those "objective" standards are in fact self interested standards which may not, and in fact generally do not, promote the general welfare of the public.

I have to agree that, if broadcast journalism is to be governed by standards of what is good for the general welfare, then it ought be subject to penalties when it transgresses objectivity for the sake of its own interests.

But how to legislate and enforce broadcast journalism when it comes to the selection of stories, or omission of stories such as the above, that will be a difficult thing, for there are many both within and without government agencies who relish lies and serve themselves in the first place.

Certainly it seems beyond the pale of general welfare for broadcast journalism to effect public policy, as it may well do with stories such as the TANG debacle and one sided global warming propaganda.

I don't think you can regulate story selection, and if you cannot regulate that, you cannot guarantee objectivity. And if you cannot guarantee objectivity, you probably should just respect the intent of the First Amendment and quit pretending that you are enforcing objectivity. But that requires you to stop censoring radio transmission, which is the death of broadcasting as we know it.
The reality is that SCOTUS almost certainly will not do that, but the only remedy then remaining is to forbid the broadcasters to claim objectivity and thereby to shut down debate through sophistry.
IMHO.

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.