Media's role too often misunderstood

You've probably heard the story about the videotape that CNN ran of Palestinian youngsters frolicking in the streets after the terrorist attack on New York and near Washington on Sept. 11.

The story is that the Palestinian kids didn't celebrate at all. Rather, the network used videotape taken 10 years before at the outset of the Gulf War and "pretended" that it occurred after the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

Well, folks, if you don't know it already, let's set the record straight: The story is a lie, just one more urban legend that becomes so ingrained that it's passed along as the absolute truth. The Palestinian scene did take place. It was videotaped by a Reuters TV crew the evening of Sept. 11 and CNN, which subscribes to Reuters, and a handful of other cable outlets picked it up to show their viewers how different parts of the world were reacting.

The nonsense about it being false was started on the Internet and was passed along at a speed only possible on the Internet. Within 24 hours the radio talk shows, where truth never matters, picked it up as yet another example of how manipulative the national media are.

I have to admit I cringe these days when I hear commentators, read some letters to the editor, or listen to some folks on the telephone saying that the "media" are acting irresponsibly reporting on the war on terrorism. To hear some of them talk, they'd rather be kept in the dark about what their government is doing. They completely forget what a democracy is all about - it's not a democracy, folks, if the people don't have the information on which to act themselves.

While the twin towers were falling down on Sept. 11, the men and women of the media were rushing to the buildings to record for posterity the heroic acts of the firefighters, police officers and just plain citizens there. Those stories and images brought this nation together like never before.

While the bombs were falling on Afghanistan, members of the press risked their lives to record the scenes in that country. And while, yes, there were reports of bombs hitting civilians - something that some people who call themselves Americans think should be covered up - there were also hundreds of reports on the Taliban's enslavement of Afghan women and the brainwashing of Afghan children and the joys when they were liberated. The reports made it all the more understandable for us, who live in a land of a free press and free expression.

Then there was the reader who threatened to cancel his subscription because we ran a story showing how easy it is to spread anthrax spores in buildings. We were only giving terrorists ideas, he said.

Frankly, I'm quite sure the terrorists thought about that without our help. Isn't it best for the rest of us to understand that, too, so that we can take some action against it?

Tell you what. I wish someone would have written a story several months ago about how easy it would be to hijack an airplane full of jet fuel and run a suicide mission into the side of a skyscraper.

Perhaps then we would have strengthened security at our passenger terminals and reinforced the doors of the cockpits before it happened, instead of after.

Not just sure what Dave's point is. Is the media capable of distorting fact? We already knew that. Are the kooks on the Internet and talk radio spreading disinformation? What would be the objective, to make CNN look bad (they don't need our help for THAT), or to show the utter irresposibility of the Netizens and and radio (read conservative) talk show hosts?

"While the bombs were falling on Afghanistan, members of the press risked their lives to record the scenes in that country."

Well let's thank these heroes. What crap. They're falling all over themselves desparate to find some American atrocity to report. After the performance of "members of the press" during the Clinton years, it's painfully obvious to anyone that the Bush Whitehouse and Rumsfeld are an infinitely more credible and reliable source of accurate information than the NY Times, CNN or CBS.

I was a little confused by this as well. Does he mean the media is effective at spreading important useful news, but never spreads harmful information? Are the media to be revered as heroes for capturing moments of heroism on 9-11 and protectors of freedom for uncovering the abuse of the Taliban? All the while, we're to believe it's laughable that they could ever inspire a terrorist with a story on how to plan a successful terrorist attack? This seems a little hypocritical and arrogant.

But this does bring up an interesting point about disinformation on the Web. I recently discovered a new site called Unreliable Facts. This is an online encyclopedia of fake information hosted by a British news parody site. It's for entertainment, is clearly indicated as false and makes no effort to be construed otherwise, but you know these things will get out in emails, etc. I personally think a lot of the stuff there is funny, but is there a danger? I've gotten in the habit of visiting SNOPEs.com everytime I get an email about the latest myth, but the Web is full of incorrect info and does the potential harm (if any) outweigh the good?

"...members of the press risked their lives to record the scenes in that country."

Members of our military risked their lives to destroy the terrorist organization and, in so doing, brought renewed freedoms to many Afghanistanians.

I'd go with the military as the more heroic, for sure.

Alright, being a newbie I hope I haven't posted this twice. I was in Mexico when the Gulf War broke out and saw a Mexican newspaper with the photo of a supposedly 'Iraqui' woman mourning over the bodies of her six sons, supposedly killed in the American bomings. The photo looked familiar. Back in San Antonio, I found it in a Time Life book of newsphotography, and it had been taken in the mid or early eighties, and it was actually a Turkish woman with the bodies of her six sons killed in an earthquake. I informed Time/Life their photo was being misused but ha ha of course they shugged or something, if one can shrug in a form letter.

Pretty poorly-thought out "story". Aren't radio talk shows part of the "media", too? From the story, it appears that they ALL spread lies and disinformation, while the rest of the "media" (Newspapers? TV? ) are as pure as the driven snow!

Some of the "media" lies some of the time.

Much of the "media" gets the story wrong, in ways large and small, most of the time.

Some "talk radio" shows are VERY reliable as far as factual information goes.

The bottom line is that we (readers/ listeners) need to be very careful about what we believe from media sources that are incompetent, biased, or just plain stupid. (That would be most of them).

The media seems to be franticly trying to defend themselves from the outbreak of hostility to them. I've got some breaking news for them. The majority have ALWAYS hated their bias. We've always seen it for what it was. It's just that now it matters.

In war time, you have to have the unity so that the commander in chief can say "we must send people into harms way, where some are going to die", and the citizens must support this, 100%.

If they don't. If the citizens quibble about their sons dying in battle. Then the war is lost right there. No matter how powerful our forces may be.

The media has an actual duty in time of war to support what the government is doing. Right or wrong.

To do otherwise is national suicide.

"While the bombs were falling on Afghanistan, members of the press risked their lives to record the scenes in that country."

I wonder if it was an urban legend when Bernie what'sis'name was cought reporting bombs falling around Bagdad from under his bed in the nicest hotel in town?

Suppose it's an urban legend that Geraldo is making big bucks to pose safely away from the fray and act journalistic.

Must have been legend back in 68 when a US newsie complained to me that it was too hard to find drugs for sale in Saigon (he wanted film for the story he'd already written).

Does anyone else sense a concerted campaign underway to rehabilitate the news media's image? They must've really been taking it in the shorts these past few weeks.

Any attempt to turn public opinion around is in vain IMO. Me, I've had YEARS to nurture my contempt for the Fourth Estate so it'll take more than a few superfluous articles & polls to change my mind.

Hm....I think Dave here is validating the point he's trying to rally against.

It seems like he's trying to defend the media as being a group of heroic professional men and women who wield the pen on our behalf however, his writing is so disjointed, and lacking in the ability to make a decided point, that he just ends up looking like one of the fools that most of us think the media is comprised of.

I wonder if it was an urban legend when Bernie what'sis'name was cought reporting bombs falling around Bagdad from under his bed in the nicest hotel in town?

Nope, no legend. I saw the report on CNN, and heard the words from Bernard Shaw's own lips. He said he was hiding under a table not because he was afraid, but because he felt someone should be left alive to report what was going on.

I'd never seen the guy before, and though his career was dead the minute he made that ridiculous statement. A few months later, I saw him as an anchorman. That's when I realized that CNN stands for Comedy News Network.

No; they saw a ratings bonanza and went to film it. How many of those in the media would have thrown down their microphones and video equipment to pull someone out the rubble?

I have an idea, the next time a journalist is killed in Afghanistan, let's broadcast to the whole world the locations of all the other journalists over there. It is my right to know.

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.