BOSTON GLOBE FABRICATES-FReeRepublic Exclusive

4/9/03 | Boston Globe

[Lady Eileen]

bump

[The Red Zone]

Didn't he know this was a non smoking palace??? Off with his head!

[freekitty]

Why listen to stupid?

[GB]

I am a journalist. To be specific, my job in journalism is designing pages, writing headlines and writing photo captions.

I've also been a committed conservative since age 10, going on 35 years now.

I say this to establish my credentials to speak here ... and to tell you that you are WAY out in the ozone on this.

First off, the AP includes a recommended caption on every photo. A newspaper is under no obligation or requirement ... repeat, NO obligation or requirement ... to use that caption. Most of them are poorly written because they are written by the photographers themselves and not by writers. I have "winged" it and written my own captions based on my view of the photo hundreds if not thousands of times in my nearly 25 years in the business.

Quite frankly, I might very well have used the cigarette line myself because it was a little more compelling. I placed a picture of two Brits lighting up in the paper a few days ago because it was a cool photo ... one of the Brits was a tank driver and he was sitting up in the entrance to the tank and lighting up for a colleague who was standing on the side of the tank. They looked supremely confident like it was just another day at the office and it was a compelling photo, and I didn't worry about any anti-smoking types calling to complain.

Secondly, the thing about the soldiers going through the palace for souvenirs ... in other words, looting, although that is kind of a perjorative term ... was not a falsehood, it was most definitely mentioned in the story that this photo (which I saw when going through the available photos that night) and several others accompanied, because I personally read every word of that story, wrote a headline for it (mine was something on the order of "U.S. troops make themselves at home in Saddam's palace") and placed it in my newspaper. And in hindsight, I probably should've used a pullout paragraph or something in boldface about them taking souvenirs because that is also cool and IMHO is no big deal. I mean, like victorious soldiers haven't helped themselves to the spoils of war for hundreds of year. A guy who lived down the street from me when I was a kid had a dagger he took off a German he killed in World War II and he was quite proud of it, and I always beheld it with awe.

So if our guys did help themselves to some of Saddam's toys ... again, so what? Big fat hairy deal! It's no insult to our guys.

Bottom line, I certainly have no use for the Boston Globe in a lot of ways, and I don't deny that there is bias in the media (I can curl your hair with stories of what it's been like trying to work in the trade as a conservative for a quarter-century), but don't go crazy and start seeing devious, eeeeeeevillll conspiracies in each and every thing and call for Freeping when you have no idea of what you're talking about.

[Babu]

The Boston Glob and the New York Slimes are owned by the same outfit.

You read an American-hating rag and you are surprised by American-hating news???

[SpinyNorman]

I agree with you, but if they had written "Marines relax in palace splendor after a hard day of baby killing?" (probably the al Jizzera caption) would that be acceptable?

I don't mind them making a good caption, but I deplore a false one. Slanted isn't much better.

[pointsal]

golly sakes! ping to top

[GB]

No that certainly wouldn't have been acceptable as a caption because not only would it have been slanted, it would've been a lie.

My point is that I don't see any untruth or, as much as we'd like to see it, any slant here. It's what happened.

I think the response to this touches on something I said in a thread about Pfc. Lynch the other day. We conservatives get so anal and fearful and worried and have our antennae up 365/24/7 thinking that the libs are just waiting there to pounce on any and use every single, solitary, little thing they can do or can get their hands on to hammer us.

In many cases, that is true, and I certainly don't want us to put our antennae down and I realize that we're in a war here just as well as we are over there.

Basically, though, I think we give our enemies too much credit sometimes, and don't give the American public enough credit for their ability to see through that garbage and filter out the bias and slant.

[Lancey Howard]

Hey, when you've seen one America-hating Democrat-controlled newspaper, you've seen them all. Around here, we have the Philadelphia Inquirer.

[Sunshine Sister]

You made me laugh! Thank you!

[GB]

Again, no. No news organization is required to use the attached caption for an AP photo, a UPI photo or a photo from any source.

Folks, it works both ways. I've actually taken slant OUT of the recommended captions before.

[Lancey Howard]

Basically, though, I think we give our enemies too much credit sometimes, and don't give the American public enough credit for their ability to see through that garbage and filter out the bias and slant.

On the other hand, don't underestimate the gullibility of the mindless rabble, either.
Eight years of the Scumbag Administratiob proves that.

[GB]

They voted for him because we put up two bad candidates against him. Great men, truly distinguished Americans who served their country well, but bad candidates nonetheless.

But I really grow weary of hearing about Slick here. He's irrelevant and we make him relevant by continuing to bring him up. He beat us like a drum, but he's gone and he ain't coming back. We need to get over him and accept the fact that he will never wear the orange jumpsuit he so richly deserves. I think that's what fuels the constant dwelling on the fool here ... I think a lot of FReepers, in their heart of hearts, still think that will happen someday and he'll finally get his comeuppance, but it's not going to happen. I don't waste my time worrying about Clinton anymore. $%&(#@% him!

[leadpenny]

Thanks my friend.

[Risa]

>>Is there a FReeper who can organize a FReep of this vicious deliberately-misleading inaccuracy?<<

I am not surprised at their duplicity. The Boston Globe is not a good medium for unbiased news, and a lot of the writing is horrendous.

I wonder if we could expect more from the news media of a state which elects, over and over again, that immoral, alcohol-soddened buffoon, Ted Kennedy.

A freep is a great idea.

risa

[thunders]

Ok, I didn't read yesterday's Globe...But this is sickening! I don't know all of the names of the people in the Boston area, but this should be sent to the group...I'm in between classes right now, so kind of busy... Surely someone will have an idea of what can be done...sigh...I'm disgusted....

[Risa]

>>BTW We were told specifically that we would enjoy a court martial if we looted ANYTHING during GWI. There were several officer inspections of our gear to check for booty.<<

Well, if you had looted, I would have supported you wholeheartedly! What is wrong with a little levity at Saddams expense in the midst of unimaginable horror and hell? What is wrong with sitting in some tawdry, gold-painted chair in the midst of a bombed out room with glass all over the floor, to relax for a moment with a cigarette? Or even taking souvenirs?

The capacity for moments of humor and levity in the midst of unimaginable horror are traits that make us human, and also able to survive enduring neurocognitive stress.

Sheesh--I am appalled at the ignorance of those who would deny these young people a moment of relief. (And I think our country won't be healthy again until all those peacenik hippies from the sixties are dead.)

risa

[Risa]

>>I say this to establish my credentials to speak here ... and to tell you that you are WAY out in the ozone on this.<<

I appreciate your edifying commentary, GB.

regards,
risa

[thunders]

You are correct in your analysis of the situation (of course; you are the one experience in this stuff).

I would rather love to see several nasty letters written in to the Globe for this; I realize that no real legal action is necissary or deamed in this sitation.

My problem with this caption, and the similar things that happen, is that it is an attempt to smear our military. Or, even if the journalist who wrote the caption was just naive and didn't think about the effect it would have on people reading it and how he/she should give more respect to the Marines in the picture and to the military in general, this person is still in the wrong. Yes, I know, they were simply doing their job by using a more 'sensational' headline, but why not show more respect and quit trying to sensationalize everything! I have met one person who works for the Globe who was conservative, but I would almost lay money down that the journalist who wrote this caption was a liberal.

My main point is that that there comes a point where you suddenly quit showing any respect whatsoever for those men and women who protect you, your peace, and your life at their own free will. This caption crossed that line. The reason why this caption crossed that line is because of the references to activities that are generally deemed 'bad' by the general public. The basic idea of this caption was that everyday PFC and LCPL Joe are wandering through the palace, tearing things apart and picking up things that they want to take home to their moms and girlfriends or keep for themselves....i.e. taking them...i.e. looting...i..e. stealing--and we all know what the general public thinks about stealing. It also used 'sensational' words to describe them pilfering through files and the like throughout the palace, which would also be generally considered bad.

I also wonder about the cigarrette part...From the picture I saw, I could not tell whether the guy actually had a cigarrette in his hand or simply had his hand up by his mouth. Unfortunately, I am on a public computer, and a Mac at that (I don't know how to use Macs and generally avoid and despise them), so I can't blow the pic up and take a closer look at it. I plan on doing that tonight as soon as I get back to my computer. In the meantime, I wonder if the original story that went with the picture said anything to confirm that this guy was indeed smoking... I do agree that it's no big deal; only very naive and dense people don't understand that everyone is human, and even Marines sometimes have addictive habits, including smoking. One cannot expect a person with a habit as such to completely give it up cold turkey when they are deployed and the item is still available, so, it is perfectly acceptable for this to be occuring.

BUT, still, I don't want to see a large number of guys in the military who are smoking, because that gives a misrepresentation to the general public. I see a lot of pictures of guys with glasses on, as well as of the women in the military, giving the impression to those portions of the general public who know nothing about the military and don't wish to take the time to actually research, that there is a high number of women in the military, as well as an unproportionately high number of those who wear glasses.

I think the biggest issue is that most journalists could care less about and aren't trying to represent things in the most proper way; instead, they are just trying to get 'the' story...

Now that I have spent a significant amount of time (much more time than I wanted) explaining my exact thoughts on the subject, I should take off, b/c, like I said before, I'm in between classes--and I should be doing work right now...

[eureka!]

Disgusting. Here's hoping Howie Carr gets wind of this...