Are Journalism and Politics Inextricably Joined? 473
An anonymous reader writes "Retiring figure Bill Moyers makes his case in a recent speech delivered at the Society of Professional Journalists 2004 national convention. 'But I approach the end of my own long run believing more strongly than ever that the quality of journalism and the quality of democracy are inextricably joined.' It is a deep argument, made poignant by the recently murdered Francisco Ortiz Franco of Mexico, Manik Saha of India, and Aiyathurai Nadesan of Sri Lanka, among others. It is a broad argument, touching on history from America's first best seller to yesterday's blog. Is it a convincing argument?"
Re: What does it feel like to make a choice? (Score:2, Informative)
Seriously though, just because you don't feel a thing doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
Re:Some interesting points... (Score:3, Informative)
O'Reilly did work for six years on the TV-tabloid Inside Edition [foxnews.com] according to his bio on the FOX News website. It looks like a career low for O'Reilly, no matter what your opinion of FOX News is you'd have to say it is at least more credible a news source than "Inside Edition."
Oh, and it's Geraldo Riviera, not Jerry Springer that FOX News employed as a war correspondant, not an anchor. Now judging from the quality of personnel that FOX News employs they probably did think about Springer but they probably knew he has too much intelligence and integrity to ever work for them.
Chomsky says it all about Media & Politics (Score:3, Informative)
I agree, but offer corrections (Score:5, Informative)
That should be Dateline NBC for the trucks and Audi, not Volvo for the cars. A much more recent and politically linked example is the current Rathergate with the forged documents and a steadfast refusal by Rather and company to admit that they are wrong.
In the Rather case, he has been personally invested in the Texas Democratic Party for several years. Because of his politics, he blatantly manufactured news with a few of his daughter's cronies. In this case it is the journalistic equivalent of throwing a previously shot cat into Shroedinger's box, and then accusing Shroedinger of being cruel to animals.
The real world impact that was hoped for in this case vanished when the sham was unraveled. First the forged documents and the strings of experts. Then the star interview of Barnes was found to be both not in power at the time, and discredited by his own prior statements and his own daughter. The most recent national polls are probably reflecting a backlash to the "dirty tricks" aspect of this little episode, more than Bush or Kerry's own campaigning. This kind of journalism in action is fair to neither Kerry or Bush, and shouldn't be practiced by any of the press.
Now CBS is still feeling the pain and can't escape from it until they perform a major mea culpa or have a major purge of their perceived bias (Mr. Rather). In this case they lost right leaning viewers because of perceived left slant, and principled left leaning viewers because of tainted credibility. Now their ratings rely on rubberneckers waiting to see what the next act is in this train-wreck. Witness the strings of press releases announcing that they will be announcing something. Pathetic.
-- Len
Re:Freedom of Bias (Score:5, Informative)
What we get in America today is not true journalism. Partisan bias, which is largely demonstrated in the choice of what is and isn't "newsworthy", has been pushed to the fore of our media.
There is a very interesting study here [americanassembler.com] that basically tries to gauge how minsinformed the US public is, and then break that down by which candidates they support, which news channels they watch, how clseoly they follow the news etc.
Now, the report has its biases in the sorts of questions they ask, and to some extend how they present the data, but if you read the report as well as just skimming through the somewhat damning graphs littered throughout, you'll see that there are some real systemic problems with US media coverage. In general, if you watched/listened major news outlets (Fox, ABC, CBS, NBC etc.) you tended to be more misinformed the more closely you thought you followed the news.
And then there's the problem that this study didn't even consider - all the significant and interesting questions that are simply never be asked by the mainstream US media. Ah well, what can you do? Try and seek out other news sources I guess.
Jedidiah
Re:Quick Synopsis (Score:3, Informative)
The lying SBVT dominated the news cycle for weeks. As reported by the New York Times, among others, they were coordinated by the Bush administration, and the SBVT claims were contradicted by official Navy records, by eyewitnesses, and by their own statements prior to the campaign.
On the other hand, Bush has gotten a free pass for
a) Using political connections to get in to the National Guard, when he was far from the best candidate to get in
b) Not fulfilling his duty once he was in there
c) Lying about his service and claiming he flew with his unit for years
Official National Guard records, including those released by the White House, contradict Bush's statements. Others in the National Guard corroborate the fact that Bush did not fulfill his duty. To this day, Bush has been incapable of naming a single person who saw him in Alabama when he was supposed to be training there. Bush claims he signed up for a unit up north (Connecticut, I think), but he never showed up to that at all.
The national media ignored Bush's stint with a champaign unit in the National Guard during Vietnam, with small exceptions, during the 2000 campaign. I know many Bush supporters would like to believe otherwise, but it's fact.
To illustrate this fact, I did a Lexis-Nexis search for "George W. Bush" and "National Guard" and "Vietnam"
from 1992 through 1996: 8 hits
1996 through 2000: 90 hits
Then I did a search for "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" and "John Kerry" and "Vietnam" in the past six months. How many hits? 248!
Okay, so clearly the liars trying to trash John Kerry are getting nearly three times the press in the past six months as the press has spent looking into legitimate issues with Bush's record in the past 12 years.
Is Bush's Vietnam record (or lack of it) relevant to today? To some extent, no. The war was more than 30 years ago. But for a president who calls himself the "war president", who insists he was for the Vietnam war, who started an elective war under false pretenses and shifting reasons, and who is dangerously stretching our military resources, it is important to know what that person was doing when it was their time to serve.
Re:US Media from a UK POV (Score:3, Informative)
Obviously my experience of the US media is limited, but I do my best to keep up with it, if only to find out how likely it is that Bush is voted out in November.
media clearly impact freedom (Score:3, Informative)
Propaganda is the most powerful tool to control adult humans. You can easily get someone to kill another by using propaganda--try doing that with some other means!
Re:Awesome article! (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Founding Fathers thought so. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Quick Synopsis (Score:2, Informative)
The only connection to the Bush campaign that the Swifties had was a lawyer, Benjamin Ginsberg. Ginsberg merely advised them on the McCain/Fiengold law. There is NO coordination between the Swifties and the RNC, or the Bush Campaign.
Contrast that to how many special events (Bush Bash) that are being coordinated between the DNC and MoveOn.org.
Secondly, Bush earned the required number of points every year in the Guard, thus fulfilling his requirement to the Guard.
Okay, so clearly the liars trying to trash John Kerry are getting nearly three times the press in the past six months as the press has spent looking into legitimate issues with Bush's record in the past 12 years.
Like using obviously forged documents from Kinko's? Oh wait - no, that's Dan Rather that thinks memos typed up in MS Word and faxed from a Kinko's in Abeliene are authentic.
By the way - Name ONE charge that the Swift Boat Vets have retracted. Now contrast that to how many times John Kerry has changed HIS story on the matter. Big difference, isn't there?
As far as lying, I can name several John Kerry lies off the top of my head, like spending Christmas in Cambodia, being in Vietnam when MLK was killed (hint: Kerry arrived in Vietnam MONTHS after the MLK assasination).
it is important to know what that person was doing when it was their time to serve
And you should know, that by his own admission in front of the US Senate, under Oath, that John Kerry spent his time in Vietnam committing atrocities and War Crimes. [richmond.edu]
Would you vote for Lynndie England for President? Kerry admits to doing much, much worse.
Re:Founding Fathers thought so. (Score:3, Informative)
In response to all this other stuff, my parents believe that CNN is strongly biased for the far left. Why they believe that is not at issue. What I want to point out is what they do because of it. They don't go out and make a movie about it or bitch about it on the internet. They simply don't watch it. You have to remember something, these are TV networks. They are generally brought to you by your cable company and if the channel is not being watched, the cable company will more likely than not, drop it. So stop bitching about biased news(its all biased, its just harder to see bias when its biased to your side) just stop watching it.
And note, I said stop bitching, intelegent debates and conversations are alright. But truly all that I see coming from the left these days is bitching. Before Fahrenheit 9/11 I would have said that I was firmly undescided about who I was going to vote for with a strong possibility that I was going to vote for Kerry, but after seeing that atrocious pack of lies, Im pretty sure Im going to vote for Bush just to cheese off Moore and all his chronies. That is of course if Bush doesn't piss me off anymore than he already has.
One parting thought, I would rather have an idiot controled by greedy men in office than a bunch of self-righteous, eletist bastards because the idiot and his greedy men are much more predictable and can only screw the country so much before people kick them out. Also, please note I am not a Republican nor a Democrat. I am a capitalistic, democratic American.
Sorry for the rant but I had to get that out.
Re:Quick Synopsis (Score:1, Informative)
> retracted
No charge has been retracted since they're liars. But every claim they've made has been proven false. The Associated Press, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal have all established that the claims are false. Furthermore, the New York Times established the numerous ties between the Bush campaign and the SBVT cabal. The Boston Globe called their lies "laughable".
The truth is some Bush supporters refuse to admit that their candidate shirked on his duty when it was his time, while John Kerry proudly served his country.
Imagine if Clinton had attempted the same character assassination against Dole in 1996. It would have been wrong then, and it is wrong now.
Re:Objectivity in question (Score:2, Informative)
A middle ground between CNN and Fox would be somewhere far far right of center. If you want balanced coverage, you should at the very least add BBC to your mix.
Re:The courage of his convictions? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Founding Fathers thought so. (Score:3, Informative)
While your vote is your business, I just couldn't help but note the bull-headed wrongness in this sentence.
First off, if the idiot can only "screw the country so much before people kick them out", then what do you think is being asked of you come November 2nd? Its your job to decide if the idiot has screwed up and needs to be kicked out.
Second, all serious candidates for President of the USA (the most influential political position in the world) are elites. George Bush is just as much a patrician elite as John Kerry, if not more so (Kerry's family and friends haven't made careers out of bailing him out). I've not seen Kerry being self-righteous, but I did see and American President tell my nation that our opinion on the subject of war in our names was none of his concern as he, and he alone, got to make the decisions.
Now, Mike Moore is a big guy and can take care of himself, but what was so wrong in his movie? He took liberty with his opinions, but I didn't see any place he really forced opinion into truth. Was it biased, misleading, or the work of someone with strong opinions? Of course. However, *none* of the criticisms has been placed on the major points and thrusts of the movie. All criticism has been on the minor points, on MM's opinions, which pale in comparison to the major truths: 1.) GWB and his family and friends have long standing relationships with regimes and families at the center of international terrorism, 2.) the war in Iraq was sold through deception, 3.) that war has caused a lot of heart-break in America and the world, 4.) the war is not going well (even in 2003), 5.) it is the underprivelidged youth that are fighting the bulk of this war (and I would say this is true on all sides).
Re:News or Entertainment? (Score:1, Informative)
The general in charge of Iraq operations failed to provide sufficient force levels or adequate supervision of activities at Abu Ghraib. Further prisoner abuse was reported in other military prison facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan. Abuse was widespread enough that there's good reason to label it as systematic, even if the generals can scapegoat some poor grunts and low level officers and hide behind plausible deniability.
I'll remind you that every prisoner left with his head on his shoulders.
Did you know about this [guardian.co.uk] and this? [nejm.org]
Dead is dead. So Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib were carried out in a body bag with their heads attached to their shoulders.
The level of gruesomeness doesn't change that both were murder, some done on behalf of a country that claims to be above torture and murder of prisoners. When word gets out, it supports Zarqawi and his ilk who claim "Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose", and weakens any legitimacy of the U.S presence in Iraq. Shouldn't US citizens know what is being done in their name and how it affects the Iraqi population's view of the occupation? When it affects the ability to obtain intelligence that might stop the kidnappings and beheadings and win some battles in the war on terror instead of fanning the flames of Islamic mistrust?
But no, that would be unfair. Instead, keep on fanning the flames of moral outrage sparked by 9/11. The U.S.A. never does anything wrong and it's the terrorists that are bloody murderers.
The USA is making the same mistakes the French made in Algeria and it look increasingly likely that it may end in the same way, in civil war with thousands deads and the country in the hands of Islamic extremists. If that happens President Bush will have achieved what no one thought possible, making Saddam Hussein look good by comparison.
Re:Founding Fathers thought so. (Score:3, Informative)
> not get caught. And we've not seen him on a video since 2001."
>
>Let me say that again -- he said this *last week* -- 9/10/2004.
>
>Here's the original CSPAN realvideo clip. The whole thing is a prime example of
>9/11-Iraq-9/11-Iraq conflation by repetition and insinuation. Iraq was
>celebrating shooting an unmanned American drone, and at the same time, Hanni
>Hanjour was checking into a Marriott in New Jersey...
Uh..he meant to say Bin Laden, not Saddam Hussain. That's the only mistake he made. Calm down.
Point by Point (Score:3, Informative)
Doug Brinkley's book mentions that Kerry and crew of PCF 44 were feeling the confidence of people who have never been shot at before. (This was after the Purple Heart incident.)
Christmas in Cambodia - Retracted by the Kerry campaign. Point for the swift vets.
Silver Star - The contention is that the commander who recommended Kerry was given innaccurate information by Kerry. Supporting documentation recently revealed (if authentic) shows that in fact Kerry shot a single, wounded fleeing VC. http://itznewstome.blogspot.com/2004/09/silver-st
Third Purple Heart - Information from Doug Brinkley's book states that Kerry was wounded while blowing up rice with Rassman and not during the river action.
Bronze Star - Eyewitness contention between Kerry and other commanders present at the time. Large conflicts between Kerry's story and Rassman's as well (the man he rescued). Kerry's story includes driving through over 3 miles of enemy fire without receiving damage to his boat. (Rassman's account has differred as to which boat he was on, one of Kerry's accounts has him going overboard due to a high-speed turn.)
The main point remains that Kerry has failed to execute a Standard Form 180 that would release all of his military records for independent review.