Journalism or Collaboration?

[gilliam]

BLACKFIVE

At the same time we are listening to the howls of indignation that the US would attempt to get some good, and truthful, news out to the Iraqi public, we get a glaring reminder why this is necessary. News reports around the world trumpeted that insurgents had taken over the city of Ramadi and attacked many Iraqi and US bases in the area, overrunning and taking control of the city. Sadly, this is exactly the kind of info that gets most of the folks covering this war salivating. They have blinded themselves to any good happening and circle like buzzards waiting for the carcass to finally drop, so they can shout to the world how the imperialist Americans got taught a lesson. The problem is the insurgents didn’t take over Ramadi, and their very brief posed set piece in a couple of blocks had to be closely coordinated with journalists to ensure that when they ran out and pointed their guns, the reporters got to see them before the Americans or Free Iraqis did, because they know hellfire seeks any clown dumb enough to stand and fight.http://www.blackfive.net/photos/uncategorized/ramadi_gungeek.jpg

Read More…

LINK

 

[Philip_P]

If the military had been upfront about what they were doing it would be different. Instead, they made it look as if Iraqis were writing articles, articles that were in fact written by Americans. That’s called a lie. And it’s wrong, regardless of how noble the purpose.

 

[oldfogey]

And the guy who inherited the New York Times from his father, and who said 35 years ago that the Viet Cong were right to shoot US soldiers (and brags that he said it still) can pay the reporters who he picks to write what he wants, and sell papers doing it.

Now, THAT is disinterested journalism without any ideological or profit motive for sure.

 

[Philip_P]

oldfogey:

And the guy who inherited the New York Times from his father, and who said 35 years ago that the Viet Cong were right to shoot US soldiers (and brags that he said it still) can pay the reporters who he picks to write what he wants, and sell papers doing it.

Now, THAT is disinterested journalism without any ideological or profit motive for sure.

And you would see the actual reporter’s name on the byline, and the publisher’s name on the masthead. You could inform yourself of likely biases and credibility of the writer and publisher.

In contrast, these planted articles hid the identity of the article author, and who the article authors were employed by. Readers were denied the chance to form their own opinion on the veracity and credibility of the articles.

 

[gilliam]

Philip P:

And you would see the actual reporter’s name on the byline, and the publisher’s name on the masthead. You could inform yourself of likely biases and credibility of the writer and publisher.

In contrast, these planted articles hid the identity of the article author, and who the article authors were employed by. Readers were denied the chance to form their own opinion on the veracity and credibility of the articles.

That actually seems to be the issue here, and it is being addressed by the Pentagon. But that is not the subject of this thread. The subject of this thread is why is the press so nieve to believe the propaganda of the terrorists? Or are they not nieve and are willing to propagate the propaganda because of their hatred of all things Bush?

 

[Philip_P]

At the same time we are listening to the howls of indignation that the US would attempt to get some good, and truthful, news out to the Iraqi public…

The indignation is over the dishonest planting of the stories, not what the stories said.

 

[gilliam]

Philip P:
The indignation is over the dishonest planting of the stories, not what the stories said.

Not exactly: The indignation is over the planting of TRUE stories without attributing the stories as being paid for.

And, as you know, this is off topic to the original post, so I suggest talking about it elsewhere.

 

[Philip_P]

gilliam:

Not exactly: The indignation is over the planting of TRUE stories without attributing the stories as being paid for.

And, as you know, this is off topic to the original post, so I suggest talking about it elsewhere.

I don’t really think it’s OT, as it really is the source that is the big story with this issue, but I’ve said my peace on it and will move on.