Is the Mike Ware story about Mike Ware?
A French reporter says Mike didn't laugh out loud at Senator McCain.
By Mark Kilmer Posted in War — Comments (17) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Last night, I asked: Does Michael Ware owe us an apology? Look at the story. I used an AFP story which reported reportorial giggling from the back of the room at McCain's Baghdad presser, combined it with a report from Raw Story that Mike Ware was in the back of the room, and asked the question. And I concluded that if the AFP report were accurate, many in the press corps were behaving childishly.
Raw Story has talked to the French reporter who penned the initial story reporting the sneering and giggling.
"As far as I'm aware there was no disruption of the press conference at all," wrote [Agence France-Presse reporter Jennie] Matthew from Baghdad. "The reporter who giggled at the back was not Michael Ware, whom I don't remember giggling or making any kind of disturbance. I think I remember him wanting to ask a question, but the congressmen ended the news conference."
Take that for what it's worth. Does she remember who was the reporter who giggled or just that it wasn't Ware? Because he said it wasn't him? Does it matter which reporter giggled, heckled, chuckled, or sneered?
Read More…
Either way, Michael Roston of Raw Story writes that I "seized on the article as proof that Drudge's unsourced account had been right." That is not what I wrote. My story did not attempt to vindicate Drudge, if he needs that, or to point a finger and Mike Ware as the heckler. I saw Matthew's French story as indicative of a broader infection. So many reporters are acting as third-rate activists, childishly mocking that which doesn't fit their model. Their model does not allow for improvement in Iraq. Their minds cannot grasp anything but quagmire and defeat. Is that what there is?
I anxiously await the reports from Victoria and Jeff, who are not preparing themselves to walk in strawberry fields with boxes of tissues and chocolates. There is a war going on, never a nice business, but the question has not been answered: Can civilization reclaim all of Baghdad? The reporters scoff at the notion. I do not.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | Mike Pence with McCain in Iraq — Comments (4) »
Is the Mike Ware story about Mike Ware? 17 Comments (0 topical, 17 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Respect the classics, thank you.
Second, you need to start reading more clearly. You meant, "Just a few days ago Erick wanted Ware to be fired". A small point, but we seem to get not a few people who don't seem to grasp this entire 'group blog' concept.
Third? Lighten up, Francis. That's another classical reference.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
It would seem to me, that when someone makes a ridiculous comment, that one would want members of our news media to call them on it.
If the positions had been reversed, if it had been Pelosi making claims about how dangerous Iraq is and how we are going to fail, and a reporter scoffed and questioned her wisdom in making that statement, you would be cheering the reporter.
I think the Mike Ware story isn't about Mike Ware at all, but about certain people's insistence that someone who has been there for years cannot have a more accurate view of the situation than they do.
about Americans being able to stroll freely around parts of Baghdad, Ware went to sources in the US military to get their reaction.
What was the off the record reaction of the US military folks?
Laughter.
Since you seem to be into trying to force people to kowtowing to your particular little view of things, how about you concur with the following:
* 90 percent of all MSM reporters are Democrats.
* Reporters reporting the facts of the situation instead of filtering it through their own particular set of biases is something that is supposed to be the standard, but has been observed more in the breach than the keeping, especially since the start of the Iraq War.
* Democrats have a vested political interest in continued chaos in Iraq, or at the least the perception of same, because they've staked out their position on the subject, so any evidence to the contrary is not something they're going to look favorably upon.
* Democrats particularly have a deep and powerful loathing of President Bush and everything he stands for, especially when it comes to war and Iraq.
* Multiple reporters (for example, Dan Rather) have been caught reporting things about Bush and Iraq that have later proven to be totally and completely false.
* Iraqi bloggers such as IraqTheModel have been consistently and repeatedly reporting a very different view of Iraq than the US media there has, and since they've been there for a lot longer than the media has, they're more likely to have a deeper understanding of the situation there.
Given these, how can you expect us to believe anything reported out of these Baghdad reporters that isn't easily and completely verifiable?
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
expect you to believe anything at all which you don't wish to believe. It's the nature of partisans to act in this fashion.
Noone forces you to watch any news, at all, ever. Or to read a newspaper, or an internet site. You make an affirmative choice to do so. If you don't believe what they are saying, don't watch. If you want to get all your news from Iraq from ITM and other sites which reinforce your worldview, knock yourself out.
My only contention is that it is inappropriate to make allegations of impropriety towards people when one has zero evidence that the event in question actually occurred. And then go on and on about it for days. THEN, when there turns out to be mounting evidence that the event in question did not happen, one turns to character assassination. Real classy.
I mean, sheesh. When you're in a hole.... STOP DIGGING!
Reporters have lost the benefit of the doubt from now on. Every thinking person now believes the worst until proven otherwise, and the MSM have no one but themselves and decades of distortions, lies and activism to blame.
I mean, sheesh. When you put your rear end on the line, make sure the person is worth it.
Why would this be bad news for me? I'm not a reporter and I don't work in their industry. If you don't want to believe what they say, don't. If you don't want to watch them, don't. It's a simple equation.
As I said in the post above, nobody forces you to watch, believe, or trust any news which comes your way, at all. You make an affirmative decision to do so. So I don't understand the vitriol which is displayed here at all.
Until any evidence at all is presented that Ware did anything inappropriate whatsoever, there is absolutely no reason any 'thinking person' should believe that he did. I think you have fallen into the MSMlied(tm) mindest. MSMDS, we could call it.
we learned at the feet of the masters. Seven years later you guys are still flogging the Texas National Guard story.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
You're throwing phrases like "zero evidence", "mounting evidence" around pretty casually there. Nearly as casually as the MSM.
But no matter. I challenge you to compare the handling of this story with the handling of basically any major story in the MSM in the last five years where the initial allegation has come into question. I think you'll find RedState on balance handled it better and more professionally than the so-called media professionals.
"Character assassination"? The media shot their own character and credibility a long time ago. They'd have to suffer a whole lot of injustice just to get their karma balance back approaching even.
But then again you won't admit any of this, or to any of the points I raised previously; you gloss over every point I made, you make presumptions that I get all my news from sites that reinforce my worldview (which is provably false on its face, because I read cnn.com regularly), you hide behind dodges like "partisans", you make charges that apply just as much if not moreso to you.
To my mind that says a lot about your credibility.
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
I wouldn't dream of telling you who to believe, who to watch, who not to watch, what to read, anything. I never stated that you didn't read or watch the MSM at all; just that if you think they are liars who don't inform people of the truth, who have no credibility, then you have the choice to NOT WATCH THEM.
None of your points was material to the discussion at all, but merely an opportunity for to show off various reasons why you dislike Democrats and the MSM. That's wonderful, but not interesting in the slightest.
If you call repeating an un-sourced account, of which there is video evidence contradicting the claimed occurances, of which there can be found no witness to affirm the case, over and over for days, if you call that "handled it better and more professionally than the so-called media professionals" - then there really isn't any reason to discuss the media with you at all, because you seem to be mistaken about what the word 'professionally' means. Repeating unsourced accusations as if they were true, engaging in character assassination, is not professional in any sense.
that the war in Iraq was going great and the MSM didn't report it for the first 3 or so years.
For the first 17 "Major Turning Points" (Saddam captured, elections, so-and-so killed/captured, election, constitution etc etc etc), I bought the narrative that things were about to really improve.
I bought the narrative that the MSM hid the good news....
But, guess what? The killings increased, the level of violence increased and the chaos increased - I started to think something else was going on....(not part of this thread)
When McCain makes an idiotic pronouncement that is easily & quickly shown to be COMPLETE BS, it hurts the credibility of all future assessments of the success/failure of the surge - shouldn't you be angry with him for doing that?
pity than anger.
Sad to see a guy I once supported - even worked for his primary campaign a little in '00 - fallen to such a level.
newspapers. My three generation household in the Bronx, contained six adults and, on a regular basis, they would purchase and bring home six to eight of the newspapers. Before my fourth birthday, my father taught me to read from these newspapers and, to prove that it was not a fluke, taught my sister to read before her fourth birthday.
I was immediatly hooked on reading. I read everything. especially those newspapers. I soon observed that the newspapers would treat the same story differently. Some of the difference could be explained by the fact that the reporters often interviewed different people and seldom asked the same questions of those interviewed. But, that did not explain all the differences in the stories. Each reporter had a point of view that influenced the way the story was written. In the 1940's, that meant, I often read six to eight completely or partially different versions of the same incident.
Yet, this was before the drive-by-media reached its full growth. It was still possible for a well read person to sift through the conflicting stories and come up with a pretty good idea of what actualy happened. Now, with more information sources, the media's position as the purveyor of truth is no longer sustainable.
who wrote a story titled "US WH hopeful haggles in Baghdad Market", a touch of dignity worthy of Ms Matthews story and I assume herself. Ms Matthews also added a little finesse with a characterization of McCains visit,"on a trip blatantly directed at American voters", blatant you understand. I have it from good sources that Matthews, with the even handedness for which the media is famous, will do a retrospective on Ms Pelosi, "on a trip blatantly directed at American voters" etc.
According to Matthews and after the Chinese water torture was applied, McCain broke down and "admitted" [ he didn't say, he admitted] that he had heavy protection. The last straw was the forced viewing of a tape assuredly unknown to the devious senator of just such protection. Oh, the foul prevaricator!
I've posted on this already and shown the sluggish, heavy handed imbalance of the report, regardless of Ware, who I will repeat follows in the great Australian journalistic tradition of Wilfred Burchett and the incomparable Peter Arnett.
If McCain did make a fool of himself it does seem there are bigger fools in the neighborhood and on the other side of the political fence. As to Drudge, well he can always aspire to reach the standards of the NY Times.
I assume everyone has seen the CNN video of Ware following a nice set up by the host, a concise if "blatant' editorial. So when does he report the news?
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
just a few days ago, you wanted Ware to be fired, now your report has proven to be false and you want Ware to apoligize? Is this bizaro world?