Redstate

I haven't seen anyone defend out and out lying since Bill Clinton left office.

No one is faulting them for using stringers. What they are being faulted for is;

Using photoshopped photos to aid Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Using photos known to be staged (remember the Green Helmet Guy) to aid Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Using stringers who were complicit in the murder of election workers in Baghdad.
Using a stringer who is now detained for aiding in producing IEDs for terrorists in Iraq.
Using stingers who use a fake source to report fake atrocities.

All this may be fine with you, it isn't with a lot of people and your shot at people who have challenged their stories is boneheaded even by the standard you've set for yourself.

No one is faulting them for using stringers. What they are being faulted for is;

Using photoshopped photos to aid Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Using photos known to be staged (remember the Green Helmet Guy) to aid Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Using stringers who were complicit in the murder of election workers in Baghdad.
Using a stringer who is now detained for aiding in producing IEDs for terrorists in Iraq.
Using stingers who use a fake source to report fake atrocities.

No I'm saying it is ok to lie. However is there any evidence that AP has lied? Is there any evidence whatsoever that they are purposefully advocating a specific agenda?

And I have no problem with the blogosphere checking up on the MSM. We all want the most accurate news possible and the blogosphere, taken as a whole, helps to keep the MSM honest, just as the MSM helps to keep the government honest.

But the blogosphere seems to try to make comparisons between itself and the MSM and uses these sorts of errors to show the blogosphere's superiority.

The MSM has a choice to use either official sources or stringers and other not completely verifiable sources. And if our enemies willfully infiltrate the MSM with the intent to spread propaganda, it's an unfortunate part of doing business. It's good that the blogosphere is checking this stuff.

But none of this suggests that the AP or Reuters will intentionally lying or spreading an agenda. That is simply a known fact.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

Sorry about the formatting problems. I wish I knew what characters broke closing brackets.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

is okay?

All of the allegations I listed have actually happened and I am still slackjawed with amazement to find someone who is willing to defend either willful deception or a blinding level of incompetence.

I don't see anyone holding themselves up as better than the media. The difference is this. I do my own writing, I don't hire stringers. You know my biases, to the best of my knowledge and belief I've never pretended to be "fair and balanced." I actually get supervision from the Directors and criticism from my colleagues, not to mention readers. The press, at least as it operates in Iraq, does none of these things but tries to act as though it does.

It is just that simple. They are failing in their basic responsibility to gather news.

You can inadvertently make an error. But you can't inadvertently lie. This isn't just a matter of semantics. It speaks to the entire argument.

I have a great deal of respect for the things you write. Your recent "stay the course" diary was excellent, although I didn't get a chance to comment on it.

But there is a reason you don't use stringers. You aren't collecting the news. You are aggregating and disseminating the news as collected by the MSM. That is a key difference.

All blogs operate with an expressed bias. It frees them up from even TRYING to be objective. There is nothing wrong with that, mind you. But it does highlight the difference between the MSM and the blogosphere.

But sometimes I think the blogosphere puts their teeth into a story and doesn't let go. What is the real impact of the Jamil Hussein controversy. Are any of the stories attributed to him verifiably untrue? What impact did the stories have? If we are going to say that it is propaganda and an example of the MSM supporting our enemies, we should at least determine the scope and meaning of the propaganda.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

You can inadvertently make an error. But you can't inadvertently lie.

You can simply have a complete disregard for what is factual and what is not. That is a fairly common affliction among the "fake but accurate" MSM crowd. So long as the story fits the parameters they are looking for, they go with it. They don't seem to put a lot of effort in to making sure they get it right. In the worst case, where someone actually calls them on a falsehood and makes enough stink about it, they can simply fall back on "Oops! My bad!" and find some scapegoat to axe.

All blogs operate with an expressed bias. It frees them up from even TRYING to be objective. There is nothing wrong with that, mind you. But it does highlight the difference between the MSM and the blogosphere.

I think the MSM would be better served by admitting and embracing their biases. They also have biases of varying degrees, but they simply deny they exist.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

So now you think the MSM has a complete disregard for the truth?

So where do you get your news then? If the entire MSM is unreliable how will we ever know what is true and what is fabrication?

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

Is "fairly common" a synonym for "ubiquitous" now? There are a few decent MSM outlets out there. They are greatly outnumbered by all the very bad ones.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

And which outlets do you think seek the truth rather than disregard it?

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Well the WSJ is primarily a business newspaper. It is a good newspaper on the whole. Certainly a Conservative slant though.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

The news side is liberal, second only to the NYT in a recent survey of news editors. And sorry, I don't have a link.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

The news coverage is as closed to unbiased as you are going to find. As was just mentioned, some academic study rated them as an extremely liberal source based on the sources they use, though I don't really buy that. I run into a questionable story once in a while but it is rare. They do a lot of very good original reporting from around the world and the break a whole lot of stories.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I think the WSJ is a fine newspaper. I would say it is generally impartial. Probably a bit economically conservative and slighly socially liberal.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

is this the same WSJ who had Al Hunt as its Washington bureau chief?

If you've dealt with people long enough it's easy to tell when something doesn't pass the smell test. Everybody has a bias of one kind or another. But you seem to think that it's possible to take statements by the MSM at face value. The idea that there are people in the world whose job it is to collect and filter information so that it may relied upon as factual or nearly so is pure fantasy. Although to judge from ads I hear on NPR ("we figure out what's true and what's not so you don't have to") it seems to be a prevalent fantasy on the left.

One thing I've noticed is that you always seem to hold arguments you don't particularly care for (like the possibility that AP may be peddling misinformation) to some unattainably high standard of verification. Just exactly what unimpeachably verifiable evidence would you consider to be proof that AP is lying? It reminds me of the way management consultants think. To me, enough stinks about how AP is handling this that I'm not going to believe too much else of what they say. That's judgement, not evidence.

And would you say the same thing if we were talking about an Administration statement that was coming under similar criticism? Or would you "give the benefit of the doubt"?

Your entire judgement is based on your politically colored view of the "MSM". Do you accept nothing from the MSM at face value or merely that which you politically disagree with? Do you reject it all or do you give the ol "This time they got it right, for once" when they say something that you want to hear?

I guess I hold a different standard regarding lying. I require actual PROOF that someone lied rather than was wrong or biased. I hold that standard when talking about the MSM. I hold that standard when talking about the Administration. And really just about any other group or public figure(personal figures are different)

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

I hold that standard when talking about the Administration.

So... Has President Bush lied about anything? WMDs or any of that?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Well I certainly have no evidence to suggest he was.

Then again I never thought that was the issue anyway.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

really, flyerhawk, those red things in the story are links and they are there for a purpose, not just avant garde design elements.

the whole history of Jamil Hussein is in there. Yes, there is verifiable lying.

I really don't mind discussing my stories but it is really insulting to be asked questions that anyone who read the story would know the answer to.

I read the powerline and flopping aces stuff already.

Perhaps I'm missing something so I'll sum up my knowledge of the story.

1. AP uses Hussein in multiple stories.
2. DoD challenges his authenticity on immolation story.
3. AP says he does exist but doesn't show him.
4. No record of Hussein found in MoI
5. AP stills says he is legit.

Have I missed anything? Where is the verified lying?

FTR, I find Flopping Aces to be pretty amateurish. He/They make a lot of assumptions to frame the story the way they want.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

the whole part where AP can't produce this guy that CENTCOM and the Iraqi MOI say doesn't exist.

I think using an imaginary source in your reporting especially when the reporting is on an non existent event qualifies as a lie by most standards. Obviously, you have different standards.

Tell you what. Go bother someone else because I'd rather do something else than play silly games with you.

So because the US military and Iraqi government say he doesn't exist that means he obviously doesn't exist and the AP, knowing this apparently, have lied.

I guess, in this case, deductive evidence of lying is actually verified proof of lying.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

What is the real impact of the Jamil Hussein controversy. Are any of the stories attributed to him verifiably untrue?

I think you're betraying a serious misunderstanding of what journalism is all about. The question should be; are any of the stories attributed to him verifiably true?

AP is supposed to prove a positive (possible), not demand that its critics prove a negative (impossible). According to the MOI and the Pentagon Jamil Hussein does not exist. The AP says he does.

So why can't they produce him or any evidence whatsoever that this man exists?

And, as I said in my first comment, they should either put up or admit they wrong.

However if the AP is unable to provide Jamil Hussein that DOESN'T mean that they were willfully lying. I really fail to see why this is such a huge leap of logic.

Of course I'm sure you guys know this. You know that, if anything, the most likely explanation was that the AP was duped and that they screwed up. But by claiming that they knowingly lied that allows you to assign an agenda to the AP.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

They're either 1) lying, or 2) demonstrating a complete incompetence in fact-checking, to the level that would get you booted off the staff of a high school newspaper, much less the pre-eminent news gathering organization in the world.

Which is worse?

---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

They aren't reporting in Gary, Indiana. It's not like they can call town hall and get a complete verification of who's who.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

Not you. The reporters. If they are unable to do anything from Iraq but sit in a hotel room in the green zone and wait for some Arabic speaking person to come tell them something to print in the newspaper, which they print with no verification and no means of verification, they should come back home and get a job. They can't do the one they have.

And to answer one of your previous questions, I obtain practically none of my information from MSM sources. I only have so many minutes in my life. I'm not wasting any of them watching or reading news reports that I have to weigh and wonder about. If I can't trust what they are telling me (and I can't) I can't waste time listening to what they say. And I'm sure that things have happened that I don't know about. But at least my dishes and Christmas shopping are done (and wrapped!!)

I read the WSJ (mostly editorial page because it's online and easy to get to), watch Brit Hume, read RedState (and yes, it is totally unfiltered, but I truly trust the writing of many of our diarists and know that if they make an error, they are very likely to be called on it) and CSPAN. And the Seneca News Dispatch, so I will know who won the Christmas Parade float contest.

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

Well being in Iraq is what pays the bills. The media consumers wants news about the region so they will be there.

How are the WSJ and Brit Hume not part of the MSM? The WSJ is the largest circulated daily newspaper in the country. FoxNews is the No. 1 news channel in the country. RedState, for the most part, provide analysis of news provided by the MSM.

I'm reminded somewhat of when I read Noam Chomsky years ago. Noam was always lashing out at the MSM, corporate lap dogs as he viewed them. He constantly tried to tell us that the MSM cannot be trusted. And how did he know this? Why by using news items obtained FROM the MSM to criticize the MSM.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

Zombietime has done a very good job of breaking down in 4 main types, and showing multiple documented cases of each type.

If anyone hasn't seen this yet, I highly reccomened checking out.

Evil prevails only when good men do nothing.

it seems like you're assuming that the APs rep is trashed to the point that the most likely outcome, that CPT Hussein doesn't exist, won't hurt them any.

It just boggles my mind that AP would not know right now whether Jamil Hussein exists. They've had weeks to either substantively confirm Jamil Hussein's existence, or issue a retraction in order to defuse the criticism before it comes to a head. Instead, they're letting the situation grow.

To be exact, I think it's very possible (though not certain or even probable) that the AP knows more than it's letting on, and is stringing the Armed Forces along to manufacture another credibility crisis when they get Jamil Hussein on camera. The fact that the ever-critical conservative blogosphere is snowballing this would just be the icing on the cake.

But yes, it's more likely that the AP is just being incompetent, still doesn't know whether Jamil Hussein exists, and has nothing to lose betting on his existence.

Actually requiring some sort of proof about lying is akin to being a "flat earther". That's funny.

You guys embrace guilt by deductive reasoning in this case. But when that same methodology is applied to your sacred cows you scream to the heavens that people are being unreasonable and partisan.

No one has said you can't question the MSM, but good job creating your own straw man. Makes it so much easier to prove a point when it is against a false premise.

Of course when asked to provide proof in this ONE example, it is always useful to expand out to a vastly more vague and amorphous charge against that most dreaded of evil beasts, the MSM. Of course this is part and parcel of the MSM critics on both sides of the aisle. Start off with an unprovable assertion against the Times, Post, AP, Fox, WSJ, etc. When challenged to provide evidence that supports your assertion, move on to claims against the entire MSM that are, not only unprovable, but completely meaningless.

A perfect example of this somewhat distorted view that some have of the media is this story over at flopping aces

Quoting this comment from this story from Glenn Greenwald he points out the quote...

Its greatest successes and contributions have been when it has acted as an adversarial force balancing abuses of power by national political officials. That is the core function which newspapers are intended to perform,

he claims the following....

There you have it. The core function of newspapers is be an adversarial force against the Government!

Silly me, I thought all along it was to report the damn news. But no....I had it all wrong. They are not supposed to report about events, they are actually supposed to attach an agenda to the reporting of that event and then introduce a smidgen of bias. All to balance the power of Government

Leaving aside the rather creative interpretation of Mr. Greenwald's comment, how exactly does Curt think the media is supposed to report the "news"? What is the "news" in Curt's view of the world? If the purpose of the news media is simply to report about events why did our Founding Fathers feel compelled to explicitly ensure that our Press be free and uncensored? Has it occurred to Curt that perhaps journalists take the 1st Amendment as a mandate to ensure that our Government never do anything that the people wouldn't approve of?

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

One example, try this. Donald Rumsfeld has been in the news lately and this brought back memories of the "sacking" of the Iraq National Museum, which BTW, turned out not to be a sacking after all. Badgered by the press at a conference about something that was putively our fault Ruumsfeld said, in short, that that's what freedom means, people can be either good or bad. Next day as the quote of the day the NY Times printed the quote by half, leaving Rumsfeld saying that freedom means people can steal, Stop, that's it.

Later on a cable news program Alan Murray of the "conservative" WSJ and Gloria Borger of the Washington Asylum of the Criminally Insane did exactly the same thing, and had a good laugh doing it.

Now consider this; to deliberately truncate the man's words, to distort thereby, to decieve in that manner, are you ready----is a lie. Swallow hard.

You did ask for only one didn't you?
You also contrive not to respond to the manner in which the MSM can alter, omit, minimize, ignore, massage, and manage the news, the Paula Jones/Clinton example given in my original post. Needless to say ignored by yourself.

I therefore conclude that such is fine with you, from that I make further conclusions which the remmnants of good manners prohibit me from elaborating on.

Funny? No, hilarious. Go back a year and remember an exchange you and I had on Clinton and foreign bribes[ he sold you out buddy]. You denied it. Did it or does it now occur to you that the court case that legally established the acceptance of bribes from James Riady, which again you denied, was unknown to you because of news suppression. I offered to fax you a copy of the official Dept. of Justice press release, Janet Reno, AG. The offer still stands.

Along with lies their are other forms of deceit, I've only scratched the surface in naming some of the techiques and citing a few examples. But it only shows yet again that contrary to the emphasis on human reason, on it's use and precepts, that people want to be lied to. Abe Lincoln got it somewhat right, but only somewhat.

And the earth is not flat!

You have my permission to e mail me if you want that press release, assuming after five years I still have it. If I do it's yours.
.

"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville

Assist in what way? Do you think the media should collaborate with the government to deliver a singular message?

I don't know if journalists are interested in balance. Personally I think they are interested in finding the big story and little else.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw