Margo Kingston exposes International Jewish Conspiracy!

How the world works, according to Australian political commentator and Sydney Morning Herald columnist Margo Kingston:

...the fundamentalist Zionist lobby controls politics and the media in the US and Australia.

via Professor Bunyip

No bias?

Orlando Sentinel ombudsman Manning Pynn assures readers that there’s no bias, but does acknowledge that:

Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's credibility took a hit July 9, but readers had to go to Page A15 the next day to find out about it. It came in the Senate Intelligence Committee's report of what the United States knew before invading Iraq…

The Washington Post reported July 18 that the president had received a brief, informing him that Osama bin Laden was preparing to hijack aircraft to force the United States to release conspirators in the 1993 World Trade Center attack.

The president, though, was Bill Clinton, and the date was Dec. 4, 1998. That information finally made it into this newspaper Friday in coverage of the 9/11 Commission Report.

But should it have appeared in the Sentinel sooner -- maybe when it first became available, five days before?

Sandy Berger, Clinton's national-security adviser, admitted he removed highly classified terrorism documents from a National Archives reading room by stuffing them into his jacket and pants. That ended up on the Sentinel's front page Wednesday, after it led Berger to resign as an adviser to Democratic presidential contender Sen. John Kerry.

When that news broke the day before, though, it appeared inside rather than out front.

Cross-posted to Oh, That Liberal Media!

Where do people get the news when the media refuses to cover it?

Remember that old email making the rounds about the Iraqi sculptor who used to make statues of Saddam, and who, out of gratitude, made one of a little girl touching the shoulder of a GI -- only it turns out he made it because he got paid $18,000? Oh here, the Urban Legends Reference Page debunked it a while back.

Anyway, someone sent it to Gina Lubrano, the San Diego Union-Tribune’s reader representative. To her “it's emblematic of other e-mails I've received that make assumptions at the expense of the news media. These messages are often critical of how newspapers and other media are reporting the news from Iraq.”

I have another theory about why readers are resorting to getting their news from alternative sources, such as e-mail. It’s the one voiced back in early June by Ft. Worth Star-Telegram reader advocate David House:

[Journalists] need to bring … enterprise to addressing readers' need for good news about what's unfolding in Iraq.

Perhaps it would help if they could hear what I've been hearing from the public. Some readers are literally screaming for a dose of good news -- not fluff, but a look at verifiable gains worth noting and how Iraqi life is faring outside of the Sunni Triangle as well as inside. Without such details, readers are short-circuited in personally holding the U.S. government accountable.

Charleston Post and Courier public editor Elsa McDowell made a similar observation, “readers are correct in saying that the amount of reporting on fighting and casualties overshadows reporting on infrastructure repair.”

So why isn’t “good news” getting more attention? McDowell says she was told by the Associated Press that “There are stories that they must skip in order to cover the stories that seem more urgent at the time.” Meanwhile, if the public wants a more complete picture, one that includes progress in Iraq, they just have to look elsewhere.

As House observed, "America's news media are far from powerless in meeting reader demands." It's too bad they aren't making the effort.

Reporter blogs from Oregon Guard unit in Iraq

It’s no secret that I regard the American media’s reporting from Iraq as shamefully inadequate, so it comes as something of a surprise to learn from the Oregonian’s public editor that reporter Mike Francis is embedded with an Oregon National Guard unit -- and has a blog. So how is it these days in Iraq? It’s “hot.”

Myth 5: That 117, or whatever temperature is reported as that day's high, is actually as hot as it gets. An Iraqi prisoner who was being released and had time to talk while officials talked details told me, "Today is hot as hell and it gets worse next month." In Iraq, they call the heat "the dragon's breath" and the dragon is just waking up. Next month is worse.

Josh Marshall shoots a blank

Josh Marshall refuses to concede the obvious, that Joseph Wilson is a liar. His response to the Washington Post article on the bipartisan Senate intelligence committee’s report, which detailed Wilson’s prevarications, was to brand staff writer Susan Schmidt a tool of “Republican staffers.”

Today, Washington Post ombudsman Michael Getler (no friend of the Bush Administration) responds to reader complaints, of which “Almost all … relied for their objections on some critical comments by Joshua Micah Marshall.” He also responds to Joe Wilson’s letter to the editor, which the Post published yesterday.

Getler concludes, “in general, I didn't find the criticism of this story persuasive. The story, in my view, reflects the points, interviews and conclusions laid out in the Senate study.”

UPDATES:

For more on media spinning of the Joe Wilson matter, see Glenn Reynolds' WILSON-LIED MEDIA SPIN UPDATE.

Power Line reports "Kerry still hasn't gotten the word on Wilson and the Niger uranium story," and asks, "what Kerry knows, and when he is going to learn what the rest of us already know." Ouch.

“Post-traumatic slave syndrome”

For his July 4 column, Ombudsman Michael Arrieta-Walden took issue with the Oregonian’s coverage of “post-traumatic slave syndrome” theory, which was used unsuccessfully in the defense of a man accused of beating his two-year old son to death. The newspaper “reported that an attorney was blaming the beating death of a 2-year-old Beaverton boy on the suffering of African Americans from years of slavery.”

What is “post-traumatic slave syndrome?” According to Arrietta-Walden, it is a theory developed by Portland Oregon University Assistant Professor Joy DeGruy-Leary, which “maintains that blacks did not heal from the trauma of slavery and centuries of discrimination. Understanding the effects of that multigenerational trauma … can help understand the behavior of some African Americans today…”

Hence, “The testimony they were seeking to introduce in the trial spoke to what might explain the suspect's thinking or actions before and after the injury that caused the death.” DeGruy-Leary’s testimony was used to explain:

The defendant’s failure to seek immediate “medical help” for his son. “He was influenced by the advice of women, which might have resulted from the matriarchal nature of many African American families.”

The defendant’s “state of mind” while inflicting the lethal beating on his two-year old son. “Such punishment, referred to as "whuppin'," is inflicted by some African Americans to keep children in line, in part to keep them out of the harm's way of authority, not to inflict harm, according to the testimony.”

Whether “the suspect's dealings with a police officer before his arrest were voluntary or coerced… the historical relationship between police officers and many African Americans might explain how [the defendant] reacted.

Was it accurate for the newspaper to state the purpose of the testimony was to show “trauma from slavery ‘is to blame’ for the death?” Not according to Arrieta-Walden. He writes, “Both DeGruy-Leary and defense attorney Randall Vogt insist that her testimony never was intended to explain or justify the death of the boy.” DeGruy-Leary says she “presented this matter as a thought-provoking matter."

Criminal defense attorneys don’t put on expert testimony merely to be “thought-provoking.” They use it to exculpate their clients. If the testimony about “post-traumatic slave syndrome” wasn’t an attempt to shift culpability from the defendant, then why was it relevant and what was it there for? Isn’t DeGruy-Leary’s testimony really just a way of saying that “trauma from slavery [and discrimination] ‘is to blame’ for the death?”

My initial reaction to Arrieta-Walden’s column is that "post-traumatic slave syndrome" is an excuse to apply different and lower expectations to African-Americans than to the rest of society -- a fig leaf for the "soft-bigotry of low expectations" -- and to justify continued different treatment because of “multigenerational trauma.”

A few decades ago, historian Stanley Elkin was denounced as a racist when he argued that the institution of slavery had reduced slaves to child-like “sambos.” It seems to me that DeGruy-Leary’s theory has more than a little in common with Elkin’s.

UPDATE: John Rosenberg compares "post traumatic slave syndrome" with theories advanced by Robert Penn Warren and Stanley Elkin, and provides links to other media reports. One such piece, by Promise King, reports the theory formed the basis of a play by the same name. Performed three years ago in the Big Apple, the New York Times called it “convincing, intriguing, potent, exhilarating.” John also assisted me with some valuable insight as I was thinking about the ramifications of DeGruy-Leary’s theory.

Joe Wilson strikes back!

The release of Britain's Butler Inquiry report and the unanimous bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report struck a lethal blow to Joe Wilson’s credibility and his claim that Bush lied in his State of the Union address.

Not only was the original British intelligence report, that Saddam had attempted to obtain uranium from Africa, “well founded,” but, as the Washington Post noted, “Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information,” were “undermined” in the Senate committee report. Moreover, “contrary to Wilson's assertions … the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence.” Wilson had even lied about how he was sent to Niger in the first place.

So thorough was Wilson’s discrediting that the media’s “Bush lied” narrative came briefly to a halt. Wilson’s name nearly disappeared from print, except in the columns of a handful of conservative pundits who pointed out what had happened. Even Jim Romenesko, who normally covers media controversy like a rash, was totally silent, despite having provided plenty of coverage to Wilson’s earlier claims.

Now, like Imhotep in the Mummy Returns, Wilson is attempting to bring himself back to life.

Friday, Salon carried a rather unpersuasive piece* attempting to exculpate him. They also published his rebuttal to the Senate committee report, explaining how he didn’t really lie after all.

Today, Wilson has a letter appearing in the Washington Post.

He begins with a lie. “For the second time in a year, your paper has published an article [news story, July 10] falsely suggesting that my wife, Valerie Plame, was responsible for the trip I took to Niger on behalf of the U.S. government...” Later he asserts, “the decision to send me to Niger was not made, and could not be made, by Valerie.” Fine, but that’s not what the Post had asserted.

What the Post reported on July 10 is that Wilson lied when he said, “Valerie had nothing to do with” his trip to Niger. They reported, “a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame ‘offered up’ Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her husband ‘has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.’" Valerie couldn’t make the decision, but she could offer up his name to those who could. Rather than have “nothing to do with it,” she recommended him for the trip, which is what the Post said.

It’s time for Joe to return to the underworld.


*The article is in Salon Premium. I had to click through an advertisement for a Salon Cruise in order to reach it. The headliner on the cruise? Joe Wilson.


UPDATE:
Sun Times: Mark Steyn says it so much better...
L.A. Times: Tim Rutten's still singing the Joe Wilson line. (Getting kinda lonely, isn't it Tim?)
Washington Post: The Talk Shows, Joe Wilson is appearing Sunday on CNN's Late Edition, which starts at noon.

BBC stealth editor at work

Before and after screen shots from a piece date stamped "Last Updated: Thursday, 15 July, 2004, 14:03 GMT 15:03 UK." The date and time "Last updated" are identical for both versions.
Biased BBC's Andrew Bowman, who spotted the edit, observes that Lord Mountbatten was killed by Irish Republican Army terrorists in 1979.

[The 78 year old] Mountbatten was ... murdered along with two relatives and a 14-year old local lad while day tripping on his small boat on holiday in Ireland. Eighteen soldiers were also murdered that day in a vicious roadside double-bomb ambush at Warrenpoint.

According to the New York Times’ obituary of Irv Kupcinet, who reported “the Irish are Pigs” comment:

...it was in a 1979 column that he quoted Princess Margaret of Britain as saying that "the Irish are pigs." Mr. Kupcinet said he personally heard the princess say that to Chicago's Mayor Jane M. Byrne at a dinner party. Mayor Byrne, ever the diplomat, explained that the princess was not referring to all the Irish, only those who engaged in terrorism.

Sometimes a little context is important.

Civility in national debate

Ombudsman Don Wycliff makes a couple of good points in today’s Chicago Tribune. Referencing lop-sided coverage of the debate over same-sex marriage, he writes, “it is a false decorum to effectively shut out one side of a substantial national debate because its position is, by our lights, uncivil and toxic to the body social.”

The other point concerns a letter calling attention to the mischaracterization of a politician’s position on immigration. Rather than simply ask for a correction, the letter writer went on to assume the reporter’s “personal positions on a batch of other, immigration-related issues … and to suggest [the reporter] had arrogated to himself the right to ‘slander’” the politician. Wycliff observes:

I sometimes wonder at the reluctance of journalists to own up to what seem to me simple mistakes. But a letter like this helps me understand.

In today's poisonous political atmosphere, nothing is ever just a mistake. It's a slander, a calumny, an assault on the truth itself and--by the way--no doubt part of some evil conspiracy.

Who would admit to that?

Good point. But this is the same ombudsman who gratuitously referred to “the usual strident hyperpartisanship of those pro-Bush zealots who live to hate Clinton and find evidence of media bias.”

Doesn’t civility cut both ways?

Silence in national debate

Despite months of publicizing Joe Wilson’s claims that President Bush lied regarding Saddam Hussein's attempts to obtain uranium from Africa, Poynter’s Jim Romenesko and much of the national media continue to ignore the unanimous bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report that, by and large, exonerates Bush and documents Wilson’s lies.

Don't readers have a right to know they were fed a bunch of baloney?

UPDATE The Media Research Center’s Tim Graham rips into the media for their silence over the discrediting of Joe Wilson:

Journalists who cared about reporting the truth — and the truth-telling problems of the author of The Politics of Truth — would recognize the error of their previous reporting and interviewing and celebrating of Wilson, which broke out in sweaty ardor a year ago. But the record of press coverage in the last few days shows that truth is not the highest national media value. Bashing Bush is.

It’s certainly beginning to look that way.

Capitalizing on past sins

Peter Fallows has spotted a new media marketing trend, “issuing apologies for past sins.”

By past sins, Fallows means really past, like “this paper editorialized strongly against giving women the vote.
We now know we were wrong.”

Just to be balanced, I think they should find a rational voice to present the other side of this controversial issue. “I think [women] should be armed but should not [be allowed to] vote… The problem with women voting … is that, you know, women have no capacity to understand how money is earned.”

When Bunyips are bad, they are very good

True, one must listen to all sorts of late-teenage emptiness en route to boudoir or the floor of one's office, but that's really par for the course, as a willingness to nod and agree with vigourously asserted vacuities is the prime prerequisite for building and preserving a relationship with any woman. When they're young, it's all about sympathising with observations about illegal aliens and how we must do something to ease their plight, and how -- my word, isn't that a coincidence! -- it is indeed really, really special when a young woman comes across an older gentlemen who genuinely digs unicorns, too. Later, that passion is transferred to appliances and the compulsion to ease perfectly good ones out the door so that newer models, just like the ones that sisters have recently purchased, can be installed. There is no point in protesting any of this. When women get wound up, nothing but letting them finish or oral sex will serve to restore silence, the former being the required downpayment on the latter.

New York Times buries Joe Wilson story

Having prominently pushed Joe Wilson's Bush lied theme, the New York Times buries the story that it was Wilson, not Bush, who was lying to the American people. Six days after release of the unanimous bipartisan Senate intelligence committee’s report, he is finally mentioned deep in a Times' piece entitled, How Niger Uranium Story Defied Wide Skepticism:

Instead of assigning a trained intelligence officer to the Niger case, though, the C.I.A. sent a former American ambassador, Joseph Wilson, to talk to former Niger officials. His wife, Valerie Plame, was an officer in the counterproliferation division, and she had suggested that he be sent to Niger, according to the Senate report.

That finding contradicts previous statements by Mr. Wilson, who publicly criticized the Bush administration last year for using the Niger evidence to help justify the war in Iraq. After his wife's identity as a C.I.A. officer was leaked to the news media, Mr. Wilson said she had not played a role in his assignment, and argued that her C.I.A. employment had been disclosed to punish him. The F.B.I. is investigating the source of the leak about Ms. Plame, which was classified information.

Romenesko remains mute on Wilson lied revelations

Poynter’s Jim Romenesko covered the Joseph Wilson story here, here, here and here.

Mention of Wilson being discredited? Zip.

Michael Graham to media: shouldn’t there be a Wilson follow-up story?

Michael Graham takes “NBC, ABC, CBS, New York Times, Washington Post,et.al,” to task in the Charleston City Paper for ignoring, you know, "facts:"

You remember facts, don’t you? They used to be a mainstay of the media. Bigger than the Beatles, back in the day. Today they rarely make the nightly news or the front page, but still — I’m a little uncomfortable ignoring them altogether.

For example, remember all that front-page reporting you did about George W. Bush “misleading” America by claiming Iraq was trying to get uranium out of Africa? I know, I know — it’s old news. “Bush lied.” Right.

Only, he didn’t.

Joe’s place

Joseph C. Wilson, IV's ironically-named website, RestoreHonesty.com, where he proclaims, “George Bush's Administration has betrayed our trust,” and “I wasn't ready to keep quiet when this President misled the nation in his State of the Union Address” – is Paid for by (drum roll please) John Kerry for President, Inc.

Oh, and not only is Joe “not a political partisan,” he hopes you “will join [him] in doing all you can to make John Kerry our next President.”

via Ann Coulter

Hot potato for Mr. Okrent!

Tom Maguire asks New York Times ombudsman Daniel Okrent:

According to a recent story in the Washington Post, the Senate Intelligence committee has concluded that "misleading information" had been reported by the Post back in June 2002 based on information provided by Ambassador Wilson . Mr. Kristof reported information similar to that which the Post now describes as "misleading" in his May 6, 2002 column. In other Post reporting on this matter, Mr. Kristof seems to have confirmed that the Ambassador was a source for that column.

Are you planning to take any steps to see whether the NY Times, and its readers, were also misled by Ambassador Wilson? If the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Washington Post can run corrections, perhaps the NY Times can as well.

Outspoken Administration critic Joseph C. Wilson, IV received widespread media coverage for his now discredited claims. Yet with the exception of the Washington Post and a few others, media reaction to the news he lied has been radio (and newspaper) silence.

via Instapundit

Grand Junction Daily Sentinel: What bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report?

News must travel slowly to Aspen Colorado, where today's Daily Sentinel, a Cox newspaper, reports on a speech Joe Wilson gave “Sunday at the Sopris Foundation State of the World Conference.”

Speaking before a reported crowd of 400 that "cheered and laughed," Wilson let loose such zingers as the Bush Administration “has taken the party so far outside the parameters of political behavior they have ruined the reputation of the United States,” and “Everything [the Bush Administration] have put into play since Sept. 11 has come up horse turds.” The Sentinel informed readers, “Wilson … saw the administration ignore and misinterpret intelligence he provided.”

Saturday’s Washington Post reported that a unanimous bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report rejects Wilson’s version of events, and concludes that Wilson’s intelligence actually “bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts” that Iraq had attempted to buy uranium from Niger. They also caught him in other misrepresentations, including lying to the Washington Post about how he was assigned to the investigation in the first place. (He got the job the old fashioned way, his wife recommended him.)

So, not only was Wilson still spreading his yarn to a cheering audience a day after it was publicly discredited, but the Daily Sentinel dutifuly repeated it as fact. Don’t they surf the Internet or read newspapers at the Sentinel?
Cross-posted to Oh, That Liberal Media!

UPDATE: Here's another live one from Aspen. Today's Aspen Times reports that both Richard Clarke and Joe Wilson were there. According to the Times:

Wilson was tapped by the Bush administration in 2002 to investigate the validity of reports that Iraq had purchased uranium from the African nation of Niger. His findings concluded that no such transaction occurred, but that did not stop President Bush from alleging that the sale was made in his 2003 State of the Union address.

UPDATE: And here's the July 13 Independent (UK), which refers to "last week's damning senate report on pre-war intelligence:"

A former diplomat, Joseph Wilson, visited Niger in 2002 on behalf of the CIA, and reported that there was no evidence that Saddam had sought to buy uranium from the country.

The new, improved Guardian

Ombudsman Ian Mayes reports the Guardian will soon feature “newer new technology” (didn't you just hate that older new technology?), “a change of format … to the midi shape of ... Le Monde and La Repubblica”, and “a close examination of the paper's journalism … with the purpose of reinforcing and expressing ... the paper's established liberal values.” Just say “yes” to bias?

Don't forget the online surveys! For example, “In a recent online survey conducted by the Guardian, 89% of the 1,200 respondents answered ‘yes’ to the question: ‘On balance do you trust editorial coverage on Guardian Unlimited?’”

Nothing quite screams credibility like an online poll.

Ombuds-Iraq

Palm Beach Post Reader Advocate Mike Clark determines, “the Times-Union could have done more to report the progress being made” in Iraq.

Charleston Post and Courier Public Editor Elsie McDowell disapproves of a section labeled “IRAQ/WAR ON TERROR.” She writes, “By packaging stories about Iraq with stories about the War on Terror, The Post and Courier appears to have taken a side in the debate” about “whether it is accurate to say fighting in Iraq is fighting terrorism.” According to Merriam-Webster, terror[ism] is "violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands." Why not call it “IRAQ/WAR ON BANANA,” since newspaper ombudsmen are so uncomfortable with the t-word

Public Editor Michael Arrieta-Walden reports that a July 6th Oregonian profile of Lt. Col. Nate Sassaman failed to mention that he “was reprimanded for impeding the investigation of soldiers who since have been charged in the drowning of an Iraqi detainee who was pushed off a bridge north of Baghdad.” The Washington Post reported the reprimand on April 5th, complete with a photograph of Sassaman.

Reporting from Iraq, biased or not?

Salt Lake Tribune Reader Advocate Connie Coyne opines:

Does [reporting from Iraq] indicate some conspiracy among newspapers and journalists to influence the way the American people react to the fighting there? I think not. The simple fact is this: As the situation in Iraq becomes more stable, then reporters and photographers will be able to cover more ground and provide more complete and balanced news reports.

Columnist John Leo writes in US News that:

…many bloggers think the most powerful big-time news outlets are becoming more and more partisan. The [Los Angeles] Times may be on its way to becoming Exhibit A for this belief. Bloggers regularly pummel the Times for fact-free negativity about Iraq.

As he points out, there is no shortage of examples.

Update on the bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report

Dan Darling reports that not only does the bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report reveal Joe Wilson to be a liar, but:

this report specifically undercuts some of the 9/11 Commission's key findings with respect to Iraq and al-Qaeda. It cites post-1999 contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda, which the 9/11 commission claims to possess no information on...

Also, this demolishes 2 of Richard Clarke's key claims with respect to Iraq: that there was no Iraqi involvement in terrorism post-1993, and that there is no evidence whatsoever of Iraqi support for al-Qaeda. Both of these claims, to put it quite simply, can now be shown to be factually untrue.

UPDATE: Darling's boss, Michael Ledeen, weighs in at National Review Online. Here he discusses the forged documents that Wilson claimed formed the basis of allegations Iraq had attempted to buy uranium from Niger:

...Wilson had convinced [journalists] that it was a hoax, based on forgeries. All kinds of celebrated journalists, from Hersh on up, presented theories about the origin of the forgeries, as if that were the issue. But it wasn't. Throughout it all, the British government continued to say that they had evidence, that they still believed in that evidence, and that they believed the story was true.

The Brits were right: It was true, as Wilson undoubtedly realized. Thanks to a couple of articles in the Financial Times over the past few weeks, we know that several European countries had reason to believe it. The "forgeries" were a total red herring, they had nothing to do with the price of eggs, and thus Seymour Hersh's breathless spasm — in which he theorized that the forgeries were created by a bunch of ex-CIA "old boys" in order to gull Cheney so they could then "expose" him — is idiocy. And Joshua Marshall's narcissistic echo chamber, broadcasting "Bush lied" 24/7, is another.

UPDATE: Speaking of Josh Marshall, he has posted a useful link to a searchable version of the intelligence committee report.

Palm Beach Post Ombudsman: Prickly City starts Monday

Palm Beach Post Staff Ombudsman C.B Hanif alerts readers that, starting Monday, Prickly City will be paired “with Doonesbury on Page 2 of Accent.” He reports, “editors aren't dumping any strips this time,” but “the spotlight is on“ Baldo.

This should give Peoria Pundit Bill Dennis some hope. After all, if the Palm Beach Post can run Prickly City, then perhaps he can convince the Journal Star to give it a try.

I don't think we'll be seeing this in the Washington Post

f this report in Al-Sabah is to believed, and Ali at Iraq the Model seems to confirm that it is, then the Iraqi National Guard is starting to take the initiative:

In an operation to attack dens of terrorism in Baghdad, a platoon of the Iraqi National Guard has carried out a successful operation Wednesday against groups of Saddam's remnants and a number of Al- Zarqawi followers who were gathered in four buildings in the said street. That operation comes as a practical indication to transfer the initiative of the attack to the hand of the National Guard." An accurate intelligence information reported a group of Saddam's men and Al- Zarqawi followers were crowded in four buildings in Haifa street " Mr. Hazim Sh'lan the minister of defense elaborated, adding that the operation started in installing search points in front of these buildings for instigating the hostile elements who thought they could control the battalion of the national guard. Clarifying the details of the operation, the minister said that the battalion was able to be sheltered and specify the hostile fire sources further for cordoning the four buildings in pure Iraqi efforts, saying that the multi –national forces took the role of the monitor by the helicopters. Fighting were occurred from floor to another, from flat to another, about 19 terrorists killed and nine others arrested. Meanwhile one member of the National Guard was killed and 12 others wounded. Among the prisoners and dead were a number of Arab infiltrators.

I'm not familiar with the structure of the Iraqi National Guard, but, as I recall, an American light infantry platoon is 30-50 men at full strangth.

Gone, all gone...

Several posts from July 4th and 5th have disappeared, apparently as a result of some difficulty I was having with Blogger on the 5th. You’d think by now I’d know not to tinker with Blogger when it is obviously not working correctly.

Anyway, if you’re wondering what happened to a post, especially if, like Lex, you left a comment, it’s probably floating somewhere out there in the etherworld, temporarily cached in Google, before disappearing forever.

NPR ombudsman on euphemisms for murder and terrorism

I’m going to beat one of my favorite dead horses today.

Two euphemisms commonly used by the news media that really bug me are “militant” for terrorist and “execution” for cold-blooded murder committed by groups such as Hamas and al Qaeda.

A militant is one who is “engaged in warfare or combat.” Terrorism is “violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands.” A soldier is a militant. Groups that target civilians in pizza parlors, restaurants and public transportation are terrorists.

Likewise, execution is defined as "a putting to death especially as a legal penalty." Murder is defined as the "the crime of unlawfully killing a person..." In other words, execution implies due process of law, whereas murder is an extra-legal act. Gary Gilmore was executed. Kim Sun-Il and Nicholas Berg were murdered.

Not surprisingly, American news ombudsmen have been unanimous, or nearly so, in endorsing non-use of the word terrorist. As Boston Globe ombudsman Christine Chinlund explained, “To label any group in the Middle East as terrorist is to take sides, or at least appear to, and that is not acceptable.” Toronto Star ombudsman Don Sellar is more blunt, “To repeat a cliché, one person's terrorist can be another's freedom fighter.”

All of which brings us to NPR ombudsman Jeffrey Dvorkin, who following 9/11/01 got it nearly right:

The destruction at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the downing of the plane in Pennsylvania were acts of terrorism done by terrorists. So was the blowing up of a pizza parlor and a disco in Israel. To describe those who did that as "militants" or "activists," as NPR has, makes the reporting sound politically correct.

On April 5, 2002, he seemingly reversed himself and declared:

While the term "terrorist" may be accurate in many cases, it also has an extra-journalistic role in delegitimating one side and affirming the other. It is not NPR's role to do this. NPR has an obligation to provide responsible and reliable reporting by describing with accuracy and fairness events that listeners may choose to endorse or deplore as they see fit.

In today’s column, Dvorkin informs us that according to “NPR's Managing Editor Barbara Rehm … ‘We should drop 'execution' and call the beheading a killing, murder, etc.,’" and clarifies his position on use of the words terrorist and militant.

"Militant" vs. "terrorist" is a dualism that reduces the enormous complexities of the issues to journalistic shorthand… Here's a possible solution: what if reporters and editors avoided these descriptive pitfalls and wrote the story straight?

He then provides an example where he changes the phrase from “One of Saudi Arabia's most wanted militants has turned himself in,” to “One of Saudi Arabia's most wanted has turned himself in…”

I've got a better idea. If they're so hung up on not using the word terrorist to describe the people who flew airliners into the World Trade Center, then why not just make up a word. I suggest "banana." It's no less accurate than calling them "militants."

UPDATE: The Arab News "reduces the enormous complexities:"

JEDDAH, 10 July 2004 — An imam of the Grand Mosque in Makkah has thrown his weight behind calls for terrorists to surrender under a month-long amnesty announced by the government in late June.

Two ombudsmen on appropriate coverage of Fahrenheit 9/11

David House, Ft. Worth Star-Telegram:

Political documentaries, whether liberal or conservative, are snake-oil sales jobs, and, as with political advertising, their half-truths and exaggerations ought to be exposed if for no other reason than to protect consumers from deception.

A summary of such inaccuracies and stretched points in Fahrenheit was a missing piece in the Star-Telegram's recent Page One look at Moore and his movie.

Mike King, Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

Others suggest that if we don't offer a point-by-point rebuttal of Moore's work -- using, for instance, the report of the 9/11 commission -- then we are tacitly encouraging readers to accept Moore's version of what happened as accurate.

A little perspective might be in order...

Michael Moore lives in the entertainment world. He's good at what he does, but he's not a journalist.

Holiday Bush-Bashing at the New York Times

New York Times columnist Barbara Ehrenreich uses her Fourth of July column to declare, "the parallels are there, and undeniable," between President Bush and King George III.

I thought picking on the differently-abled was frowned upon at the Times. Is Ehrenreich really so mean-spirited as to compare a victim of porphyria to someone she regards as truly evil?

Speaking of insanity, the Times publishes a letter from reader Janet Malcom, who reports "We are in a time now that is as fearful as the period after Munich."

Bush-Hitler is going to annex the Sudetenland?

via James DiBenedetto

UPDATE: Still milking last years bogus "fake turkey" story, Times journalist Richard L. Berke asserts "that Mr. Bush had posed with a mouth-watering - but fake - turkey." It was a real turkey used for decoration. And Bush also helped serve real turkey to the troops. Tim Blair also credits "the NYT's expert fact-checkers," for permitting this stale inveracity.

None of that yucky patriotism stuff for the Orlando Sentinel

There is no “Fourth of July greeting” in today’s Orlando Sentinel, according to ombudsman Manning Pynn. He quotes editor Charlotte Hall, “It's tough to articulate why a display of patriotism on the part of the paper is touchy on Page 1… Overall, editors try to be straightaway about the news, avoiding ideological alliances or cultural bias."

Toronto Sun columnist: Moore’s wrong, it’s really the Jews “neocons.”

The Toronto Sun’s Eric Margolis doesn’t “buy [Michael] Moore's contention that Bush is merely the tool of evil big business and the Iraq war a money grab by Halliburton and the sinister Carlyle Group. Life in Washington is far more complex than this simplistic view.”

Instead, “Moore's spotlight should have pointed at the administration's neocon cabal, led by VP Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis Libby, Richard Perle and their media allies, who fed false information to the White House and the public.”

Joining Anthony Zinni, who doesn't bother to include a token gentile, Cheney, when listing the neocon cabal, Margolis reveals that “The entire phony Iraq crisis -- weapons of mass destruction, germ labs, dire threats to America -- was all concocted by neocons as part of their long-term campaign to push America into a Mideast war to destroy Israel's enemies.”

Well, thanks to Margolis and Zinni the game's up. Now, everyone, except those “core southern and midwestern supporters of George W., who study world affairs through Chuck Norris movies,” will know that Cheney isn't actually in the pocket of Saudi oil interests.

He's really a tool of Chuck Norris, the Jew!

How biased is the news media?

According to Rhetorica’s Andrew Cline, “Claims of political bias do not predict journalistic behavior. This means a claim of political bias against the news media in general (right or left and stated as theory), that ignores the structural bias theory, is propaganda.”

A Yale study, comparing media with Congress, reaches a different conclusion. Limiting their “findings … strictly to the news stories of the outlets,” they found, “All of the news outlets except Fox News’ Special Report received a score to the left of the average member of Congress.” How far to the left? “Our results show a very significant liberal bias.”

Spot the BBC stealth edit

The BBC is notorious for “stealth edits” – altering the text of a story without any indication that a change has been made. Here’s an example, from a piece entitled What drives US policy in Sudan?, that originally ran on June 30th. See if you can spot the difference.

Then:

One is the pressure from right-wing Christian groups in the US, who have taken up the cause of their fellow Christians in Sudan.

Their nagging - on the issues of slavery and the forcible imposition of Sharia law - helped get sanctions imposed on Sudan in 1997.

Now:

One is the pressure from right-wing Christian groups in the US, who have taken up the cause of their fellow Christians in Sudan.

Their lobbying - on the issues of slavery and the forcible imposition of Sharia law - helped get sanctions imposed on Sudan in 1997.

Note, as of this posting the Google cache still held the original version.

via UK Commentators - Laban Tall's Blog

Toronto Sun columnist: Moore’s wrong, it’s really the Jews “neocons.”

The Toronto Sun’s Eric Margolis doesn’t “buy [Michael] Moore's contention that Bush is merely the tool of evil big business and the Iraq war a money grab by Halliburton and the sinister Carlyle Group. Life in Washington is far more complex than this simplistic view.”

Instead, “Moore's spotlight should have pointed at the administration's neocon cabal, led by VP Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis Libby, Richaction2004/9069426.htm?1c

Yes, the Grauniad does have a stylebook

You’ll laugh, you’ll cry, “You will, I am sure, want to argue back on almost every page.” Guardian ombudsman Ian Mayes informs readers that the Guardian has published the new and improved “sixth, or if you count the online version, the seventh Guardian stylebook.”

Great moments in reporting from Iraq

"He was clean-shaven - the fugitive's beard of December had been sculpted back to his customary moustache" -- Paul McGeough, Chief Sydney Morning Herald Correspondent in Baghdad, July 2, 2004

via Tim Blair

Nattering Nabobs of Negativism

Atlanta Journal-Constitution ombudsman Mike King reports:

Jackie Spinner, the Washington Post reporter based in Baghdad, was asked in an online forum last week whether journalists ever see anything positive in Iraq or do they just feed off each other's negativity. Spinner's answer was instructive.

"That's a fair question. I think our coverage reflects the sentiments of the Iraqis themselves. It is hard to feel positive about the future when you are scared that if you leave your house you might get killed.”

So, how do Iraqis feel about the future? According to a new poll of Iraqi public opinion, released by Oxford Research International, 75.1% of Iraqi’s believe their lives are either better or about the same compared to before the war. Fully 64% believe they will be better off a year from now.

Cross Posted to Oh, That Liberal Media!

Presidential Campaign Commercials 1952-2004

If you're bored with this year's crop of Presidential campaign commercials, the American Museum of the Moving Image has more than 250 television commercials (and web ads) dating back to Eisenhower vs. Stevenson.

Al Qaeda -- now merely militant?

Reader John Rowe asks the Orlando Sentinel:

When did the term for al-Qaeda change from terrorist to militant? Please be consistent. If they were terrorists on 9-11, they are terrorists now.

Thanks to Jeff Cabaniss for the heads-up.

Where’s the rest of the news?

Davids Medienkritik translates a rather lengthy letter, by an Alexander Schertz, which was published in the June 26th Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Here’s a small part:

One hears very little about these positive aspects of the development in Iraq in the German media including the F.A.Z. Those interested are unfortunately dependent upon the website of the American government. I read there for example that more than 2300 schools have already been reopened, that the building of a further 4500 schools is planned in the next four years, that more than eight million school books have been printed and distributed, that almost all children are going to school again, that this year 950 million dollars are being spent on the health care system (under Saddam Hussein: 16 million dollars in 2002) that everywhere in the country women’s centers are being opened and so on. All propaganda? Hard to judge as long as there is virtually no reporting on this aspect of the development in Iraq on the part of independent media. Next to politics and acts of violence, scandals, at the most, are seen as worth reporting. When Americans, in an unforgivable manner, brutally abuse dozens of prisoners, it is rightfully made into a matter which is reported on in great detail for weeks at a time. But when it comes to the building of the Iraqi school system by other Americans, which carries significance for hundreds of thousands of boys and girls, there is, as far as I can see, absolutely no reporting on the matter in Germany.It would also be of great interest to me what the newly won freedom of opinion, for example in the universities, means to the Iraqis.

Unfortunately Herr Schertz might just as well be writing about the New York Times and Washington Post, which have similarly turned a blind eye toward progress in reconstructing of Iraq.