"Iraq: Why the media failed"

[West]

A summary on Salon.com

"It's no secret that the period of time between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq represents one of the greatest collapses in the history of the American media. Every branch of the media failed, from daily newspapers, magazines and Web sites to television networks, cable channels and radio."

"In any case, the real failing was not in any one area; it was across the board. Bush administration lies and distortions went unchallenged, or were actively promoted. Fundamental and problematic assumptions about terrorism and the "war on terror" were rarely debated or even discussed. Vital historical context was almost never provided. And it wasn't just a failure of analysis. With some honorable exceptions, good old-fashioned reporting was also absent."

Read the article for the why

[UATrewqaz]

You're frustrated with the absence of responsible media so you go to Salon.com?

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
A summary on Salon.com

"It's no secret that the period of time between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq represents one of the greatest collapses in the history of the American media. Every branch of the media failed, from daily newspapers, magazines and Web sites to television networks, cable channels and radio."

"In any case, the real failing was not in any one area; it was across the board. Bush administration lies and distortions went unchallenged, or were actively promoted. Fundamental and problematic assumptions about terrorism and the "war on terror" were rarely debated or even discussed. Vital historical context was almost never provided. And it wasn't just a failure of analysis. With some honorable exceptions, good old-fashioned reporting was also absent."

Read the article for the why

[/ QUOTE ]


What do you see as the core of the problem and what would you like to see happening?

[Utah]

This whole article is just a silly indirect hatchet job on the administration. The author directly or indirectly presents several things as indisputable fact and makes no attempt to support these assertions..

Also, the author never once in the article presents actual examples of failure other than to say that 21 journalists were not in consensus. If you are going to say that the media failed then you better have some examples.

Finally, the author makes sure to get in the necessary shots at Fox News with a silly attack on Brit Humes. Although, the author never says what is actually wrong with what he said.

This paper should get an F in journalism or writing class as it fails the most basic criteria of supporting a conclusion with arguments.

[Case Closed]

[ QUOTE ]
You're frustrated with the absence of responsible media so you go to Salon.com?

[/ QUOTE ]

They were the first place I heard about GITMO Bay from. But yeah, I agree with you that salon is not the most...noble of news outlets.

[West]

Utah,

It's a general summary - from the article:

"I'm not going to go into chapter and verse about the media's specific failures, its credulousness about aluminum tubes and mushroom clouds and failure to make clear that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 -- they're too well known to repeat."

But if you would like some references to the many many specific details, I'd suggest looking through Glenn Greenwald's archives, and/or, reading his latest columns on Salon.com.

If you're wondering what the author found wrong with Britt Hume's (of Fox "News") statement, you could have clicked on the link in the article, which should make it clear for you.

His statement is implying that Peter Jennings and co.'s reporting is not patriotic enough, not supportive enough of the Bush administration. I guess that's what they call "news" on Fox.

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
You're frustrated with the absence of responsible media so you go to Salon.com?

[/ QUOTE ]

that would be a yes

doesn't mean that I think everything on there is great, but yes

[Utah]

ah, I stand partially corrected. I didnt see the article was 3 pages so I only read the first page. On the second 2 pages the author lays out a case. While I disagree vehemently with the case presented, it is fairly well written and logical.

[ QUOTE ]
His statement is implying that Peter Jennings and co.'s reporting is not patriotic enough, not supportive enough of the Bush administration. I guess that's what they call "news" on Fox.

[/ QUOTE ]What is wrong with Patriotism?

Also, can reporting not be slanted too much in one way or the other. For example, if Fox can overplay the good things and under report civilian deaths (which I believe it does to a small degree) can not CBS do the opposite and focus too much on civilian deaths and paint a slanted picture of what is happening. Why is it wrong with a political commentator like Humes to point this out. While his analysis my be wrong, is there anything intrinsically wrong with making such an assertion?

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, can reporting not be slanted too much in one way or the other. For example, if Fox can overplay the good things and under report civilian deaths (which I believe it does to a small degree) can not CBS do the opposite and focus too much on civilian deaths and paint a slanted picture of what is happening. Why is it wrong with a political commentator like Humes to point this out. While his analysis my be wrong, is there anything intrinsically wrong with making such an assertion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Regarding Britt Hume as a "political commentator": this column from Glenn Greenwald pretty much exactly answers your question.

Also, notice that the current (April 11) column discusses precisely a very specific prime example of where the media went completely wrong with regards to Iraq - leaving telling unanswered questions.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, can reporting not be slanted too much in one way or the other. For example, if Fox can overplay the good things and under report civilian deaths (which I believe it does to a small degree) can not CBS do the opposite and focus too much on civilian deaths and paint a slanted picture of what is happening. Why is it wrong with a political commentator like Humes to point this out. While his analysis my be wrong, is there anything intrinsically wrong with making such an assertion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Regarding Britt Hume as a "political commentator": this column from Glenn Greenwald pretty much exactly answers your question.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am confused. Why cant a political commentator be biased. That is perfectly acceptable.