You Left Something Out

Attention liberal press: Your headlines and soundbyte stories have left something out: http://www.militaryreporters.org/sanchez_101207.html

Here, just on the off chance you simply forgot to mention this:

Today, i will attempt to do two things - first i will give you my assessment of the military and press relationship and then i will provide you some thoughts on the current state of our war effort. As all of you know i have a wide range of relationships and experiences with our nations military writers and editors. There are some in your ranks who I consider to be the epitome of journalistic professionalism - Joe Galloway, Thom Shanker, Sig Christensen, and John Burns immediately come to mind. They exemplify what America should demand of our journalists - tough reporting that relies upon integrity, objectivity and fairness to give accurate and thorough accounts that strengthen our freedom of the press and in turn our democracy. On the other hand, unfortunately, I have issued ultimatums to some of you for unscrupulous reporting that was solely focused on supporting your agenda and preconcieved notions of what our military had done. I also refused to talk to the European stars and stripes for the last two years of my command in Germany for their extreme bias and single minded focus on Abu Gharaib.

Let me review some of the descriptive phrases that have been used by some of you that have made my personal interfaces with the press corps difficult:

"Dictatorial and somewhat dense",

"Not a strategic thought",

Liar,

"Does not get it" and

The most inexperienced ltg.

In some cases I have never even met you, yet you feel qualified to make character judgments that are communicated to the world. My experience is not unique and we can find other examples such as the treatment of secretary Brown during Katrina. This is the worst display of journalism imaginable by those of us that are bound by a strict value system of selfless service, honor and integrity. Almost invariably, my perception is that the sensationalistic value of these assessments is what provided the edge that you seek for self agrandizement or to advance your individual quest for getting on the front page with your stories! As I understand it, your measure of worth is how many front page stories you have written and unfortunately some of you will compromise your integrity and display questionable ethics as you seek to keep America informed. This is much like the intelligence analysts whose effectiveness was measured by the number of intelligence reports he produced. For some, it seems that as long as you get a front page story there is little or no regard for the "collateral damage" you will cause. Personal reputations have no value and you report with total impunity and are rarely held accountable for unethical conduct.

Given the near instantaneous ability to report actions on the ground, the responsibility to accurately and truthfully report takes on an unprecedented importance. The speculative and often uninformed initial reporting that characterizes our media appears to be rapidly becoming the standard of the industry. An Arab proverb states - "Four things come not back: the spoken word, the spent arrow, the past, the neglected opportunity." Once reported, your assessments become conventional wisdom and nearly impossible to change. Other major challenges are your willingness to be manipulated by "high level officials" who leak stories and by lawyers who use hyperbole to strenghten their arguments. Your unwillingness to accurately and prominently correct your mistakes and your agenda driven biases contribute to this corrosive environment. All of these challenges combined create a media environment that does a tremendous disservice to America. Over the course of this war tactically insignificant events have become strategic defeats for America because of the tremendous power and impact of the media and by extension you the journalist. In many cases the media has unjustly destroyed the individual reputations and careers of those involved. We realize that because of the near real time reporting environment that you face it is difficult to report accurately. In my business one of our fundamental truths is that "the first report is always wrong." Unfortunately, in your business "the first report" gives Americans who rely on the snippets of CNN, if you will, their "truths" and perspectives on an issue. As a corollary to this deadline driven need to publish "initial impressions or observations" versus objective facts there is an additional challenge for us who are the subject of your reporting. When you assume that you are correct and on the moral high ground on a story because we have not respond to questions you provided is the ultimate arrogance and distortion of ethics. One of your highly repected fellow journalists once told me that there are some amongst you who "feed from a pig's trough." If that is who I am dealing with then I will never respond otherwise we will both get dirty and the pig will love it. This does not mean that your story is accurate.

I do not believe that this is what our forefathers intended. The code of ethics for the society of professional journalists states:
...public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility

The basic ethics of a journalist that calls for:

1. Seeking truth,

2. Providing fair and comprehensive account of events and issues

3. Thoroughness and honesty

All are victims of the massive agenda driven competition for economic or political supremacy. The death knell of your ethics has been enabled by your parent organizations who have chosen to align themselves with political agendas. What is clear to me is that you are perpetuating the corrosive partisan politics that is destroying our country and killing our servicemembers who are at war.

My assessment is that your profession, to some extent, has strayed from these ethical standards and allowed external agendas to manipulate what the American public sees on tv, what they read in our newspapers and what they see on the web. For some of you, just like some of our politicians, the truth is of little to no value if it does not fit your own preconcieved notions, biases and agendas.

It is astounding to me when I hear the vehement disagreement with the military's forays into information operations that seek to disseminate the truth and inform the Iraqi people in order to counter our enemy's blatant propaganda. As I assess various media entities, some are unquestionably engaged in political propaganda that is uncontrolled. There is no question in my mind that the strength our democracy and our freedoms remain linked to your ability to exercise freedom of the press - I adamantly support this basic foundation of our democracy and completely supported the embedding of media into our formations up until my last day in uniform. The issue is one of maintaining professional ethics and standards from within your institution. Military leaders must accept that these injustices will happen and whether they like what you print or not they must deal with you and enable you, if you are an ethical journalist.

Finally, I will leave this subject with a question that we must ask ourselves--who is responsible for maintaining the ethical standards of the profession in order to ensure that our democracy does not continue to be threatened by this dangerous shift away from your sacred duty of public enlightenment?


Posted as found, sans the all caps mess. I mean, we wouldn't want you to be accused of being biased or anything....
.........................
RIP United States of America

July 1776 - November 2012.

       
« It Came From the Past
Good News is No News »

Posted on Oct 15, 2007 9:28 pm by Samson in: , | 39 comment(s) [Closed]
Comments
This sure does sound a lot like what I've been saying on your blog forever.

I'd like to point out one thing, however. _You_ attacked the "liberal" media. He, like I do, finds fault with all of it.

Thank you, thank you, vindication is nice.

I know what you're going to say. "The liberal media are the ones that do what he's talking about." Right right, we've been over that. Open your eyes, man. There are precious few media outlets that don't poison their content with their own agendas. The democratic and republican parties aren't the problem here, and he makes a good shot as to why.

Just because a person happens to agree with a certain publication doesn't make it objective. Objectivity is what the press needs, not a moral high ground of right or wrong.

I'm glad I'm not a political or current events journalist. Very seldom do science institutions and technologies do something I have to worry about people getting unduly upset over. :p

       
So because I'm just a slight bit more blunt about my distaste for the liberal press ( and FYI, that's exactly who he's blasting here ) I attack them, but he isn't because he's less direct about it? There's really not much of a difference, if any at all, in his direct assault on how the liberal press lies, cheats, misrepresents, and is generally corrupt and dishonest about their reporting.

You have yet to provide me with an example of the "conservative" media lying, misrepresenting, cheating, or being generally corrupt and dishonest in their reporting, so until you can, I'll continue to "attack" the liberal media.

       
Of some note:

The author of the remarks in question is LTG Ricardo Sanchez, which is immediately obvious from the link but not here, and certainly a man who would know what he's talking about here.

Being a grammar Nazi, let me note that both Stars and Stripes (the paper) and LTG are capitalized.

That having been said, I'm going to agree with Whir here. He's not attacking the liberal media so much as he's attacking the WHOLE media. Note that "liberal" or "conservative" appear nowhere in that speech. Only two publications are mentioned by name, one of which (CNN) is in this day and age symbolic of television news as a whole.

And I quote:

All are victims of the massive agenda driven competition for economic or political supremacy. The death knell of your ethics has been enabled by your parent organizations who have chosen to align themselves with political agendas. What is clear to me is that you are perpetuating the corrosive partisan politics that is destroying our country and killing our servicemembers who are at war.

The observant reader will note the politically neutral tone of the thing, making statements equally true of both sides of the political divide, which should be immediately and readily obvious. A total of four individuals are given amnesty from Sanchez's remarks, which makes everyone else fair game. everyone.

I imagine, if I cared to spend the time, I could easily find evidence of conservative bias in various media. Indeed, if I felt like mentioning the talk show/pundit types, I should need look no further than somebody like Ann Coulter, the McCarthy of our age. Those aside, I'm fairly sure I could pick holes easily enough in, say, Fox News without a great deal of trouble. Which brings us back to Sanchez's point.

However, I need to stop procrastinating, and get back to my tech services paper, which is destroying my profession and killing my mind, if nothing else. So another time.

       
All media outlets will have bias one way or the other. There's no big liberal media conspiracy just as there is no big conservative media conspiracy. Everybody screws up. To appropriate the above speech as a vindication of one side over the other's partisan politics is self-delusion, wrapped in the flag of pompous self-justification.

Samson, sometimes you really could use a little more introspection. You're so, so busy pointing fingers at other people that you occasionally seem to forget, at least if one is to judge by the likes of this post, that "your side" has its own similar issues. You seem a lot more interested in some form of score-keeping than in actual improvement of the general state of the affairs. (But come to think of it, I suspect that your idea of "improvement" in this case would be to just remove the opposing side and have your viewpoint prevail. :-P)

       
General Sanchez was avoiding partisanship for reasons we'll never know, but the main gist of it is he's sick of the liberal press. I'm fairly confident that none of you, outside of possibly Dwip, has done any kind of extensive research into left wing media bias, or even listened to radio and TV hosts who have done this research and reported on their findings.

David, if I were to advocate what I think should really happen there's a good chance someone, perhaps of a like mind to you even, would turn me in for attempting to incite a revolution. So I'll leave it at that.

       
I'm not entirely sure why you think you can justify your claim regarding research of the press one way or the other. As far as I can tell, you have no evidence to assert I've made research and no evidence that I haven't. So I'm not sure where your confidence comes from. :-)

Point in fact, I follow a fairly wide spectrum of news sources, from various local papers to national outlets such as the WSJ (known for a conservative slant in its editorials), NYT (known to be more liberal in its editorials) and Fox News (also known to be conservative in its editorials). And of course, I follow several French news sources such as Le Monde, which is what you would call liberal (the distinctions don't translate very well between the USA and France) and Capital (which is French right).
So while I have not done extensive "research" (per se) into analyzing differences in a systematic and scientific manner, I still consider myself relatively well-placed to observe slants in news outlets. Much more so than somebody who just follows one, in any case. *shrug*

(Note that you only seem to consider bias in the left-wing media. It's all you ever mention, in any case. It would appear that you find that right-wing media has no bias...)

David, if I were to advocate what I think should really happen there's a good chance someone, perhaps of a like mind to you even, would turn me in for attempting to incite a revolution. So I'll leave it at that.

You seem to suggest that your solution involves considerable degree of violence, or at the very least mayhem. I find it very unfortunate that you believe there is no room for dialog to help resolve the problems.

Dialog is obviously a two-way process. You have to be willing to talk just as much as those in front of you... that is one reason why I get so upset with these huge brush stripes labeling people as wrong due to their affiliations. It's just a waste of time and not working towards any productive outcome. :-/

       
David, I would suggest you look into the research Bill O'Reilly has done into the subject, as well as others, but his is the most in depth I've ever found. He chronicles it very well and has boat loads of specific examples of corruption and bias, the vast majority of which is on the left. That's mainly due to the fact that the overwhelming majority of the media in the US is left-wing oriented.

So when General Sanchez ( sorry for not making it clear who I was citing Dwip ) blasts media bias, I'm fairly confident he's not talking about the smaller minority of conservatives who generally report the information in the news. Remember, he's speaking pretty clearly about journalists or those who claim to be. Equating that to editorials implies you believe commentators are also journalists. Bill O'Reilly will tell you straight up that he's not a journalist, he's a commentator. So will all of the other radio hosts I have links to on my links page. You won't find the folks over at MSNBC claiming to be anything but journalists and news reporters. So with all that in mind, I'm fairly confident in my opinion that Sanchez was slamming the liberal press. Especially since it's only them who seem hell bent on convincing us that Iraq is lost, making up lies about people, and in general following a clear agenda.

Now, the reason I said someone would probably turn me in for suggesting my solution to the problem is because I honestly believe our current system is in a state of total collapse. Everything is so utterly polarized that there's no hope of fixing it without some form of radical change. Much like the founding fathers were forced to conclude with England. So yes, I'm afraid that it would likely involve a great deal of violence. Revolutions often do. But I along with many others truly believe that the only solution to our existing system is to destroy it and build a new one. The lesser option of simply organizing a secession has also been bantered about but we've all concluded the military would label it a rebellion and we'd end up fighting a revolution anyway.

       
Oh, and I find it a bit more than telling that the only reason I even knew to go look for this guy's speech on the subject was because I heard about it through KABC on the Al Rantel show, someone who is decidedly right-wing. None of the TV news, except Fox, said word one about it, and none of the liberal blogs I know about said word one about it. All of their headlines focused on other aspects of his speech in which he picked apart the war. That seems awfully one-sided especially since more than half the speech was his blasting of the media.

The part of his speech where he ripped on how bad he thinks things are going and how it's going to be an "endless nightmare" doesn't jive with all of the other information I've been hearing on it lately, even from the left, about how the surge is having the desired affect. I think I'll defer to Petraeus' judgment on that one. Sanchez cam across as a jealous asshat in that regard.

       
Equating that to editorials implies you believe commentators are also journalists

No, it's more subtle than that. The editorial reveals the opinion of the editing board. The editing board is (obviously) the group that decides what gets published and how to touch it up. Therefore, the editing board can (but doesn't have to) express their view via the articles published, the layout, and so forth. That doesn't make them journalists, but it does mean that their views can slip into what the journalists do write. So it's not at all equating the two, it's just showing that you can get an idea of a paper's general slant by examining the general opinion trend of the editorial board.

I don't have time to respond in more detail now, I'm in class, I'll respond to the rest some time later.

       
Quick note about your comment that Sanchez's speech wasn't covered: dude, just Google it. It's all over the place. A whole bunch of them talk about his points about the press.

I'm surprised that you find it remotely relevant to mention blogs when discussion news outlets. Unless of course you consider bloggers to be serious journalists... which you might, in which case it'd make sense to see what they talk about, but when I hear "media outlets" I think actual establishments viz. CNN, CBS, ABC, Fox, NYT, WSJ, CNBC, and so on.

FWIW, I never watch TV news. I can't stand it for many reasons. I only get my news via the paper (in either actual paper form, or on the news websites).

       
David, I would suggest you look into the research Bill O'Reilly has done into the subject, as well as others, but his is the most in depth I've ever found.

I'll do so at some point, but I find myself being rather skeptical of his objectivity. Note that I would be skeptical of any self-proclaimed commentator's research on the subject: not because they lie directly, but because they might lie by omission.

That's mainly due to the fact that the overwhelming majority of the media in the US is left-wing oriented.

You're going to have to define what exactly "media" means to you. I came back recently from a trip to Mt. Rushmore and back and pretty much every non-music radio station had a pretty clear religious-right leaning stance. In the Bay Area, well, sure, most local stations are left-leaning. As for national media, again, I'm not sure what exactly you're talking about. I gave a list of titles above that you didn't respond to, so I'm guessing it's not what you had in mind.

Especially since it's only them who seem hell bent on convincing us that Iraq is lost, making up lies about people, and in general following a clear agenda.

I've seen conservatives discuss how Iraq was a mistake. Such things are reported upon in the news, and you can't even say it's the outlet's fault because they're reporting what somebody else said. Your hyperbole is ill-placed in this case.

Now, the reason I said someone would probably turn me in for suggesting my solution to the problem is because I honestly believe our current system is in a state of total collapse. Everything is so utterly polarized that there's no hope of fixing it without some form of radical change.

Or, there could be a culture shift in which people learn to be tolerant of other viewpoints, and don't immediately start jumping the gun and pointing fingers every time somebody from the "other side" says something.

So much rhetoric, yours included incidentally, is of the "with me or against me" variety. It's all us and them, me and you, one group vs. the other. Debates are reduced to nothing more intelligent "that's typical right-wing slant" and "don't use those slimy liberal tactics".

What it has come to is that the tactics used in rhetoric are fallacious and, frankly, simply dirty. It's much more about the supposed moral character of such-and-such person than the actual ideas that are on the table. Violence will not change that, unless you decide to simply wipe out the opposing side, in which case clearly everybody will agree with you.

But I along with many others truly believe that the only solution to our existing system is to destroy it and build a new one.

Given that the issue is one of the population's culture and attitudes, and not the system per se, I'm not sure how building a new system would fix it unless you proceed with a massive brainwashing one way or the other at the same time.

The part of his speech where he ripped on how bad he thinks things are going and how it's going to be an "endless nightmare" doesn't jive with all of the other information I've been hearing on it lately, even from the left, about how the surge is having the desired affect.

Let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that something is having a positive effect in the long run. That absolutely, positively does not mean that it's a pleasant experience to go through.

Therefore it is perfectly consistent for something to be nightmarish and yet successful in the long-run in terms of overall strategy.

       
Look at it this way, Samson: Dwip and I, while being somewhat liberal, are both fairly independent thinkers. You can not, with any clear conscious try to tell me that you are an independent. You are fully partisan, and you are proud of that. And there is nothing wrong with that. But what the LTG is saying here is totally not attacking the liberal media any more than he is attacking the conservative media. I will give you that the liberal media is the quicker one to jump on all the negatives about the war, and that's what he's involved in. But using his unbiased commentary as a trip wire for your own attack (this is your agenda) on liberal media is wholly unfair to the man, who in all likelihood, is a conservative himself (this is me stereotyping, and I will readily admit I could be wholly wrong).

The fact that while Dwip and I disagree on a good many things politically and you and I disagree on a good many things politically and Dwip and I agree on this should tell you something.

Use your own words and work to chastise the liberal media. Don't try to misconstrue someone else's words to do it for you. I generally respect your opinions and even your statements thought I rarely agree with them, but I can not afford that to you in this instance.

To touch on something else you mentioned, I think that most politico vocal types like your O'Reilly make good points about a lot of things, but taking them as wholly factual is probably a very bad idea. I don't even know any liberal soothsayer names or I'd make sure to use one of those here too. :p Do your own research, don't let these people think for you. That's what the media wants, that's what these politicos want. If you agree with what they're saying, that's fine, but make damn sure you can trust them by doing the footwork yourself.

Watching the masses bleet like sheep to the American horrorcasting networks is getting really really old. Sometimes I think I'd prefer censored media output, just because people would be programmed stupid instead of lemming stupid. :(

       
Look at it this way, Samson: Dwip and I, while being somewhat liberal, are both fairly independent thinkers.

One thing that bugs me is the need many people have to label people as being on one side or the other of a two-sided spectrum. Yes, it's convenient in many cases to do so. But it's also not really accurate. In my case, I am "liberal" on many issues, but "conservative" on others. Other people will be "liberal" on almost all issues; others yet will be "conservative" on almost all issues. But a simple one-dimensional scale is vastly insufficient to capture the incredible complexity of somebody's belief maps.

It's simplistic and demeaning to be given a single label, as if all of my thoughts are programmed to be the same as all the thoughts of everybody else on the same "side" as me.

I don't even know any liberal soothsayer names or I'd make sure to use one of those here too. :p

I don't know of any who take themselves seriously. Stewart and Colbert are comedians; sure, they have clear liberal biases in the jokes they make, but they're not trying to present serious commentary on the news. (At least not directly: one has to wonder if the humor is not a mask for very serious higher-level comments...) But to be frank, I don't know of any liberal soothsayers simply because I have a strong aversion for soothsayers one way or the other.

       
Anyone ever tell you that you're a troll, David? Because that's what you are. :)

       
No, and pray tell, why?

       
The liberal media didn't forget to cover this, Samson; it was on the front page of the New York Times on Saturday. ;)

By the way, for those who only read the excerpt Samson posted here, the full speech makes for some really good reading - all caps and all. I was more interested in the second half of the speech, where he talked about our mistaken commitment to winning the war through military effort alone, without the use of economic or political power as well, and the need for a bipartisan grand strategy to fix this.

       
The fact that while Dwip and I disagree on a good many things politically and you and I disagree on a good many things politically and Dwip and I agree on this should tell you something.


It does. It tells me you and Dwip agree on this. That changes nothing. Look. You perceive that I "took" this guy's speech and used this part of it to justify my own attack on the liberal media. You're close. I'm using his speech to provide a clear-cut example of the fact that I'm not the only one out there who thinks the liberal press is full of liars and corrupt reporters. General Sanchez has boat-loads more credibility on this issue than you, me, Dwip, David, or Conner will ever have. Considering who he works ( or rather, worked ) for and that you yourself suggest he's probably a conservative, I seriously doubt he was blasting the conservative media. Especially since the conservative media tends to have nothing but great things to say about the military and what they're doing for this country in Iraq. So I stand my my conclusion that he was in fact blasting the liberal media, even though he chose to remain deliberately vague on that count. Also, Sanchez specifically called out CNN, and I challenge you to tell me with a straight face that they're a conservative news outlet. They didn't get the nickname "Communist News Network" because of their unbiased reporting :)

David Haley said:

I'll do so at some point, but I find myself being rather skeptical of his objectivity. Note that I would be skeptical of any self-proclaimed commentator's research on the subject: not because they lie directly, but because they might lie by omission.


This is where you and I differ. I am skeptical of all commentators who try to claim they are journalists, as often happens with the network news. Katie Couric, Brian Williams, Dan Rather, etc. All of the "nightly news" anchor people who truly think they're delivering hard news to you when it's really just the network's agenda they're fronting. They're all commentators but none of them have the honesty to come right out and tell you this. This is in part why I stopped watching these so-called news broadcasts. They're anything but.

On Fox, at least the people who are fronting opinions and forwarding an agenda will readily admit they're commentators who have one. Some of them are quite vocal about it, and on Fox they have people from both sides represented more or less equally. I don't necessarily agree with them all but I respect them all for being honest enough to admit they have agendas. Fox also has hard news reporting and you can tell pretty clearly when that's taking place.

So I think you're being too prejudgmental about O'Reilly. His honesty in what he is and does is plainly laid out for all to see and he has the facts to back up everything he reports on and gives his opinion on. For that reason he tends to be one of the people I listen to on a regular basis.

David Haley said:

So much rhetoric, yours included incidentally, is of the "with me or against me" variety. It's all us and them, me and you, one group vs. the other. Debates are reduced to nothing more intelligent "that's typical right-wing slant" and "don't use those slimy liberal tactics".

What it has come to is that the tactics used in rhetoric are fallacious and, frankly, simply dirty. It's much more about the supposed moral character of such-and-such person than the actual ideas that are on the table. Violence will not change that, unless you decide to simply wipe out the opposing side, in which case clearly everybody will agree with you.


You are basically supporting my point even though you probably didn't intend to and don't even realize it. It's this exact polarization that's poisoned this nation beyond repair with the current system. So much rhetoric flowing. So much money being poured into making sure things stay this way. So much division, hatred, and evil. The regular people are quite fed up with it which is why large portions of the media are no longer reaching the audiences they once had. Nobody wants to listen to it. And since the vast majority of it is all left-leaning, it's the liberals taking most of the heat.

BTW, you asked me to clarify what I mean by "the media" so here goes:

You have three types of media in the world today.

The "old" media, which consists of newspapers, magazines, and established network TV. Organizations such as the Times Mirror Corporation, with the LA and NY Times being their biggest publications in the US. Others such as USA Today, The Washington Post, etc. There are of course right-wing papers but the tilt is heavily on the left. Magazines such as Time and Newsweek. The original "big 3" networks. ABC, CBS, and NBC. These are the established, old, "elite media" who are mostly hardline leftists and spin their news as such. Some even going so far as to fabricate stories to further their agendas. Most of the papers are losing circulation, and the big 3's ratings are falling.

You have the cable news organizations like MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News. These make up the second form of media. Not old, but not really new anymore. The main difference here is they're 24hr "nothing but news" places so they have to throw in some opinion shows too to keep things interesting, otherwise who would watch train wrecks and plane crashes all day and night? All of these middle media types survive on the ratings their commentary shows bring in. MSNBC is hardcore leftist. I would challenge anyone to try and claim otherwise with a straight face. CNN is left leaning but they do have a few right wing commentary shows. Fox News is right leaning but also has some liberal commentary. Of these, Fox News is getting ratings that are easily double that of all the others combined, and the last I heard, they're significantly out in front even factoring in the "old" media.

Then you have the "new" media. This includes talk radio and your internet sites, mainly bloggers. The anomaly here is that a sizable majority of the talk radio crowd are moderate to right-wing. Liberal talk radio hasn't done very well. Just ask Air America about that whole bankruptcy thing :P Most people don't take the bloggers seriously as news sources, but the internet's biggest advantage is that you'll often get very raw coverage of almost anything that's going on in the world, in almost real-time. Often the institutional spin machines on either side don't even have time to react. You wont' likely find any of the new media types invited into the established press corp, even if they've got wildly popular radio shows like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly.

So when I say "the liberal media" you can be pretty safe in assuming I'm referring to the "old" media, plus CNN and MSNBC. And again, I'm pretty sure from what Sanchez said that he was calling out the same group for their despicable ways.

       
Samson said:

General Sanchez has boat-loads more credibility on this issue than you, me, Dwip, David, or Conner will ever have.

Um, while I'm flattered to be getting lumped in with the rest of you folks here, how'd my name come up? I hadn't even commented once in this thread at all. :(

       
Samson said:

His honesty in what he is and does is plainly laid out for all to see and he has the facts to back up everything he reports on and gives his opinion on.

I'll agree that there is value to be had in such an admission. Still, bias is bias, admitted or not, and the fact that it's admitted doesn't make it any less of a bias. Incidentally, your claim that he backs up his claims with facts could be made about many people. This is where my comment about lying by omission comes in: I can give you enough facts to make my position look very strong, but not enough to show where the holes are.

I think there is also a certain degree of bias involved in deciding who has bias. For many people, others have bias if they're presenting a different view of the world. :-) I think there's a lot more to the notion of 'bias': I think a lot of it has to do with lying by omission. Somebody who lies outright isn't biased, they're a liar; the bias comes in if you only report on a certain aspect of an issue, for instance. Well, anyhow...

Samson said:

You are basically supporting my point even though you probably didn't intend to and don't even realize it.

I'm not sure why you are trying to frame an agreement in terms of a big victory that I unwittingly accorded you. It would seem that we plainly agree on the fact that there is a lot of polarization and that it's a big problem.

Still, I ask you: if it's a problem with people and how they act towards one another, how will changing the system fix that? It seems that you would need a major culture shift, which is something that would have to come from the population as a whole, not imposed on it by some revolution. (Unless, of course, the revolution picks one side and wipes out the other, which hardly seems like a democratic solution to me. It would be "effective", though...)


And thank you for clearing up what you meant by 'media' -- I wasn't sure if you were including what you termed the "new media". I wouldn't really call them news media, although sure, they are definitely 'media' in the sense that they're consumer-oriented communication programs. (The word 'media' is a funny one that means something very specific literally but has come to mean all kinds of other things by extension, like "news"...)

       
Considering who he works ( or rather, worked ) for and that you yourself suggest he's probably a conservative, I seriously doubt he was blasting the conservative media. Especially since the conservative media tends to have nothing but great things to say about the military and what they're doing for this country in Iraq.


Why does the <i>probability</i> that he's a conservative necessarily translate into his liking how the conservative media are doing their job? He could perfectly well be a conservative who doesn't like the standards of reporting the conservative media are using. He was addressing issues of journalistic integrity and ethics; positive reporting can be just as slipshod (or as well done) as negative press.

       
Because he was specifically blasting the dishonesty, corruption, lies, distortions, and name calling - and called out CNN by name in the process. I'm not really sure why everyone is having a hard time seeing this just because he didn't come right out and say he was talking about the liberal press.

Sure, it's POSSIBLE he was blasting everyone equally, but given the great detail he went into about the reporting style of those he was talking about, it's unlikely at best that he was directing much of anything at the conservative media.

       
It seems to me that you're projecting a little, Samson. Some people can criticize their own side, too, without thinking it undermines their values in general. And you really shouldn't act as though the conservative media is guilty of none of the things you mention...

       
You should really avoid continuing to twist what I'm saying to fit your argument better. I distinctly recall saying he targeted dishonest, corruption, lies, and distortions. He's speaking fairly specifically about himself and the military. So unless you can come up with some concrete examples of right-wing media who printed or broadcast lies, dishonesty, and personal attacks against the military I'm standing by his clear attack on the liberal press.

Again, for the umpteen millionth time, he called CNN out by name. Not Fox News, not talk radio. CNN. Fox and talk radio have all been overwhelmingly supportive of the military, so it wouldn't make any logical sense to assume he was lumping them in with his broad statement.

       
Now, While I'm not the most political people, I do have to post my views on this topic after reading all the comments, and General Sanchez's speech.

After reading Samson's except from the speech, I gathered the same thing he's been saying this whole time, Sanchez was attacking all media outlets that are dishonest, corrupt, liars and distorter's toward the military. All of his examples of the dishonesty, corruption, and distortion of facts, are military oriented. And I have to agree with Samson, that talk radio and Fox News, and most other conservative media, has been overwhelmingly supportive of our military.

I can't stress enough the fact that while I was still in the military, it was painful as hell to come back to the barracks sit down in the day room to watch the news, and have to sit through people talking about how we were wrong to be trying to help people have a better life. I don't give a flying rats ass what the Presidents motives might have been for sending us over there. But I do know that when we were over there, and we saw what Saddam had done to those people, I know for a fact that I wasn't fighting or going to be fighting for the President, but to give those people their own version of the "American Dream."

If the media feels the need to make this war look bad, then they should aim their slander, libel and whatever else they feel like using at the President. And not the men and women that joined the military. Just because the President has certain things in mind, does [u]not mean the men and women of the United States Armed Forces have those same objectives. And I for one, would greatly appreciate it if the media, right or left wing, would refrain from running the names of my former brothers and sisters in arms, through the god damn dirt.

When each and every journalist goes and serves a tour in the military in a wartime situation, then maybe I'll have a little more tolerance for them spreading falsities. But I doubt that would happen if they all joined and served.

I think Israel has the best policy. Every 18 year old male, is required a 4 year tour of duty with the military. Females have the option of the tour. But Males are required to serve. And I honestly think that's a damn good idea. Maybe we'd have more people in this country who gave a damn about more than just their own goals.

       
I think you're the only one using the speech as a launchpad for an attack on the libs, Samson. Pretty much everyone else sees it for what it most likely is: an oped on the lack of journalistic integrity throughout the news media. I don't see how calling out CNN by name arbitrates only liberal media. CNN is a popular network, probably the most known and watched broadcast news network in the nation. Liberal or not, CNN comes to mind before any others because of what they are.

I said it once, and I'll repeat it one more time -- use your own thoughts and words to go after your targets, don't take the words of someone else and twist them to suit your needs. Regardless of what he meant, he didn't specify liberal media, and that means you're taking his little ditty out of context.

I honestly have no problem with your view on the liberal media, I agree 100%. I just think it's unfair to do what you're doing here.

       
<< prev 1, 2 next >>
Comments Closed
Comments for this entry have been closed.
Anonymous
Register

Forgot Password?

SuMoTuWeThFrSa
 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31