Press has been lying about Iraq

[Kropotkin]

Originally posted by Ned
However, the right is fighting back by pointing out the bias is lies. Why do you think that FOX news is now the most watched in the United States? The pretty reporters?

No insult intended but the quote above reminds me of an old translated transcript of a long speech by Pol Pot. The essence of his speech was that the partys way was the correct one as they where successful, and they where successful as their path way the correct one.

That one news source is more read or watched than any other doesn't a priori tell us much about if it is more accurate than any other news source. If popularity, as you use it, would strongly imply a sound and objective point of view that would imply that all organizations, parties and news sources that have ever been very popular was right in their analysis of reality. As far as I can tell this logic doesn't survive closer examination.

[Ned]

Thanks to a PM, here is the Foreman article.

Note, that one of the more biased and one of the greatest liars is none other than Rajiv Chandrasekaran of the Washington Post, the very same author, who in today's article concerning the DOD to State regime change, added clauses about looting and criminal activity that did not appear in any other reporter's stories.

"Bad Reporting in Baghdad
From the May 12, 2002 issue: You have no idea how well things are going.
by Jonathan Foreman
05/12/2003, Volume 008, Issue 34


Baghdad
IT'S ENDLESSLY FASCINATING to watch the interactions between U.S. patrols and the residents of Baghdad. It's not just the love bombing the troops continue to receive from all classes of Baghdadi--though the intensity of the population's pro-American enthusiasm is astonishing, even to an early believer in the liberation of Iraq, and continues unabated despite delays in restoring power and water to the city. It's things like the reaction of the locals to black troops. They seem to be amazed by their presence in the American army. One group of kids in a poor neighborhood shouted "Mike Tyson, Mike Tyson" at Staff Sergeant Darren Swain; the daughter of a diplomat on the other hand informed him, "One of my maids has the same skin as you."

It's things like the way the women old and young flirt outrageously with GIs, lifting their veils to smile, waving from high windows, and shyly calling hello from half-opened doors. Or the way the little girls seem to speak much better English than the little boys who are always elbowing them out of the way. Or the way the troops get a sense of the gender violence endemic in the culture: Yesterday in the poor al Sahliya neighborhood two sweet 12 to 14-year-old sisters on a rooftop who introduced themselves to me and Staff Sergeant Gannon Edgy as Souha and Samaha were chased away by a rock-wielding male relative. His violent anger hinted at problems to come here.

But you won't see much of this on TV or read about it in the papers. To an amazing degree, the Baghdad-based press corps avoids writing about or filming the friendly dealings between U.S. forces here and the local population--most likely because to do so would require them to report the extravagant expressions of gratitude that accompany every such encounter. Instead you read story after story about the supposed fury of Baghdadis at the Americans for allowing the breakdown of law and order in their city.

Well, I've met hundreds of Iraqis as I accompanied army patrols all over the city during the past two weeks and I've never encountered any such fury (even in areas that were formerly controlled by the Marines, who as the premier warrior force were never expected to carry out peacekeeping or policing functions). There is understandable frustration about the continuing failure of the Americans to get the water supply and the electricity turned back on, though the ubiquity of generators indicates that the latter was always a problem. And there are appeals for more protection (difficult to provide with only 12,000 troops in a city of 6 million that has not been placed under strict martial law). But there is no fury.

Given that a large proportion of the city's poorest residents have taken part in looting the Baathist elite's ministries, homes, and institutions, that should tell you something about the sources preferred by the denizens of the Palestine Hotel (the preferred home of the press corps). Indeed it's striking that while many of the troops I've accompanied find themselves feeling some sympathy for the inhabitants of "Typhoid Alley" and other destitute neighborhoods and their attempts to obtain fans, furniture, TVs, etc., the press corps often seems solidly on the side of those who grew fat under the Saddam regime. (That said, imagine the press hysteria that would have greeted a decision by U.S. troops to use deadly force against the looters and defend the property of the city's elite.) Even in the wealthiest neighborhoods--places like the Mansoor district, where you still see intact pictures of Saddam Hussein--people seem to be a lot more pro-American than you could ever imagine from reading the wires.

Perhaps this is just another case of reporters with an anti-American or antiwar agenda. Perhaps living in Saddam's totalitarian Baghdad has left some of the press here with a case of Stockholm syndrome. It may also be a byproduct of depending on interpreters and fixers who were connected to or worked with the approval of the Saddam regime. And you cannot underestimate the herd instinct that can take over when you have a lot of media folk in a confined area for any length of time. But whatever the cause, the result has been very selective reporting.

The Associated Press's Hamza Hendawi, for instance, massively exaggerated and misrepresented the nature of the looting in Baghdad in the first days after the U.S. armored forces took key points in the city. Like so many Baghdad-based reporters, she described an "unchecked frenzy" that did not exist at that time (the looting was targeted and nonviolent, in the sense that the looters attacked neither persons nor inhabited dwellings). Read her pieces and you'll meet a veritable parade of Iraqis who are angry with the United States.

Then there were those exaggerated reports of April 18 claiming (as Reuters' Hassan Hafidh put it) that "Tens of thousands of protesters demanded on Friday that the United States get out of Iraq. . . . In the biggest protest since U.S. forces toppled Saddam Hussein's iron-fisted, 24-year-long rule nine days ago, Muslims poured out of mosques and into the streets of Baghdad, calling for an Islamic state to be established." Demonstrators did come out of one mosque, but reporters seem to have confused them with the large numbers of Shia Muslims gathering for the pilgrimage to Karbala--a pilgrimage long forbidden by the Saddam regime.

There are frequent small demonstrations in the blocks outside the Palestine and Sheraton hotels--partly because that is where the press corps is congregated, but also because it's an area that many Baath party officials fled to after the war began. Anyone who assumes that the atmosphere of that downtown area is in any way representative of the city would be gravely mistaken. However, many reporters have chosen to do just that rather than venture further out to places where they would have seen that far more typical and frequent "demonstrations" involve hundreds or even thousands of Iraqis gathering to cheer U.S. troops. Admittedly, some of those crowds include people begging for money, desperate for aid, or just curious about these strange-looking foreigners. "Most children here have never seen a foreigner" one Iraqi civilian explained to me, "that is why they are so excited." Another told me with a smile, "Everyone here wanted to go to America; now America has come here!"

More irritating is the myth constantly repeated by antiwar columnists that the military let the city be destroyed--in particular the hospitals and the national museum--while guarding the Ministry of Oil. The museum looting is turning out to have been grotesquely exaggerated. And there is no evidence for the ministry of oil story. Depending on the article, the Marines had either a tank or a machine gun nest outside the ministry. Look for a photo of that tank or that machine gun nest and you'll look in vain. And even if the Marines had briefly guarded the oil ministry it would have been by accident: The Marines defended only the streets around their own headquarters and so-called Areas of Operation. Again, though, given the pro-regime sources favored by so many of the press corps huddled in the Palestine Hotel, it's not surprising that this rumor became gospel.

A typical piece of reporting on the "destruction" in Baghdad came from the Washington Post's Rajiv Chandrasekaran on April 22, which repeated all the usual gossip about the ministry of oil and then quoted Saad Jawad, a professor of political science at Baghdad University: "The Iraqis had very high hopes for the Americans," Jawad told him. "But all this euphoria about change, all this relief, went away when they saw the amount of destruction to the infrastructure of the country and the carelessness of the Americans to the Iraqis' day-to-day lives." Yes, euphoria is bound to dissipate, but there's no sign it has yet. More important, what infrastructure destruction? The reporter lets the charge stand undisputed but must be aware that roads, bridges, power stations, and rails lines were all left unbombed and intact by U.S. forces. The exception was power substations that fed key government buildings and broadcasting facilities (unless you count army bases and secret police headquarters as "infrastructure").

But my favorite mad media moment was when an AP journalist turned up in a car heading to the Ministry of Information, the top floor of which was on fire. "Why aren't you putting out the fire?" she angrily demanded of Sgt. William Moore. He looked at her with astonishment and asked, "How the hell am I supposed to do that?" Turning away, he muttered, "Piss on it?"

It is true that the military has been slow in some respects to make the transition to an occupation role. And the senior brass here and at CENTCOM have a lot of explaining to do about their planning for postwar operations--the Army arrived here with virtually no Arabic speakers and even after two weeks there were only a handful. But as Gen. Buford Blount of the 3rd Infantry Division pointed out the same day as the Ministry of Information fire, "It's only a week since we were in combat here," and the media have bizarrely high expectations about how quickly a conquered city should return to normal.

Even embedded journalists (or perhaps their editors) can unconsciously misconstrue the facts on the ground. For instance, David Zucchino of the Los Angeles Times, who like me is embedded with the 4th Battalion of the 64th Armored Regiment, 3rd Infantry Division, recently accompanied my Scout platoon on a patrol. We went to an upmarket residential area, in which houses that formerly belonged to top Baath officials had been taken over by looters--and in which a house owned by Qusay Hussein had been destroyed by a JDAM bomb. I was talking to Dr. Ali Faraj al Salih, a cardiologist trained at Edinburgh, when Zucchino, a fine, experienced foreign correspondent, walked over and began listening in. I asked Dr. Ali if he'd had any trouble with looters. "No" he replied, "I have guns, with license from the government. And I have two bodyguards." "Have you always had the bodyguards?" I asked him. "Oh yes," he said.

But Zucchino's April 22 article in the L.A. Times--headlined "In Postwar 'Dodge City,' Soldiers Now Deputies"--reports "Dr. Ali Faraj, a cardiologist, stood before his well-appointed home and mentioned that he has hired two armed guards," as if the doctor had been driven to this expense by unrest following the arrival of the Americans.

Things may yet go horribly wrong here in American-occupied Baghdad. But it is bizarre and sad that so few journalists are able or willing to recognize this honeymoon period for what it is.

Jonathan Foreman is a correspondent for the New York Post, embedded with the Scout Platoon of the 4th Battalion, 64th Armored Regiment, 3rd Infantry Division in Baghdad.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/629xnqei.asp

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kropotkin

No insult intended but the quote above reminds me of an old translated transcript of a long speech by Pol Pot. The essence of his speech was that the partys way was the correct one as they where successful, and they where successful as their path way the correct one.

That one news source is more read or watched than any other doesn't a priori tell us much about if it is more accurate than any other news source. If popularity, as you use it, would strongly imply a sound and objective point of view that would imply that all organizations, parties and news sources that have ever been very popular was right in their analysis of reality. As far as I can tell this logic doesn't survive closer examination.

Actually, FOX itself claims that it has become the most popular because it is fair and balanced. I watch it because I think I get the truth rather than spin. But there is no doubt that FOX has the best looking babes in the history of TV. WOW!

[Kropotkin]

Another good answer by Ned...

[Ned]

GePaP, the distinctions between good communism and bad communism, socialism and communism, and between socialism and social democrats, are subtle at best. I really think the differences are minor and are one's of emphasis only.

You do admit that the Sandanista's were at least socialists. You also will admit that they were very "friendly" with Castro, even if they were not controlled by Castro. Putting those two together, though, speaks volumes about the truth of the Sandanista movement.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
Another good answer by Ned...

Kropotkin, Do you get FOX news? If you do not, you simply cannot know the difference between this network and all others. It is amazing.

MSNBC is changing as well. Gone are the far left, anti-Bush types (Donahue). In are the conservatives like Scarborough. MSNBC ratings are up.

Now, why is that? And why are both networks on the warpath about CNN, ABC, the AP and the liberal newspapers such as the Washington Post, NY Time and the LA Times? It is part of their effort to get and keep viewers by showing them that the leftist networks and newspapers are not reporting the facts accurately.

As I said earlier in this thread, I was amazed to watch report after report on FOX about cheering Iraqi's and throngs welcoming US troops long after April 9. There was none of this on the other networks at the time. Now we know why.

Baghdad Bob did not die. His spirit lives on in the reporting of many from Baghdad.

[Kropotkin]

I'm debating the logic of your arguments, not the news sources per se.

But, as a side note, to answer that it's fair and balanced because they claim so themselves seems quite weak. But no other news channel could say that of cource, they are biased.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
I'm debating the logic of your arguments, not the news sources per se.

But, as a side note, to answer that it's fair and balanced because they claim so themselves seems quite weak. But no other news channel could say that of cource, they are biased.

Kropotkin, Simply claiming it, I agree is not enough. The News is different and has a definite pro-American bias to it. A lot of American watch it because of this (and the babes). A pro-American bias does not mean, though, that the reporting is more accurate, true.

However, the recent reports about CNN and now the Foreman report have indeed demonstrate that the left is as "guilty" of spinning the news in an anti-American fashion as the right is guilty of spinning it in a pro-American fashion. However, the left does not admit to spinning. They say they are objective. This, of course is a problem if they are spinning the news.

Until FOX and now MSNBC, the only major conservative news outlet was, I believe, the Wall Street Journal. All the rest of the press was dominated by liberals. That they all slanted the news in the same way to them meant their reporting was unbiased. However, all this really meant was that the liberal bias was pandemic.

[Kropotkin]

I used to have CNN International and for me an anti-american spin seems absurd. But, I'm not an american. Now, let us look at your post. We can see a clear change in the attitude. Now, suddenly everyone are biased. Something that was not the case in your earlier argumentation.

As for the reporting itself, Baghdad is a big city and no one can be everywhere at once. That different people will get (at times) very different perspectives. This is of cource something that any news source could be more aware of and inform about.

As just another side note i'm quoting Fox News website:
"Relief workers on the ground in Iraq say they gamble daily with street violence — looters, thugs and even kids playing with live munitions — as they walk a tightrope trying to gain access to the country’s hot spots.
As it seems, also Fox can report that everyting isn't one great party in Baghdad.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
I used to have CNN International and for me an anti-american spin seems absurd. But, I'm not an american. Now, let us look at your post. We can see a clear change in the attitude. Now, suddenly everyone are biased. Something that was not the case in your earlier argumentation.

As for the reporting itself, Baghdad is a big city and no one can be everywhere at once. That different people will get (at times) very different perspectives. This is of cource something that any news source could be more aware of and inform about.

As just another side note i'm quoting Fox News website:
"Relief workers on the ground in Iraq say they gamble daily with street violence — looters, thugs and even kids playing with live munitions — as they walk a tightrope trying to gain access to the country’s hot spots.
As it seems, also Fox can report that everyting isn't one great party in Baghdad.

Kropotkin, I wish you had a link. However, I note that FOX News web site carries AP reports extensively. What I am mainly talking about is the TV News.

As to everyone being biased, clearly this is not the case. Even Foreman noted that the AP has many fine reporters. The main problem seems to be coming from some of the more senior reporters, such as Rajiv of the WP, and Jennings of ABC. They set the editorial tone. As he noted on the air, there also seems to be a "herd" mentality to the presss. They all seem to run with the same story in almost the same fashion. The museum story is one example. Foreman was there. What he say were families taking fans, chairs and other things from the museum. They were not frenzied. They were not carting off artifacts.

Inside, you could see some emptied display cases, some vandalism to the displays and looting of the administrative offices. However, most of the antiquities were still there. What got reported was that looters stole virtually all the antiquities in frenzied looting. This was not true at the time it was reported. But it became gospel, did it not? Virtually all media reported the story as frenzied looting that resulted in lost treasures of the millenia. But their ultimate source probably was one reporter who reported the story with a spin.

This same thing happened with the 4,000 Jews story. This story was planted by Hizbollah in Lebanon. However, it was then widely reported througout the ME as fact by a variety of news media. But the subsequent reporters did not independently verify the facts. They simply carried the false report or attributed to the false report. A lot of this apparently goes on.

So, the bias of the few can and does seem to infect the majority. Hopefully, Foreman's story will prompt some of the reporters in Baghdad to venture out into Baghdad to get more of the truth.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
GePaP, the distinctions between good communism and bad communism, socialism and communism, and between socialism and social democrats, are subtle at best. I really think the differences are minor and are one's of emphasis only.

You do admit that the Sandanista's were at least socialists. You also will admit that they were very "friendly" with Castro, even if they were not controlled by Castro. Putting those two together, though, speaks volumes about the truth of the Sandanista movement.

To a Nazi the differences between all of those are subtle, but they are no subtle at all, as the history of interactions between different factions of the left amply shows. There are important differences: to claim all leftist are the same is to claim all Christians, catholics, protestants, evangelicals, Eastern orthodox, well, they are all the same, with subtle differences.... As an ex divinity student you should hopefully know that saying that is nonsense.

as for that piece you think is proof:

Then there were those exaggerated reports of April 18 claiming (as Reuters' Hassan Hafidh put it) that "Tens of thousands of protesters demanded on Friday that the United States get out of Iraq. . . . In the biggest protest since U.S. forces toppled Saddam Hussein's iron-fisted, 24-year-long rule nine days ago, Muslims poured out of mosques and into the streets of Baghdad, calling for an Islamic state to be established." Demonstrators did come out of one mosque, but reporters seem to have confused them with the large numbers of Shia Muslims gathering for the pilgrimage to Karbala--a pilgrimage long forbidden by the Saddam regime.

There are frequent small demonstrations in the blocks outside the Palestine and Sheraton hotels--partly because that is where the press corps is congregated, but also because it's an area that many Baath party officials fled to after the war began. Anyone who assumes that the atmosphere of that downtown area is in any way representative of the city would be gravely mistaken. However, many reporters have chosen to do just that rather than venture further out to places where they would have seen that far more typical and frequent "demonstrations" involve hundreds or even thousands of Iraqis gathering to cheer U.S. troops. Admittedly, some of those crowds include people begging for money, desperate for aid, or just curious about these strange-looking foreigners. "Most children here have never seen a foreigner" one Iraqi civilian explained to me, "that is why they are so excited." Another told me with a smile, "Everyone here wanted to go to America; now America has come here!"

He makes many claims in this part, for exmaple, and yet, not a single person interviewed to make his point. How is he able to know what the people were thinking? Nowhere in these two paragraphs does he tell us how, which would be nice, since he is making important claims.

It is true that the military has been slow in some respects to make the transition to an occupation role. And the senior brass here and at CENTCOM have a lot of explaining to do about their planning for postwar operations--the Army arrived here with virtually no Arabic speakers and even after two weeks there were only a handful. But as Gen. Buford Blount of the 3rd Infantry Division pointed out the same day as the Ministry of Information fire, "It's only a week since we were in combat here," and the media have bizarrely high expectations about how quickly a conquered city should return to normal.

I though Baghdad was liberated, not conquered....

Notice how the paragraphs ends in an opinion, that of the general. Now, the geenral is entitled to his opinion, and Forman is entitled to quote it, but it is just that, AN OPINION. Just like mos of the article is just that, a set of facts and a set of opinions to go with it. It is no different from any of the other pieces comeing from Iraq, only of course, that you agree with it.

[Kropotkin]

The quoted text is, as far as I can tell, their own.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,86498,00.html

Now, is it that the news doesn't need to be biased, while you at the same time agrees that there is an pro-american bias?

The herd mentality do seem to exist, that doesn't mean that it has to run a particular way. You noted the myth of 4,000 jews not in the WTC. To that we could, from the first war, add the fake story made up about iraqi soldiers killing infants in Quwait (and a few other stories). Another thing that seems to be have very much blown out of proportion was a number of uprisings by Iraqis against the regime in this war. The one in Basra comes to mind.

One important point, that I made earlier. Is that no one can by themself, during a invasion, get a complete picture. The reporter that tells stories about looting (in general) and anti-american protests need not be more biased than the embedded reporter coming into the city on a IFV, meeting happy crowds.

[Ned]

Kropotkin, thanks for the link. Their does seem to be sections of the city that do not have any authority whatsoever. This obviously is a problem and one of the reasons, no doubt, that Bodine is gone. It is taking too long to set up an interim authority and restore order everywhere.

IIRC, something like this happened in the immediate aftermath of the fall of the Nazi regime. Widespread looting and lawlessness until a new government was installed. This didn't happen in Japan because the Emperor stayed in place as did most of the government.

BTW, in one of today's stories, Franks ordered the immediate cessation of the Baath Socialist Party. It appears that this party controlled all governmental functions in Iraq, just like the Nazi did in Germany. The fall of the regime in both cases lead to a complete collapse of government authority.

While this is indeed a story. The impression one gets is that even in areas patrolled by the new police and by the Army, there remains general looting. This is a false impression according to Foreman. However, everyone will admit that Baghdad is a very large city, and more needs to be done.

[Edan]

Speaking of lying reporters...

Although this appears to be one bad apple then a conspiracy, but the New York Times should still be ashamed.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Ned

IIRC, something like this happened in the immediate aftermath of the fall of the Nazi regime. Widespread looting and lawlessness until a new government was installed.

You were around then Ned?

Seriously though, looting and lawlessness were very common in British cities after heavy bombing raids. It's difficult to enforce the law when there is a blackout.

Also, I seem to remember similar conditions reported from the New York power cut in the 70s? 80s? "Night of the Animals" is how I remember that.

It's not the governments that keep the law on the street. It's the lawkeepers, be it police or troops.

Japan does not go in for public lawlessness. I put this down to the high proportion of martial art practitioners on the street.