This picture is Exhibit A of what happens when hyperventallating anti-US reporting outruns the facts at "objective" news outlets - they end up printing propaganda for the enemy. As the old saw goes, truth is the first casualty in war (especially within the press).
Not a big deal, you say? Bollocks. The UK Times has issued a retraction and apology - and...? The picture, already making its way with phony caption around the world time and again, became fodder for a leftwingnut political cartoonist for the Chicago Sun-Times, who was also forced to issue a retreaction (post-publication, so that the damage was already done). Terrorist news network Al-Jazeera also picked up the photo and broadcast it across their airwaves and on their website. The "echo chamber" of the anti-war press in effect:
Given that the individuals in this photo are killed in typical Islamist fashion (civilians used to make an example out of them, bound, blindfolded, shot in cold blood, dumped in the street, etc.), it begs a set of questions about left-wing conventional wisdom. If these kinds of atrocities were being committed en masse by our troops as alleged by anti-warbots on a daily basis, then why are there so very few of these incidents that are reported? Why is the first instance in the entire conflict of such "alleged war crimes" so badly reported and so grossly blown out of historical and practical context? Could it be that the press has been chomping at the bit to get stories like this? Could it be that the US military, acting in the restrained and professional matter in which it always has, has been doing a nearly impeccable job of controlling and limiting civilian casualties and "alleged cold-blooded massacres?"
Where are the A1 corrections - above the fold in 36 point Times New Roman? Retractions and apoligies are lovely, but again, the damage to the troops is done whether the picture has anything to do with them or not (and it doesn't). I'll leave the readers and old media devotees to figure this one out, as their favored information sources backpedal, retract, misreport and misinform them.
1
Good post. The MSM has pretty much abandoned any pretense of being objective in their reporting. That is, unless they are called on it. Then they express outrage and claim that there is no media bias.
In my estimation, the MSM have actually gone far beyond bias and are now reliable supporters of America's enemies.
Posted by: Mike at June 13, 2006 06:31 AM (8a5F1)
2
If it weren't for factcheckers on the internet these dopes would be up for a pulitzer.
Always look for corrections/retractions on page 16, it's the little squib all the way at the bottom, in fine print.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 13, 2006 06:52 AM (8e/V4)
3
Mr. Clark: Robert Fisk's article is contemptible and completely irresponsible.
Posted by: Oyster at June 13, 2006 08:05 AM (ULAbo)
4
Whine, whine, whine about the MSM. They get the shank because they don't put their retractions in 36-point typeface on the A1, as opposed to conservative "New Media" sources ... which DON'T MAKE RETRACTIONS AT ALL! When NM becomes as accountable to itself and the public as MSM and the playing field is level, then it'll deserve a serious listen. And not until.
Posted by: TheWingedAvenger at June 13, 2006 08:11 AM (UHKaK)
5
Hmmm...See "Truthout.org" for further details of this "non-correction" phenomenom of which you speak.
Blogs do issue often retractions and corrections when wrong, by the way. You statement shows that you don't read many of them on a daily basis. Try Just One Minute or Right Wing Nut House today for examples.
Then get back to us.
Posted by: Good Lt at June 13, 2006 08:22 AM (yT+NK)
6
Good Lt.: As a matter of fact, I read several daily, including Right Wing Nuthouse, and have seen no such retractions. But I'll look again and make a retraction of my own if neccessary.
Perhaps, Lt., you would develop a stated retraction policy of your own for these pages, or at least your entires onto them. Anyone who takes on the MSM should hold themselves to exactly the same (if not higher) standards. Otherwise its nothing more than Monday-morning quarterbacking. And that takes no special skills at all, besides an index finger.
Posted by: TheWingedAvenger at June 13, 2006 08:38 AM (UHKaK)
7
Winged Avenger,
The fact is, each individual Legacy Media outlet may or may not make retractions. The fact is, one Legacy Media outlet is never seen pointing to and correcting another Legacy Media outlet. The fact is when any Legacy Media outlet does issue a retraction it's always too late and too little. The fact is, the Legacy Media outlets claim objectivity, balance and truth.
The fact is, blogs often make retractions, they do it visibly, they correct each other and they openly admit bias in their editorializing and commentary. And they would never even have gotten such a foothold on the Internet if the Legacy Media outlets didn't provide so much fodder.
We await
your retraction.
Posted by: Oyster at June 13, 2006 08:49 AM (ULAbo)
8
Sweeping generalizations..give me facts.
Posted by: TheWingedAvenger at June 13, 2006 08:53 AM (UHKaK)
9
And admitting one's bias does not give one special dispensation from being truthful and intellectually honest, as certain NM types seem to believe is the case.
Posted by: TheWingedAvenger at June 13, 2006 08:56 AM (UHKaK)
10
In order to need a retraction, you have to report something incorrectly. Unless you're Jason Leopold, Marc Ash or the nutroots at "Truthout." In that case (or Keith Olberman's), believe blindly what these nutjobs write, report it into the ground, and hide under a rock when the facts come out (with no correction, retraction or apology).
You also stated that I need to hold myself to a "higher standard" that the MSM does. Well, that (as my post indicates) isn't much of a standard.
Oyster -
Don't bother with WingedAverageGuy. He missed Rick Moran's and Tom McGuire's admissions that they were wrong when I told him exactly where to go regarding admissions of mistakes, as well as Decision '08's. Selective reading? You bet.
He's grumpy over the recent momentum swing that his side has lost regarding the direction of the news cycle. No Rove frogmarch. Zarq dead. New complete Iraqi govt. Dean shooting his uncontrollable mouth off. Hillary plummeting in primary polls. Kos is still 0-20. Haditha reporting questionable. Busby wins a "moral victory" (loses) CA-50...you get the idea.
Posted by: Good Lt at June 13, 2006 09:00 AM (yT+NK)
11
shorter Leftwinged Avenger: I don't care cause slandering the troops is fine by me.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 13, 2006 09:01 AM (8e/V4)
12
Yes, yes, yes Good Lt., I saw that. But it was too late, the damage, as Oyster would say say, was done.
I'm not cranky at all. I just get a kick out of the NM's philosophy that admitting they are biased and highly, highly subjective somehow gives them the moral high ground. That is the definition of gall.
They operate by no codified standards, quote from each other as sources and when that information turns out to be wrong, they have no formal retraction policies in place. And when they're wrong, maybe they admit it. Or maybe they just stop talking about it. I don't see how this separate them as a media source from the MSM.
If they be the watchdogs, they need sme watching themselves.
Posted by: TheWingedAvenger at June 13, 2006 09:16 AM (UHKaK)
13
>>>I don't see how this separate them as a media source from the MSM.
Leftwinger,
so your point is essentially that the MSM is no better than a blog? I'll buy that. But in the MSM's case, a Leftwing blog.
Thanks for playing!
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 13, 2006 09:24 AM (8e/V4)
14
We must hold ourselves to a higher standard is just your way of saying you endorse double-standards. And sweeping generalizations, eh? Pray tell, what would you call what you're doing? Or is there a double standard for that too?
Posted by: Oyster at June 13, 2006 09:27 AM (ULAbo)
15
"I just get a kick out of the NM's philosophy that admitting they are biased and highly, highly subjective somehow gives them the moral high ground. That is the definition of gall."
And your suggestion that a collective national media in which the vast majority of writers, producers and anchors are admitted Democrats (go read a Pew poll on the subject) but somehow remain "objective and unbiased" is even more galling (and laughable). Hence, the need and rise of the blogoshere. Ask Dan Rather or Mary Mapes what their "sources" told them - if you can find them. Then take note of the fact that their sources were fabricated. Ain't the blogger's fault.
"They operate by no codified standards, quote from each other as sources and when that information turns out to be wrong, they have no formal retraction policies in place."
show me CNN's retraction policy. Show me the NYT's "retraction" policy (there is no such thing). Good luck.
What codified standards does Keith Olberman work under? Who enforces those standards? What happens when those standards aren't enforced? Since you take it as an article of faith that blogs don't self police, see Truthout.org today and come talk to us. The end.
Posted by: Good Lt at June 13, 2006 09:27 AM (yT+NK)
16
>>>> So your point is essentially that the MSM is no better than a blog?
In some ways, yeah. One just has standards and strives toward professionalism. The other is just kind of a crappy shill. Your guess as to which is which.
Posted by: TheWingedAvenger at June 13, 2006 09:34 AM (UHKaK)
17
"One just has standards and strives toward professionalism"
Keith Olbermann? Chris Matthews? Janet Cooke? Operation Tailwind scandal at CNN? Dan Rather? Eason Jordan? Jayson Blair? Jack Kelley? Jason Leopold? Marc Ash?
Posted by: Good Lt at June 13, 2006 09:39 AM (yT+NK)
18
Didn't think you knew what you were talking about.
Posted by: Good Lt at June 13, 2006 09:40 AM (yT+NK)
19
>>>>> And your suggestion that a collective national media in which the vast majority of writers, producers and anchors are admitted Democrats (go read a Pew poll on the subject) but somehow remain "objective and unbiased" is even more galling (and laughable).
Of course we all know that no one who is a democrat could EVER seperate themselves from their politics long enough to report. Sorry, Lt. you're applying the sorry ankle-level standards of NM to the MSM...doesn't work like that.
Posted by: TheWingedAvenger at June 13, 2006 09:40 AM (UHKaK)
20
The Winged Avenger doesn't care as long as the media tell the lies he approves of, stardards be damned, much like all the lefty bloggers. Get the tin foil hat out, avenger, or perhaps you already have it on. So it seems.
There is no reason in the World to hold the Jawa Report to the same standards as CNN, for instance, as the Jawa has no financial resources comparable to CNN, and can never hope to. The fact that CNN, et al have tremendous resources and choose not to use them to fact check slanderous stories coming from Iraq says volumes. The avenger sees this, he's just sucking, and trying to lay a smokescreen. You're arguements are not persuasive, avenger, except at Kos and the other moonbat sites. That also speaks volumes.
Posted by: jesusland joe at June 13, 2006 09:43 AM (rUyw4)
21
Rush Limbaugh? Michelle Malkin? Ann Coulter? Michael Savage? Sean Hannity? Oh, that's right, everyone knows what they're about sooo they GET to lie ... Ha!!!!
Posted by: TheWingedAvenger at June 13, 2006 09:44 AM (UHKaK)
22
>>>In some ways, yeah. One just has standards and strives toward professionalism.
Winged,
you just changed your tune on us! Now you're saying the MSM is BETTER than the NM. But just 3 posts up you said they were the SAME. You don't make any sense. lol!
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 13, 2006 09:45 AM (8e/V4)
23
>>>> There is no reason in the World to hold the Jawa Report to the same standards as CNN, for instance, as the Jawa has no financial resources comparable to CNN, and can never hope to.
Of course, the Jawa Report is financially under the radar so they in no way, shape or form have to be accountable or repsonsible. I see. Tinfoil hats off to New Media!
Posted by: TheWingedAvenger at June 13, 2006 09:47 AM (UHKaK)
24
"Rush Limbaugh? Michelle Malkin? Ann Coulter? Michael Savage? Sean Hannity?"
a) They don't pretend to be objective.
b) They're not newscasters. They don't pretend to be "objective" journalists. They're pundits.
c) "Lies?" Name 'em.
Posted by: Good Lt at June 13, 2006 09:49 AM (yT+NK)
25
Winged,
who would have thunk that Leftwingers would become shills for the elitist corporate-owned media, and bashers of the grassroots. Boy, times have sure changed. Shoe's on the other foot now, I guess. lol!
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 13, 2006 09:52 AM (8e/V4)
26
JC, you're really funny too. I had stated that all media should be held to standards in my earliest post — and that NM, being the watchdog it's supposed to be, should actually hold itself to a HIGHER standard. You lose track a bit easily!
Posted by: TheWingedAvenger at June 13, 2006 09:53 AM (UHKaK)
27
The entire NM is made up of pundits...that's their escape hatch. They can report what they want and then seperate themselves of any responsibility for their comments by saying, "well, we're just pundits here after all." No responsibility to the truth, no accountability. No nothing but a fat paycheck. It's a nice life.
Posted by: TheWingedAvenger at June 13, 2006 09:57 AM (UHKaK)
28
Avenger,
you sound like one of them ol fashion "reactionaries" you Lefties loved to hate so much. When did the fate of the Left become so tied to that of the elites? What happenned???
You used to hate "the Man", but now you've become the Man! lol!
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 13, 2006 10:07 AM (8e/V4)
29
JC,
Well, before you get too pleased with your beloved "grassroots" organization, recall that the NM largely supports a Republican Party that is perhaps the most well-oiled and effective money-making machine in the history of politics, tied in with multi-millionaires, power brokers and "Rangers" and "Pioneers" by the dozen. The Media of the People? Please, my sides hurt.
Posted by: TheWingedAvenger at June 13, 2006 10:13 AM (UHKaK)
30
Yeah - and the Democrats still managed to raised more money than this "monolithic machine" in 2004...and still lost. Try again.
Posted by: Good Lt at June 13, 2006 10:21 AM (jWYAe)
31
Left,
one word. Soros.
True, the GOP makes a ton of money. But unlike the Dems, GOP donations come from regular folks, while the the Dems survive thanks to the largesse of wealthy Limousine Liberals. Notice how contributions to the Dems of 1 million and above outstrip those to the GOP by a margin of almost 10-1. This will absolutely implode your mind, as the facts are almost exactly contrary to your Leftwing indoctrination:
Democrats and Fat Cats
"A recent study by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), a nonpartisan campaign-finance research organization, reveals that the Democratic Party gobbled up an astounding 92 percent of all individual contributions totaling $1 million or more during the 2001-02 election cycle. Meanwhile, it was the Republican Party that received 64 percent of all individual contributions less than $200 per donor."
There's plenty more! Party of the "little guy" indeed!
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20030707-090426-8917r.htm
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 13, 2006 10:23 AM (8e/V4)
32
Yeah, that can happen. And you have a point?
Posted by: TheWingedAvenger at June 13, 2006 10:24 AM (UHKaK)
33
You brought it up, Winged One - what was your point?
Posted by: Good Lt at June 13, 2006 10:28 AM (jWYAe)
34
OK, JC, now the rest Â…
The study involved INDIVIDUAL contributions totaling $1.36 billion. Republicans raised $773 million, and Democrats raised $584 million.
For individual contributions between $200 and $999 — not exactly a definitive measure of wealth — Republicans solidly outdistanced Democrats ($75 million to $47 million).
And you're the guy always railing on the "guilt by omission" MSM!
Posted by: TheWingedAvenger at June 13, 2006 10:30 AM (UHKaK)
35
"...well-oiled and effective money-making machine in the history of politics, tied in with multi-millionaires, power brokers and "Rangers" and "Pioneers" by the dozen."
Okay, now even I'm laughing. And what would you call the money and power behind Moveon, ANSWER, Truthout, Media Matters, etc...?
Posted by: Oyster at June 13, 2006 10:31 AM (ULAbo)
36
I made my point, that far from a grasssroots organization, the NM is part of a much larger machine who's objectives are not nearly as altruistic as one would expect from a true grassroots organization.
Posted by: TheWingedAvenger at June 13, 2006 10:33 AM (UHKaK)
37
Mr. Kettle? Mr. Pot on line one.
Posted by: Oyster at June 13, 2006 10:34 AM (ULAbo)
38
That is probable, yes. And who funds them, Oyster? By a wide margin, individual donors, NOT large American corporations.
Posted by: TheWingedAvenger at June 13, 2006 10:36 AM (UHKaK)
39
The study involved INDIVIDUAL contributions totaling $1.36 billion. Republicans raised $773 million, and Democrats raised $584 million.
uh, ok. I guess the word "non-sequitor" comes to mind. Yes, the GOP raises more money than the Dems-- especially among individuals. And?
And now for your other non-sequitor:
For individual contributions between $200 and $999 — not exactly a definitive measure of wealth — Republicans solidly outdistanced Democrats ($75 million to $47 million).
Again, the GOP raises more money amongst regular folks. And? You think you can weasel your way out of this one? lol!
Now address the fact that MILLIONAIRES donate to the DEMOCRATS at rates 10 times higher than to the GOP. No weasel words, no red herrings, no side stepping. You're dealing with the original kidder here, you can't kid a kidder.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 13, 2006 10:39 AM (8e/V4)
40
OK, according to your article from the Washington Times (oh God), democratic millionaires donate to their party more. And by the "under $200" definition of "regular folk", Republicans get more.
Are you making the claim from this that Republicans are a grassroots organization that represents the "little people"? Please don't tell me that's what you're saying, with the administration/RRepublican congress' cuts in education, jobs programs, local law enforcement, etc, etc., etc. Please don't tell me that.
And more on point, does this have something to do with the MSM?
Posted by: TheWingedAvenger at June 13, 2006 10:56 AM (UHKaK)
41
Who are "the little people?"
Posted by: Good Lt at June 13, 2006 10:58 AM (jWYAe)
42
Me, I am the little people.
Posted by: TheWingedAvenger at June 13, 2006 11:02 AM (UHKaK)
43
>>>And more on point, does this have something to do with the MSM?
Leftwinged,
It has to do with the fact that Libs are represented by the elites-- including in the media.
And it also addresses directly the red herring YOU raised about how the GOP is
"tied in with multi-millionaires, power brokers and "Rangers" and "Pioneers" by the dozen. The Media of the People? Please, my sides hurt."
So while these numbers do not prove the GOP represents the "little people", it's certainly proves the little people represent the GOP!
Your sides still hurting? lol! mine are.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 13, 2006 11:03 AM (8e/V4)
44
Sure, those little people like Connecticut-born George Bush who went to Hanover Prep, Harvard and Yale! Yep, he's just regular ol' folks, unlike those East Coast snobs like Kerry!
Posted by: TheWingedAvenger at June 13, 2006 11:09 AM (UHKaK)
45
So you're discriminating against those who go to good schools? Most of them are liberal, you know...
Posted by: Good Lt at June 13, 2006 11:14 AM (jWYAe)
46
>>>>> Most of them are liberal, you know...
Them too, huh?
Posted by: TheWingedAvenger at June 13, 2006 11:21 AM (UHKaK)
47
That is an Interesting concept, you have there Lefttarded Avenger, that someone with a blogger account, accessible to only a select few who click on someones blogroll should be held as accountable as CNN, or the Washington Post.
I wonder who's name carries more weight to the average joe, CNN or "Bilbo's Baggins news ho0kup w/ 411 y0!" ? so you have brandname news agencies that carry a lot of weight with the average American circulating a misleading photograph, that claims to be of a 'massacre' that was done by the U.S Marine Corp, and you demand that we should hold up right wing blogs to retractions before the MSM should? lol
You sir, are a complete moron.
Posted by: davec at June 13, 2006 11:24 AM (CcXvt)
48
Winged,
so it turns out that the Dems are represented by our country's elites, including in the elite media (MSM). And that the Rightwingnuts are represented by regular folks and the grassroots new media (NM).
You are the only reactionary on this thread. Don't you see what you've become? You've become everything you hated the most-- the elites, the status quo, "reactionaries", etc. blah blah blah. All those things you used to hate is now YOU! lol!
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 13, 2006 11:41 AM (8e/V4)
49
"Them too, huh?"
So you're denying that colleges have, shall we say, a liberal tinge and a majority of liberals in most of the student bodies?
I hope you jest.
Posted by: Good Lt at June 13, 2006 11:57 AM (jWYAe)
50
New York Times Journalism Ethics Policy (feel free to fisk it):
17. As journalists we treat our readers, viewers, listeners and online users as fairly and openly as possible. Whatever the medium, we tell our audiences the complete, unvarnished truth as best we can learn it. We correct our errors explicitly as soon as we become aware of them. We do not wait for someone to request a correction. We publish corrections in a prominent and consistent location or broadcast time slot.
Posted by: Michael Hampton at June 13, 2006 12:00 PM (FVbj6)
Posted by: Good Lt at June 13, 2006 12:03 PM (jWYAe)
Posted by: Good Lt at June 13, 2006 12:04 PM (jWYAe)
53
Maybe it was unfair to pile up on the Winged Avenger like that. Afterall, we didn't give him enough time to think and "re-frame" the issue effectively.
Posted by: Oyster at June 13, 2006 12:36 PM (ULAbo)
Posted by: Good Lt at June 13, 2006 12:42 PM (jWYAe)
55
I give up on finding any sort of corrections policy for CNN. Maybe it's out there, but I suspect it isn't.
Posted by: Michael Hampton at June 13, 2006 12:49 PM (FVbj6)
56
Thanks for looking - it's like a treasure hunt!
Posted by: Good Lt at June 13, 2006 12:51 PM (jWYAe)
57
Oyster,
don't feel bad. It's his own fault. He's guilty of debating while Leftard.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 13, 2006 12:53 PM (8e/V4)
58
Here is a fact Lefturd. It goes as follows: We are looking for something in common with these individuals. That statement is about the 17 religion of peace individuals arrested in Canada the MSM loves to support. Every day there is an example of the MSM being a supporter of terror.
What, that is not enough for you? The Marines killed those people in cold blood. Do you remember that one? Wake the F**k up Lefturd!
Posted by: Leatherneck at June 13, 2006 03:10 PM (D2g/j)
59
Directed toward TheWingedAvenger by davec;
"You sir, are a complete moron."
Yes, Dave, he is. Just about the most complete moron I have ever encountered on this blog, or any other, for that matter.
Posted by: jesusland joe at June 13, 2006 07:16 PM (rUyw4)
60
Are those ropes binding the dead ragheads? Yep! All Marines always carry a bunch to ropes to tie up terrorists.
Friggin idiots.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 13, 2006 08:29 PM (ZVFO9)
61
Directed to davec and jesusland joe: if I'm a moron, I truly pale in comparison to yourselves, two of the most comprehensive, all-encompassing, thoroughly complete morons anyone will ever run in to, on blog or in person. Have a nice life.
Posted by: TheWingedAvenger at June 13, 2006 09:31 PM (oxMjD)
62
Hey Leftwing Avenger, what about a few words for your old pal Leatherneck?
Posted by: Leatherneck at June 13, 2006 09:36 PM (8uWFo)
63
You're not worth a fart, but I just did.
Posted by: TheWingedAvenger at June 13, 2006 09:38 PM (oxMjD)
64
hey winged_pus_case,
Why don't you just suck on the business end of a .44 magnum and do what your mommy and daddy really wanted to do to you before you were born. Let's just call it a "really" late term abortion ( about 87 trimesters )It's obivious your unwanted upbringing that has led to your diturbed skew of life. Do it. Go ahaead, take one for the team.
Posted by: Les at June 13, 2006 10:32 PM (GDg8t)
Posted by: Tribbles at June 14, 2006 09:33 AM (UHKaK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
This picture is Exhibit A of what happens when hyperventallating anti-US reporting outruns the facts at "objective" news outlets - they end up printing propaganda for the enemy. As the old saw goes, truth is the first casualty in war (especially within the press).
More on the now established mainstream press 
