in the wrong era. Soundly refuting
liberals online since 2000.
| Heritage | 0 | |
| Reuters | 2012 Watch: Mitt Romney’s message from GOP: Step it up |
0 |
| Fox News | Hmm: Obama to give 10 states a pass on No Child Left Behind deadline |
0 |
| CBS LA | Wha? LA County OKs $1,000 Fine For Throwing Football, Frisbee On Beaches |
0 |
| Ballot Box | AZ: Aide injured in Giffords shooting will run to replace her in House |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
Gaffetastic:
Vice President Joe Biden had his “oops” moment Wednesday speaking in a 49er-crazed SF when he told a crowd at a city political fundraiser that “the Giants are on their way to the Super Bowl.” - SF Chronicle, 1-18-12
Irresponsible journalism
Townhall columnist W. Thomas Smith, Jr. has written a must-read piece that asks if wartime reporting from the MSM has been responsible or irresponsible:
We writers – whether journalists reporting, columnists expounding, or authors expanding – have an incredible responsibility. We must be critical in our approach to news and information. We must understand it. We must remember it is not about us as writers; it is solely about our readers. We must ensure that the information we receive and disseminate is both thorough and unflaggingly truthful. Then we must accurately boil it down in a fashion that is digestible for our readers.
There is another variable in the reporting mix: We must report and write responsibly.
And when it comes to writing about war and military operations, we have to strike a balance between what we owe the news-consuming general public and what we owe our soldiers in the field.For instance, as a military/defense writer, I often find myself privy to sensitive information. Such information, if read by the enemy (and make no mistake, the enemy reads what we write), could put the lives of our men and women in uniform at great risk. This is a trust the vast majority of my colleagues and I take very seriously. But more than a few defense contractors and some senior military leaders believe not all reporters feel bound by such accuracy or responsibility.
He mentions a couple of good examples of exactly why those defense contractors and military leaders believe that. Make sure to read the opinion piece in its entirety and if you haven’t come to the conclusion I came to long ago about the irresponsibility of the media in a time of war, I think Smith’s piece will convince you.
Jack Kelly is on the same page, and in an ouch-worthy piece slams the mainstream media for their oftentimes inaccuate and/or incomplete reporting of war on terror-related stories.
Remember this: The media, as ABC Nightline anchor and once-upon-a-time ABC evening news reporter Terry Moran once said in an interview with Hugh Hewitt, has a strong anti-military bias and it’s been that way since Vietnam – an era in which they seem perpetually stuck:
HH: Let me ask you something. Major K, a major in the Army who is reporting from Iraq on his blog all the time says, all this being said, it is no small wonder that a gulf has opened between journalists and the general public. I think even the most John Q. Sixpacks know when they are being fed a line of blank blank blank. My brother called me a journalist once during a conversation about this blog. I was offended. That is a general impression among the American military about the media, Terry. Where does that come from?
TM: It comes from, I think, a huge gulf of misunderstanding, for which I lay plenty of blame on the media itself. There is, Hugh, I agree with you, a deep anti-military bias in the media. One that begins from the premise that the military must be lying, and that American projection of power around the world must be wrong. I think that that is a hangover from Vietnam, and I think it’s very dangerous.
Mix one half anti-military/anti-war bias with one half Bush hatred among the MSM, and it’s little surprise we get stories almost weekly that have the potential of aiding the enemy – and hindering the good guys’ (for the uber-anti-war radicals, the good guys are US) ability to fight them.
Smith wraps up here:
So how do we present the news, if we know there is going to be a direct or collateral effect of that presentation that may possibly, adversely impact our nation and those who are physically defending it day in and day out? It’s a tough question to be sure.
Reporting needs to be fair, objective, and interesting. But we need to look beyond Pulitzer Prizes, who’s scooping whom, and the newspapers’ bottom-lines. We need to look to our readers. We need to write for our readers, and we need to remember that they – and we – are Americans first, and our country is at war for its very survival.
Amen.
Hat tip: Blackfive
Others blogging about this: Winds of Change, Rightwinged.com
More: As ST reader Baklava notes in the comments section in my prior post, the President in his speech today about Iraq talked about how the enemy pays attention to what the media writes. From the President’s speech:
Earlier this year, a newspaper published details of a new anti- IED technology that was being developed. Within five days of the publication, using details from that article, the enemy had posted instructions for defeating this new technology on the Internet.
So where does the media draw the line? Sometimes I wonder if there even is one.
Related Toldjah So posts:
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
10 Responses to “Irresponsible journalism”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Island of Misfit Bloggers
Stats
I’m really curious if people calling themselves conservative who are in the ‘heavy duty’ Bush camp have read much in the way of conservative philosophy. I just don’t see very much connection to the conservatism of say Russell Kirk. I mean I know that the American culture of today is a trash pile and that the dominant media and cultural elite hate conservatives, but why does this mean that we have to worship George Bush and the neo-con crowd?
About time someone recognizes that the enemy DOES read and watch what is going on that the MSM reports.
The MSM is our countries biggest leaker of information to the enemies of the US.
Al-queda could not ask for a better partner and accomplice to thier evil.
About time some in the media start waking up and seeing what they report can and does damage the US, not just in the eye of others outside of the country, but can and does help the enemy, puts troops in harms way and kill them.
For the left who don’t think that what gets written and shown in the MSM doesn’t get used by the enemy, they are either clueless or stupid.
Hollywood doesn’t help by putting out propaganda pieces for terrorists either. Buys right into the “we must understand how they FEEL, so we know WHY they are killing and blowing themselves up”. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
We do not try and get in touch with a killers feelings, and if we profile a killer, it is so we can either lock them up or kill them before they kill us….not appease the killers.
Maybe if people wake up and realize we are dealing with serial killers who want nothing more to take over and institute thier own brand of extremist views and religon we would go farther in winning the war on terror.
You don’t appease serial killers, killers that are taught from birth to kill others, that feel thier existence is to be used as a walking bomb to blow up people.
Sometimes I wonder just what country the hollywood left, MSM and Dhimmicrats want to live in, because if these serial killers get thier way, they will reward them with chopping off thier heads or a bomb.
Tim, do you have a comment on the actual topic matter, which is “irresponsible journalism”?
I would say some irresponsible but most of it is the disdain the MSM has toward the military and the hatred of President Bush. If you asked these people why they became journalists most would say they wanted to change the world. If they want to change things they should have gone into politics not journalism they all feel so superior to the general public. This elitism started back during Vietnam just look at the reporting of the Tet Offensive history shows the US won that battle but the reporting showed just the opposite. It was a victory for the MSM by turning the countries view of the war and it was also a victory for the North Vietnamese. So what MSM printed and reported on TV helped General Vo Nguyen Giap because according to his book the NVA were close to being defeated. The MSM helped turn public opinion and demoralize our troops and give new life to the North Vietnamese talk about aid and comfort to the enemy.
So it doesn’t surprise me at the same thing going on today with the MSM remember with liberals “the ends justifies the means”. It doesn’t matter if they embolden the terrorists or demoralize our troops remember this is an illegal war it’s Bush’s War and we shouldn’t be in Iraq. I would say most of the journists (Liberal) still have the same elitist attitude as back during the Vietnam War that hasn’t changed. It’s the same old play book only report the bad things “Body Counts, Abu Grahb and so on” anyway you get the picture. So if we haven’t learned anything from history we are bound to repeat it.
“Irresponsible journalism”, also known as propaganda, is based on emotion and not facts. Responsible journalism gives both sides, better, all sides of every issue. Yes, even the “evil” side. If your opinion is as correct as you believe it to be, then it will not wither in the face of scrutiny, and if it does, as “evil” surely will, it will be discredited. Peace
Tim wrote, “why does this mean that we have to worship George Bush and the neo-con crowd?
Who is “worshipping” Bush? I’m thinking you don’t read much… We have ALL been very critical of Bush. But the topic here is the irresponsible journalists. Let me ask you. Do you think that there are any journalists who have been acting irresponsibly? Or are they helping America? Or are they educating America?
Thanks ST for the mention!
The facts and truths, that the steves continue to ignore, have caused more than the withers of the donks to be exposed. Your babble cycle is clearly not limited to four weeks at a crack, eh steve.
- As much as I post on the obvious MSM bias, I don’t ascribe all of what we see day after day, coming out of such Liberal skewed rags as the NYT, as totally ideolog driven. All of the News outlets/ Cable, and TV networks that tend to the left are not, in my opinion, totally driven by Liberal bias.
- The other “driver” I ascribe the bias too, is the “Hollywood factor. That is the fact that controversy/bizaar/weird sells. The legacy media, and America for that matter, entered the “News = entertainment era” with Viet Nam. The motivation seems to have sprung from the introduction, and fast growing popularity, of the “Grocery store Rag”, the Star, The Enquirer, ect, all of which ran the most imbecilic nonsense imaginable, along with Hollywood gossip bylines, and it was soon apparent “trash journalism” sells.
- Editors of the existing MSM products have to answer to owners/stock holders, and the bottom line, and circulation is generally the main concern. As long as they don’t run into legal issues of any sort, the Management wants anything that will serve thse two goals, and that peobably is why many owners, that may themselve be Conservatives, allow Left-wing propoganda to flourish in their newspapers/magazines/TV productions. They know from example that sensationalism sells.
- As an example, you can always tell when its a slow day in the news room when the production staff drags out the “dog bites man”, and “two headed goat” stories.
- So though theres an obvious bias, in some cases almost to the point of obsession, some of it is no doubt “revenues” driven as a part of the mix.
- But that won’t save the NYT when the checks run out from Soros.
- Bang