Faulty News Reports: Who's to blame?

[GAsux]

Ok after reading through all these posts over the last few days ( Sorry I was busy reliving the glory days at a few Bad Religion shows) there seems to be a consensus that the erronious news that's been reported as of late is somehow part of some government propaghanda plot.

I'll readily admit that some aspects of the information that's being released is certainly done with it's affects in mind (i.e. not showing dead Americans, etc). However, it is my opinion that the bad stories that have come out of Iraq over the past several weeks has much more to do with piss poor journalism and sensationalism than it does some kind of contrived government plan.

News outlets are competing so desperately for readers/viewers that they are abandoning journalistic principles in the hopes of breaking the "shocking" stories that sometimes pan out to be not so true. For example, no one from the U.S. government indicated that Jessica Lynch went Rambo on the Iraqis and killed half the country before succombing to gunshot/stab wounds. That was all reported by journalists who got the "story" from Iraqi "witnesses".

Anyway, I don't want to make a long rambling post. All I'm getting at is that I think AT LEAST half of the blame for the information that's been coming out of Iraq falls on the shoulders of poor journalism, not an effort by the government to mislead the people.

[FS]

I wholeheartedly agree. War journalism, especially when it's as close to the action as now, is still all about ratings. To get people's attention, you need to have the news first, so no time is wasted with pesky background checking. Everything is heard, written down and slapped all over the news.

I'm pretty sure there's some degree of government influence now and then, to prevent national morale from dropping, but certainly not much.

I think part of it is also that some channels or websites are afraid of telling the people what they don't want to hear (or rather, what said channels or websites THINK the people don't want to hear), and losing their audience that way.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I belive it's symbiotic. Sure, the media is filled with blood suckers who will run anything juicy and/or controversial. However, I think the Pentagon will gladly release something like "we can't confirm whether or not the air raid killed Saddam," thus sending the fools into a speculative scurry.

This serves only to aid the military, because if the press grab the bait and run stories like "SADDAM DEAD?", it has the potential to splinter his regime, and that can only aid us.

[FartinMowler]

GAsux

[Protoclown]

I fucking hate the media. You can't find anything in the US media anymore that isn't all about sensationalistic crap. I take everything I hear from them with PLENTY of grains of salt until I hear it from multiple (and as reliable as I can find) sources.

[The_Rorschach]

Well, I personally believe Kevin has the answer to this one, and therefore the government is largely responsible for the misinformation floating about. . .But at least we're not as bad as Iraq. . .
-----

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm...news.wariniraq

Iraq's Information Minister has claimed US soldiers are being "slaughtered in their hundreds at the walls of Baghdad".

In an impromptu press conference, in which Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf ignored the sound of gunfire, he denied there were US tanks in the city.
He said the US had claimed to have taken the Al Rashid hotel and the Ministry of Information.
"Absolutely that's not true. I can tell you that because I am here at the Ministry of Information," he said.
As live television pictures showed US tanks parked in the heart of the city, close to the ministry, al-Sahhaf continued his statement.

"They said they have entered Baghdad in 65 tanks, into the centre of the city, and I am telling you this is not true," he said.
"This is part of their sick game. We have slaughtered three-quarters of them so far. There is no presence of the American columns in Baghdad at all. Their columns are slaughtered and they have been fed a sour taste, a poison, by the brave forces of Saddam Hussein.
"They are beginning to commit suicide at the walls of Baghdad and I encourage them to increase the rate of suicide. Their columns are being killed in the hundreds at the walls of Baghdad. We have fed them hell and death.
"Washington and London have thrown their soldiers into the fire. They are war criminals. They will bury their soldiers in hell, sent there by the hands of the Iraqis. The battle was fierce and God has victored his soldiers.
"Baghdad is safe and solid and the Iraqis and the Baghdadians are heroes."

Story filed: 10:00 Monday 7th April 2003

[GAsux]

What if the reason the government hasn't said if Saddam is dead or alive or not is because they really don't know?

It's really no win. For example, when a military official says a town has been taken, that doesn't necessarily mean that there are parties in the streets and kids are riding ponies and breaking pinatas. It means they feel secure operating in the area and that the resistance is not enough to keep them from carrying out there mission.

Yet the media cried foul when reports of battles in places like Um Qasr began to come in AFTER military officials had made such claims. No one said there was absolutely no resistance left in the town, yet the media portrayed it as such.

It works both ways. If you've ever worked with media organizations, particularly on behalf of the government, you'll find it's a constant battle. The government wants to protect it's line and present favorable images, the media wants to get the dirt. As a result both sides resort to tactics they perhaps normally wouldn't.

Regardless, my point is I think the journalism coming out of Iraq is shit and it's not because the government is carrying out a misinformation campaign. It's a result of shoddy reporting and gamesmanship on the part of the media outlets to one up the others. 10 years ago CNN was king. There was no competition. These days there are a handful of around the clock news stations all vying for the almighty rating.

[mburbank]

I agree with you on this one %100 percent GA.

I think there are occassions where the Government takes advantage of the media's laziness and gluttony to disseminate dissinformation, but the ratings frenzy currently going on makes it impossible to determine when and if this is happening at all.

I applaud our current medias bravery, but I wish it were coupled with quality journalism. In Gulf War One, the media allowed themselves to be almost totally co-opted, and this ought to be way better than that. Unfortunately, the acces and new technology have created a pigs at the trough mentality that doesn't need to be manipulated. It generates it's own fog and discredits itself.

[GAsux]

You'd be suprised how much those in the military community rely on network news. I gaurantee you that in virtually every command post there is a television with CNN/MSNBC/Fox News on. It servers as a supplement to other sources of battlefield information.

There have been many times in the past weeks that a lot of folks actually over there have seen the media outlet reports and wondered where in the world they came up with the stories they've presented.

I think the embeded idea could have worked great if it were done by credible, responsible journalists with a solid working knowledge of the events they were covering. Journalists like David Halberstam and Neil Sheehan were a credit to this nations freedom of press throughout the Vietnam conflict. It's a shame that with the technological advances we have these days we don't see the same caliber of journalists.