December 04, 2006
Over the course of last week, an Associated Press article — one subsequently challenged by the military — in which six Sunni worshipers were reportedly doused in kerosene and burned alive by Shiite attackers, became the worst kind of totem.As one might expect, the New York Times is vastly more concerned with the freedom of reporters to report, than the actual accuracy of those reports:For bloggers who believe that the media has been drawing false pictures of mayhem in Iraq, the insistence of the American military and Iraqi officials that the burning incident appeared to be a mere rumor was proof that their suspicions were correct.
Iraq’s interior ministry wielded the article like a bludgeon and used it as an opportunity to create a press monitoring unit that suggested, in no uncertain terms, that reporters in Baghdad should come to its press officers for “real, true news.†A ministry spokesman promised “legal action†— whatever that might mean — against journalists who publish information the agency deemed wrong.As if a country whose citizens are daily subjected to assaults from terrorists has no legitimate interest in seeing that rumors and disinformation propagated by their enemies are not being published as "news."
We've been down this road before. Mainstream media efforts to minimize the Reutersgate scandal during the Lebanon/Hezbollah war mean that most Americans aren't even aware that deadly serious concerns about the accuracy of major news service accounts have arisen. And they don't know that it was bloggers who forced Reuters to withdraw all ten years of Adnan Hajj's photographs.
The mainstream media never did fully acknowledge the stunning depth of the fauxtography scandal; a pattern of disinformation perpetrated by agenda driven stringers that made much of the "news" coming out of that war so suspect as to be nearly useless.
Is there really any reason to think that the same thing isn't going on in Iraq?
Posted by: Bluto at
12:33 AM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
Post contains 412 words, total size 3 kb.
Posted by: Scrapiron at December 04, 2006 01:47 AM (rqlgb)
Posted by: Greyrooster at December 04, 2006 08:19 AM (qWbYR)
Posted by: Greyrooster at December 04, 2006 08:28 AM (qWbYR)
moral and cultural relativism you no longer can think with
logic...because logic is relative.
Posted by: Randman at December 04, 2006 09:58 AM (Sal3J)
I used to be a Libturd, so trust me, I know how they think. A good Libturd's only loyalty is to Libturdism, and if such loyalty results in the downfall of America then America didn't deserve to survive at all. Very much like Hitler blamed the German people for the fall of the Third Reich, Libturds blame America. America isn't Liberal enough so it deserves whatever it has coming to her.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 04, 2006 10:37 AM (8e/V4)
They have this vague belief that they will be able to take over once the present system is overthrown. Sort of "The World Will Worship at Our Feet once the Present Regime is overthrown and no longer able to Blind The Masses to Our Greatness And Perfection!!!"
We need a site displaying some historical information dating from the 60's, to remind us what the present leaders were planning, back when they were off guard enough to say so publicly.
Did anyone ever get a copy of Hillary's Master's Thesis?
Posted by: Phillep at December 04, 2006 10:46 AM (ZdLzf)
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 04, 2006 01:11 PM (Oew5j)
A couple of days in a nice Iraqi jail would have the soft bellied journos begging for Abu Ghraib or Gitmo conditions.
Seeing a treasonous journo pay for his crimes would really make my day.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at December 04, 2006 01:48 PM (bLPT+)
I wonder what the punishment for falsifying stories is over there? They probably cut tongues out.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at December 04, 2006 07:34 PM (bLPT+)
Posted by: Greyrooster at December 04, 2006 07:50 PM (qWbYR)
Posted by: Greyrooster at December 04, 2006 08:22 PM (qWbYR)
Since America is the big daddy of capitalism, it is the throne of evil.
Look at the libs who are against corporate globalisation, yet for social globalisation. They were against it before they were for it, or whatever. Anyway, I agree with JC.
USA all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 05, 2006 03:46 AM (2OHpj)
Posted by: Greyrooster at December 05, 2006 07:02 AM (ezJiI)
Posted by: Steve Hass at December 06, 2006 06:39 PM (57ZXT)
Posted by: jonny900 at December 07, 2006 03:08 AM (L0Z6w)
Posted by: jonny436 at December 17, 2006 11:41 PM (UShEr)
Posted by: jonny14 at February 13, 2007 09:51 PM (YFoUn)
Posted by: jonny14 at March 27, 2007 07:08 PM (3WBtI)
34 queries taking 0.1722 seconds, 173 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.









