Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
"People are dead because of what this son of a bitch said."
Posted by: McQ on Sunday, May 15, 2005

That's a quote from Pentagon spokesman Lawrence DiRita after he found out that the Newsweek source on the alleged "Koran flushing" incident was backing away from his story.

Evan Thomas, of Newsweek online says:
The brief PERISCOPE item ("SouthCom Showdown") had reported on the expected results of an upcoming U.S. Southern Command investigation into the abuse of prisoners at Gitmo. According to NEWSWEEK, SouthCom investigators found that Gitmo interrogators had flushed a Qur'an down a toilet in an attempt to rattle detainees. While various released detainees have made allegations about Qur'an desecration, the Pentagon has, according to DiRita, found no credible evidence to support them.

Mark Whitaker
of Newsweek now says the following:
Our original source later said he couldn't be certain about reading of the alleged Qur'an incident in the report we cited, and said it might have been in other investigative documents or drafts. Top administration officials have promised to continue looking into the charges, and so will we. But we regret that we got any part of our story wrong, and extend our sympathies to victims of the violence and to the U.S. soldiers caught in its midst.
Well gee, thanks. But what the hell happened Newsweek? Again, according to Whitaker:
Although other major news organizations had aired charges of Qur'an desecration based only on the testimony of detainees, we believed our story was newsworthy because a U.S. official said government investigators turned up this evidence. So we published the item.
In other words, they took the word of a single source and didn't corroborate the story. They'd have flunked Journalism 101. Nice work, guys.

UPDATE: It even gets better:
A group of Afghan Muslim clerics threatened on Sunday to call for a holy war against the United States in three days unless it hands over military interrogators reported to have desecrated the Koran.

The warning came after 16 Afghans were killed and more than 100 hurt last week in the worst anti-U.S. protests across the country since U.S. forces invaded in 2001 to oust the Taliban for sheltering Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda network.
Has it gotten completely out of hand based on an uncorroborated story? It would seem so. The real consequences of poor journalism written large.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
I’ve been sitting here staring at the screen for a few minutes trying to get over the jawdropping irresponsibility of this, but you really said it all. I don’t believe that the media should self-censor except in the most extreme of cases, but this is something else entirely. Jesus Christ, this is pathetic! And if Isikoff and Barry don’t end up getting fired for this, it’ll be even more pathetic.
 
Written By: Matt McIntosh
URL: http://godco.net/matt/verisimilitude/
In their attempt to justify this with a pile of reports from former detainees, they include an accusation by one Bader Zaman Bader who claims he still suffers nightmares of the desecration he witnessed while at Guantanamo. Apparently, it must’ve been a repressed memory because he failed to mention the incident in his exit interviews with the Associated Press and China’s Xinhua at the time of his release seven months ago.

 
Written By: The Indigent Blogger
URL: http://vagabondia.blogspot.com
nothing will change. The story will be spun by the leftist media as the US deserved it - take you pick - root causes, etc, etc.

Time for the Pres to mention this at a conference and shake a finger of shame.

I think it time for the the USAF give Messers Isikoff and crew a trip to said Clerics to explain the reason for the false story.

 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
So Al-Kultra, nothing to say. hmmm.....

A better man, and there are many here, would have admitted they were wrong. And you...
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
From Whitaker:

’Their information came from a knowledgeable U.S. government source, and before deciding whether to publish it we approached two separate Defense Department officials for comment. One declined to give us a response; the other challenged another aspect of the story but did not dispute the Qur’an charge.’

Sounds like they did corroborate the story.
 
Written By: Thomas
URL: http://
the other challenged another aspect of the story but did not dispute the Qur’an charge.’

Not disputing something is hardly corroboration, Thomas.

Not disputing something could be akin to "I don’t know". IOW, they challenged the aspect for which they had some knowledge and didn’t dispute the part for which they had no knowledge.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
You guys had better figure out that if it makes President Bush look bad, it doesn’t NEED to be verified... it simply must be true. That has been the way things have been since Bush started running for the office, and the rule went into full force when he won the election.

Certainly, making the actions of our troups, currently involved in a war the left doesn’t approve of, is one way to bring Bush’s good name into question.

Yeah, I know... what liberal media.....

(spits on floor)

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Well, if you’re right, McQ, then Newsweek’s second source is an idiot, because ’not disputing’ something seems like a classic way to verify something without actually saying ’yes, that’s true’ and a really bad way to say ’I no nothing about that’.
 
Written By: Thomas
URL: http://
You guys had better figure out that if it makes President Bush look bad, it doesn’t NEED to be verified...

Oh.

I see.

That certainly makes perfect sense.

The rules of good journalism don’t count when it pertains to Bush?

Ah, so what’s this all about then?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Well, if you’re right, McQ, then Newsweek’s second source is an idiot, because ’not disputing’ something seems like a classic way to verify something without actually saying ’yes, that’s true’ and a really bad way to say ’I no nothing about that’.

Well if that’s true, Thomas, where is their second source and why are they backing away from the story?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/


The rules of good journalism don’t count when it pertains to Bush?

No. Or for that matter, ANY Republican who can’t have the label of ’Maverick’ attached to them. For example, John McCain.


What’s it all about, then?

I should think that obvious.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
I’ll leave the media angle be, there’s nothing I can add to the discussion except to hope that families of any American hurt/killed in the riots caused by this file a class action suit against Newsweek, and each and every single individual involved in seeing this abomination to print.

 
Written By: Shark
URL: http://www.qando.net
The rules of good journalism don’t count when it pertains to Bush?

The answer to that is a resounding NO, or have you been a bubble for the last few years? :)

PS- They don’t apply to Tony Blair either, just ask Andrew Gilligan and the BBC
 
Written By: Shark
URL: http://www.qando.net
I should think that obvious.

So would I ... so why are you back on the one-trick pony?

It’s getting tiresome.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
The answer to that is a resounding NO, or have you been a bubble for the last few years?

You’re right Shark, I haven’t been in a bubble. Nor have those that practice bad journalism gotten away with it during that time... have they?

But I’m not going to pretend that this is only because Bush is in power like some would like to do.

Bad journalism isn’t just practiced by those on the left and you know it.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
But I’m not going to pretend that this is only because Bush is in power like some would like to do.

Surely you can look around and see that at least SOME of the "journalistic incidents" we’ve seen recently did happen directly because Bush was in power, and they were looking to get him? I mean BESIDES Dan Rather....

Also, we can look at the strict journalistic standards practiced when Bush wasn’t in power. How much of Juanita Broderick did we hear about, for example.

Bad journalism isn’t just practiced by those on the left and you know

Not many journalists that AREN’T on the left...
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Also, we can look at the strict journalistic standards practiced when Bush wasn’t in power. How much of Juanita Broderick did we hear about, for example.

Juanita Broderick and this story have what sort of parallels, Shark?

I don’t see any. This is about using a single source and not corroborating the story before going to press. Its also about the horrendous results of such sloppy journalism.

What has that have to do with Juanita Broderick or George Bush?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
I don’t see any. This is about using a single source and not corroborating the story before going to press. Its also about the horrendous results of such sloppy journalism

You said this:

But I’m not going to pretend that this is only because Bush is in power like some would like to do

And my point is that when Clinton was involved, journalistic standards were so rigorously enforced as to make this particular story go bye-bye, whereas when Bush is in power, stories using single uncollaborated annonymous sources (or sloppy forged documents) are rushed into publication.

Or maybe look at the strict journalistic standards enforced when the Swift Vets were questioning Kerry.

Lets just say that someone with "R" after his name doesn’t get quite the samer benefit of the doubt that someone with a "D" after his name does.



 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
And my point is that when Clinton was involved, journalistic standards were so rigorously enforced as to make this particular story go bye-bye, whereas when Bush is in power, stories using single uncollaborated annonymous sources (or sloppy forged documents) are rushed into publication.

And you’re saying this is a policy which is now in force in "the media", right?

IOW, they’re now told to go with those single, uncorroborated sources when before they weren’t?

Whatever it takes to get him because, a) they don’t believe it will be found out and b) it will have the desired effect of making Bush look bad.

Really?

They’ve been real successful with both "a" and "b", haven’t they?

Sounds like a hell of a plan/policy.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
I’ve wondered, since I first saw this story earlier in the week, what actual value there was to reporting it. Here in America it pretty much adds up to Just Another Abuse Story (tm) but to the Muslims looking for a tasty bit of propaganda, it’s gold. Seeing this doesn’t exactly take a huge brain or any sort of prescience. It’s common sense.

Assuming, of course, that you remember that we are still in the middle of a war here. Newsweek’s greatest transgression, I think, is that like so many Americans, they forgot that.
 
Written By: Jimmie
URL: http://www.sundriesshack.com
IOW, they’re now told to go with those single, uncorroborated sources when before they weren’t?

Lets just say that while there is no formal policy, standards rise or drop according to who is in office.

Whatever it takes to get him because, a) they don’t believe it will be found out and b) it will have the desired effect of making Bush look bad. They’ve been real successful with both "a" and "b", haven’t they?

Thankfully, not as much as they hoped to be.

Sounds like a hell of a plan/policy

LOL, I never said they were smart....
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
"People are dead because of what this son of a bitch said."

Blame the messenger! $10 says it’s true... another $10 says when it’s re-reported as true, it will get swept under the carpet...

Keep living in denial folks, Guantanamo is a disgrace and you apologists are pitiful.

 
Written By: Burlap
URL: http://
I think you guys are assigning to bad intentions what can merely be chalked up to sloppiness, and a general proclivity for bad news and scandal.

The media certainly didn’t take the decade off when Clinton was in office. The Right has been very successful in creating a victim-culture, and in creating the belief that the media is out to get them, but that’s more to do with selection bias (you notice one kind of story, but not another) than with actual media bias. The problem is that there is plenty of anecdotal data pointing to a bias in any direction you like, but the Right only ever looks at facts that confirm its victim-status.

And the Left, having learned the lesson, is starting to do the same thing. (spend some time at Atrios, OWillis, etc)

That’s not to say that bias does not exist. But the bias, in any direction, tends to be subconscious, rather than overt, and people often confuse a bias towards scandal for a "liberal/conservative" bias.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Keep living in denial folks, Guantanamo is a disgrace and you apologists are pitiful.
Dipshit, this blog has been loud and vocal in its denunciations of the abuse scandals.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
So would I ... so why are you back on the one-trick pony?

Because it’s TRUE, damn it all. Every story we discuss in here, particualry regarding the middle east, ends up crossing this point somewhere.

Every damn time.

And Jon, I could accept sloppiness over bad intent, if we’d not seen so countless many examples of bad intent previously.

And as for an official Policy, McQ... NO... not that any would ever admit to. To do so would be self-destructive. But when this stuff comes along, the personal bias of the members of the press always seems to come out, doesn’t it? The pattern of their bias in stories like this is far too well established, the evidence far too well pronounced to try defending them via denial mode, now...

And I’m curious.... Why, Bruce, would you WANT to, in any event?

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
The pattern of their bias in stories like this is far too well established, the evidence far too well pronounced to try defending them via denial mode, now...

And there’s no bias at all on the right, is there Eric?

None.

Pure as the driven snow. Writers on the right have no agenda. They report, you decide.

Look ... the point of the story here is to talk about sloppy journalism. I really don’t care what side of the political spectrum a writer falls on in particular ... I’m concerned with the awful job they did reporting this story.

You’re the one with the agenda about "liberal bias" and their alleged "intent". You ride that one-trick pony every chance you get. And you’re bound and determined to jam it down everyone’s throat, whether relevant to a discussion or issue or not. It’s predictable as hell. Talk about sloppy journalism and it is guaranteed the one-trick pony will show up.

But only if the offender is perceived to be ’liberal’.

I understand your supposed point. I have since the first time you ran it through the comment section. I don’t know how to say it any more clearly than to say "I don’t care" because it’s irrelevant to the point of this story.

The story is about sloppy journalism and the real world result. Not about your supposed agenda.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
"Blame the messenger! $10 says it’s true... another $10 says when it’s re-reported as true, it will get swept under the carpet...

Keep living in denial folks, Guantanamo is a disgrace and you apologists are pitiful.

Written By: Burlap"

Its YOU who are in denial, Burlap. You think this war is just a polite spin-the-bottle game? And just ’being nice’ to detainees at Gitmo will extract the intelligence they have?

Go ahead and tell us all how YOU would get intelligence to penetrate Al Quaida and all its associated organization. You won’t, because YOU have no answers, just criticism from your nice protected office far from where the real war is.

When Al Quaida signs the Geneva Convention Treaty, and puts uniforms on all its operatives, I’ll worry about their "Prisoner of War’ handling.

And when US media whic is FAR more driven by business concerns than ’journalism’ - the desire of competitive ’ratings’ to bring in $$$$ and will blow anything they can into sensationalist
’reports’ by ’anonymous sources’ - begins acting responsibly, I’ll stop hammering them. Whose greed is only matched by their incompetance.


 
Written By: Dave Hughes
URL: http://oldcolo.com
McQ:

And there’s no bias at all on the right, is there Eric?

Where is the right bias in the press, Bruce?

And don’t tell me about Fox, because that’s the only one that passes as center, these days. (Which only demonstrates how far left we’ve tilted in the overall...)

The leftist bias in the press IS in fact the point of the story, because it;’s the CAUSE of it... and denail and waving the ’the right does it too’ flag, doesn’t make it go away. Fact it, Bruce...They’d never have been that sloppy on anyone to the left of center. You know full well that if this were Clinton we were talking about, the story wouldn’t have made ink in someone’s notebook, much less the publication itself. You will never understand the rest of this until you’re able to admit that one salient point.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
The leftist bias in the press IS in fact the point of the story

Uh, no its not ... not in my post it isn’t. That’s what you can’t seem to get through your head.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
And there’s no bias at all on the right, is there Eric

Please point out this bias from the "right" in the media. If it’s there, I’m sure it’s the pin dropping compared to the overwhelming din from the left.

Remember, pundits like Hannity and Limbaugh are not journalists.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
The media certainly didn’t take the decade off when Clinton was in office. The Right has been very successful in creating a victim-culture, and in creating the belief that the media is out to get them, but that’s more to do with selection bias (you notice one kind of story, but not another) than with actual media bias. The problem is that there is plenty of anecdotal data pointing to a bias in any direction you like, but the Right only ever looks at facts that confirm its victim-status

When CBS news and the NY Times run bogus stories prior to elections to topple a Democrat president, then you can peddle this line credibly. Until then....no dice.

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
But here it is; You wouldn’t have posted on it... and for that matter, the story itself wouldn’t even exist without that leftist bias.

And FWIW, I should have said this in the last post...and I’m sorry I didn’t; it’s important, because my disagreement with your statement is somewhat more subtle than we both make it;

I do agree... you’re quite correct...this is journalistic sloppiness. Where we disagree is the reason behind that lack. I am not suggesting that the press consiously goes out in an effort to make Bush and for that matter, the US look bad, (though I can see the argument).

This is not a matter of any official policy, or an overt intent, for the most part. However, When standards go by the way, people tend to fall to their own devices, and beliefs.

Which in the case of the press is well known.
I doubt you need me to link for you the polling the press did on itself some time ago; you already know this stuff.



 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Shark:

Both sides charge the same thing constantly. Its an old refrian. To familiarize yourself with the same tiresome charges from the left, go here.

Eric:

But here it is; You wouldn’t have posted on it... and for that matter, the story itself wouldn’t even exist without that leftist bias.

That’s assinine.

Prove it.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Prove it
There’s already a decades-long pattern of this stuff, McQ. The facts are already out there. Given you can’t accept them as such, it would seem a logical question to ask you, would be, what, if anything at all, you would accept as proof.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
McQ-

You’re kidding right?

Those "charges" first of all don’t point out your "media bias" from the right. It just points out a list of greviences against mainstream media, NONE of which is even remotely on the right.

Leftist charges of media bias boil down to one of two claims:
— You didn’t shield our guy enough (the link you posted)
— You didn’t go far enough in sliming the Republican.

I’d really like to see some of this "right-wing" media bias.

Seems to me like in this case, you’re bending over backwards to give Newsweek the benefit of the doubt. That’s fine, but I’d like for you to explain why.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
There’s already a decades-long pattern of this stuff, McQ. The facts are already out there.

Precisely what I thought. The allegations and the whining are certainly out there. Proof, however, is an entirely different commodity, isn’t it?

But this one’s easier than that. Your claim is the story wouldn’t even be out there if not for the "left wing bias".

Prove it.

Prove your claim.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Where is the right bias in the press, Bruce?
Well, Media Matters documents some of it—about as reliably as does MRC. This essay—written by somebody both McQ and I know, and I think it’s fair to say we both consider a very bright, very intellectually honest person—discusses elements of it further. You’ll find no end of anecdotal data if you peruse Brad DeLong, Atrios, etc. Most of the data, to either end, is simply anecdotal.
They’d never have been that sloppy on anyone to the left of center.
You freakin’ kidding me? After the mountains of nonsense printed and said about Clinton in the 90s? After "Al Gore claimed he invented the internet" is STILL brought up to this day in the mainstream media? There’s PLENTY of sloppiness with people left of center. You just have selection bias....you don’t notice it.

You’ve already accepted the media victimhood of the rightwing, so that’s all you’re prepared to accept. Or to even notice.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Those "charges" first of all don’t point out your "media bias" from the right. It just points out a list of greviences against mainstream media, NONE of which is even remotely on the right.

Pretty thin and tiresome, huh? Kinda like I feel about the whole pseudo-crisis of "bias" isn’t it?

Seems to me like in this case, you’re bending over backwards to give Newsweek the benefit of the doubt. That’s fine, but I’d like for you to explain why.

Sure I am, Shark. That’s why I said:
In other words, they took the word of a single source and didn’t corroborate the story. They’d have flunked Journalism 101. Nice work, guys.
and
Has it gotten completely out of hand based on an uncorroborated story? It would seem so. The real consequences of poor journalism written large.
and quoted the Pentagon spokesman DiRita in the title: "People are dead because of what this son of a bitch said".

It was all about bending over backward and giving them the benefit of the doubt, wasn’t it?

What the problem is, apparently, is I won’t join the amen chorus and automatically attribute it all to "liberal bias" instead of just sloppy journalism which could be the result of any of a number of reasons BESIDES bias.

That sort of thinking just unheard of in the echo chamber I guess.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Pretty thin and tiresome, huh? Kinda like I feel about the whole pseudo-crisis of "bias" isn’t it?

Pseudo-crisis?

You’re just funning with me now, right?

I guess Eason Jordan, Dan Rather, the Al Qa Qaa story etc- all just "pseudo"

Just because you’re tired of it doesn’t mean it’s not there.

What the problem is, apparently, is I won’t join the amen chorus and automatically attribute it all to "liberal bias" instead of just sloppy journalism which could be the result of any of a number of reasons BESIDES bias

The problem is you seem determined to avoid even considering bias as a reason for this.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
I guess Eason Jordan, Dan Rather, the Al Qa Qaa story etc- all just "pseudo


Ooops! I guess that’s just "selection bias"

I’m sure I just didn’t select the time Dan Rather used forged documents to try to bring President Clinton down...
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Just because you’re tired of it doesn’t mean it’s not there.

Name a single human endeavor that doesn’t somehow involve some bias.

Its not news, Shark. Its human nature. And I don’t think its particularly relevant since it can’t be proven.

If you have detected what you preceive to be bias (or that’s the conclusion you choose to attribute to something you read that you don’t like), then that’s fine.

But I see no reason whatsoever to try and attribute a "motive" for something when I have no proof whatsoever.

Suffice it to say, whatever the motive, it was sloppy journalism. That’s prima facia fact. It is that I can address straight up, without equivocation and without falling into the trap of assigining motive which may or may not be there.

If you want to play that game, do so. I don’t care too.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
If you want to play that game, do so. I don’t care too

That’s fine. Neither one of us will convince the other. So be it.

Off topic-

Who is the annonymous source? Newsweek should give him/her up. Ethically, journalists aren’t required to protect a source that lies or burns them. And in this case, finding the source and making them defend or justify themselves would do us a world of good in resolving the story.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Who is the annonymous source? Newsweek should give him/her up. Ethically, journalists aren’t required to protect a source that lies or burns them. And in this case, finding the source and making them defend or justify themselves would do us a world of good in resolving the story.

I certainly agree this is serious enough that they ought to give him or her up.

But I can hear the "chilling effect" argument being ginned up now by Newsweek when calls for such a revelation are made.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
I disagree. As I understand it, the source told them he read it in a report. But that source was also was the one who told them he may not have remembered it correctly. If I understand it correctly, he’s simply unsure of which report he read it in.

It seems to me that he didn’t "burn" (read: lie to) them....he was either mistaken, or he’s being cautious. I’ve no problem with burning a source who lies to you. I think that’d go a long way towards healing some of the media’s problems. But I think burning a source who was honestly mistaken, who is being cautious, or who was misinformed would have a genuine "chilling effect", and they should avoid that.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
he was either mistaken, or he’s being cautious.

Well that’s an assumption, Jon. If true, you have a point. He may have also lied. And if he lied, he should be outted.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Hey may have lied, but as Newsweek is reporting his climbdown, it seems he’s only unsure of the specific report from which he gleaned the story.
"On Saturday, Isikoff spoke to his original source, the senior government official, who said that he clearly recalled reading investigative reports about mishandling the Qur’an, including a toilet incident. But the official, still speaking anonymously, could no longer be sure that these concerns had surfaced in the SouthCom report."
So, his climbdown is merely from the SouthCom report, not from the incident.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
So, his climbdown is merely from the SouthCom report, not from the incident.

Or so Newsweek reports. In reality he could have heard a rumor and reported it as fact and thought it probably came from a SouthCom report. We, of course, have no idea.

Obviously he’s going to present it as a "mistake". If I were in his shoes, I’d most likely do the same.

That doesn’t mean it wasn’t a plain old fabrication based on something he heard. I mean at the time he told it who knew it would have these kinds of repurcussions?

But if he lied and that can be determined that he did, he should be outted ... and that’s my only point.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Agreed. I’d be very careful when determining whether a source "lied", but if it can be proven, then I’d be all in favor of their outting.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Jon;

Ya know, when I see you citing "Media Matters" as a reliable source, I have to question if YOU are a reliable source. Had you forgotten who pays for ’Media Matters’?

But I can hear the "chilling effect" argument being ginned up now by Newsweek when calls for such a revelation are made.

Agreed and so you will.
That’s quite a shift from the media who during watergate, couldn’t be shaken from the path of revealing all even at the expense of a USSC case, isn’t it?


McQ:
Name a single human endeavor that doesn’t somehow involve some bias.

Ayn Rand, call your ofice.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Ya know, when I see you citing "Media Matters" as a reliable source, I have to question if YOU are a reliable source. Had you forgotten who pays for ’Media Matters’?
Ad hominem, Bithead? I’m aware that they are a left wing organization, just as MRC is a right wing organization. That’s why I read them with a grain of salt, and take each argument on its merits, rather than assuming the credibility of authority. Many of their arguments hold well.

Ad hominem, on the other hand, is not a persuasive counterargument.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Ayn Rand, call your ofice.

IOW ... blank out.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
It wasn’t your reading I was attacking, Jon... You see, apparently, your salt was a little lacking; you offered them in a general sense as factual. And you know better, or at the least, I’d have thought you should.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
McQ:

IOW, blank out

Not really. Just a side comment on my part. You see, it’s just that I so seldom see someone calling themselves a libertarian of any stripe...(Other than myself) so foundationally questioning the matter of objectivity. And perhaps that would be a worthy conversation, in another thread?
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
LOL!

Ah, I see. Objectivity is now defined as human beings being unbiased ... or said another way, human beings have no convictions.

Right?

Again, the question ... can you name any human endeavor in which bias of some sort won’t be present?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
LOL....

I didn’t say I was disagreeing with your point, Bruce... you’ve got to read a bit closer. I have said many times that there is no such thing as an objective human being.. no ’disinterested party" and so on. Being falible humans, there’s no way to get there.... a point which I’ve always felt Rand (and her followers) had trouble working their way around.

But... and this is interesting.... in that agreement, you make my point for me, better than I could have, alone... in this way;

We seem to agree that this is sloppy journalism in the sense that journalistic standards got dropped. We also, believe it or else, seem to agree that offenses occur on both sides... right and left, in terms of dropping journalistic standards.

What I have suggested to you in this thread is that "When standards go by the way, people tend to fall to their own devices, and beliefs."

I submit that veering right or left from the mythical objectivity, is a direct result of the devices, and beliefs of the people in question... in this case press people.

Now, by their own polling, the US press is a group of people who are overwhelingly leftist to the tune of 85-90%. Which way will things fall among such a group, when those journalistic standards get bypassed? Which way is objectivity more likely to fail?

As I ahve said, this leftist tilt of the press is by no means a policy of the press, but rather the failure of policy, which given the intergal leanings of press people can hardly be avoided. Gavity kinda takes over.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
And I should have added that the ofenses from that objectivity, and against journaistic standards, be they to the right or to the left, tend to track directly the devices, and beliefs of the people in question... in this case press people.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
I submit that veering right or left from the mythical objectivity, is a direct result of the devices, and beliefs of the people in question... in this case press people.

It has always been this way, Eric, which is why it isn’t news or surprising. In fact, its really not worth talking about in this context. As I’ve pointed out time and again, its tiresome.

But saying that doesn’t mean it’s the primary cause in this case or in any particular case. But it seems to always be where you end up.

Occam’s razor. Sometimes its just sloppy journalism.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
If it’s always been that way, Bruce, then you’ve just agreed that the press is overhwelmingly biased. Amazing what that admission took... (SNICKER... and shockingly enough, the world didn’t end!!)

So, don’t sit there and tell us that there is noT an overwhelming leftist bias within the press and that, as Jon suggested, there’s an equal number and depth of offenses going in each direction.

But saying that doesn’t mean it’s the primary cause in this case or in any particular case. But it seems to always be where you end up

I say again, it comes down to an issue of how much proof is required. I submit to you that at some point in the series of broken bones and other injuries inflicted as a result of diving practice over the last decade or so, one must conclude sooner or later the possibility that there’s no water in the pool. How beat up must one get before they allow themselves the logical conclusion? Example:

Sometimes its just sloppy journalism

Caused by.....?


PS to Dale: How about adding a "blockquote" button?
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
If it’s always been that way, Bruce, then you’ve just agreed that the press is overhwelmingly biased. Amazing what that admission took... (SNICKER... and shockingly enough, the world didn’t end!!)
You freakin’ amaze me sometimes. Let me say this again .. the fact that there is bias in the world doesn’t mean it is the cause of every single thing that happens. Sometimes its something much simpler ... except to you. You mount that one-trick pony every single time to denounce every single occurrance of what you perceive to be an unfair story (or a badly done story) as a result of bias.

That’s be like claiming every car wreck is the result of drunk driving when in fact it could be the simple result of negligence.

Bias exists. It always has. It always will. But it ISN’T always the reason things happen ... except in your world.
Sometimes its just sloppy journalism

Caused by.....?
Inattention or negligence such as wrongly thinking someone else had corroborated the story? Being lied too by a supposedly reliable source who liked the attention from Newsweek and didn’t think the story would amount to much anyway? Or a combination of both? Or any of a number of reasons other than bias.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
I didn’t say it was ALWAYS so. I’ve never said that. WHat I did say was the discussion goes that way because it is the most likely, given the history.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
I didn’t say it was ALWAYS so. I’ve never said that. WHat I did say was the discussion goes that way because it is the most likely, given the history.
It is "most likely" given the history of what?

 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
(Sigh) Read the thread again, Bruce... particuarly the last 5 posts or so.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Sigh ... I have Eric ... same old story as far as I see it.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
You’ve just named the problem; You can’t...(Or won’t) see it.
(shrug)
That happens....
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
That’s be like claiming every car wreck is the result of drunk driving when in fact it could be the simple result of negligence.

No, it’s more like claiming every car wreck is the result of negligence when in fact it could be the simple result of drunk driving.

Inattention or negligence such as wrongly thinking someone else had corroborated the story? Being lied too by a supposedly reliable source who liked the attention from Newsweek and didn’t think the story would amount to much anyway? Or a combination of both? Or any of a number of reasons other than bias.

At what point is bias the proximate cause of the sloppy reporting?

 
Written By: Mark Flacy
URL: http://
I think it’s a shame that they must make such a big deal over something so trivial as a book. Don’t get me wrong, the book is important, however, it was the creater of the book who would frown upon bloodshed over it’s being flushed.
regards,
 
Written By: Brian Maloney
URL: http://loan.valueprep.com

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider