Servicemen website picks on media

“Just over this weekend I started seeing a TV commercial where servicemen who have served in Iraq are talking about how they are happy to do the mission of the Bush administration there. They also say, "The media will tell you..." and then sweepingly generalize that the media skews reporting for a liberal bias. Well, they don't come out and say it's a liberal bias, but they sure don't look happy in commenting on "the media."

Now, this didn't exactly sit well with me. No matter what my personal feelings, I am out there doing stories on service men and women who have done their job. I just did one on a young man who returned from Iraq. Yes, I asked him, in the interview, "What would you say to people who don't think this mission is necessary?"

He told me when he returned and was leaving Philadelphia, some man in the airport had asked him if the war could still be won. He responded that it's not about winning or losing, it's about making life better for people there.

And I used that in my article. I think you would say it's a nice article on the efforts in Iraq.

I also asked him if it ever got "hairy" over there, leaving it wide open for what he might talk about. He told me of seeing a man burn to death in a convoy, from an IED, and the injuries the other two guys in it had received. I told it as he told me, just the facts. No judgments.

There are many, MANY media sources telling the brave stories of those who have served in Iraq.

So I looked up the website, www.MidwestHeroes.com, to see what these media-bashing servicemen had to say. It was strange to see they actually had stories from newspapers on the website. What was that about??!? I thought they said on TV the media was skewing things and not to be trusted.

What really failed to impress me was that they had no means to contact them. I wanted to tell them just what I'm saying here, to thank them for their efforts, but to tell them I think they're way off base in their comments on the media:

1. Newspapers have means of communication that you can contact them -- and even have it published for all to see and contemplate -- if you think they've erred. The over-generalizing service people have no way to contact them on their website.

2. Why, if ripping the media on a TV ad, would you ever use media stories on your website??!? I mean, if the media is so awful and gets it wrong and promotes liberal bias all the time, why stoop so low as to use media stories???!?
last edited: 2/12/06 11:19:19 AM”

“Here's the story I just did:

http://www.bluffcountrynews.com/main.asp?SectionID=44&SubSectionID=182&ArticleID=11132”

“I'm sorry but i need to do this,

Is there ANY way this type of thread can be flagged as war related ? I didn't really catch that it was a "war" story of sorts and well i really don't want to read this kinda stuff. I know i'm the one that kept reading and thats my bad and i'm not even coming close to asking people NOT to post on the war, I'm just asking for a red flag so i don't stumble into a very upsetting topic. I'm sorry, I'm just really upset and i just needed to vent .. I don't want to start a fight :(”

“the lillte flame...”

“I'm sorry”

“I can’t imagine anyone would say that ALL news stories are biased, Lizs. And certainly not all news stories have a "liberal" bias.

But most of the media refuses to examine anything that says they’re biased.


One argument I’ve heard against media bias is that journalists are “trained to be objective.”

Yeah? Well so are doctors. But you won’t see surgeons operating on family members because they realize that their “bias” might get in the way of their objectivity.

Lawyers and judges are specifically trained for objectivity. But a judge is required to recuse herself from any case where she might let personal bias interfere with her decision.

So what makes journalists so immune from personal bias? A journalist must think very highly of herself to believe she is more objective than doctors, lawyers, and many other professions that recognize that personal views can get in the way of objectivity.


Many, many books and papers have been written on the subject of media bias. Are you in complete denial about these studies, Lizs?

The NYT has run a non-stop campaign against the war since it started. Do you understand this?




Please tell me that you understand something about media bias after all that has been written on the subject.”

“There are many, MANY media sources telling the brave stories of those who have served in Iraq.

lizs - The major media is what reaches most people. You are the exception, but the exceptions' audience is very small - and is easily turned off by those who don't want to hear it. You're not represented on the nightly news, the Sunday talk shows, etc.. Everybody knows the soldiers are doing much more over there, but that isn't what is reaching the major (and most minor) media.

The liberal media bias is rampant and completely out of control. If you're an exception to that rule, thank you.”

“lyzs - It is a battle of the hearts and minds of the US public that is being waged. I dare anyone to go to Iraq and show the good stuff being done. Oh, there is lots of good stuff being done, it is just that there is also sooooooo much bad stuff happening. And in order to tell the good stories, media personel have to be escorted around by either the military or private security services. Even then, notice what happened to the ABC anchor and cameraman.

The fact of life on the ground is that Iraq is a very dangerous place. There are many things that are better, but there are also many things that are much worse. The fact that almost any western person must be on total guard constantly is indicative of how things are in Iraq. The country is experiencing a brain drain. Educated people like doctors, pharmasists, engineers, etc are being targeted for kidnap, murder, and such. As a result, many in these professions are immigrating out of the country. Iraq is a dangerous place, period.

The next question one needs to ask is if what we are doing is making much of a difference. Most observers say no. The critisism comes from people like Senator Chuck Hagel (R. NE). I asked a reporter (who had spent a good amount of time in Iraq) at the newspaper I work at about the prospects of any semblance of and ordered society in Iraq and was told that it is hard to see how the things the US is doing is helpling much. Sometimes it's two steps forward and one step back, and sometimes it's one step forward and three steps back.

The media is a convenient whipping boy. We are told by those that don't like the media that people like you lyzs are the minority, it is really that huge mainstream media (or other terms used to describe the bad media) that is undermining the American public's support of the war in Iraq. But that is just so much crapola.

Kilgore
last edited: 2/12/06 5:06:23 PM”

“Kilgore - How much time have you spent in Iraq? What stories can you tell us?”

“... how much time have you spent in a newsroom? What stories can you tell us?

Kilgore”

“Kilgore - That's the point! The newsroom isn't Iraq.

Your claim that if you are in Iraq, you will see that the reporters don't have a choice but to report the way they do. The only way you'd know that is if you were there. Please elaborate instead of answering a question with a question.

All you've done is said "I know reporters, and they are reporting what they see." Well, soldiers disagree. The only way you'd know differently is if you were there. So I ask again, how much time have you spent there?”

“And Kilgore refuses to examine anything that says the media is biased despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Typical


...And Dan Rather was an unbiased journalist who made an honest mistake in journalism 101.

I would have loved to examine that story in further detail, but it seems to have died a quick death.”

“Well, there are soldiers in Iraq and there are reporters in Iraq. That soldiers and reporters might have a different idea about the progress of the war is understandable. Reporters and soldiers are doing different jobs.

So are you saying that the only way anyone would know for sure about what is the truth in Iraq is to actually spend time in Iraq?

All you have done is claim that reporters aren't reporting the news as they see it. Well, the ONLY way you would know differently is if you spent some time with reporters and spent some time in the newsroom putting stories to print. That is why I asked you how much time you have spent in the newsroom.

Kilgore”

“"And Kilgore refuses to examine anything that says the media is biased despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary." That is an unfounded statement. I know a lot about bias in the media. I also know a lot about bias in the reader and people that make blanket statements like that about bias in the media.

I also know a lot about how stories are put together and the many decisions made about how a newspaper is put together. I hear lots of uninformed crapola about the media by people that are speaking from their own biases.

Kilgore
last edited: 2/12/06 5:48:17 PM”

“This column by Traitorous Bob may contain a clue for you lizs:

At the same time, the Bush administration is going directly to the public with its war message. Raul Damas, associate director of political affairs at the White House, has been on the phone directly to Republican county chairmen to arrange local speeches by active duty military personnel to talk about their experiences in Iraq. To some Republican members, this unusual venture connotes a desire to go directly to the people to sell the president's position without having to deal with members of Congress.

http://www.lincolntribune.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3868”

“How to Detect Bias in the News

At one time or other we all complain about "bias in the news." The fact is, despite the journalistic ideal of "objectivity," every news story is influenced by the attitudes and background of its interviewers, writers, photographers and editors.

Not all bias is deliberate. But you can become a more aware news reader or viewer by watching for the following journalistic techniques that allow bias to "creep in" to the news:

Bias through selection and omission

An editor can express a bias by choosing to use or not to use a specific news item. Within a given story, some details can be ignored, and others included, to give readers or viewers a different opinion about the events reported. If, during a speech, a few people boo, the reaction can be described as "remarks greeted by jeers" or they can be ignored as "a handful of dissidents."

Bias through omission is difficult to detect. Only by comparing news reports from a wide variety of outlets can the form of bias be observed.

Bias through placement

Readers of papers judge first page stories to be more significant than those buried in the back. Television and radio newscasts run the most important stories first and leave the less significant for later. Where a story is placed, therefore, influences what a reader or viewer thinks about its importance.

Bias by headline

Many people read only the headlines of a news item. Most people scan nearly all the headlines in a newspaper. Headlines are the most-read part of a paper. They can summarize as well as present carefully hidden bias and prejudices. They can convey excitement where little exists. They can express approval or condemnation.

Bias by photos, captions and camera angles

Some pictures flatter a person, others make the person look unpleasant. A paper can choose photos to influence opinion about, for example, a candidate for election. On television, the choice of which visual images to display is extremely important. The captions newspapers run below photos are also potential sources of bias.

Bias through use of names and titles

News media often use labels and titles to describe people, places, and events. A person can be called an "ex-con" or be referred to as someone who "served time twenty years ago for a minor offense." Whether a person is described as a "terrorist" or a "freedom fighter" is a clear indication of editorial bias.

Bias through statistics and crowd counts

To make a disaster seem more spectacular (and therefore worthy of reading about), numbers can be inflated. "A hundred injured in aircrash" can be the same as "only minor injuries in air crash," reflecting the opinion of the person doing the counting.

Bias by source control

To detect bias, always consider where the news item "comes from." Is the information supplied by a reporter, an eyewitness, police or fire officials, executives, or elected or appointed government officials? Each may have a particular bias that is introduced into the story. Companies and public relations directors supply news outlets with puffpieces through news releases, photos or videos. Often news outlets depend on pseudo-events (demonstrations, sit-ins, ribbon cuttings, speeches and ceremonies) that take place mainly to gain news coverage.

Word choice and tone

Showing the same kind of bias that appears in headlines, the use of positive or negative words or words with a particular connotation can strongly influence the reader or viewer.

Excerpted from Newskit: A Consumers Guide to News Media, by The Learning Seed Co. Reprinted with their permission.”

“"No experiment can be more interesting than that we are now trying, and which we trust will end in establishing the fact, that man may be governed by reason and truth. Our first object should therefore be, to leave open to him all the avenues to truth. The most effectual hitherto found, is the freedom of the press. It is, therefore, the first shut up by those who fear the investigation of their actions."
- Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, 1804. http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/jefferson_g_01.html”

“So are you saying that the only way anyone would know for sure about what is the truth in Iraq is to actually spend time in Iraq?

All you have done is claim that reporters aren't reporting the news as they see it. Well, the ONLY way you would know differently is if you spent some time with reporters and spent some time in the newsroom putting stories to print. - Kilgore

Kilgore - You said this: "and in order to tell the good stories, media personel have to be escorted around by either the military or private security services. Even then, notice what happened to the ABC anchor and cameraman."

By your own admission - they aren't making it around like they need to to tell the real news. They hang out in their hotels.”

“From all the books and papers I’ve read on this subject, I doubt most journalists do any more self-examination on bias in their industry other than to state: “I hear lots of uninformed crapola about the media by people that are speaking from their own biases”

Now that’s the intellectual examination of a profession in denial.




Stove there is also an interesting correlation to be drawn from two books dealing with seemingly unrelated topics:

The Gentle Art of Verbal Self-Defense by Suzzette Elgin

and

Journalistic Fraud – how the NYT distorts the news and why it can no longer be trusted by Bob Kohn.


Kohn has an entire chapter called, “Distorting with Loaded Language.” He shows how words such as “even” can change the meaning of a story:

Under a NYT headline titled, Bush and Gore Steadfast in Belief in Own Victory (Nov. 22, 2000), the times article said:

““Some Bush advisors said they were surprised by the decision tonight – and even suggested that it was tainted because the court was dominated by Democrats.”

By inserting the word “even,” the reporter conveyed this slant: “Though you are not going to believe this, the Republicans actually suggested that it was tainted just because Democrats dominated the court. The sentence could be rendered unbiased by simply removing the word “even.”

“Some Bush advisors said they were surprised by the decision tonight and suggested that it was tainted because the court was dominated by Democrats.””


I her book, Elgin points out verbal attacks such as Section D- Even X should Y. Used in a sentence:

“Even you should be able to follow this argument.”

This can be rendered into a neutral statement by removing the word “even.”

“You should be able to follow this argument.”


I found a lot of parallels between the two books. Journalists definitely use words to slant stories.

In Journalistic Fraud there are also chapters on Distorting the Lead, Distorting the Headline, Distorting the Facts, Distorting with Opinion, Distorting with Labels, Distorting with Crusades (such as the well documented crusade against the war in Iraq), Distorting with Polls, and Distorting with Placement.

There is an entire chapter on how the NYT distorts coverage on the war in Iraq.



“Every violation of the truth is a stab at that health of human society”

Ralph Waldo Emerson



Bernard Goldberg makes the claim that journalists are mostly unaware of their bias. But I wonder how smarmy most of them must feel by letting a story, such as the Dan Rather story (running a highly critical news story on the eve of a presidential election), just die. How did such an experienced professional like Dan ignore one of the simplest and most basic tenets of journalism on such an important news story? Powerful people were fired. One of the country’s most respected journalists resigned. And the story just died. Was he set up? The story just died. Was there any truth to the assertion that, had been documented for years, he was biased? The story just died.

Did I say smarmy? Judging by what I’ve heard here, they may instead be clueless. I doubt it.


I have no doubt that the world has many journalists with integrity. But many, such as Mr. Vonnegut here, refuse to clean up a dirty profession. Is it any wonder journalists rank where they do on “Respected Professions” polls? The polls must be crapola, huh?
last edited: 2/12/06 9:39:04 PM”

“There is an interesting thing going on in the Loonie Left Boggs, like The Daily Kos and Democratic Underground. They have now discovered an intense and evil bias in the Major Media!
Yes, the Major Media has had a pro RIGHTWING BIAS for some time now!

The Laugh Out Loud funny thing is they have, for years now, poo pooed any idea that the Major Media could have ever been biased against the Right.

LOLOLOLOLOL”

“Hey lizs!

Here's an example:

Headline


Cheney Shoots Fellow Hunter (left bias)

or

Cheney Shoots Lawyer
Thousands Cheer! (right bias)


Hee hee hee......
last edited: 2/12/06 10:14:54 PM”

“Oh, that fricking ad is on right now.

"You wouldn't know it from the media..."

Then maybe they shouldn't use media stories on their website, huh??? Don't just talk the easy talk knocking news media. Stick to your guns, so to speak. If the media is soooooo bad, go write your own stories. And see if those stories are suspect, speaking of bias.
last edited: 2/12/06 10:19:51 PM”

“lizs, why do you hate our brave servicemen? ;-)”

“BLOG RAGE | By Jim Brady

Sunday, February 12, 2006; B01

I am a twit without a functioning brain.

I also do not have any [ censored ].

Despite 10 years spent in online media, I really don't understand the Internet.

I am a dangerous ideologue , an enemy of

democracy .

At least, that's what I've been told -- in much stronger language -- by dozens of people who have never met me.

My career as a nitwitted, emasculated fascist began the afternoon of Jan. 19 when, as executive editor of the Post's Web site, washingtonpost.com, I closed down the comments area of one of our many blogs, one called post.blog. Created primarily to announce new features on the Web site, the blog had become ground zero for angry readers complaining about a column by Post ombudsman Deborah Howell on the newspaper's coverage of the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal. If I had let them, they would have obliterated any semblance of civil, genuine discussion.

As it was, things got pretty ugly, and it's worth figuring out why. In her Jan. 15 column, Howell erred in saying that Abramoff gave campaign donations to Democrats as well as Republicans. In fact, Abramoff directed clients to give to members of both parties, but he had donated his own personal funds only to Republicans.

...So was I suppressing free speech? Protecting the Bush administration? That's what you'd think, judging by the swift and acid reaction to my move. They couldn't get to post.blog, but they sure let me have it elsewhere in the blogosphere. I was honored as "Wanker of the Day" on one left-wing blog. Another site dissected my biography in order to prove that I was part of The Post's vast right-wing conspiracy...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/11/AR2006021100840_pf.html”

“The ads and website are sponsored by the PFA. Where it says "About us" it says this (which surely seems to have a bit of bias, it appears). OH, but first, why would I question who's paying for this???!? Because I am the liberal media??!?? LMAO... No, it's because everyone deserves to know. You can't be sheep people and just beled around unwittingly, right, accepting of everything that comes your way?

Like, for example, last week the volunteer school building committee trying to get a plan for a new school and then pass it, touted another number for construction price. Since this was likely the fourth number they voted on -- and all of a sudden feared they would look stupid to the public, and wish-washy, and like a group you might want to think twice about trusting -- they asked me to NOT put the number in the paper.

So, if I don't put that number in the paper because they asked me... what else might I fudge on later on??? That's the ethics of journalism. The number went in. It's not my fault they ram ahead and do things without perhaps a little more thought.

AND NOW -- HERE IS INFO ON WHO'S PAYING FOR THE AD AND WEBSITE:

About PFA Voter Fund
Some politicians are working overtime to push their failed policies on America and distort the accomplished public policy records of conservative leaders across this nation. These policies thwart the ability of American families to support the War on Terror, keep more of what they earn, provide a safe environment for educating their children, and continue to expand employment and grow the economy.

Progress for America Voter Fund ("PFA-VF") is a conservative issue advocacy organization dedicated to setting the issue record straight about these critical issues.

Here are the goals of the PFA-VF:

1. Level the playing field on issue advertisements — it may not be possible out raise even George Soros alone, but the PFA Voter Fund must try to reduce the lopsided advertising advantage that liberal 527s have on the campaign trail today.

2. Reinforce the messages of conservatives across the nation -- we have messages we know will work and energize the base; we just need the resources to deliver these messages.
As a diverse coalition of concerned citizens, nonprofit organizations, and other players in the political process, PFA-VF is dedicated to educating the American people regarding the public policy positions of candidates for federal, state and local office and mobilizing conservative voters. These activities provide the American people with the information they need to see through the misleading public policies and campaign themes of liberal politicians.

YEAH, UH HUH, THAT'S NOT BIASED.”

“If you don't go to Iraq, you will not have the complete story. Reporters rarely leave the green zone so they do not get the complete story. Therefore, there is no bias in reporting, it is all just a big bunch of crap.
I was deployed to Operation Iraqi Freedom, and I swear that since I have been back I have not able to keep up with what is going on except for when I am talking with friends that are still deployed.
Reference Check: 321st Signal Company, Nevada National Guard, March 2004-March 2005.”

“You people have a weird sense of fun.”

“It is my experience that young troopers are not politically active, don't vote, don't read newspapers and don't know who Harry Reid is.”

“I don't like to fan the flame, but today I practically jumped out of my chair when I read this article. The article first appeared in The New York Times and is regarding hybrid cars.

So I'm reading the article about cars and gas when out of no where, I read:

That's doing everyone else a favor because gas use has other costs--like global warming and American troops stationed overseas--that nobody fully pays at the pump.

I know that "no blood for oil" is a favorite chant of the anti-war crowd, but I think this was a complete abuse of power by the writer to throw in a political jab in a completely unrealated story.

Just my 2 cents.

full article”

“There's no media bias. Bawhawhawhawhaw!

http://www.honestreporting.com/”

“The same peeps that claim there's no media bias, love Michael Moore.”

“Lizs, I have a number of friends who are going back for their 3rd trip (BY THEIR OWN CHOICE). They explain that most reporters want a quick easy story. It is easier to toe the line than not get printed.

I think the real challenge is we watch as the MAJOR outlets keep getting burned for fraud, real faked stories but still want us to beleive everything they sell.

Local media (which I assume you are part of) is still close enough to the people that they report pretty accurately.

We had a senior editor at our local newspaper who made a mistake where he ran a quote without identifying where it came from. He was gone in 1 week. Then you get MAJOR media that runs garbage and outright lies...nothing happens until the public goes nuts. The major media refuses to police themselves...so let them eat the benfits (drop in readers and viewers). I personally hope for the day when you can advertise on the BIG 3 News shows for $1 for a 30 second spot.

Lizs, if you read the reports from WWII you will note that the real reporter "bias" started in 1945 or so. Reference a LIFE magazine report in 1947 about how horrible the occupation of Germany was...it was entitled "We have lost the peace." Same darn stuff the major media is still running.”

“Did anyone see the piece 60 Minutes did last night on returning servicemen? Good gray! Talk about media bias.”

“If you don't go to Iraq, you will not have the complete story. Reporters rarely leave the green zone so they do not get the complete story.

First of all, Tahoe, thanks for your service.

Since you've been there, maybe you can shed some light on the subject. It would be great to hear from someone who has actually been "in the mix" about the differences you see between your experience and what you read in the media.

The accounts I've recently read in the media regarding everyday life in Iraq, and our soldiers struggle against the insurgency, have presented it in a straightforward fashion, with plenty of quotes directly from the soldiers. One of the stories was more of a narrative of life with one company there, and how they dealt with boredom, fatigue and danger of a job like that. I'm not sure where bias enters the picture in stories like that, where most of the words are right out of the soldier's mouths.

The phrase "War is Hell" was coined long ago, but I have a feeling that if it were uttered in a newspaper for the first time today, critics on the right would be screaming "liberal bias!", while those on the left would be claiming the newpaper is a shill for the Bush Administration by trying to glamorize war.

Good luck, lizs.”

“"The same peeps that claim there's no media bias, love Michael Moore."

StoveStomper, how does a statement like that differ from a statement like this?

"The same peeps that claim the media is biased, love Rush Limbaugh."”

“There is little difference, kleetny.
I don't claim to be unbiased. LOL”

“See, even Matt says they're is a liberal bias, so we win.”

“Bacpac, I am not young, I am 38 and set to retire from the military next year, second I do vote and read the news and watch the news, third Harry Reid is from Nevada where I am from, believe me that I try to stay informed.
Let me start by saying that I have no clue what the 'goal' of the Iraq war is, and if anyone in my chain of command did know, they weren't telling us. With that in mind it seemed that each mission that we did was sort of just thrown together without the guidance of a higher overall plan.
Life for me while deployed was about playing video games, watching movies, and trying to stay cool and not get killed when I had to go outside of the camp or fob where I was working.
I do not really care about the Iraqis or there way of life or anything else about them. The Iraqis do not care about our way of life or anything about us either. Sure they are happy that we were able to take Mr. Hussein out of power, but by doing so we have created a war for the control of Iraq. I think that I was there to protect the financial and political interests of the United States in the Middle East. This view is a bit cynical but it is the way I feel.
I am not antiwar or prowar either, I am prosoldier. That means I care more about American soldiers than the Iraqis, Syrians, and Iranians that are trying to kill them.”