| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Short Attention Span Theater- |
| After Bush's speech including the media coverage, The Post and the Whole Picture in Iraq |
| 2006-03-27 |
| This part of our CIC's speech in West Virginia, certainly has the media in a defensive mode. They have justification (excuses) everywhere. Q -- can you use this, and it will just end up in a drawer, because it's good, it portrays the good. And if people could see that, if the American people could see it, there would never be another negative word about this conflict. THE PRESIDENT: Well, I appreciate that. (Applause.) No, it -- that's why I come out and speak. I spoke in Cleveland, gave a press conference yesterday -- spoke in Cleveland Monday, press conference, here today. I'm going to continue doing what I'm doing to try to make sure people can hear there's -- why I make decisions, and as best as I can, explain why I'm optimistic we can succeed. One of the things that we've got to value is the fact that we do have a media, free media, that's able to do what they want to do. And I'm not going to -- you're asking me to say something in front of all the cameras here. (Laughter.) Help over there, will you? (Laughter.) I just got to keep talking. And one of the -- there's word of mouth, there's blogs, there's Internet, there's all kinds of ways to communicate which is literally changing the way people are getting their information. And so if you're concerned, I would suggest that you reach out to some of the groups that are supporting the troops, that have got Internet sites, and just keep the word -- keep the word moving. And that's one way to deal with an issue without suppressing a free press. We will never do that in America. I mean, the minute we start trying to suppress our press, we look like the Taliban. The minute we start telling people how to worship, we look like the Taliban. And we're not interested in that in America. We're the opposite. We believe in freedom. And we believe in freedom in all its forms. And obviously, I know you're frustrated with what you're seeing, but there are ways in this new kind of age, being able to communicate, that you'll be able to spread the message that you want to spread. Now comes a long explanation from the Washington Post -- well worth the read. They still just don't get how to cover the military and a war. EFL snip Those complaints anger journalists who risked their lives to cover a war in which 67 of their colleagues have been killed and many others, including ABC-TV's Bob Woodruff, have been injured. There are other risks; Jill Carroll of the Christian Science Monitor is still held captive by terrorists. After talking and corresponding with Post staffers and other journalists with Iraq experience and experts in and outside the military, I find no easy resolution to the complaints. Here's why: · The press corps is trained to see the story, and the war is the story. The Post has heavily covered the efforts to build a democracy, but the continuing insurgency and the lack of security for Iraqis are still the main news. · Reporters are scrambling to keep up with daily events in an atmosphere so dangerous that Post reporters find it impossible to freely move and report. · There is a built-in tension between the press, always skeptical of authority, and the military culture of respecting authority and keeping secrets. snip |
| Posted by:Sherry |
| #8 Crap like this article is one of the prime reasons for declining circulation and influence by newspapers like the Post and the NYT. The report whatever they want and if they can't find what they want, they just make it up. Pompous, punctilious, supercilious, vacuous c*cks*ck*rs. |
| Posted by: Hupeater Flith2113 2006-03-27 22:37 |
| #7 in America And elsewhere... for which they will never be forgiven But since they never will be held accountable as well, to them it's no big deal... only answer is to stop believing them, and pay them no attention anymore past bare minimum keeping-in-touch with actuality and local news. |
| Posted by: anonymous5089 2006-03-27 21:50 |
| #6 The free press is an extension of freedom of speech. Since the MSM piss us off, I consider it my duty to smear them at every oportunity. I focus my freedom of speech directly against them, personally. If they don't like it, they can cry. The MSM have caused massive problems in America for which they will never be forgiven. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-03-27 21:38 |
| #5 "There is a built-in tension between the press, always skeptical of authority, and the military culture of respecting authority and keeping secrets." Allow me to suggest a press that is skeptical AND respectful. That would be a nice change. Allow me to also suggest that the secrets should not be the story -- the traitorous leakers who are pedaling them should be the story. Actually, Frank, I suspect that journalism is an easier major than PE for those who enter college with basic writing skills. Every day I read news stories that my high school journalism teacher would have torn apart for shoddy content and poor organization -- and I'm talking about the bigtime MSM. And the editors just pass it along. Apparently an editor today is just a former journalist who operates a spell checker. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2006-03-27 20:19 |
| #4 these two WAPO c*ck su*kers, Jonathan Finer and Doug Struck, tried to smear Bill Roggio with the "paid Mil blogger" lies. The Pentagon also is reaching out to bloggers writing about the military. Pro-war blogger Bill Roggio was invited late last year to embed with the Marines, and a story in The Post quoting him brought about 100 critical e-mails generated off Roggio's blog, http://www.billroggio.com/ . Roggio was mentioned in the lead paragraph of a Dec. 26 story by Jonathan Finer and Doug Struck, then doing a rotation in Iraq, on the military's efforts to get its story told favorably. Finer and Struck also wrote about the military's controversial Information Operations program, where Iraqi news media are asked to do stories that focus on efforts to help Iraqis' quality of life and to counter insurgents' attempts to influence coverage. Those stories are often backed up by cash payments. Roggio was furious that he was mentioned in the same story with journalists paid to write favorable pieces. He said it looked like "I must be part of a nefarious scheme by the military to influence the perceptions on Iraq. All they did was extend an invite that is no different than extending an invite to any reporter. I was invited on my merit. I felt I earned the right to be embedded. I took the risk of leaving my family and job and financing this with donations. Then to see it put in this light, I felt very wronged." Finer and Hoffman said any close reading of the story would have told readers that Roggio was not paid by the military. That is correct, but a more expansive explanation of the difference between the two programs would have been helpful. Roggio embedded under the a Pentagon public affairs program that deals with the news media and runs military Web sites. Information Operations, on the other hand, is basically meant to influence coverage. The issue of blurred lines between the two has been raised both by the military and the press. Lapan arranged Roggio's embed near Fallujah. In Lapan's view: "We have invited bloggers . . . to embed in an effort to tell the story. Bloggers, in my mind, are just another means to communicate accurate, truthful information about what we do. These are not Information Operations any more than embedding a reporter from The Post or the New York Times is." "The crux of the matter: Public affairs . . . is meant to inform the public. Information Operations is meant to influence our adversary and local populations. PA is primarily directed at American audiences. IO is primarily directed at enemy and supporting foreign publics. By law, IO is not to be directed at the American people. The purpose of IO is to influence; the purpose of PA is to inform," Lapan said. Finer, in an e-mail, said: "The decision to embed Bill Roggio, a widely read military blogger whose views on the war are well known, came at a time when the military was increasingly expressing frustration with coverage they were receiving in the mainstream media. It also came amid the revelation of efforts to influence coverage in the Iraqi press by paying journalists to publish favorable stories. The story sought only to document what appeared to be a growing effort on the part of the military, and the insurgency, to control the dissemination of information from Iraq. Incidentally, the military, as well as independent analysts, seemed to agree the war over information was picking up on both sides and the Marines I spoke with did not object to the portrayal of Roggio as part of that effort." donated $200 myself.. |
| Posted by: RD 2006-03-27 20:11 |
| #3 It's not an agenda if you think everyone believes it. Shows again how arrogant and out-of-touch journos can be. Easiest major in college after PE |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-03-27 19:13 |
| #2 "The press corps is trained to see the story,..." Oh, bullshit. The press corp is trained to write propaganda for the Democratic Party, not to see or report the story. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2006-03-27 18:09 |
| #1 One reader wrote a Post reporter a few weeks ago: "Be nice to see your traitorous ass shot." That's totally inappropriate. The reader should have said, "Be nice to see your traitorous ass tried and shot." This is a nation of laws, for gosh sakes. |
| Posted by: Matt 2006-03-27 16:39 |