The AP

BMT (RIP) · 08-15-2005, 06:54

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/15/bu...gewanted=print

BMT

fusion94 · 08-15-2005, 12:29

Having dated an AP reporter for 6 months I'm suprised that they aren't just ignoring the problem.

Gypsy · 08-15-2005, 18:06

Quote:

Mr. Silverman said the editors were asking for help in making sense of the situation. "I was glad to have that discussion with the editors because they have to deal with the perception that the media is emphasizing the negative," he said.

It's more than a perception...

Quote:

...it was much easier to add up the number of dead than to determine how many hospitals received power on a particular day or how many schools were built.

Funny...with a little bit of real investigative reporting they would "unearth" that info. Asking the Troops or leaders on the ground comes to mind...

Gahhh why bother, they're ensconced in their hotel rooms reporting second or third hand info. If they really want to report what's going on they need to get out like some others manage to do.

Solid · 08-16-2005, 08:14

Guys,
I haven't been here in a while, so I am genuinely apologetic if this is overstepping my ... "credit" if you will, but:
Ease up on the press. I'm currently studying the effects the press have had on the develoipment of warfare, and yes, every time I see an article coming out of Iraq, I feel my blood heat up. However, there are several things you need to keep in mind, in my opinion.

1. A lot of Iraq is still a very, very dangerous place. It seems that either the insurgents have recognized the political capital of press-hostages, or that the criminals see the monetary capital of them. Either way, they press is being hit. It's their job to report, but remember- these people aren't in the military. They are not used to putting their lives in the hands of superiors. Neither are the majority of (non-vet) civilians on this board. I feel that this should be recognized.

2. Bad news is the best news. There's a reason bad news sells so well- it's because the audience prefers it to 'all quiet on the eastern front' news.

3. Education is nowhere near where it should be in any western country. People are not critically minded. Therefore, the above points- which SERIOUSLY effect the news coming out of Iraq- are not applied when determining how realistic the information picture on Iraq is. The average person doesn't have the critical faculties to think that way because the education system doesn't imbue them with them.

Bottom line for me: Yes, the news coming out of Iraq is sh*tty and one-sided. But also, Yes, there are some good reasons for it and Yes, it's not ONLY the AP's fault.

Again, that's Just my opinion and I apologise if I've overstepped.

Solid

**Team Sergeant** · 08-16-2005, 08:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solid

Guys,
I haven't been here in a while, so I am genuinely apologetic if this is overstepping my ... "credit" if you will, but:

Ease up on the press.

Again, that's Just my opinion and I apologise if I've overstepped.

Solid

Solid,

I hope you have "dug in" and prepared your position to include overhead cover.

Team Sergeant

**The Reaper** · 08-16-2005, 08:36

It occurs to me that if it is the media's job to question everything good, report only the bad news, and to slant reporting to make the point they want made, then it is the public's job to call them to task, demand fairness and accuracy, and criticize them openly when they fail.

You look at how the NYT, the Washington Post, LA Times, and the three major networks have regularly editorialized, minimized reporting on points they disagree with, exaggerated claims that supported their position, however dubious, and flat out made up stories. I would say that they (along with most of the rest of the mainstream media) have attempted to use their bully pulpit to propagandize and promote their leftist causes (and largely to undermine the President) in a manner of reporting fit for Josef Goebbels.

If We, The People cannot question flawed and deceptive reporting, then who will watch those who consider themselves the watchers? Do you consider the media beyond scrutiny, Sir?

I think reporting a war via third hand sources from a hotel, in Saigon or Baghdad, is not reporting, but is storytelling. If they are afraid to go out with the troops, go home and quit pretending to be a combat journalist.

TR

Solid · 08-16-2005, 09:13

TR:
I agree with you there. Those reporters who are genuinely imbedded are doing a very brave thing, and, in my eyes, the right thing. Those that are reporting 'public wisdom' from a suite, especially public wisdom which hurts a wareffort, rank low in my books. What I was really aiming to do with my argument was to play devil's advocate and point out some 'market driven' problems in reporting which are pretty hard to control for the reporters on the ground.

I also very much agree that it is the public's job, as it is in any situation, to critique the organization that they feel is doing poorly.

In hindsight, I would suggest a different angle: the job of critiquing those reports from the field should first fall to the editors and newspaper owners. While they respond to market pressures, they are also the ones who shape the news their newspapers sell. Currently, as you correctly point out, they minimize the reporting on views outside of their spectrum (like good news coming out of Iraq). If they were to make an effort to get good, high quality news which creates a better information picture on Iraq or Astan, I think that the competition would have to follow suit, as would freelance reporters etc.

Interestingly, in my studies I engaged several professors (some right, some left, most center) of public policy at my school in conversation over the general political proclivities of the media. The majority suggested that with proper critical faculties and people reading more than one news source, the view that would result would be largely centrist. The problem is that people don't necessarily have the time of proclivity to read more than one paper from a different political viewpoint- so many leftists pick their leftist rag and rightists their rightist rag and remain happily ignorant to the otherside of the story. At least, this was what the professors said.

As always, this is just my opinion, and is as ever subject to change.

Thanks for the critique TR, and TS- I'm still learning how to construct the perfect defensive perimeter, and thanks for the advise!

Have a good afternoon,

Solid

**The Reaper** · 08-16-2005, 09:28

Since I know the school you are referring to, and I went to another school in the area, let me offer that the odds of you finding a right-wing professor at that school approximates that of you striking oil in the middle of the Cameron floor.

What you are considering "rightists" are most likely centrists. The centrist are leftists, and the leftists are card carrying members of the Socialist Workers Party.

The problem with the newspaper management today is that with notable exceptions, they do not self-police unless confronted by massive fraud backed up by public outcry. If the public doesn't say anything about it, it didn't happen. Further, most of them appear to have been educated by leftist 60s nut-jobs whose defining life moment was protesting the Vietnam War and spitting on soldiers in uniform, and who could not find employment outside the academic world. This colors their perspective in everything they do. All wars are quagmires and parallels to Vietnam are immediately drawn.

TR

Solid · 08-16-2005, 09:43

Roger that, TR.

There was this Palestinian something-or-rather on campus a while back. The press loved the hell out if it, because the Jewish center on campus was pushing for it to be cancelled, there was a lot of tension.

And, of course, we were there in uniform. Reporters were drawn to us like flies to the proverbial. All of their questions were negatives, trying to get an 'official' to say something condemining the war, likening it to Vietnam, whatever it was.

I'm done playing Devil's Advocate. Yes, there are problems outside of the press themselves to do with critical analysis and the demand for bad news... but I must admit... I don't like the press one bit.

Withdrawing from the AO to work on my thesis, hope I haven't stepped on any toes in a major way. I just need to get back into the mentality of things.

Solid

Warrior-Mentor · 08-16-2005, 10:30

Look at the reporting of "news" events within CONUS. While deployed overseas, the J-2 frequently briefed crime comparisons between major US cities and Baghdad to help put things in perspective. LA and Detroit were often more dangerous than Baghad in terms of murders, etc. Stats like these don't make the press...because 20 people blown up in a car bomb is more sensational than 25 people shot dead in drug deals gone bad. Food for thought.

jasonglh · 08-16-2005, 10:44

Yesterday I ran into the guy who owns my local newspaper. I know him so I didnt feel bad at all about cornering him about the quality of the AP reports he was printing here. Funny thing is he agreed with me and showed a great disdain for the AP wire service and its reporters. Even went on a nice tirade about how lazy reporters were. He said there are no positive AP stories to print about Iraq because we would love to print them and was and still is behind our being in Iraq.

It just so happened I had a hard copy of the following article from www.strategypage.com I was taking by dads house and showed it to the newspaper owner. He personally blamed higher education to an extent for the current crop of jounalists.

Heres the article:

August 13, 2005: The U.S. Department of Defense is having problems getting their story out in Iraq. The mass media is no longer sending their first string talent there, even though Iraq still gets a lot of attention. The problem is that the place is very dangerous for journalists. If they want to get around, with a degree of safety, they have to embed (travel with an American military unit.) Some do this, but most prefer to stay in a safe zone and let Iraqi or Arab assistants go out and collect story material. Some just take whatever handouts the military offers and cobbles together stories from that. This doesn’t help the military much. The basic problem is that the reporters are looking for gloom and doom stories. That’s pretty normal anywhere, but the military knows that their combat commanders are very popular with the folks back home, and would like to get them on the evening news. Opinion surveys back in the states showed that military officers are among the most trusted groups out there (much more so than journalists.)

The solution to this problem is seen as making it easier, and safer, for more journalists to get out to where the troops are, without being embedded. Journalists don't like the embed problem, because they get to know the troops they are with too well, begin to identify with them, and have a harder time doing stories criticizing what the troops are doing. So military public affairs officers (PAOs) have asked for more “journalist support” resources. This would involve personal security for individual journalists, transportation (helicopters, armored vehicles, or even a boat), and access to an Internet link so they could upload their video. The brass are reluctant to go this route, because there are far more journalists who would ask for this, than could be accommodated (there is, after all, a war going on.) The journos who get left out will not be happy, and some of those who go will likely run anti-military stories anyway. But the PAO’s believe it should at least be tried on as large a scale as possible.

CPTAUSRET · 08-16-2005, 11:12

The war in VN in which I participated , 65-66, 68-69-70, was most certainly not the war which was reported by our media, far from it.

Specifically the Tet offensive of 68, was a complete and utter failure for Hanoi, their resources were literally decimated. They had nothing left, they left it all on the battlefield...And yet our media pronounced it a resounding defeat for our forces. Total F@CKING BULLSHIT. Giap readily admitted that fact in his book, and mentions that w/out our media and the anti war protesters his future would have looked pretty bleak (I am paraphrasing his quotes).

It is literally bullshit for a journalist to write a piece which is totally biased, and call it news, that is an "opinion piece", and it should be labeled as such.

Terry

sf11b_p · 08-16-2005, 11:41

Quote:

2. Bad news is the best news. There's a reason bad news sells so well- it's because the audience prefers it to 'all quiet on the eastern front' news.

I disagree, this is a media excuse based on crappy research. It's like saying the majority of America wants to watch trash shows like Maury and Springer or some stupid reality show of a rich spoiled brat. The loud minority want that crap, and the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

The majority accepts what it's offered or quietly goes elswhere. The public is just as ready to read and watch news of building schools and accomplishments in Iraq as watch IEDs explode. It's why blogs gained strength, people are digging for the whole story, the full picture. The media hasn't got it yet but their trashy sensationalist and biased inaccurate reporting is why they've lost the respect of their audience, it's why they're losing their audience period.

Solid · 08-16-2005, 11:47

sf11b_p,
Assuming that the majority has more money than the minority (and that's an arguable assumption, but not totally unbelievable)- wouldn't market forces correct the system so that The Real World and Doom and Gloom News are no longer the rapidly growing mainstays of television and media?

The thing that gets me is that you'd think that some news corporation, somewhere, would think: Hmm, maybe we should start reporting the news in the most unbiased fashion possible and give that Fair and Balanced thing a try?

So far, and yes I know that's the Fox News slogan, I don't think this has ever happened. Why not? What are the market forces that shape these corporate decisions?

Solid

**The Reaper** · 08-16-2005, 12:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solid

sf11b_p,
Assuming that the majority has more money than the minority (and that's an arguable assumption, but not totally unbelievable)- wouldn't market forces correct the system so that The Real World and Doom and Gloom News are no longer the rapidly growing mainstays of television and media?

The thing that gets me is that you'd think that some news corporation, somewhere, would think: Hmm, maybe we should start reporting the news in the most unbiased fashion possible and give that Fair and Balanced thing a try?

So far, and yes I know that's the Fox News slogan, I don't think this has ever happened. Why not? What are the market forces that shape these corporate decisions?

Solid

Liberal managers, taught by liberal professors, listening to liberal minorities telling them that their job is to "educate" by editorializing and "reporting" selectively. Some sort of "journalistic activism". Look at the eagerness of media personnel and outlets to report on horrific or sensational stories like "Tailwind" and the CBS Memos. Both easily proven wrong, but readily reported as fact, denied when confronted by factual evidence, then attempted to be covered up. All of the major outlets have stories like that. The late Peter Jennings was among the worst.

They are wrong, and the numbers prove it, but thus far, they are immune to logic.

Besides, until the internet, there were no alternate sources, or even a way for people to know that the news they were getting was bogus, and that many others felt the same way. Times are changing. Those who refuse to follow will go the way of the dinosaurs. The Springer crowd does not strike me as a very good demographic to appeal to.

TR