Thursday, December 14, 2006

Our Cowardly Media

Glen Greenwald bemoans the total lack of adversarial press in America. He points to yesterday's New York Times article about the Holocaust denial conference in Iran as an example of what they should do on domestic stories as well. The Times bravely takes a stand against Holocaust denial:

The two-day meeting included no attempt to come to terms with the nature of the well-documented Nazi slaughter, offering only a platform to those pursuing the fantasy that it never happened.


Here's Greenwald:

The media abdicates its function, and becomes a propaganda arm of the government, when it simply repeats verifiably false Government claims without pointing out, as the Times did with respect to holocaust denial arguments, that the statements are false and objectively contradicted by clear evidence. And our media does that all the time.

It fails in its function to report objectively when it simply conveys claims from the Government that we invaded Iraq once Saddam refused to allow inspectors, that Democrats oppose eavesdropping on terrorists (rather than oppose eavesdropping without warrants), that Saddam Hussein worked with Al Qaeda, that Denny Hastert forced Mark Foley to resign once he learned about his IMs with pages, that the President only decided to fire Rumsfeld after the midterm election, etc...

There were many times, in 2002 and 2003, when I read The New York Times in hard-copy form delivered to my door, where the entire front page would be nothing but articles which began with "The Bush administration yesterday said" or "A senior administration official told The New York Times yesterday that . . . " And the story wasn't just that "the Government said X." The story was "X" itself, reported as fact, with the only source being what the Government said (a classic case of such "reporting" is here, from the Post). That is when the media is indistinguishable, by definition, from Pravda.


The old joke is that if Bush said the Earth is flat, the Times would write, "Earth Flat? View Differ."

One of his commenters imagines what the Times or Washington Post would print if Bush denied the Holocaust:

The politically charged controversy over whether Nazi Germany engaged in the large-scale killing of European Jews during World War II, an alleged historical event referred to as the "Holocaust" by those who believe it occurred, became the subject of partisan bickering after a reporter asked President Bush for his view on the subject. Never afraid to take a stand, the president stated firmly that "If the Nazis were really killin' all them Jews, my granddaddy wouldn't have stood for it."

Democrats eagerly pounced on Bush's statement in an effort to score political points by claiming that the "Holocaust" did in fact occur and is well documented. But the president's press secretary countered that some people also believe evolution is well documented, even though the jury is still out. Senator Joseph Lieberman, who is Jewish, said that he personally believes that the "Holocaust" may have occurred, but warned Democrats not to "play politics" with the issue by criticizing the Commander in Chief in a time of war. Lieberman also pointed to Bush's support for Israel as evidence of the president's high regard for Jews, notwithstanding the "honest difference of opinion" regarding the fate of some Jews many years ago.

Also disagreeing with Bush was Sophie Wasserman, 89, who claimed to have personally witnessed the murder of her husband and children in a Nazi "concentration camp" in the German city of Dachau. However, conservative humorist Ann Coulter disputed Wasserman's account. Coulter, using her trademark tongue-in-cheek cleverness, described Wasserman as a "vicious, senile whore" whose husband and children "probably committed suicide to get away from her."

7 comments:

Ezzie said...

I really don't get this post.

Jewish Atheist said...

The media should tell us when politicians are lying rather than simply giving us "both sides."

Can you elaborate on what you're not getting?

Anonymous said...

I don't get this post either. Nor do I get your reply to Ezzie. If the point of the post is what you said it was then it certainly is a round about way of saying it.

You are obviously trying to persuade us of something. If your readers don't get the post because you haven't explained it, then what's the point of posting it?

So how can you put the burden on good ole Ezzie to say what he doesn't get. You're the blogger, right? The blogger's job is to tell us what we're supposed to get.

When you say that the media should tell us when politicians lie, you certainly can't mean they've been kowtowing to Bush. So do you mean that they should tell us when Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin, etc. lie? Because they're a bit remiss in that category.

To elaborate on what I, at least, don't get is (a) why you take Greenwald, much less his commenters, seriously, and (b) why you don't think the comment on Greenwald's post isn't a cheap shot.

If you're going to post a criticism of Bush. please make sure it's for what he's done, not for what someone hypothesizes he might have done if only he had done it. If you're going to criticize the media, criticize them for what they actually did or didn't do, not for what someone suspects they would have done if only they had done it.

On the other hand, there's plenty to criticize the media for, like CBS's forged documents about Bush, AP's apparently phony stories about Iraq, Reuters's false photography, Mark Halperin's ABC memo about helping Kerry win the election, etc. etc. Somehow though I suspect that's not what Greenwald or his commenter had in mind.

Another anon

Jewish Atheist said...

The media should call out all politicians of any political party when they lie. Moreover, they should stop simply printing whatever the White House tells them to. ("Officials say..." followed by a whole article, reported as fact.) I would add that they shouldn't print corporate PR either, which they do way too much of.

I don't get what you aren't getting.

Random said...

Can't speak for the others, but what I'm not getting is the implication that the New York Times of all papers is some sort of partisan mouthpiece of the Bush administration. If that is what Greenwald is saying then just how far left does he have to be to believe that?

And as for the media reporting what the government does, what it says it does, and what it says about what it does - I'd rather have a clear and dispassionate elucidation of as many of the facts available as possible than reams of "BUSH LIED TO US AGAIN YESTERDAY" style coverage. Comment and opinion pieces are where that sort of analysis should go on, factual articles should stick to telling us what happened and what was said.

Chana said...

That last comment about what they would print if Bush denied the Holocaust is utterly HILARIOUS in a sick, sad way.

This is a good post. Unfortunately, people shy away from absolute truths-even when they are facts! I suppose my fact is different than your fact. You live on a world that is round. I'm living on the square one. I guess. ;)

Jewish Atheist said...

Can't speak for the others, but what I'm not getting is the implication that the New York Times of all papers is some sort of partisan mouthpiece of the Bush administration.

It's not that they are partisan; it's that they go so far to appear unbiased that they neglect to call the administration out on utter bullshit. Greenwald links to several examples, but this much should be obvious to any remotely impartial observer. They chearleaded up to the war (apologizing only later when it was obvious public opinion was going against it) for one important example.

I know righties believe the big newspapers in America are liberal, and they may have a point w/r/t some social issues like gay marriage, but they are absolutely non-partisan with reporting. The point is, they are non-partisan to a fault -- if one side lies or misleads, they will too often simply report "the other side claims the first side is lying" and not address the facts.

Comment and opinion pieces are where that sort of analysis should go on, factual articles should stick to telling us what happened and what was said.

I'm asking for factual articles rather than "top Administration officials say Iraq is great and the flowers are blooming!"


Chana:

That last comment about what they would print if Bush denied the Holocaust is utterly HILARIOUS in a sick, sad way.

I agree! I almost didn't post it because it's so over-the-top, particularly the knock on Lieberman. But can't you just see Coulter writing that?