Further to this: >>As far as the other part is concerned. There is no dilemma. You are >>there to record history. not be a part of it or change it. >>I've gotten in trouble for this a few times myself.
<snip> >But that's the pretence - journalist-as-pipe. How it so often works >out is that such journalists may talk about their "sources", but to >those sources these journalists are resources, used for purposes and >ends that can be very contrary to the role of the fourth estate. The classic current case is that of Judith Miller of the New York Times and Ahmad Chalabi, and the matter of WMD. >... she [Judith Miller] gave a response that was laughable at best: >she just reports what she's told, so don't blame her or the press >for things happening you don't like. The media is neutral - they >simply report, and it is up to you to make decisions based on that >reporting. If what the press is told happens to be wrong, it is not >their fault. -- From: Chasing Judith Miller Off the Stage Derek Seidman February 20 / 22, 2004 http://www.counterpunch.org/seidman02202004.html Ahmad Chalabi, head of the Iraqi National Congress group of defectors and exiles, was accused in Jordan of bank fraud, embezzlement and currency manipulation involving millions and barely escaped before Jordanian authorities could arrest him; in 1992, he was convicted and sentenced in absentia to 22 years' hard labor. Jordan has demanded his extradition but the US refuses to turn him over. >"Chalabi has provided most of the front page exclusives on WMD to >our paper." - New York Times reporter Judith Miller -- From: Now They Tell Us By Michael Massing The New York Review of Books: February 26, 2004 http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16922 >... Times reporters and editors bear a heavy responsibility, as far >back as September 2002, for having raised the nuclear specter that >could materialize in the form of a "mushroom cloud." National >Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and Vice President Dick Cheney >took some of their talk-show lines on the nuclear danger from the >Times article of Sept. 8, 2002 by Judith Miller and Michael Gordon, >"US Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts." Moreover, over >the years, the Times had frequently reported that the threat from >Iraq's biological and chemical weapons programs was real and >ominous. Defectors and exile groups, such as the Iraqi National >Congress led by Ahmad Chalabi, were prime sources for the Times. ... >Incredibly, nevertheless, Miller places the onus on U.S. >intelligence for the gross discrepancies between what she reported >on Iraqi WMD before the war, and the largely blank sheet of the >Iraqi Survey Group submitted by David Kay: "The fact that the United >States so far hasn't found WMD in Iraq is deeply disturbing," she >told Michael Massing in his article "Now They Tell Us," in the New >York Review of Books (Feb. 26). "It raises real questions about how >good our intelligence was. To beat up on the messenger is to miss >the point." This from a messenger who, in 2002-2003, persisted in >publishing shaky and deceptive information that abetted the designs >of her high-level administration and INC sources. -- From: 'NY Times' Fails to Acknowledge Its Role in WMD Hype - The Paper of Record Blames Intelligence and Administration, but any Indictment of the National Press is Missing by William E. Jackson Jr. Editor and Publisher February 20, 2004 http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0220-04.htm >On CNN's Late Edition, Condoleezza Rice said ... "We don't want the >smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" - a phrase lifted directly from >the Times. -- From: Now They Tell Us >The INC's intelligence "isn't reliable at all," according to Vincent >Cannistraro, a former CIA chief of counterterrorism. "Much of it is >propaganda. Much of it is telling the Defense Department what they >want to hear, using alleged informants and defectors who say what >Chalabi wants them to say, [creating] cooked information that goes >right into presidential and vice presidential speeches." -- From: The Lie Factory By Robert Dreyfuss and Jason Vest January/February 2004 Issue http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2004/01/12_405.html Nothing new there - the C.I.A. had mistrusted Chalabi for at least eight years. In 1996 the agency cut off the millions of dollars a year it was secretly funnelling to the I.N.C. essentially because it had doubts about Chalabi's integrity. >An Iraqi leader accused of feeding faulty pre-war intelligence to >Washington said yesterday his information about Saddam Hussein's >weapons, even if discredited, had achieved the aim of persuading >America to topple the dictator. ... Ahmad Chalabi, ... by far the >most effective anti-Saddam lobbyist in Washington, shrugged off >charges that he had deliberately misled US intelligence. "We are >heroes in error," he told the Telegraph in Baghdad. "As far as we're >concerned we've been entirely successful. That tyrant Saddam is gone >and the Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before is not >important. The Bush administration is looking for a scapegoat. We're >ready to fall on our swords if he wants." -- From: Chalabi stands by faulty intelligence that toppled Saddam's regime By Jack Fairweather in Baghdad and Anton La Guardia Telegraph 19/02/2004 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$5RM3YWKKUZDFXQFI QMGSFFOAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2004/02/19/wirq19.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/02/ 19/ixworld.html >... Miller, on the other hand, risks playing with the kind of fire >that starts or justifies wars, gets people killed and plays into the >hands of government officials with partisan axes to grind. ... Good >journalism is about a lot more than taking advantage of connections >and access. It requires going wherever the reporting takes you. Even >if that means the story ends up not on the front page but on the >spike. -- From: 'Scoops' and Truth at the Times By Russ Baker, The Nation June 9, 200 http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16121 >Miller's modus operandi is described by several Times sources as the >following: She cultivates senior officials using the importance of >the Times. The officials give her a story, she reports it >uncritically (she may note opposing views, which she overrides with >friendly sources without reporting out the discordant objections), >and it appears prominently in the newspaper of record. Miller's >happy, her editors are happy, her sources are happy. Thus, she >continues to prosper, the sources keep calling her back, she keeps >getting published, and the editors like her because she "delivers." >This system was summed up for me by a Timesman as: "a neat little >eco-system of corrupt journalism." This systemic problem at the >Times was also described to me as "journalistic materialism." Miller >has delivered "exclusives," even if in a prosecutorial, >hyperventilated voice. And now no one wants to admit that those >exclusives were in the main part wrong. -- From: Miller's Star Fades (Slightly) at 'NY Times' By William E. Jackson, Jr. OCTOBER 02, 2003 Editor & Publisher http://www.editorandpublisher.com/editorandpublisher/headlines/article _display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1991338 Not at all an isolated case, more like the rule, if in a somewhat extreme form. Miller keeps her job and hasn't even been censured, though "she has been put on a tighter leash, and her copy is carefully edited through the investigative desk by a new editor". Ahmad Chalabi is still on the Pentagon's payroll, according to Knight-Ridder. Chalabi's so-called intelligence service, the "Intelligence Collection Program," is getting $3-4 million a year from the Pentagon. I guess it'll stop him cheating banks, if not reporters. And presidents. Best Keith >Hi MM > >> >That's an old myth, Fred, and much as the entire media establishment >> >strives to maintain it, it's a myth nonetheless. You must be >> >objective, hm? How're you going to manage that? And Heisenberg >> >doesn't apply to journalists, we're not part of what we observe, we >> >stand aloof and play no role in it other than merely to record, a >> >mere conduit, a pipe - what a joke! >> >>Some followup thoughts on this very interesting post of yours. I >>don't have a sense if the previous poster really warranted the whole >>thing being directed at what he was saying, but in this case no >>matter. > >Well, just briefly, what he said was this: > >>As far as the other part is concerned. There is no dilemma. You are >>there to record history. not be a part of it or change it. >>I've gotten in trouble for this a few times myself. > >So it seems like he's a member of the profession, yet he's still >promoting this specious cop-out view - "gotten in trouble"? You have >to make your decisions and stand your ground, fight for it if you >have to, and if they show you the door, you walk - not just avoid >getting into trouble. That exactly is the trouble - the whole thing >is polluted by blame-avoidance. > >>My thoughts are to what you were saying: >> >>In addition to what you've said, there is another way to see this: >>turn it around and try projecting a story where one makes absolutely >>no decisions, has no input, basically does nothing. I don't think >>it's really possible. > >But that's the pretence - journalist-as-pipe. How it so often works >out is that such journalists may talk about their "sources", but to >those sources these journalists are resources, used for purposes and >ends that can be very contrary to the role of the fourth estate. > >>Story choice (what is a story, what is >>newsworthy, what's crap) is perhaps the most important thing of all, >>and perhaps the first thing before anything else, and how do you do a >>story without choosing what the story is? >> >>But beyond this, I think there's a trend in philosophy and >>intellectualism and policy-criticism toward defining a "hands-off" >>view (in politics... laissez-faire.... in morality perhaps this would >>be let-others-alone) as a do-nothing view. But this is *wrong*. For >>want of better words, I think someone should be "pro-active" in >>journalism and politics. > >Of course. > >>But, of course, this is super-dangerous. > >Yup. > >>What if they are "proactive in politics in a way that enslaves me, for >>example? > >This is the question in all the professions, no? It's the same issue >we were discussing recently over ethics and the commercial >production of biodiesel. What it boils down to is that most people >can't or won't do ethics because it means taking responsibility in >circumstances where you can't be certain of the outcome. Hence >"morals", a set of rules you can follow where if it comes out wrong >at least you can say "But I did the right thing, it's not my fault." > >In fact I think most people could do ethics, but it's not >encouraged, or rather it's positively discouraged. > >>So, what I mean is sort of that I don't define what I want from a >>Politician, or somebody else that I employ, that they should sit and >>do absolutely zero to avoid doing anything wrong, and only to do what >>they're told. So, we have this trend toward saying.. ok, they haven't >>been an adulterer, they haven't embezzled, therefor they're 'good'. >>Nope. >> >>I'd rather see them try to figure out what their job is, and to come >>up with some ideas, to discuss them, to be an adult and admit when >>some of them don't turn out good, and then to take the good ones and >>try to implement them. >> >>In journalism, this is sort of why I voiced that I don't think USA >>Today's recent coverage of some energy policy issues sucks.... because >>I think there is some ethic at that publication (perhaps I'm wrong) of >>trying to figure out what a story is before they're "told".... of >>trying to ask some questions and seeing what comes of it. Nothing >>interesting? Ok, throw it away. Something interesting? Ok, bring it >>out. Hard to define "interesting". Ok, so, that will take some work. >> >>This, I think, is how to get a story. Waiting to be told by the >>E-channel that some alleged celebrity has allegedly done some >>supposedly scandalous thing, and then rushing over to cover it with >>1000 other people is not my idea of the whole story in journalism, >>though undboutedly being responsive to demand, if there is some demand >>for that story, is part of it. > >Again, "demand" is not some given that exists in a vacuum, it's >created and manipulated. > >To go back to this: > >>Story choice (what is a story, what is >>newsworthy, what's crap) is perhaps the most important thing of all, >>and perhaps the first thing before anything else, and how do you do a >>story without choosing what the story is? > >So who chooses? Journalists do choose, yes, or it's decided at the >daily news conference and the journalists are told what to do. But >who really sets the agenda of what's "news" and what's not? >Blame-avoidance at every level is a major factor. For instance, >there's the fear of what the opposition will do - which stories >they'll choose and how they'll run them. I've seen the definition of >news described like this: "But the Post didn't have it." Or, worse, >"The Post had it, why didn't we?" I once (more than that) saw >Britain's two big tabloids running their first editions with >opposite angles of the main story of the day, and in the second >edition each had adopted the other's initial angle. > >I once heard an anguished cry from a news editor under deadline >pressure: "The Government Information Services line is down - how >the f*** am I going to produce the paper??" Disgraceful! Another >news editor got a call at midnight on New Year's Eve from one of his >reporters, off-duty and in town to celebrate, to say the crowds >packing the narrow streets in the main entertainment area had got >out of control and a whole bunch of people had been crushed to death >- but he didn't believe her because there'd been nothing from the >police. He didn't believe his own reporter on the scene, because it >didn't have an official stamp on it. > >This kind of pressure has become much more severe as newspaper >ownership has become more concentrated and more corporate. (Fox and >the Bovine Growth Hormone story, eg.) > >"Competition" with television doesn't help either, or at least the >way it's often approached doesn't help. I posted this some time ago: > >>Not that paper is immune. A while back I was working for a >>newspaper quite widely known as "the best newspaper in the world" >>(though that caused a lot of in-house chuckles and puzzlement). One >>day a page from The Spectator appeared on the notice board, with an >>article written by someone who'd proposed writing an obituary for >>our paper's weekly medical page. The man who'd died was a prominent >>scientist who'd made a significant medical breakthrough, and the >>one who wanted to write his obit had worked with him at the time >>and knew him well. The medical editor asked him: "Have you been on >>television?" He hadn't - why did she ask? She'd been instructed not >>to accept contributions from non-journalists who were not "media >>personalities". > >Aarghhh!! Hence "infotainment". > >So when it comes to deciding what's "news" and what's a "story" what >you're left with, largely, is a vacuum. And my, what it sucks in! >According to Stauber and Rampton, 50% of the *news* items in the US >mainstream press originate in a PR agency's office. I find it easy >to accept that figure. It's easy to do this. Get a talking head with >a suit and a doctorate, get some half-decent looking letterheads and >post and fax an announcement for a "news conference"... There's a >formula, all you have to do is follow it. "But it's not my fault, >he's a scientist!" > >It's perhaps no mere coincidence that it's a perfect scenario for >the soundbyte "science" of the neo-conservative and "Wise Use" >think-tanks funded by the rightwing foundations, on the one hand, >and on the other, the completely predictable gross narrowing of >focus and the failure to ask the right questions (or any questions) >in the US media that since Sept 11 has seen millions of Americans >seeking their news elsewhere, overseas, via the Internet, and many >millions more being led up the garden path in prescribed ignorance - >"ignorance" very much being not what you don't know, but what you >think you know that's wrong. And of course the vested interests get >to have it their way, they get the plain sailing craved by their >bottom-lines. > >Sure, there are many exceptions, but, honourable though they be, >that's all they are, exceptions. There's no sign of anything that >might break this log-jam, or at least not within the media, but very >hopeful signs in the two-edged freedoms of the Internet. > >That's a sort of macro-view, but there's another side to it. It's >quite interesting what journalists say about feedback to their work. >Especially prior to the Internet, it could be difficult or >impossible to tell what effect a story might have, and so easy, if >painful, to conclude that it didn't have any effect. But so many >times I've seen old newsroom cynics having to eat their words after >sneering at young reporters still labouring under alleged illusions >that they can make a change. "Maybe there's ONE person who'll read >your story and be changed by it," was what I told young journalists >I was training. "And probably you'll never know it, but don't let >that stop you." I told them what my teacher had taught me - drummed >into me: "When you've got all your facts, you're ready to write the >story, you put the sheet of paper in your typewriter - stop, ask >yourself: 'Why am I writing this?' If you don't have a good answer, >don't do it until you find one. 'The news editor told me to' is not >a good answer." > >I gave one trainee an assignment to investigate factory accidents, a >sort of ongoing bloodbath in that city. She turned out to be a >really good researcher, good sense of pattern, she could weave >things together. But the other reporters told her the set of stories >she was writing were too long, it was boring, nobody would read >it... Don't listen, I said, just do it, you'll see. Then it was >published, a whole broadsheet page. The next day she came leaping >across to my desk, totally thrilled - a man who owned a string of >factories had called her, asked a lot of questions, and kept >thanking her because she'd given him lots of ideas on how he could >improve safety for his workers. Wow - that doesn't happen often! But >it does happen, even if you don't get to hear of it. > >So in another sense, regardless of how insignificant the exceptions >who do take responsibility and do ethical journalism might appear >compared with the monolithic might of the mainstream press, that's >no way to judge it. They're not insignificant, they're most >important - and somewhere in there lies the straw that will break >the stranglehold the powers-that-be think they hold on our >information. Yes, OUR information, NOT theirs, regardless of who >"pays" for it. > >I can't think of an area where all this is more pertinent than in >energy issues and alternatives today. As we can see, right here, all >the time. > >regards > >Keith > > >>Journalists make subjective >> >decisions about what to write, what to write about, what not to write >> >about, what's "relevant" and what's not, all the time, they do little >> >else, whether they do it in conformance with media precepts and holy >> >writ or not... and indeed it changes the outcome. Many journalists >> >like the myth because it means no can for them to carry, the buck >> >doesn't stop with them, they think. Many others, especially since we >> >had all this out (again) in the 60s and 70s, are aware that the true >> >role of the Fourth Estate is not served but rather obstructed by the >> >required "objectivity", the journalist-as-pipe approach, and have >> >both developed better ways and practised them, despite usually less >> >than cosy relations with the likes of news editors (the reason about >> >two-thirds of my working career has been as a freelancer). >> > >> >The back cover of Harold Evans's "Pictures on a page" has the >> >headline: "Why is the girl in the centre smiling?" Below that is a >> >photograph of a bunch of people on a beach, worried onlookers >> >surrounding lifesavers and a medic treating a man lying unconscious >> >on the sand, and the girl, kneeling beside him, smiling up at the >> >camera. The caption: "Her fiance lies at death's door after being >> >rescued from the sea. She smiles because she saw a press cameraman >> >and knew her picture was going in the papers. The way >> >photo-journalism changes - as well as reflects - the world we see is >> >one of the themes of this fascinating book." >> > >> >>In Bush's case the best shot has to be as he goes under for the last >> >>time. >> > >> >You'd wait for the "best" shot? >> > >> >>Best Regards >> >>Fred >> >> >> >>On Wednesday, Feb 18, 2004, at 20:14 US/Eastern, Appal Energy wrote: >> >> >> >> > Actually, there is a third answer to this... >> > >> >What is it, Todd? Here's one possible third answer - I'm a lousy >> >swimmer. And a fourth - journalist or not, I wouldn't take pictures >> >of someone drowning, no matter who it was. Yet... as always, it >> >depends... I have a file of most ghoulish and brutal photographs >> >here, from all over the world, used in a 1991 campaign by Amnesty, >> >very effective. "Only one power in the world is strong enough to say >> >to the world's governments 'I will no longer allow this to >> >happen.'... That power is public opinion." >> > >> >Hence perhaps the need to keep it shackled. "The 20th century has >> >been characterized by three developments of great political >> >importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, >> >and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting >> >corporate power against democracy." -- Alex Carey, Australian social >> >scientist >> > >> >Regards >> > >> >Keith >> > >> > >> > >> >> > ............................ >> >> > >> >> > Moral Dilemma... >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > This test only has one question, but it's a very important one. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Please don't answer it without giving it some serious thought. By >> >> > giving an >> >> > honest answer you will be able to ascertain where you stand morally. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > The test features an unlikely, completely fictional situation, where >> >> > you >> >> > will have to make a decision one way or the other. Remember that your >> >> > answer >> >> > should to be honest, yet spontaneous. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Please scroll down slowly and consider each line - this is important >> >> > for the >> >> > test to work accurately. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > You're in Florida. In Miami, to be exact. There is great chaos going >> >> > on >> >> > around you, caused by a hurricane and severe floods. There are huge >> >> > masses >> >> > of water all around you. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > You are an Associated Press photographer and you are in the middle of >> >> > this >> >> > great disaster. The situation is nearly hopeless. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > You're trying to shoot very impressive photos. There are houses >> >> > afloat all >> >> > around, people floating disappearing into the water. Nature is showing >> >> > all >> >> > its awesome power. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Suddenly you see a man in the water - he is fighting for his life, >> >> > trying >> >> > not to be taken away by the masses of water and mud. You move closer. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Somehow the man looks familiar. Suddenly you know who it is - it's >> >> > George W. >> >> > Bush! >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > At the same time you notice that the raging waters are about to take >> >> > him >> >> > away, forever. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > You have two options. You can save him or you can take the best photo >> >> > of >> >> > your life. You can't do both. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > You can either save the life of George W. Bush, or you can shoot a >> >> > Pulitzer >> >> > Prize winning photo, a unique photo chronicling one of the world's most >> >> > powerful men in a battle against the power of nature itself. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Here's the question (please give an honest answer): >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Would you select color film, or instead go for the simplicity of >> >> > classic >> >> > black and white? Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
