A 'Professional' Job

There was a riot this week in Afghanistan; one which resulted in a lot of Afghani deaths and one which was sparked by a Newsweek report of a Koran being put into a Guantanamo Bay toilet.

It turns out, however, that the incident was not verified, and that Newsweek is forced to tender an apology.

Newsweek magazine said on Sunday it erred in a May 9 report that U.S. interrogators desecrated the Koran at Guantanamo Bay, and apologized to the victims of deadly Muslim protests sparked by the article.

Editor Mark Whitaker said the magazine inaccurately reported that U.S. military investigators had confirmed that personnel at the detention facility in Cuba had flushed the Muslim holy book down the toilet.

Of course, Newsweek/MSNBC and the authors of the article--Michael Isikoff and John Barry--€”are being denounced far and wide for the deaths resulting from the riots (which are still going on). Isikoff and Barry certainly deserve the shellacking they are getting and will get.

I’ve been saying for a while now that the leftwing media has it in for the military. They condescended to military members before last year'€™s election: "poor little GIs; they know not what they do." However, since they were unable to peel off a significant portion of George W. Bush's majority approval among veterans, the media disdain for GIs has lost its passive-aggressive flavor and taken on a more overt form of hostility.

Publishing a report on an unverified desecration of Islam'€™s holy scripture was merely a tool meant to undermine the military'€™s mission in the War on Terror(ists) and thereby discredit the war's author, the president. But like many tools wielded by unskilled "€œwarriors," it missed the mark and hit the wrong targets: at least 15 Afghanis, now dead.

Nice shooting, clowns.

Note to those who are blowing the intentions of the "€œreligious right"€ out of proportion: if Christians were to riot the next time some so-called artist puts a crucifix in a bucket full of urine, that would be religious extremism and then it would be time to worry about Christians. Wake me when it happens.

(Thanks to that heathen, Acidman, who has seen what's behind the J-School curtain)

UPDATE: Roundups:

La Shawn Barber

Tom Maguire

Michelle Malkin

Comments

[Acidman]

I am NOT a "heathen." I am a despicable piece of scum with a remarkable ability to piss people off, but I am NOT a heathen.

Okay...maybe I AM a heathen. But I'm a GOOD one.

[me2ewe]

What an incredible story. Newsweek should be tried for treason.

Nice new photo on your homepage, baldilocks! You look so full of fun. :)

[www.deadissue.com]

Mistakes happen. This type of mistake should never.

The myth at play though is that there's a higher 'liberal' agenda pervading the media. A bomb goes off in Iraq killing 30, the headline reporting that it happened isn't 'liberal', but true. Someone like Bill O'Rieley would have me think that to report it is wrong or negative, but I'm not buying it.

It's a ploy to allow anyone who doesn't want to believe a story they read to be able to shrug their shoulders and say, 'eh, must be the liberal media'...it's a crutch.

[cthulhu]

A great, and insightful, comment: "Nice shooting, clowns." Does anyone else see the parallel between the MSM and the Iraqi "insurgency"? Both with Newsweek and with Zarqawi, there is much sound and fury railing against the US military, US culture, and US actions overseas after 9/11. When it comes down to it, however, the people dying are the locals.

Clearly, both groups forget Mao's recommendation about "transforming the great masses of the poor peasants into the ocean in which the revolutionary fish could swim." I suppose when you inhabit such rarefied clouds of intellectualism the seas of common people seem very far away.

[StinKerr]

deadissue,

Sometimes it's the stories that don't get reported, sometimes it's the juxtaposition of the headlines. Today I saw one from AP: "30 bodies found; Rice visits Iraq". It almost suggests that Condi Rice was responsible for killing those people, doesn't it?

I've read stories about Iraqis voting in Detroit that was giving body counts in Iraq before the 2nd paragraph. That's just AP. I don't bother with Reuters any more. They're as bad as, if not worse than, the BBC.

They'll gleefully tell you that George Voinovich called John Bolton a "bully" and "mistreated his subordinates" but they won't tell you that when he was Governor of Ohio, Voinovich was fined by the FAA for cursing at his pilot and air controllers and demanded that his aircraft take off while all flights were grounded because President Clinton was flying in the area. Sometimes what they leave out is as important as what they tell you.

When was the last time you saw an MSM story about somthing good happening in Iraq or Afghanistan?

How about the LATimes editing out pertinent information in a story about the investigation of that Italian journalist's lies? They edited out the part that said satellite observations showed the car was traveling in excess of 60mph. That tidbit only supported the claims of U.S. forces at the checkpoint. Can't have that, can we? No agenda there. Move along, folks.

[Maggie]

N E W S W E A K.

[Ash]

A pox on those of you so up in arms over the Newsweek article, unless........you were as incensed over the Abu Graib photos.

Only you, and you in your heart of hearts can answer that.

Many incidents have caused Afghanis to hate us. Newsweek is just the latest provocateur.

[Mike]

Newsweek goofs - about 16 people die. A few weeks ago, Reuters tipped the enemy off about a raid to try to release some hostages. A lot more people died because of that.

As for Abu Ghraib, a lot of soldiers - including officers, all the way up to a General - have been court-martialed, disciplined or demoted. You will never ever see the same thing happen on the other side.

[baldilocks]

Ash,

Refresh my memory: how many people died again from the Abu Ghraib shenanigans?

And I don't have to search "my heart" about Abu Ghraib; merely my blog. Here's a clue, not that you'll take it: panties over the head do not equal deaths.

A pox on your moral equivalence.

[Silicon Valley Jim]

Mistakes happen. This type of mistake should never.

Agreed. It was, I think, foreseeable that this story would set off rioting; therefore, the standards for its evidence should be much higher than those for a piece on, for example, the acquisition of one corporation by another.

[DaveP.]

Mistake? it was a weakly-sourced, poorly-supported but emotionally-charged report that was highly critical of the American armed forces and (by extension) the Bush administration; when has publishing such a thing EVER been a problem or even remarkable before?

NEWSWEEK: We're not anti-Bush; we just hate our country.

[www.deadissue.com]

Why shouldn't Newsweek be forced to pay a fine in the millions if a radio personality has to pay higher fines for slipping up and saying a dirty word? One equals dead Americans while the other simply pisses Americans off.

Right now there's a divide where the people who disagree with us are oppresing us, but the corporations who bend us over and have their way are just taking care of business. It has nothing to do with liberal or conservative, but with size and power. Newsweek, the WSJ, NYT, CNN or FoxNews can tell a lie that misinformes public opinion and it's not punnishable within our society - yet the exposing of the nipple of a deranged woman who comes from a deranged family manages to launch a real movement in our country.

The politicians don't want the lies to be punnished all of a sudden, but can get votes in sensationalizing the impact of being 'offended', so they do.

So while we rightly decry the effect a story that contains a lie has on our safety abroad - we'll get selective with the rest of the stories that contain lies depending on liberal or conservative. We'll start assuming that one branch of media that doesn't reflect our point of view is inherently biased, and by doing so, merely allowing more stories like the Newsweek one to happen again in the future.

The AP headlines...I understand what you're saying baldilocks, but when complaining about a lack of positive stories, the question 'why?' bears an easy answer and it has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. Corporate news organizations here in America...FoxNews comes to mind, COULD go over there and cover the war, but doesn't want to spend the money it takes to do so.

The positive stories are out there. This is true, but to not go over there and seek them out and then just label the entire enterprise 'liberal' is dishonest. If AP, LA Times, NYT, WSJ and Reuters are sending their employees into that region but FoxNews isn't...shouldn't we be forcing these news outlets who are complaining to forego the profit margin and actually do the job that 'news' requires?

Complaints with no action are hollow. We as citizens should demand more from our leaders and our media. Lies should be punnished, and organizations making money off of us should actually have to do their jobs.

[karrde]

Deadissue:

Complaints with no action are hollow. We as citizens should demand more from our leaders and our media. Lies should be punnished, and organizations making money off of us should actually have to do their jobs.

So, are you going to call Newsweek and verbally tear a new orifice in their posterior?

[www.deadissue.com]

In response to the accertion that no one died in Abu Gharib...there have been detainees who have died in that prison and other American-run prisons in the middle east. It's wrong, and the coverage of it in the media isn't biased, but representative of our laws and the violation of those laws by the military.

Actions can be ordered and condoned for a year and when the lid gets blown off, it's only the soldiers who get thrown under the bus. To me, that's the story and that's what's wrong here. If policymakers pressure soldiers on the ground or recruiters to 'get the numbers' or 'get the information'...those people will try to do what their country needs. Everyone in uniform wants to do a good job.

When we consider the Abu Gharib coverage 'liberal' or biased, we're choosing the estabishment over our brothers and sisters in uniform who in a lot of instances were only an effect of a cause that lies in higher positions within our government. Higher than General Karpinski...I'm sure of that.

We can't support the troops only until the safety of our politics get in the way.

[www.deadissue.com]

Karrde - I'm writing a letter to William Delahunt, my rep in the House, asking that legislation be drawn up to demand accuracy in the media.

Calling Newsweek won't accomplish a thing.

[cris]

Yes, calling Newsweek won't accomplish anything. BUT! Emailing their advertisers will. Let them know you won't support them if they support Newsweek. Enough is enough. Send MSM a message. Take down Newsweek

[www.deadissue.com]

cris - as long as the magazine sells and the movement gains little traction, the bottom line won't be effected.

The venue for enacting actual change in our country is through our government's leaders. The tactic you're advocating does work in some instances, but in this one it will not as the media is all in it together, and unless the cable news and radio nation jumps on board, it'll go nowhere.

If the government says it's wrong for newsweek to lie, then it's also wrong for FoxNews and CNN to lie...and those outlets' ability to lie is in the politician's interests.

[Jason Turner]

I just wanted to see if you knew about the Army's Strategic Studies Institute. They have a lot of interesting studies with range of broad view points. They also offer research provided by the up and coming Colonels of the military.

http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi

[ash]

Refresh my memory: how many people died again from the Abu Ghraib shenanigans?

Well baldilocks that would be hard to ascertain. How can either of us presume to know which suicide car bomber was inspired by the Abu Ghraib shenanigans? (I assume you use this word in the treacherous definition. I'm sure you haven't written it off as mere trickery or mischief or simply nonsense). How many insurgents were reinvigorated by these cowardly actions?

So you see it is a little more than a black and white issue.

BTW Newsweek was right anyway as reports are developing. See this sight:

http://rawstory.com/exclusives/newsweek_koran_report_516.htm

Newsweek may have been guilty of rushing to report with only 1 source, but it is apparent they didn't lie.

[StinKerr]

deadissue,

You seem to have a problem with Fox News. That's fine, but you seem to be sadly mistaken in some of your assertions. Ollie North and Orlando Celenas(sp?) are presently in Iraq. North is with the Marines on their operation in the northwest. I'm not sure where Celenas is. It seems that Fox is always rotating their reporters into Iraq and are frequently (almost daily) airing live reports from the field.

Most of the AP stories that I read about Iraq are written by local stringers in Iraq. They get on the phone and call someone in the area where there is action and ask what's happening. NOT a reliable source of news.

I'd also like to see an example of the Fox lies to which you aver.

I realize that from some people's perspective the attempt to always balance debate between two sides is a far right concept.

[ash]

As for Abu Ghraib, a lot of soldiers - including officers, all the way up to a General - have been court-martialed, disciplined or demoted. You will never ever see the same thing happen on the other side.

Mike,

I guess we will have to wait and see won't we? Otherwise we will be guilty of jumping to conclusions without facts. Which is what you are blaming the Newsweek reporter for. So that would be a tad hypocritical, no?

See above post and link since it appears Newsweek was right after all, even though sloppy proceedures got them there.

[jeff]

It's the MSM's paleoliberal, noble savage view of the Third World. When Muslims went on a bloody anti-Christian pogrom in Nigeria over the Miss Universe pageant, liberals blamed the pageant for being disrespectful of other cultures.

What would they say if Christians in Manhattan slaughtered non-Christians over Terrence McNally's Corpus of Jesus Christ?

Also, note the liberal canard that it was Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount that provoked the intifada, which excuses Arafat, who planned the intifada, & the Palestinians who perpetrated it

Q: How many military members do you think the average MSM journalist knows? Even in Baghdad, they prefer writing safe, by-the-numbers bombing pieces from the Baghdad Hilton, because otherwise they could get HURT

[www.deadissue.com]

On FoxNews's lies - I will go from memory here:

Following Terri Shiavo's death, when the memo surfaced, both Sean Hannity and Brit Hume reported it to be a fake. Untrue.

Sheppard Smith reported that the pope had died when he in fact hadn't.

Bill O'Rieley (lies on a regular basis) recently claimed that the 'Real ID Act' passed the senate 100-0...I saw all of the debate on CSPAN and the Act was only an attachment to the emergency spending bill.

O'Rieley generally stretches the truth when it provides an opportunity to claim that what he's been saying on the show has had a profound effect on the government...this Real ID Act claim is a perfect example of that. My fiance (Republican) thinks that he doesn't even know when he's lying and when he's telling the truth at this point. She 'feels sorry for him'.

CNN is just as guilty. The entire cable-news arena is shoddy in their reporting and what they allow to go out over the airwaves as fact. The current battle over the filabuster finds commentators on both stations lying by saying that the judicial filabuster hasn't played a role in Congress until the past four years. This is an outright lie, but for CNN and FoxNews, the line between lie and commentary is invisible.

[www.deadissue.com]

StinKerr: "Most of the AP stories that I read about Iraq are written by local stringers in Iraq. They get on the phone and call someone in the area where there is action and ask what's happening. NOT a reliable source of news."

I'd like to see some examples of where the AP stories have been proven false. A bomb going off in Baghdad killing 20 is something we'd rather not know happened. That it's reported doesn't indicate bias of any kind.

StinKerr: "You seem to have a problem with Fox News. That's fine, but you seem to be sadly mistaken in some of your assertions. Ollie North and Orlando Celenas(sp?) are presently in Iraq. North is with the Marines on their operation in the northwest. I'm not sure where Celenas is. It seems that Fox is always rotating their reporters into Iraq and are frequently (almost daily) airing live reports from the field."

Two correspondants doesn't amount to much. I want the stories of how the lives of Iraqis are better than they were before the invasion. This requires interviewing...work. A recounting of what the soldiers are doing on a given day, what the coorespondant perceives as the level of their morale doesn't cut it.

The gripe I'm reading here is that the AP stories are biased in that they focus on the negative social implications of the war. An infastructure reporting on teh positie social implications is what you're looking for, but the best FoxNews can do is Ollie North on location with a military unit. North, by the way, facilitated the sale of arms to Iran in exchange for hostages in the 80s...I don't see how this man deserves the hype.

It'd be like Lynne England getting her own show on TV twenty years from now. He shamed the country, and does not deserve to be broadcast into the homes of millions.

[baldilocks]

deadissue: No one asserted that there were no deaths at Abu Ghraib ever. The assertion was that no one died in the infamous incident(s) that were photographed.

But since you made the mistake regarding the scope of the assertion, did you lie?

[www.deadissue.com]

I see what you're saying. To do so though is a form of spin. Whether or not anyone died in the specific incidents in the pictures is of little consequence in the grand scheme. If we're rationalizing in such a way, then do we really care about the detainees who died?

What I'm saying is...to draw such a distinction is a diversion technique aimed at minimizing the scope and impact of what happened. To soften it, or make it easier to digest.

[baldilocks]

I'm not the one who brought it up (Abu Ghraib). Take it up with Ash.

P.S. Newsweek certainly did not lie. They did, however, make the mistake of taking the word of *one* source. I *did* say that they were too eager to believe something like this; too eager to denigrate the efforts of the military and its commander in chief. Nothing else is inferred.

[www.deadissue.com]

In terms of their eagerness to run with something - I think it's an industry-wide problem. Their intent may not be to denigrate the military. We get ultra-sensitive on this score a lot, in times where the politicatos are merely using the media and us soldiers as a lever.

[baldilocks]

Fair enough. The "media-hates-the-military" is something I've been saying for a while and posting examples. (This is just the latest one.) It first became apparent(to me)with the spin involving GWB's NG service.

[www.deadissue.com]

I'm always writing pro-military stuff on my site - some examples you might find worth reading:

http://deadissue.com/archives/2005/02/08/what-happened-to-support-the-troops/

http://deadissue.com/archives/2005/04/18/no-catch-entitlements-for-veterans/

http://deadissue.com/archives/2005/05/01/a-minefield-of-quotas-recruiters-beware/

The media sensationalizes a very selective amount of military pertinent material, as do our politicians. I see 'supporting the troops' as a much different concept. I fell we've got to stick together and not allow our leaders or the media to use us when they need us, and ignore us the rest of the time.

[ash]

With all due respect baldilocks:

According to chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard Myers, the senior commander in Afghanistan, Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry thought that "the violence that we saw…was not necessarily the result of the allegations about disrespect for the Koran… [Eikenberry] thought it was not at all tied to the article in the magazine."

Since General Eikenberry is actually in Afgahistan and you're not, and since General Eikenberry is the senior commander in Afghanistan and you're not, and since you have an agenda, I think I will rely on what he has to say.

[baldilocks]

Ash: at first you were going on about comparing this to the Abu Ghraib abuse. Since that was shot down, you're now talking about what General Eikenberry said about the riots. Fine and dandy.

Two questions: 1)If the Bush Adminstration says it's about the Koran desecration, one general says its not, and the Pakistani government says it is, who are you going to believe?

2) What was your first clue that I have an agenda?

Hello? Of course I have an agenda, as do you. Blogs by their very are opinion- and agenda-driven. Duh.

[StinKerr]

Deadissue,

Just to be clear, I looked up the word 'lie' and got:
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

Bearing this in mind, I can't call Sheppard Smith's incorrect announcement a lie. He was repeating something that he had gotten from an Italian news source so he sincerely thought that he was telling the truth. IIRC he corrected himself within a few minutes.

I think that Hume and Hannity were stating their opinions that the memo was a fake. It was not generated by the Republican leadership as some were saying but an aide in Senator Martinez's office. So, were the ones who claimed it as a Rebublican leadership talking points memo lying?

BTW, Hannity doesn't do news. He does opinion exclusively. The same for his partner, Allan Colmes. Hume does both news and opinion, I believe. He may be the only one that does both.

I'm not going to defend O'Reilly except to say that he deals in opinion and debate, not news. He hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest, it seems. I've disagreed with O'Reilly a lot and I've seen him profess a different understanding of some things than how I understand them to be.

The subject was news. I recall that during the last campaign President Bush made an announcement at one of his stops that Bill Clinton had been admitted to hospital with heart problems. An Assoicated Press writer reported that the "crowd booed" and "Bush did nothing to stop them". This was patently untrue. Nobody else heard boos. I watched and heard the tape of the event along with a lot of other people and the crowd did not boo. The writer discussed it with others at the event and nobody heard booing. He sent in the story anyway. That's what I'd call a lie.

[ash]

Keith Olbermann nails it in his blog today:

"The Newsweek story, McClellan said, “has done damage to our image abroad and it has done damage to the credibility of the media and Newsweek in particular. People have lost lives."

Why was Scottie in such a snit?

Why tarnishing our image abroad is the Administrations job.

[baldilocks]

Ash: not sure about what your last point is.

[www.deadissue.com]

StinKerr - Hannity and Colmes is a show that goes out on a channel called FoxNews...now if they're not to be considered 'news', then why put themselves up as such? Brit Hume and Sean Hannity know full well that often the first thing a person hears is what will last in their mind. They didn't care whether or not the memo was a fake, they just wanted to get the impression that was out there and circulating for long enough that it became true in the minds of their viewers.

This may be alright with you, but the bar needs to be raised higher. At some point they shouldn't be able to call what they do 'news'.

By your definition of Shephard Smith's mistake, Newsweek didn't lie either.

[www.deadissue.com]

Scott McClellan is a robot...he's got motor oil running through his veins...I'm convinced of it.

[StinKerr]

"Scott McClellan is a robot...he's got motor oil running through his veins...I'm convinced of it."

I can agree with that. When I see and hear the hounds baying at him repeating the same damn question endlessly because the answer doesn't suit them, I'm amazed that he doesn't snap at them. I would.

I find it difficult to believe that you can't tell debate from news, deadissue. Are you telling me that Larry King is a news program because it's on Cable News Network?

Here's their schedule. It seems to me that they have a lot of non news/discussion programs too.

[baldilocks]

I miss Ari F. :::sigh::: For more than one reason. :-)

Ari was/is more than an "oil-veined one." I could always vision a one-finger salute to the press when Ari stood behind the podium.

[David Blue]

baldilocks: "P.S. Newsweek certainly did not lie."

The original story said sources, plural. There was only one source. Leave aside how bad that one source is.

The fact is, they knew they had only one source, but said that they had more than one.

"Investigators probing interrogation abuses at the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay have confirmed some infractions alleged in internal FBI e-mails that surfaced late last year. Among the previously unreported cases, sources tell NEWSWEEK: interrogators, in an attempt to rattle suspects, flushed a Qur'an down a toilet and led a detainee around with a collar and dog leash. An Army spokesman confirms that 10 Gitmo interrogators have already been disciplined for mistreating prisoners ..."

See how it's all packed together as a many, not a one?

Either this was an inadvertent mistake, or they lied to make an allegation that wasn't strong enough to print (if they had said "one anonymous source") sound as though it was strong enough to print.

People can mis-speak. If you think they really meant to print "one [anonymous] source said" instead of "sources," then this can all be a goof.

If you think they meant to publish that claim that they had "sources" even though they knew they didn't have "sources" then: "Newsweek lied, people died" is the plain literal truth.

There is no third option.

I think they lied.

Do you still want to stand by your "certainly"?

[David Blue]

PS: I will offer this as a gentle compromise:

It is certain that Newsweek said something they knew for a fact was false. It is clear the untrue claim was woven together with other information as a persuasive package. It is clear that this claim, which Newsweek knew to be absolutely false, gave a damning appearance of certainty to an extremely inflammatory allegation. It is clear that if they intended to type and publish what they did type and publish, then they lied, gravely and irresponsibly.

BUT, maybe their typing fingers conveyed a message contrary to their intentions. Assuming their intentions were opposed to what they actually did, then they could have been innocent of lying, in their hearts. Only their fingers and/or their mouths lied.

Does that work for you?

And how are you on innocent childish hearts, vis a vis Devil-possessed fingers that against the will of their owners have found their way into some cookie jar?

[David Blue]

In case you're wondering why I'm making an issue of this:

(1) This stinks like Dan Rather's "unimpeachable source" that was a lone nutcase with a vendetta. That's not a trivial lie, it's serious lie, hidden behind the trust that the media implicitly lays claim to every time they quote "sources".

(2) It's just a matter of fact. I'm not particularly angry over it. (I was and am much angrier over Abu Ghraib.) But it is what it is. These people are not entitled to have everyone take their eyes off the ball so that what they did can be described in softer terms than the facts warrant.

[teal marie]

David Blue, I think you got it right. Newsweek made a bad cause towards the military on purpose. The effect was far worse than they expected, but that's no excuse. I doubt they can ever redeem themselves.
I still don't believe its Newsweek's fault that some Muslims are mad, murderous dogs, though, do you?

[baldilocks]

Bone-headed negligence isn't a softer term, David.

[StinKerr]

Misspeaking is one thing. All of us do it from time to time. I have the impression, though, that any article that appears in a national news magazine has been gone over by many people. The two who collaborated on it plus some number of editors and possibly, because of the world we live in, lawyers.

This would seem to be especially true if they did submit the article, item or paragraph to two different Pentagon sources for confirmation. This thing circulated before it was printed. It wasn't a slip of the finger on the keyboard, that's for sure and somebody authorized printing it.

[David Blue]

teal marie: "I still don't believe its Newsweek's fault that some Muslims are mad, murderous dogs, though, do you?

Of course not.

[David Blue]

baldilocks: "Bone-headed negligence isn't a softer term, David."

Not a softer term than "lying"? That surprises me, but I'm not interested to argue it.

Instead, let me repeat my question: in the light of Newsweek claiming to have more than one source, when they knew that they did not have more than one source, do you want to stand by the "certainly" in this statement:

"Newsweek certainly did not lie."

[baldilocks]

Okay we can drop the word 'certainly,' as if it makes any difference to me. It's the motive for the lie/negligence that's important: hatred of the military and the fruits of that hatred.

[David Blue]

baldilocks: "Okay we can drop the word 'certainly,' as if it makes any difference to me. It's the motive for the lie/negligence that's important: hatred of the military and the fruits of that hatred."

That looks like a fair conclusion to draw. (And by the way, I'm going to remember what you graciously conceded, and I'll have an extra good laugh next time some troll claims you can't handle disagreement or criticism.)

I know people with similar attitudes to the military and the war. They are choked with hatred. Because of that hatred, they are quick to distort everything in the most negative way they can, and readily shade over from colouring facts to inventing them.

For example, an American denial that they used torture "must be" because they did use torture, and this then becomes "they've now acknowledged the torture issue," and then "they've acknowledged it" (moving shiftily to speaking as though they'd acknowledged that they engaged in torture, while at the same time pretending to be just saying the same thing in fewer words) and so on.

It's like they have an internal game of "whispers" going, with a rule that whenever a word might be uncertain, the right word must be the one that conveys the heftiest emotional punch of hatred (justified, satisfied hatred) against the military, the Americans and other usual suspects like the Likud.

They take these distortions for truth, and build up more hatred on that basis. It's a vicious circle.

If you have an attitude like that, journalistic objectivity is impossible. When you think you can satisfy your hatred safely, you're going to.

[www.deadissue.com]

StinKerr said: I find it difficult to believe that you can't tell debate from news, deadissue. Are you telling me that Larry King is a news program because it's on Cable News Network?

Larry King will interview celebrities for a hour. Fox and CNN on prime time are wall to wall commentary - not good.

Have you ever seen the movie 'Network'?

[www.deadissue.com]

I've got a new article - very proud of it - pro-military...I'd like to know what the posters here think about it.

Operation Win The War

http://deadissue.com/archives/2005/05/20/operation-win-the-war/

[StinKerr]

I've read your post, deadissue, and have left what I believe to be a fair comment on it. I was more critical of your post on Justice Brown.