U.s. Press Plays Pravda

[Lil Red]

http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2012/09/us-press-plays-pravda

On September 11, on the eleventh anniversary of the worst attack yet endured on our shores, U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three aides were murdered, and their headquarters in Benghazi sacked. The U.S. Press [i]unquestioningly[/i] accepted a White House explanation calling the event a “spontaneous demonstration” inspired by a poorly made anti-Islam film short that had been languishing online, all-but-ignored, for months.

Despite reports that the attackers had been chanting “Obama, we are all Osama,” (in reference to Osama bin Laden, whose America-effected demise was celebrated over 20 times during the recently concluded Democratic convention) the press duly reported the White House line, and they saw no First Amendment issues when the Obama administration asked Google (owners of YouTube) to remove the offending video. (Google refused.)

This is the same press, all the same bylines and faces, by the way, who fretted about the “chill wind” threatening free speech when then-White House Spokesman Ari Fleischer merely suggested that post-9/11 people might need to be cautious in their speech.

...

The press appeared not to notice that while embassies were under threat in multiple countries, the president traveled to Las Vegas for a campaign fundraiser. They did manage, however, to declare his opponent Mitt Romney’s campaign almost depraved in its critique of the administration’s handing of the crisis.

...

After the administration finally admitted to Congress that the September 11th violence was, in fact, a terror attack—quite possibly planned by Al Qaeda and released former detainees of Guantanamo Bay—the press corps heard White House Spokesman Jay Carney affirm that the attacks were “self-evidently” terrorist in nature. The press expressed no surprise at the change in story; they simply, dutifully, repeated what they had been told, while also declaring Mitt Romney’s campaign “lost”, thanks to a tape from May of 2012, wherein Romney made an elitist, possibly racist, suggestion that 47 percent of the country, realistically, would never vote for him.

It took a Spanish-language interview with Univision for President Obama to be asked direct and pointed questions about Libya and other issues, and the president’s answers were largely meandering and unfocused, like the defensive moves of a boxer who has taken a surprise hit and is trying to run out the clock for the safety of his corner. The President quickly moved to the David Letterman Show—where the host allowed him to say he wasn’t sure what the national debt actually was, without reaction—thence to a forty-thousand-dollar-a-head fundraiser hosted by rapper-entrepreneur Jay-Z and his wife, Beyonce.

The press, meanwhile, focused on the “rolling calamity” of Romney’s release of two decades worth of tax-return-related information.

Last Sunday, a subdued-looking Obama endured an interview by the formerly-serious [i]60 Minutes[/i], wherein Steve Croft wondered how he felt about things, and if he didn’t feel pressure having to be president while also campaigning, because darn it, campaigns are important. And hard. Obama’s admission, during the interview, that some of the ads his campaign has approved contain “mistakes” or were “over-the-top” were omitted from the broadcast and relegated to the less-seen out-takes at CBS online.

Meanwhile, Obama gave a speech at a 5,000 seat arena, and the press described it as given before 18,000. CBS News Director John Dickerson admitted that Mitt Romney needs to ask pointed, difficult questions of Obama in the upcoming debates, because, “the press isn’t necessarily going [to do it] for him.”

...

But we no longer need wonder why the mainstream media seems unconcerned about possible attacks on our first amendment rights to freedom of religion and the exercise thereof. They have already cheerfully, willfully surrendered the freedom of the press to the altar of the preferred narrative. People willing to dissolve their own freedoms so cheaply have no interest in anyone else’s freedom, either.
===============
go read it all.

[4588686]

Pravda means truth. Thank you for your ringing endorsement of the US press.


In Russian, that is. In Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian it means justice. Either way it's still a pretty ringing endorsement.

Edited September 26, 2012 by Hasan

[4588686]

I'm not reading this article in full because I hate stuff like this. But let's just make a note here. The reason that we now know that the attacks were probably well coordinated, that the US ambassador had been worried about his safety for some time, and that Al-Quaeda had the Ambassador on a hit-list for some time is because CNN acquired the Ambassador's private diary and reported these facts from it (as well they should). The initial reports were just that, initial reports. Once the press learned better, they reported the more correct information. Anyone who has any substantive knowledge of [i]Pravda[/i] (a USSR newspaper that acted as a mouthpiece for the regime) would understand how ridiculousness this comparison is.

Let's consider how dumb the author's case is. The press gives an initial account based on what the government reports (which need not have been dishonest rather than simply incorrect). The press investigates. The press finds contradictory information. The press reports the correct information (this being how the blogger knew that the initial reports were incorrect). I'm sorry, that case is ridiculous.

And for that, they are held in comparison to the official mouthpiece of a totalitarian state. I call the essence of cow. This is just conservatism trying to position itself as the victim of the big bad liberal media.

Edited September 26, 2012 by Hasan

[Groo the Wanderer]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1348620697' post='2486739']
The press gives an initial account based on what the government reports (which need not have been dishonest rather than simply incorrect). The press investigates. The press finds contradictory information. The press reports the correct information (this being how the blogger knew that the initial reports were incorrect). I'm sorry, that case is ridiculous.
[/quote]

that's called bad journalism. shoddy journalism. lazy at best. in the days when the media actually gave a darn about truth, journalists were required to have at least three sources in agreement of the facts. now they run with whatever makes a headline, then print a retraction later if they get caught.

proper journalism above: press receives govt reports, press finds 2 more sources to back it up, press looks for contrary story, press looks for 2 more sources to back that up, press THEN publishes AND presents ALL the viewpoints they found and verified

us press aint nothing but a govt mouthpiece now...sad sad sad

[4588686]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1348625487' post='2486769']
that's called bad journalism. shoddy journalism. lazy at best. in the days when the media actually gave a darn about truth, journalists were required to have at least three sources in agreement of the facts. now they run with whatever makes a headline, then print a retraction later if they get caught.

proper journalism above: press receives govt reports, press finds 2 more sources to back it up, press looks for contrary story, press looks for 2 more sources to back that up, press THEN publishes AND presents ALL the viewpoints they found and verified

us press aint nothing but a govt mouthpiece now...sad sad sad
[/quote]

I didn't see the Arab media reporting anything different. The press, at least the press I watch, reported the accounting of the facts as a provisional account based on government sources. That's perfectly responsible. If you're naive enough to assume that the initial government reports are the final word on a subject then that's your failing. The fact is that the press, specifically CNN, embarrassed the government because they didn't stop with the government word and kept digging while reporting what they knew at the time. Which this blogger, who has contributed nothing except for speaking with an unpleasant disposition about the inadequacies of everyone else, ignores.

[Luigi]

They're not illegal aliens - the press dubs them "undocumented workers" and then uses that terminology exclusively.

They're not pro-life, they're not even anti-abortion - the press dubs them "anti-choice" and then uses that terminology exclusively.

It's not a voter ID campaign - the press dubs it a "voter suppression" movement and then uses that terminology exclusively.



It may not actually be the press who coins these terms - it may be the politicians or the lobby groups they admire. But the press picks up the terms and runs with them.

It's Newspeak. Not from the Ministry of Information, rather from the Ministry of Political Hipness. But it's still the party line, in Newspeak.

Edited September 26, 2012 by Luigi

[4588686]

[quote name='Luigi' timestamp='1348635060' post='2486824']
They're not illegal aliens - the press dubs them "undocumented workers" and then uses that terminology exclusively.

They're not pro-life, they're not even anti-abortion - the press dubs them "anti-choice" and then uses that terminology exclusively.

It's not a voter ID campaign - the press dubs it a "voter suppression" movement and then uses that terminology exclusively.[/QUOTE]

I don't know what media you watch/consume but all of these claims are false with the exception of some of the more left wing print journals (for example The Nation of Mother Jones). I watch MSNBC pretty regularly and I hear all of the terms, that you falsely claim are never used, all the time



[QUOTE]It may not actually be the press who coins these terms - it may be the politicians or the lobby groups they admire. But the press picks up the terms and runs with them.

It's Newspeak. Not from the Ministry of Information, rather from the Ministry of Political Hipness. But it's still the party line, in Newspeak.
[/quote]

Could right wingers please stop trying to appropriate George Orwell? Either stop it or admit that some socialists (which George Orwell was) are good.

[Ed Normile]

Its more insidious as the President continued to call it a riot in response to an anti islam video for several days, even though he knew it was an attack by 100 attackers armed with automatic rifles and rpgs, not usually what your average riot crowd has available. Then even after it was admitted before congress the President stated again it was a riot in response to the video. Then the President described the events as just " Bumps in the road " I wonder how the families of the U.S. citizens killed there thought about that thoughtless and uncaring remark?

ed

[KnightofChrist]

If it was Bush who had forced regime change in Libya I don't believe the mainstream would have treated this story the same. The success of regime change in Libya would have been called into to question, greatly. I also doubt they would have just bought the story that it was the fault of some Youtube video when the attack happened on an 9-11 anniversary. Maybe the MSM wouldn't have cried foul if the Bush Administration asked Youtube to remove an anti-islamic film, but I kind of doubt it. Of course had some fundamentalists christian tea party folk rushed a city court house and murdered the mayor, and other similar groups around the country tried to do the same. I doubt the MSM would have bought the story that the violent attacks were protest against some Youtube video. I also doubt the MSM would have not cried foul if Bush had asked the anti-christian video to be censored.

[Papist]

Obama and the MSM are as useful as light beer.

[add]

but this (retarded) movie didnt offend anyone?
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfveddNS42s&feature=relmfu[/media]


go figure?

[Papist]

I don't think anyone saw it.

[BG45]

60 Minutes has on their website, where Obama admits his attack ads contain falsehoods (or they used to). It was cut from the TV interview most would have watched though.

During the Obama administration, the United States of America has fallen to 47th place on the Press Freedom Index put out by the group [url="http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2011-2012,1043.html"]Reporters Without Borders in 2012[/url]; this puts us between Taiwan and Argentina (followed by Romania and Latvia, if that gives you an idea of where we stand). After the first year of Obama's term we were at [url="http://en.rsf.org/spip.php?page=classement&id_rubrique=1001"]22nd place, having been in 36th at the end of Bush's administration.[/url] So, 2009 to 2011-2012; we moved from 22nd most free press in the world to 47th. Yes, there are still plenty below us (over 130), but that is not an insignificant leap.

[Slappo]

BG45: Of course we don't have [b]free [/b]press! You have to put a lot in their pocket books to buy them out .

[Socrates]

[quote name='BG45' timestamp='1348683319' post='2486980']
During the Obama administration, the United States of America has fallen to 47th place on the Press Freedom Index put out by the group [url="http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2011-2012,1043.html"]Reporters Without Borders in 2012[/url]; this puts us between Taiwan and Argentina (followed by Romania and Latvia, if that gives you an idea of where we stand). After the first year of Obama's term we were at [url="http://en.rsf.org/spip.php?page=classement&id_rubrique=1001"]22nd place, having been in 36th at the end of Bush's administration.[/url] So, 2009 to 2011-2012; we moved from 22nd most free press in the world to 47th. Yes, there are still plenty below us (over 130), but that is not an insignificant leap.
[/quote]
That group's obviously a bunch of rightwing nutjobs.

Everybody knows that true economic freedom means free condoms, and comes only from devotion to Dear Leader and faith in his Hopeychange.