A HEN IN THE FOX HOUSE -Martin Higgins
While I was writing my Shame Game post (below) here's what was happening on Fox News.
I find Fox to be as disreputable as any of the other Late-Breaking-Enter-Info-Tain-Mercial News firehoses, but what better venue for the weasel-like equivocation to begin...
"NEAL GABLER: Well, I have tremendous respect for John Burns and I have no doubt that some reporters traded their objectivity for access. But John Burns says himself that he was protected by being on The New York Times. Anyone who read any coverage of the war knows that almost every reporter talked about having to bribe the Iraqis to get access. It -- that doesn't mean that if necessary [they] colored their coverage as John Burns says. In point of fact, we know there was terror in Iraq."
No, Neal, it doesn't necessarily mean they colored the news. It means they were willing to disregard human rights nightmares that were part of everyday life in Iraq.
In point of fact, we know there are bleary-eyed idiots with degrees in film and culture who feel qualified to exhonerate unethical journalism.
Simply under-reporting for favor would be enough of an offense for me to demand that these reporters be stripped of their satellite phones and handed mops. Nah, Swiffers.
Grey Lady, et al., I have your new masthead motto, "All The News We Don't Omit."
As Americans, we have a tough time separating the truth from reporter selected facts, from media slant, from broadcaster spin. If the full story is pre-editted by cowardly embeds from the comfort of a warm Baath, we start with garbage at the outset.
Embedded, The Media at War in Iraq, especially John Burns white-hot accusations (exerpted below), lifts the rock off journalist maggots who fed on Saddam's decaying body politic.
- - -
copyright 2009
Martin Higgins
all rights reserved
I find Fox to be as disreputable as any of the other Late-Breaking-Enter-Info-Tain-Mercial News firehoses, but what better venue for the weasel-like equivocation to begin...
"NEAL GABLER: Well, I have tremendous respect for John Burns and I have no doubt that some reporters traded their objectivity for access. But John Burns says himself that he was protected by being on The New York Times. Anyone who read any coverage of the war knows that almost every reporter talked about having to bribe the Iraqis to get access. It -- that doesn't mean that if necessary [they] colored their coverage as John Burns says. In point of fact, we know there was terror in Iraq."
No, Neal, it doesn't necessarily mean they colored the news. It means they were willing to disregard human rights nightmares that were part of everyday life in Iraq.
In point of fact, we know there are bleary-eyed idiots with degrees in film and culture who feel qualified to exhonerate unethical journalism.
Simply under-reporting for favor would be enough of an offense for me to demand that these reporters be stripped of their satellite phones and handed mops. Nah, Swiffers.
Grey Lady, et al., I have your new masthead motto, "All The News We Don't Omit."
As Americans, we have a tough time separating the truth from reporter selected facts, from media slant, from broadcaster spin. If the full story is pre-editted by cowardly embeds from the comfort of a warm Baath, we start with garbage at the outset.
Embedded, The Media at War in Iraq, especially John Burns white-hot accusations (exerpted below), lifts the rock off journalist maggots who fed on Saddam's decaying body politic.
- - -
copyright 2009
Martin Higgins
all rights reserved