Be Not Afraid

[BT]

Js

Did you even read the accompanying piece. Both Time and Newsweek were ready to o with verdicts based on their vantage point
yet only Time was cautious enough to at least verify reports up the line that painted an entirely different picture.

The military didn't paint the picture. Time and Newsweek painted it. One got it semi right. The other wrong.

And Yon didn't write the article Mikey if you read the eexcerpt and followed the link you would know that. Not that facts matter to you.

[sirs]

It is the medias job to report the truth.
**********************************
I was embedded at brigade headquarters and saw everything the brigade commander saw. All the other Time and Newsweek embeds were at lower levels. Just after the sandstorm-enforced halt in the assault on Baghdad, Time sent me the copy for that week’s cover story entitled “Why Are We Losing” and asked me to find comments to feed into the story.....All of the talking heads on TV were shouting about disaster. However, expert talking-head opinions on the threat Saddam’s paramilitaries were posing to the 3rd’s supply line were not in line with the reality I was witnessing. Battlefield commanders in Iraq, rather then being alarmed at attacks on the supply lines, were thankful, “Isn’t it nice of them to come out of hiding in the cities and attack across open desert to be slaughtered.” In addition to the talking heads, most of my fellow embeds were echoing the disaster sentiment.....Newsweek went with the cover story “Quagmire” in big red letters, which allowed Time to claim a major journalistic coup by not looking as foolish as Newsweek.

Is this not precisely the point I was referring to??

[_JS]

OBJECTIVITY and CREDIBILITY, especially on such polarizing issues, such as war.  Especially when the POV being provided is the same one, repeated adnauseum

Credibility simply requires that they get their facts straight. Of course they should do that. Objectivity? By providing every point of view? That's beyond ridiculous and you know it.

1st amendment

You proved treason with the 1st amendment. I think that is more of a defense argument than a prosecutorial one. It actually requires evidence to prove a crime Sirs, not whining about how "they" don't like your politics.

[_JS]

Js

Did you even read the accompanying piece. Both Time and Newsweek were ready to o with verdicts based on their vantage point
yet only Time was cautious enough to at least verify reports up the line that painted an entirely different picture.

The military didn't paint the picture. Time and Newsweek painted it. One got it semi right. The other wrong.

A few thoughts Bt:

1. You and especially Sirs complain about objectivity. Yet, you accept this story on its face. Where is Time and Newsweek's version of events? Are we sure that this is what really took place?

2. Assuming this is correct, what would give a news magazine the impulse to run with such a cover?

3. What do you propose as a solution (Bt and Sirs)?

[BT]

Ultimately news is a commodity for consumption, much like breakfast cereal.

It can be packaged and presented differently but it is left up to the consumer to pick the product best suited for their needs.

You ask why Time or Newsweek chose to go with a different perspective on the mach on Baghdad. I don't know. You ask if Time and Newsweek have offered up a defense. Again i don't know.

But it does seem to me when getting it wrong is tantamount to lying that paradigm should apply across the board.

Or is the Rather school of journalism the status quo.

Mikey's beef iis that the author is ex military, embedded with the approval of the PAO and is obviously biased. The same could be said for the major newsweeklies ( ex-military status unknown)  if and when they venture from the Green Zone. Some how he doesn't seem to be consistent.

[Michael Tee]

I think guys like BT are missing the real story in Michael Yon and others like him.  These guys are living proof of the complete collapse of U.S. government credibility.  The government can't get its message out effectively because nobody believes them any more.  They have been caught in lie after lie, and now only a shrinking hard core of true believers bordering on "fruitcake" status pays any attention at all to anything they say.

Hence the Michael Yons of the blogosphere.  Without getting embed permits ('cause they're "rebels!!") they nevertheless manaage to get all the benefits of an embed, accompanying the troops into combat, skipping in and out seemingly at will, and still manage to write "angry" blogs denouncing administration "blunders" just so long as the "blunders" they so freely denounce are related to peripheral items such as the media wars or past policies.  Of course, they will never denounce the PRESENT policies, or the PRESENT military leadership, because that's really what they're tasked with selling to the public.

Of course, in the end, their lies and bullshit will be exposed as were the administrations, and they will become "yesterday's men," but another few desperate months will have been tacked on to the Bush administration's losing effort to subdue Iraq.