Ace of Spades HQ

November 30, 2006

Media: "We no longer know what is going on, but we are pretending we do."
— Ace

It's not just bias anymore. It's a flawed methodology, reporting on the cheap from far away from the actual incidents, relying on often biased and ethically-challenged local stringers to do the actual "reporting" which Western reporters merely type up from the comfort of their rooms at the Hotel Intercontinental.

Confederate Yankee quotes a good piece by embedded real reporter Michael Fumento, and adds his own commentary:

Vietnam was the first war to give us reporting in virtually real time. Iraq is the first to give us virtual reporting. That doesnt necessarily make it biased against the war; it does make it biased against the truth.

Virtual reporting. A meme is born.

Confederate Yankee notes:

The overwhelming majority of international journalists "reporting" from Iraq have never ventured out of their hotels in the Green Zone, a small area in Baghdad, and yet try to convince us they are reporting facts from around the entire nation. Based upon what, precisely? They are only reporting what stringerslocal Iraqi and other Arab reporters, with sectarian, regional, and in some cases suspected insurgency-related biasestell them.
These Baghdad reporters have no way of knowing if these stringers are reporting facts or are relaying propaganda, if the witnesses quoted are reliable or coached, or if the photos submitted to them are an accurate visual account of the events discussed in a story.

Fumento again:

The London Independent's Robert Fisk has written of "hotel journalism," while former Washington Post Bureau Chief Rajiv Chandrasekaran has called it "journalism by remote control." More damningly, Maggie OKane of the British newspaper The Guardian said: "We no longer know what is going on, but we are pretending we do." Ultimately, they cant even cover Baghdad yet they pretend they can cover Ramadi.

Kathleen Carroll gave the game away in her defense of AP's reporting. She denigrated the importance of whether the Sunni-men-set-on-fire story was actually true; the bigger story, she said, is that things are getting worse and worse. That's the story, and AP's story-- true or not -- fits in with that narrative.

Well, it may fit in, but if it's not true, it has no business being reported as such.

But reporters simply aren't reporting anymore, by and large. They have nothing except such "big picture," "gestalt" sort of impressions. They have impressions, attitude, and an overarching narrative, and such things come to them easily; actual facts are hard to get, and so thus are denigrated in importance.

It's of a piece with NBCNew's much-hyped decision to start referring to Iraq as in a state of "civil war." They may not have many on-the-ground, near-the-action reportial assets to get at the facts of Iraq. But what they can do, very easily, is give you the "Big Picture" decision made by New York City liberals in air-conditioned offices. And without real news reportage from Iraq, they're forced to elevate such silliness into "major news."

What else have they got?

Almost nothing.

Basically, reporters are becoming bloggers, passing over the difficult, expensive, time-consuming, and often-dangerous collection of actual news in favor of glib "impressions" and commentary on the news.

Except, with reporters having decided by and large to no longer do any actual reportage, such news is harder and harder to come by.

Posted by: Ace at 01:18 PM | Comments (13)
Post contains 571 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Don Surber has a great point. If he exists, why not just point him out. He's a named alleged police captain running all around, he's not an anonymous source.

Posted by: slickdpdx at November 30, 2006 01:38 PM (bohOk)

2 That's not all Kathleen Carroll gave away.

Posted by: see-Dubya at November 30, 2006 01:56 PM (DU2eY)

3 Great point. No longer are there any actual people on the field. All of the guests are analysts/pundits who discuss Iraq from some fancy news studio. At the beginning of the war, all of the reporters were embedded and I thought the viewers got a great glimpse of the action on the ground. Now, all the reporting is done from the studio and no longer is the true situation being shown to the viewers. This is only so they can convey their biased opinions about Iraq. If they actually put cameras in Iraq, they would have less control over the amount of bias they could put in their stories.

Posted by: Carter at November 30, 2006 02:20 PM (Gp3+I)

4 Great point. No longer are there any actual people on the field. All of the guests are analysts/pundits who discuss Iraq from some fancy news studio. At the beginning of the war, all of the reporters were embedded and I thought the viewers got a great glimpse of the action on the ground. Now, all the reporting is done from the studio and no longer is the true situation being shown to the viewers. This is only so they can convey their biased opinions about Iraq. If they actually put cameras in Iraq, they would have less control over the amount of bias they could put in their stories.

Posted by: carter at November 30, 2006 02:20 PM (Gp3+I)

5 Basically, reporters are becoming bloggers, passing over the difficult, expensive, time-consuming, and often-dangerous collection of actual news in favor of glib "impressions" and commentary on the news.
But Ace, don't these guys have multiple layers of fact checkers and editors to make sure that they give you the facts, unlike those nasty bloggers sitting in their pajamas making it up as they go along.

Posted by: Kevin B at November 30, 2006 02:36 PM (vJraa)

6 People still don't get it. The various parts of the MSM are not news organizations that are biased to the Left. They are Left wing political institutions. They are incapable of reform from an objective news standard. Asking the CBS News or the Associated Press to hire some non-Leftists into their organization to balance things out would be like asking the Democratic Party to hire some Republicans. They don't care if they've been duped or infiltrated by insurgents because they want people to think Iraq is beyond hope. Even if the AP is forced to admit they screwed up and someone loses their job it won't change a thing. Getting them out of the hotels and away from Baghdad will change nothing. Real reporting of the news to fully inform is just not what they do.

Posted by: andrew at November 30, 2006 03:53 PM (4v2tq)

7 I no longer watch the liberal lie a day news media their too leftists for me

Posted by: spurwing plover at November 30, 2006 05:56 PM (TPwuq)

8 "She denigrated the importance of whether the Sunni-men-set-on-fire story was actually true; the bigger story, she said, is that things are getting worse and worse."

Sort of like "Fake but accurate. Right?"

I have theory about why they don't go out in the field anymore. When the reporters were embedded with the troops, showing live footage from the field of what was actually going on, viewership and public support for the war were at an all time high. Now, the self appointed guardians of the "truth" just couldn't let that happen. Could they?

Posted by: at November 30, 2006 05:58 PM (GDOa/)

9 Here's an idea- why not withdraw all US troops to Iraq bases and Syrain/Iranian borders. Our priorities will be (1) to intercept men and materials entering the country and (2) going after al-Qaeda types (international terrorists).

Leave everything else to the Iraqis. They are responsible for picking up the garbage, keeping the peace, solving the sectarian violence, etc.

Tell Maliki the public works money only flows to the peaceful areas. It will find a way to work itself out, in its own time.

The key to ending a civil war is to allow both sides to butcher each other enough to sicken everyone. Otherwise, their blood lust will never be satisfied. It's a sad but true fact of nature. See northern Ireland, Rwanda, the Balkans, etc.

We could also move some people to northern Iraq with the task of mobilizing a Kurdish Iranian opposition force. There are enough Iranian Kurds (and pissed-off Iraqi Kurds) to create a pretty big bunch of fighters who have 100% loyalty to the US.

All we have to do is lavish public works projects in the peaceful north and promise Iranian Kurds they can all be rich beyond their dreams if they overthrow the mullahs. They will see the paradise next door and get to work.

We could also start floating rumors of "supporting a free Kurdistan, made up of Syrian, Iraqi and Iranian territory." Boy, there's a hell of a bargaining chip in the talks. Assad will soil himself.

Posted by: Dogstar at November 30, 2006 06:02 PM (dpudc)

10 The New York TImes: All the news that's...aw hell, who are we fooling? We just phone it in now.

Posted by: Steve L. at December 01, 2006 04:05 AM (hpZf2)

11 PJ O'Rourke has a great line about news stories that were "written on Mahoganey Ridge", that is, at the hotel bar.

Posted by: Mikey NTH at December 01, 2006 06:13 AM (O9Cc8)

12 The truth is whatever we say it is.

Posted by: The MSM at December 01, 2006 12:37 PM (p9O/F)

13 Oh, and we really do think you are that stupid.

Posted by: The MSM at December 01, 2006 12:38 PM (p9O/F)

Hide Comments | Add Comment