Change in media reporting

[Ken White]

When I said the result of the media's lack of critical analysis leading up to the war in Iraq resulted in mainly jingoistic stories, I meant that, largely, the stories the media did publish supported the war in one way or another, either through benign neglect of the facts (there were no WMD)...

They reported what the Guvmint said -- which as anyone who was paying any attention at all should have known then and as most hopefully know now -- was designed to get them on side, it had little to do with the real reasons for going to Iraq. It was, simply, mostly a lot of patently unbelievable BS. That the media types fell for it is a lick on them. That they did is true partly due to their ignorance (i.e. lack of relevant knowledge) but they had little else to go on because they had all gutted their overseas reporting capability during the 90s. I think that's at least partly what the British call an 'own goal.' Maybe a couple.

through breathless reports from "embeds" on the rush of combat (embeds: I give the DoD an A+ in marketing for that policy)...

Aside from marketing give DoD and the guys and gals who went an attaboy for allowing that much coverage (not in a lack of censorship but in the sense of offering the media a ride, some food and some protection from the vagaries of combat) and for basically doing a good and fair job on the part of the reporters. They mostly got far better stories that way than they would have had with other methods. Did some units do better by the reporters than others, sure, just as some reporters did better than others -- people and units are not all equal.

...or through outright advocacy in the guise of journalism. It all added up to one big beat of the war drum.

Amazing. An operator (the Admin) tries to sell its program to a possibly skeptical audience with some spin through the mass media. What a novel idea...

As for the war drum; the Rule of Thirds and the Two Year Rule always apply. That's as American as Peach Cobbler.

Also, I still think the satire that started the thread was propaganda. It didn't simply send up bad reporting. The Daily Show does that nearly every night through satire, and they skewer any and all media, not just Fox, with no agenda other than anti-ignorance.

Your prerogative. Dunno about the Daily Show, don't waste my time with TV.

The joke was propaganda because it was pushing a very familiar neocon criticism of the sort that gets caught in my spam filter on a daily basis: the media is biased, left leaning, and possibly Francophone. Freedom fries anyone?

I could make a smart comment about that paragraph of yours I just quoted being propaganda in its own right but I'll forego that to point out that many who work in the media are mildly left leaning compared to, say, me. That's cool, nothing wrong with it, a lot of my friends and relatives are left leaning, some a lot further than most of the media but I still listen to them. So for me to say the media is 'left leaning' is perhaps true whereas for you and many others, that would not be the case. In any event, I do not see that tilt as a problem -- nor would I suggest it leads to dishonesty.

As for bias, some yes, some no -- we ALL have our biases. All anyone has to do is filter for it.

Some of the media is in fact Francophone -- I think that mostly relates to location and local language attributes. Quebec has some Francophone broadsheets, for example. Most US media is Anglophone. Good thing, my French is limited to about six words.

I'm unsure what Freedom Fries are, don't think I've ever had any...