Dan Rather still thinks he had a story with those fake letters about George Bush and the National Guard. And that CBS wanted to appease the White House. And, for all I know, that the tooth fairy was involved in smuggling illegal cash contributions.

So he's suing to bring the story back up again. ( I had fun covering this the first time )

Three cheers for the American legal system: even those whose grasp of reality is demonstrably slippery can launch a lawsuit and be heard.

So can the sound of our laughter.

Instapundit always helps out with context.

In discussing Jules Crittenden's critique of war reporting, he reminds me of stories the media like to tell -- whether or not the facts are there to allow them to tell those stories.

When I was a young guy out of law school in his first job, I participated in the Bench, Bar, Media dinners (it was a small town). One of the things I learned is that the District Attorney was acutely sensitive to the press: and would object to attorneys on the other side "making their case in the media". I suppose that was some of the difficulty faced by the journalists covering Nifong, though they finally came through after it was clear that Nifong was in trouble.

But what bothers me most is that the mistakes all have a common pattern. The narratives, the stories that want to be written, are all stories with templates from the "grievance studies" departments.

Casey At the Bat.... Redone by Pat Santy, referring to this article (free on the site, unlike all other articles in the "Diarist" section), that has been much refuted, despite some hilarious claims of "fact checking".

Tuesday, August 07, 2007

BEAUCHAMP AT THE BAT

The Outlook was quite brilliant for The New Republic rag:
The polls were in their favor, and the public will had sagged.
But when Bush didn't falter, as Petraeus led the surge,
A sickly silence fell upon those moonbats on the verge.

A straggling few got up and wailed deep despair. The rest
Clung to that hope which springs eternal in the human breast;
They thought, if only one more Abu Ghraib could be brought to light--
They'd put up even money, that we'd lose all will to fight.

So upon that stricken multitude grim melancholy sat,
For there seemed but little chance that they could count on that.
Then from a thousand leftist throats there rose a lusty yell;
The New Republic had a piece that claim the war was hell!

There was ease in Beauchamp's manner as he stepped into his place;
There was pride in his raw expose, and a smile on TNR's face.
And when, responding to the cheers, he staunchly stood by his claims,
No leftist in the crowd could doubt they'd near-achieved their aims.

A million eyes were on him as he told his tragic story;
The defeatists all applauded as he defamed his Unit's glory.
And as commanders searched to see if Beauchamp's tales were true,
They nonetheless were heralded; and those with doubts were few.

From TNR editors there came a muffled roar,
"How can you even doubt us?" they all cried, "We verified as before!"
"He's just a courageous soldier with great moral authority!"
And its likely they'd a-sainted him; but that was not to be.

"Fraud!" cried his comrades, and the echo answered fraud;
But one scornful look from Beauchamp and the leftist crowd was awed.
John Murtha's face grew stern and cold, and they saw his muscles strain,
And they knew that Beauchamp had found support in the weakest links again.

Now the sneer is gone from TNR, though the left's still filled with hate;
Their lofty goal of surrendering will surely have to wait.
Because right now the truth is out, and and they have to let it go,
Because too many people realize, and too many people know....

Oh, somewhere in this favored land the sun is shining bright;
The band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light,
And somewhere men are laughing, and somewhere children shout;
But there is no joy in Moonbat land- mighty Beauchamp has struck out.

UPDATE: Apparently, The New Republic Doesn't want to admit that, yet. They appear to be losing, as the MSM usually does when called on a factual matter.

An overlooked demographic in the US is the one that dominates the Media.

The Times Echoes

You can hear them on the evening news. How overlooked can they be?

"but if you do that (name changed behavior here) then the terrorists will have won."

An argument made by those who in every other way want to have the terrorists win.

Example: the MSM, which immediately surrendered.

"That's where we kind of agree with some of the people who've criticized our show," Stone says. "Because it really is open season on Jesus. We can do whatever we want to Jesus, and we have. We've had him say bad words. We've had him shoot a gun. We've had him kill people. We can do whatever we want. But Mohammed, we couldn't just show a simple image."

Hat tip: Instapundit

Frank Warner has an interesting question:

Yesterday, we found out that American support for U.S. participation in the Iraq war is rising.

One poll last week (Sept. 12-13) found that 51 percent of Americans back “the U.S. war in Iraq.” That’s the first majority for the war since October 2003. A slightly newer (Sept. 15-17) poll showed that, for the first time since last December, less than a majority of Americans believe the Iraq war was a mistake.

In other words, our role in the Iraq war is increasingly popular. Tired phrase. I recalled yesterday that, over the last year or two, news story after news story has referred to the “increasingly unpopular Iraq war.” I asked if now we could expect an endless string of news stories with the phrase “increasingly popular Iraq war.”

But hold it. Were there really all these stories referring to the “increasingly unpopular Iraq war”? Were they only nightmares? Well, no. I checked, and there are tons of stories with that discouraging phrase.



What does that mean?

Well, for those like myself who thought we had to go to war from the beginning, it's nice to have others catch up. And for those who thought newspapers employed fact-checkers, further proof that it's just a bunch of guys telling stories.

Ralph Peters is known for reasonable and interesting articles. But today, he swallows the cyanide of silliness wholesale:

Lesson 2: The global media can overturn the verdict of the battlefield.

Too many politicians and generals still don't get it. This new truth about war slapped us in the face during the First Battle of Fallujah. Now, facing a hostile global media, the Israelis are learning it.


It's not what happens on the battlefield, but what people describe about what happened that creates reality? Mr. Peters, you need a reminder: reality is not description (though descriptions can pretend to that), and it is not changed by description, however the description changes. Yes, there are silly people, working for the MSM, who are not interested in what happens, but interested in maniupuating people through their pathetic reportage. The poison in the MSM is indeed there: they somehow think it would be a terrible thing to describe a victory in the war on terror, because "that would help Bush" in some political conversation they want to have. But in truth, reality is not a political conversation. Reality is not a "text" to be read (and I know that sounds disappointing to those whose educations have insisted that everything is a text, and that only the skills of speaking and writing count in understanding, and changing, that reality), but a stubborn commons where facts must be handled. One of those facts, which so far seems to have eluded that "political conversation" is that there are people out there who want to kill us, who are not interested in negotiation or compromise. To the extent you do not recognize, and attempt to deal with that fact, and its causes and ramifications, you are not serious about reality, and I won't take you seriously about politics either.

UPDATE: Here's the best short summary of why, from Mark Steyn

The Boston Globe's Jeff Jacoby wrote the other day about how American children's books are "sacrificing truth on the altar of political correctness." But there seems to be quite a lot of that in the grown-up comics, too. And, as I've said before, it's never a good idea to put reality up for grabs. There may come a time when you need it.

The last time I had to write about plain fabrication in the media, it was done by CBS. Now Reuters has decided to enter the lists -- and this time, it's forged pictures that are at issue.

Hat tip to Little Green Footballs for the catch and brilliant demonstration of its falsity to reality, and to the Sports Photographers' Blog for the technical analysis Finally, here are some actual border photos, so you learn more. For those who need an explanation of the problem with the photo, and hints on what to look for, check this out.

Previously, CBS has been on the "don't watch, you don't know what they're telling you" list. They are joined by Reuters. The National Journal suggests there might be more faked pictures out there. We have seen documentaries about staged operations before.

UPDATE: The infamous IMAO is on the case! And, oddly enough some Reuters employees seem unhappy with being exposed.

Further Update: Apparently, the MSM is falling for a lot of this stuff. Watch coverage out of Palestine and Lebanon with a critical eye.

Israel bombs Qana, as it is entitled to do. It warns civilans to leave, as it is not required to do. People don't leave, and are killed.

Those responsible for killing civilians threaten Israel with revenge for their own acts. I understand that some people are denying that they used that neighborhood for rocketry. Sadly, that lie, like so many others, is susceptible to disproof. Oddly enough, when the foreign press complained about the Qana incident, the fact that the neighborhood was used as a launching site was disputed, with the qualifier "not that day" as if the warzone was suceptible to hour-by-hour geographic redefinition. There are other questions about the legitimacy of the "IDF killing defenseless civilians and Qana" story.

The community of those who don't understand international affairs condemns Israel for doing what it did. Sadly, even European governments are capable of knowing better. No one holds the perpetrators of the outrage responsible, despite the evidence that they are flouting international agreements concerning the conduct of war, and are endangering ( or killing, which is interesting to many) civilians near them, and are deliberately aiming at civilians, not military targets, on the other side. Finally, of course, the Arab street is demonstrating its despicable side (dangerous cite: to despicable newspaper for despicable news), reminding us why their civilization needs to be rebuilt and why their opinions and claims are not worth listening to. Especially with threats.

What is the object of this violence? The destruction of the moral and civil categories of discourse. So who are the parties at fault here, in reality? Hezbollah, Iran, Hamas, and the United Nations (and, of course, the ineducable Noam Chomsky, whose imbecility belongs in a class of its own).

UPDATE: The Qana situation has finally received a complete update and description. Result? My reaction to Lebanon's claimed casualties has gone from "Oh, no!" to "Says you!" And if the MSM continues this sort of thing, they shouldn't be surprised when I have the same response to their reporting in other areas. Just a brief quote from that last link Iedited for form) demonstrates the problem:

Certain conclusions are now inescapable.

First, hatred of Israel and the irrationality associated with that hatred have now reached unprecedented proportions within Britain and the west.

Second, with a few honourable exceptions the mainstream media are no longer to be believed in anything they transmit, either in words or pictures, about the Middle East. It is only the blogosphere which is now performing the most elementary disciplines of journalism: to aspire to objectivity, to separate facts from prejudices, to apply basic checks to claims being made by partisans to a conflict, and to be particularly wary of those with a proven track record of lying.

Third, the mainstream media must now be regarded as active accessories to the war being waged against the free world and therefore as a fifth column in that world – an enemy within.

Fourth, the impact of the lies and distortions transmitted by the mainstream media in inflaming the already pathological hatred of the west within the Arab and Muslim world is incalculable.

Fifth, the mainstream media’s vilification, demonisation and delegitimisation of Israel, based on outright fabrications and malevolent distortions, is imperilling the very existence of the country that is the front line of defence of the free world.

Sixth, that vilification is also imperilling the safety and well-being of Jewish communities around the world, subject now to the double victimisation of attack by Islamists and attack by non-Muslims for belonging to a Jewish people that refuses to submit passively to a second attempt at genocidal slaughter and instead fights to defend itself.

From the New York Observer, the kind of story that points out why the New York Times is no longer the flagship of good reporting:


The story had everything: secret agents, political intrigue, personal betrayal and cash. Lots and lots of cash.

Yet, for all that, a remarkable trial that ended last week in a Manhattan courtroom—a proceeding that implicated figures in the highest echelons of international politics—was barely mentioned in the major American press. If it weren’t for the journalistic wing of the conservative movement, outlets like the National Review Online and The New York Sun, it might not have been covered at all.

Take the events of last Thursday, for example. After two weeks of testimony, a jury took only a few hours to convict a South Korean national, Tongsun Park, of acting as an unregistered agent of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. The conspiracy of which he was a part ran for 10 years, ending in late 2002, and helped one of the world’s worst regimes maintain its grip on power.

But The New York Times did not assign a reporter to his trial, its total coverage amounting to a brief wire report on the day following Mr. Park’s conviction. Of the other major national dailies, The Washington Post ran a single news-brief item, the Los Angeles Times not a word.

Read the whole article.

Pathetic. If you can't bother to assign a reporter to the local courthouse, what kind of news operation are you running?

UPDATE: As it turns out, the MSM is crowing about being able to keep secrets, and saying that proves they are the right people to make that judgement. Worthwhile responses are here and here.. I will not take the time to improve on this:

Tom Maguire cuts to the chase: "With easily identifiable potential victims and villains, the press sat on the story."

This is what we refer to in the industry as a "no-brainer." The connection between this incident and more recent leak controversies — in which consequences of exposing classified terrorist-tracking programs have not been as intuitive — is tenuous at best. Yet according to the author, "The Canada-hostage story proves that reporters and news organizations can be trusted, en masse, to make the right call on security information they uncover."

No. It proves that the press usually makes the right call when the right call is mind-numbingly obvious. Interesting story, but wrong conclusion.

WindsofChange.net has a good discussion of the things that Journalists should remember: any time they decide that they don't have to fulfill the obligations of a citizen, they excite the contempt we feel for those who do not fulfill them.

Read the discussion in comments as well. It's pretty interesting.

Exposing perfectly legal intelligence gathering is really stupid. But count on the New York Times to start this process, and the LA Times to keep up with the Joneses. No link supplied. I'm too angry at them.


Letter to the Editor, New York Times:

As far as I can tell, your position on things is this: we ought to be fighting terrorists by legal means, through proper intelligence and the courts. Of course, when it comes to proper intelligence, collected through legal channels, you will expose it on the grounds that people might have an interest, and tip off those who might be caught in this net not to do that. And when it comes to the courts, you will object that this is all "after the fact" and the attack should have been prevented in the first place by proper intelligence gathering.

I have a note for you: "freedom of the press" does not mean that if you own a press, no other laws apply to you. This might be a revolutionary idea to you, but for those of us who have to deal with the consequences of such feckless and irresponsible actions, it is increasingly clear that you not only do not serve the public interest, you oppose it.

UPDATE: In response to the emails, here's the link to relevant information about the story and its background. And here is a discussion of the law they have so cavalierly violated. Just as I don't buy products from Toshiba, I will no longer read or post links to the New York Times. There are other newspapers out there, and it has sunk so far from the days where it was a reasonably good newspaper that it is no longer worth my time: life is too short for this.

FINAL UPDATE: OK, the editor has responded. As it turns out, he can't understand the problem. If you subscribe, why are you listening to these guys? Isn't there another source for your news?

HILARIOUS LAST NOTE: As it turns out, The New York Times advocated the creation of the program in the first place. Power Line has the story. Finally (and I mean it this time) there is their real attitude, as opposed to their published one, on why they did it in the first place

That Tears It UPDATECheck out this note, and realize that the New York Times wouldn't have wanted these terrorists found. We considered it and rejected it indeed. And what qualifies you to do that?

The Even They Know Better Now Update: Quoting in Relevant Part:

While it’s a close call now, as it was then, I don’t think the article should have been published.

Those two factors are really what bring me to this corrective commentary: the apparent legality of the program in the United States, and the absence of any evidence that anyone’s private data had actually been misused. I had mentioned both as being part of “the most substantial argument against running the story,” but that reference was relegated to the bottom of my column.

The source of the data, as my column noted, was the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, or Swift. That Belgium-based consortium said it had honored administrative subpoenas from the American government because it has a subsidiary in this country.

I haven’t found any evidence in the intervening months that the surveillance program was illegal under United States laws. Although data-protection authorities in Europe have complained that the formerly secret program violated their rules on privacy, there have been no Times reports of legal action being taken. Data-protection rules are often stricter in Europe than in America, and have been a frequent source of friction.

Also, there still haven’t been any abuses of private data linked to the program, which apparently has continued to function. That, plus the legality issue, has left me wondering what harm actually was avoided when The Times and two other newspapers disclosed the program. The lack of appropriate oversight — to catch any abuses in the absence of media attention — was a key reason I originally supported publication. I think, however, that I gave it too much weight.

In addition, I became embarrassed by the how-secret-is-it issue, although that isn’t a cause of my altered conclusion. My original support for the article rested heavily on the fact that so many people already knew about the program that serious terrorists also must have been aware of it. But critical, and clever, readers were quick to point to a contradiction: the Times article and headline had both emphasized that a “secret” program was being exposed. (If one sentence down in the article had acknowledged that a number of people were probably aware of the program, both the newsroom and I would have been better able to address that wave of criticism.)

What kept me from seeing these matters more clearly earlier in what admittedly was a close call? I fear I allowed the vicious criticism of The Times by the Bush administration to trigger my instinctive affinity for the underdog and enduring faith in a free press — two traits that I warned readers about in my first column.


Now if he would just figure out the correct way to handle these situations, they wouldn't have to apologize.

That Tears It Update:The EU has closed down the program, saying that hunting for terrorists was not its purpose. Thanks, NYT. You've denied the US a useful tool in finding terrorists. Let's hope that the next preventable attack will be on your building, not someone who isn't responsible for such idiocy.

OK, I've read enough before the investigation results come out. I'm going to join the chorus of those predicting them. Prediction: the massacre at Haditha was performed by TIME magazine, with aid from the AP and Reuters, which gleefully and deliberately lied their asses off and didn't bother to check any facts. Which, of course, means that the next time any of these tell me something that doesn't sound right, I'll just put it down as the words of a bunch of guys talking at a neighborhood bar, though my local tends to have people who know more than these reporters (that's Vegas for you -- anyone else have some favorite locals with reasonable people?)

notes here.

Now I'll sit back and wait for the official invstigation.