This blog will discuss many issues pertaining to current events and encourages others to discuss and do the same. The goal is to raise the level of discourse and hopefully have a good time sharing thoughts and ideas.
Yesterday I chose to highlight a piece by one of my fellow contributors at the Cincinnati Beacon. The Dean of Cincinnati's piece discussed how Cincinnati Enquirer columnist Peter Bronson, posted a blog entry to make fun of Al Franken and within that entry, posted a fake photo of Franken in a diaper and bunny ears. That fake photograph had been debunked in 2006 by ThinkProgress and even by the Cincinnati Enquirer itself, but that didn't stop Bronson from using the image in his post.
Bronson at first defended his posting the photo because it "resonates" with people because many can "see Franken that way", but later posted another entry which said that it is not policy to post images that are known to be fake. In addition to all of this, Bronson has apparently deleted the original post (and all of the subsequent comments) from the Enquirer's website to wipe the record clean, so to speak.
Since the Cincinnati Beacon initially published their piece on this issue, the story has taken off and received national attention and criticism from:
Bronson has made an addition to his follow up post (where he links to the suddenly "unavailable" original entry) saying: "Note: Link above no longer works -- we're not sure why. Checking on it." Let me help Peter, it isn't there anymore because you deleted it.
Lucky for us ThinkProgress provided a link to a JPG screenshot of the original post that you can find by clicking here.
Yesterday I noted that it was ironic that Bronson had posted an item on how the media has unfairly attacked Sarah Palin and today it even gets better.
Bronson has a new post where he says that he is getting tough with the mean commentors who comment on his blog. Bronson says the following:
So far, I've tried ignoring the blog version of mean drunks. That's not working. The other day I heard again from one of the visitors who said he just couldn't stand the nasty tone and vicious personal attacks here. He's not the first customer to be driven away by the pit bulls on this playground.
So it's time to bang a shot-glass on the bartop and issue a warning: Clean it up, or the bouncer will come to your table. And he won't be taking an order.
In bartending, we called that the "86" -- a code to cut someone off who has obviously had way too much to drink. You start be ingoring them, and if that doesn't work, you show them the door.
Some of you -- and you know who you are -- are long over due for an 86.
So from here out, I will alert the bouncers and eject anyone who hijacks the discussion with below-the-belt personal punches.
[...]
Name-calling and insults show a lack of maturity and intellect. They have no place in an adult discussion.
Maybe someone can help me. Does posting a fake picture of Al Franken in a diaper with rabbit ears, qualify as showing a lack of maturity or intellect?
I have written criticisms of Cincinnati Enquirer columnist and blogger, Peter Bronson, in the past but this time will highlight an item that was posted by The Dean of Cincinnati over at The Cincinnati Beacon. (Full disclosure: I also contribute to the Cincinnati Beacon.)
Last week, Bronson posted a blog entry on July 1 saying that the joke was actually on Minnesota for electing Al Franken as their Senator. (I will address why I am not linking directly to his original entry in a moment). In his post Bronson wrote:
The new Franken-Senate may not be as congenial as his old cast and crew on Saturday Night Live. There will be defections, rejections, betrayals and walk-outs. And if they let Franken be Franken, he might embarrass his party and become a kick-me sign on the back of Democrats at election time. Meanwhile, Democrats are now running the federal Titanic and can no longer blame the icebergs on Republicans.
Or Franken might surprise us and become a pretty good Senator. (Cue the canned laughter.)
For now, if Republicans can find their misplaced sense of humor, there must be some great ads to be made from Franken’s clips and quips. Such as:
Is this who you want making decisions about your health care?
and then posted this picture:
As the Cincinnati Beacon pointed out, the only problem is that the photo was photoshopped (not by Bronson) and was debunked in 2006 by Think Progress. Ironically, a reporter for the Cincinnati Enquirer also posted a piece debunking this photo in 2006. The Dean of Cincinnati wrote to Bronson and the Enquirer the following:
Dear Mr. Bronson,
I am writing to inform you that your recent blog item, “Minnesota - the joke is on you,” includes information that has been thoroughly debunked in 2006—and interestingly the information was debunked by Jon Craig on the Politics Extra blog. I would like to request formally, therefore, a correction and an apology on your blog for misleading your readers.
You included a photo of Al Franken where he appeared to be holding a stuffed animal and wearing diapers. However, that is a doctored photo. Here’s the proof from your own news organization: http://tinyurl.com/p2oftv
You introduced this doctored photo without making any indication of its status as a fake. In fact, you suggested otherwise: “For now, if Republicans can find their misplaced sense of humor, there must be some great ads to be made from Franken’s clips and quips.” The phrase “Franken’s clips and quips” indicates that Franken owns the “clip” you provided, namely the doctored photo. But that is not true. The picture is a fake, and your item totally misleads your readers—unacceptable even for a columnist.
Please advise what steps you intend to take to remedy the situation, and I look forward to reading your reply.
Respectfully,
[The Dean of Cincinnati]
So in the comment section of the original post, Bronson then posted:
PeterBronson wrote:
Yes, the photo of Franken in a diaper was apparently altered. But it’s not exactly a big reach to believe it could have come from one of his SNL skits. It resonates because people find it easy to see Franken that way.
7/6/2009 10:46 AM EDT
Interesting response that seems to justify Bronson's posting of the fake image in the first place..."It resonates because people find it easy to see Franken that way." That argument can be made to justify the posting of all sorts of inappropriate items, but I digress.
Last week I posted a blog about comedian Al Franken joining the Senate (here), including a picture of Franken wearing bunny ears and a diaper.
Franken did many things on Saturday Night Live that could be embarrassing to a Senator. But apparently, that was not one of them. It turns out the picture was photoshopped.
We don't knowingly run false pictures, so I took it down and replaced it with another goofy picture of Sen. Franken.
So he replaced the one image in his original post with a new image. Apparently what Bronson meant by this, is that he would delete all evidence of the original posting by deleting that blog entry, which is what Bronson did. He actually links back to his original entry within the text of his corrected entry, but it jumps to this page.
So to recap, Peter Bronson posted a photoshopped picture (that was debunked in 2006)of Al Franken in order to make fun of his election to the Senate. Bronson gets caught by The Dean of Cincinnati who writes about the issue and writes a letter to Bronson asking for a correction. Bronson posts a comment in the original thread that admits that the picture was photoshopped, but justifies that it "resonates" with people because many can see Franken in that manner. After the item gets reposted and linked to at other blogs, Bronson posts another entry as a half-apology for posting a fake image and completely deletes the original entry from the record.
and this is the same guy who just posted an entry about the so-called "liberal media" unfairly attacking Sarah Palin.
A couple of additional notes on the resignation of Sarah Palin from her tenure as Governor of Alaska. Palin continues to level charges against the so-called "mainstream media" and bloggers who she thinks have given her unfair treatment and who have reported rumors as fact. Most notably, Palin's attorney Thomas Van Flein issued a statement which threatened legal action against Shannyn Moore, a blogger for the Huffington Post who has written about possible ethics questions surrounding the construction of the Palin house:
Van Flein wrote in his Saturday letter that the Palin family built the Lake Lucille house using Palin's husband, Todd, as general contractor. It said Todd "is no stranger to construction."
"The Palins used a combination of personal savings, equity from the sale of their private home, and conventional bank financing to build the house, like millions of American families" Van Flein wrote.
Van Flein's letter threatening legal action specifically pointed the finger at Alaska blogger Shannyn Moore as "most notably" claiming as "fact" that Palin resigned under federal investigation.
Van Flein, asked why he singled out Moore, said it's because she went on national television and talked about it. Moore was on with MSNBC's David Shuster on Friday, the day Palin said she will resign.
On the Fourth of July, when Americans everywhere were celebrating our most sacred national holiday with parades and barbeques, Governor Sarah Palin was busy having me, Shannyn Moore, declared an Enemy of the State.
In a rambling quasi-legal letter, the most powerful person in this state accused me of defaming her for pointing out the fact that there have been rumors, -rumors- of corruption, rumors that have been around for years.
When Sarah Palin gave her three-weeks notice to the people of Alaska, aborting her term as Governor, a lot of people wondered why she quit. Mid-level managers turn-in their notice, not elected public officials. It didn’t make sense. It still doesn’t. People have been trying to guess why she really quit, and everyone in Alaska has been playing the guessing game. They’re rumors. There are a lot of rumors. And with all the corruption we’ve had here in Alaska, of course we wonder what’s really behind her resignation.
Governors don’t just quit. But Governor Palin did.
The governor’s massive overreaction -on the Fourth of July no less- should make any reasonable person wonder what’s wrong with her. The Lady protests way too much. Eventually we’ll all find out why she really walked off the job.
Sarah Palin is a coward and a bully. What kind of politician attacks an ordinary American on the Fourth of July for speaking her mind? What’s wrong with her? The First Amendment was designed to protect people like me from the likes of people like her. Our American Revolution got rid of kings. And queens, too. Am I jacked-up? You betcha.
Sarah Palin, if you have a problem with me, then sue me. Shannyn Moore will not be muzzled!
Palin began claiming that the so-called "liberal media" was out to destroy her after she was announced as John McCain's running mate last August and continues to point to Tina Fey and Katie Couric for helping to take her down. Let me just say that there have been some mean-spirited and untrue things that have been written about Palin since she was first announced as McCain's running mate, but for her to assert that Couric's interview was "gotcha" journalism or that Fey's impersonation (which borrowed heavily from Palin's actual transcripts) were unfair or a plot to take her down, is ridiculous. Even during her rambling and confusing resignation announcement she made reference to the media:
Some say things changed for me on August 29th last year – the day John McCain tapped me to be his running-mate – I say others changed.
Let me speak to that for a minute.
Political operatives descended on Alaska last August, digging for dirt. The ethics law I championed became their weapon of choice. Over the past nine months I’ve been accused of all sorts of frivolous ethics violations – such as holding a fish in a photograph, wearing a jacket with a logo on it, and answering reporters’ questions.
Every one – all 15 of the ethics complaints have been dismissed. We’ve won! But it hasn’t been cheap - the State has wasted THOUSANDS of hours of YOUR time and shelled out some two million of YOUR dollars to respond to “opposition research” – that’s money NOT going to fund teachers or troopers – or safer roads. And this political absurdity, the “politics of personal destruction” … Todd and I are looking at more than half a million dollars in legal bills in order to set the record straight. And what about the people who offer up these silly accusations? It doesn’t cost them a dime so they’re not going to stop draining public resources – spending other peoples’ money in their game.
It’s pretty insane – my staff and I spend most of our day dealing with THIS instead of progressing our state now. I know I promised no more “politics as usual,” but THIS isn’t what anyone had in mind for ALASKA.
[...]
In fact, this decision comes after much consideration, and finally polling the most important people in my life - my children (where the count was unanimous… well, in response to asking: “Want me to make a positive difference and fight for ALL our children’s future from OUTSIDE the Governor’s office?” It was four “yes’s” and one “hell yeah!” The “hell yeah” sealed it - and someday I’ll talk about the details of that… I think much of it had to do with the kids seeing their baby brother Trig mocked by some pretty mean-spirited adults recently.) Um, by the way, sure wish folks could ever, ever understand that we ALL could learn so much from someone like Trig - I know he needs me, but I need him even more… what a child can offer to set priorities RIGHT – that time is precious… the world needs more “Trigs”, not fewer.
Critics are spinning, so hang in there as they feed false info on the right decision made as I enter last yr in office to not run again....
and...
Trying to keep up w/getting truth to u, like proof there's no "FBI scandal", here's link http://tinyurl.com/nzlae8 Thanks, AK!
I wonder what Fox News contributor Liz Trotta has to say about Palin's complaints about the media coverage (this may surprise you!):
Forget Liz Trotta, I wonder what Sarah Palin herself had to say in August, 2008 about Hillary Clinton complaining about media coverage:
I really hope that Palin will not use her resignation to claim that the media helped to force her out or to establish herself as a kind of political martyr. I can't imagine that angle would get much mileage except for with the right-wing base of the Republican Party that already believes that this is the case. Greg Mitchell, author of "Why Obama Won"wrote a piece titled "The Myth of How the Media Destroyed Palin". A clip:
It's been amusing to observe, in the past few days, Sarah Palin hit the media (from blogs to the New York Times) for causing all of her troubles, even threatening to sue some of them for "defaming" her. She's even tweeted the charges, repeatedly. It's been equally fun to read some of those who backed her and John McCain last fall now admitting, after her resignation speech, that she is a true lightweight. This was apparent to most Americans within days of her emergence on the national ticket late last summer.
[...]
In fact, in the months after the November election, we heard from pundits and disgruntled GOPers that the media helped elect Obama by attacking, or mocking, Sarah Palin. These critics still allege that she gave John McCain a big boost in the polls when first named and that she would have help drive him to victory -- if not for the allegedly unfair treatment by Katie and Tina Fey and those mean bloggers and all the rest.
But this is not true. The myth should be put to bed once and for all, as Sarah finally crosses that bridge to nowhere.
In fact, Palin never really helped him except with the GOP "base," which he would have won over anyway. She never had broad-based appeal and, as I have written here previously (and in my book, Why Obama Won), McCain had been fooled by false media coverage of the purported huge number of Hillary Clinton fans -- women and the working class -- who were eager to bolt Obama for the GOP. This never came to pass.
In reality, the undermining of Palin happened well before the networks and SNL got to her. The polls proved it. Her home state paper, the Anchorage Daily News was quick to expose elements of her past that raised questions and just days after she was named, the Fairbanks, Alaska daily called her choice by McCain a silly one. And the evidence mounted from there, within days.
More than anything, McCain was hurt by shattering his strongest calling card -- "experience" -- by picking a neophyte to serve one heartbeat away. Now, some conservative pundits who long backed her now may be reaching the same conclusion as evidence has mounted.
Reality is elusive to someone like Palin and to borrow from Stephen Colbert, in Palin's eyes, the truth often has a liberal bias.
And there is such a need to BUILD up and FIGHT for our state and our country. I choose to FIGHT for it! And I'll work hard for others who still believe in free enterprise and smaller government; strong national security for our country and support for our troops; energy independence; and for those who will protect freedom and equality and LIFE... I'll work for and campaign for those PROUD to be American, and those who are INSPIRED by our ideals and won't deride them.
I WILL support others who seek to serve, in or out of office, for the RIGHT reasons, and I don't care what party they're in or no party at all. Inside Alaska - or Outside Alaska.
But I won't do it from the Governor's desk.
Of course the odd timing of this resignation, as well as her rambling resignation speech, have led many to speculate on the "real" reason that Palin is stepping down.
There is one report from Andrea Mitchell at MSNBC that indicates Palin is fed up with politics altogether and wants out:
Speaking on MSNBC, Andrea Mitchell reported that, according to "people very close to Sarah Palin," she has "told her supporters that she is out of politics, period. She is fed up with politics. She doesn't like her life. She feels that she needs to raise her family. She's sick of the commute from Wasilla to the capital. And she really does not want to run for higher office, that this is not a case where she is stepping down in order to clear the way for a presidential run. In fact, she has told some of her biggest backers in the national Republican Party that they are free to choose other candidates for 2012, which of course opens new avenues for Mitt Romney, for Tim Pawlenty, for other potential candidates who are definitely in the running."
There are also people speculating that Palin resigned in order to make some money before running for the Presidency in 2012 and then you have those who are saying that Palin is resigning in front of a big scandal that is about to break. Max Blumenthal on The Daily Beast:
Many political observers in Alaska are fixated on rumors that federal investigators have been seizing paperwork from SBS in recent months, searching for evidence that Palin and her husband Todd steered lucrative contracts to the well-connected company in exchange for gifts like the construction of their home on pristine Lake Lucille in 2002. The home was built just two months before Palin began campaigning for governor, a job which would have provided her enhanced power to grant building contracts in the wide-open state.
SBS has close ties to the Palins. The company has not only sponsored Todd Palin's snowmobile team, according to the Village Voice's Wayne Barrett, it hired Sarah Palin to do a statewide television commercial in 2004.
As of right now, analysts can only speculate, but it must be noted that Palin's resignation probably doesn't make a lot of sense if she plans to run for President in 2012. It would seem to me that she would at least want to have served a full-term as Governor to be able to tout that qualification if she was going to run for the nation's highest office. It would probably even make more political sense to run for re-election so that if she was planning a Presidential run, she could at least tout that she was elected to a second term.
What doesn't seem to make sense is if she is planning on laying low and playing the "the liberal media forced me out" card before running for President in 2012. While that may have some appeal to her conservative base, I can't really see that as a political strategy that would give her the type of widespread appeal that she would have to rely on to get her through the primaries. In all other normal situations, I would almost put money on the option that her resignation has something to do with an upcoming scandal. The abruptness of her decision as well as the odd timing really sets off my political scandal radar, but I need to remind myself that we are talking about Sarah Palin. Palin is not a normal political candidate and her decisions do not always make rational sense. Maybe she really is planning a run in 2012 and thinks that this is her best option. Time will certainly tell, but something tells me that the story of Sarah Palin's political career is not over just yet.
I have been keeping an eye on an interesting back and forth that has been going on over the last week between the Ombudsman for National Public Radio, Alicia Shepard and journalist Glenn Greenwald.
Shepard has been receiving emails from listeners of NPR about their policy of not using the word "torture" in describing waterboarding and other techniques that were used during the interrogation of detainees in U.S. custody. (Instead, NPR opts to use the terms "harsh interrogation tactics" and "enhanced interrogation techniques".)
In response to these letters from viewers, Shepard wrote a piece in order to address these concerns. From her article:
How should NPR describe the tactics used to coerce information out of terrorism suspects?
Ted Koppel, the former ABC Nightline host and commentator on Talk of the Nation, said in May that the U.S. should "define it [torture] as being any technique or practice which, when applied to an American prisoner in some other country or captured by some other entity, that we would object to. If we object to it being done to an American, then I think it's thttp://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=114432749054567487orture."
That seems clear enough, but the problem is that the word torture is loaded with political and social implications for several reasons, including the fact that torture is illegal under U.S. law and international treaties the United States has signed.
Both Presidents Bush and Obama have insisted that the United States does not use torture. Officials during the Bush administration acknowledged the use of what they called "enhanced interrogation techniques."
Also, not all interrogation could be classified as torture. Sleep deprivation, nudity and facial slaps are different from, say, pouring water on a cloth over someone's face for 20 to 40 seconds to create the sensation of drowning -- a practice known as waterboarding.
[...]
It's a no-win case for journalists. If journalists use the words "harsh interrogation techniques," they can be seen as siding with the White House and the language that some U.S. officials, particularly in the Bush administration, prefer. If journalists use the word "torture," then they can be accused of siding with those who are particularly and visibly still angry at the previous administration.
There has been no clear consensus on what constitutes torture, noted Brian Duffy, NPR's former managing editor in late April.
[...]
To me, it makes more sense to describe the techniques and skip the characterization. For example, reporters could say that the U.S. military poured water down a detainee's mouth and nostrils for 40 seconds. Or they could detail such self-explanatory techniques as forcing detainees into cramped confines crawling with insects, or forced to stand for hours along side a wall.
A basic rule of vivid writing is: "Show, Don't Tell." An excellent example of using facts rather than coded language was a 2005 piece by former NPR reporter John McChesney. It gave meticulous details of tactics used against an Iraqi detainee at Abu Graib who later died.
Glenn Greenwald, who has written extensively about the issue of torture and the media coverage that surrounds the debate, responded to Shepard's piece with an entry of his own. Greenwald writes:
She describes Koppel’s standard as "clear enough" -- and it is. So why doesn’t NPR use that standard? Because -- she argues -- "the word torture is loaded with political and social implications for several reasons, including the fact that torture is illegal under U.S. law and international treaties the United States has signed."
So what? How does the fact that torture is illegal mean that NPR shouldn’t describe as "torture" tactics which -- when used against Americans -- the U.S. government has long condemned as "torture"? Her objection to Koppel’s very sensible standard is a total non-sequitur. How does the criminality of torture serve as an argument against what Koppel advocated? It doesn't. She’s just in defend-NPR-at-any-cost mode and wants to justify its refusal to use the word "torture," and Koppel’s standard would compel the opposite conclusion, because so many of the tactics that were authorized by Bush were ones the U.S. -- and the rest of the civilized world -- have always called "torture."
[...]
The U.S. has prosecuted those acts as torture in the past. Multiple media outlets and even the U.S. Government have routinely described those acts as “torture” when used against Americans, rather than by Americans. The tactics are ones we copied from manuals designed to inure our own troops to the torture techniques used by some of the world’s worst tyrants. They resulted in numerous deaths. Until the Bush administration decided to call it something other than "torture" so that they could do it, nobody had any questions about whether this was "torture."
If there are tactics about which there is a reasonable dispute, then those need not be called torture by NPR. But many of the tactics that were authorized are "torture" in every sense of the word.
[...]
Here’s the nub of the matter – the crux of journalistic decay in America. Who cares if NPR is "seen" as siding with the White House or its critics? How it is perceived -- and who it angers -- should have nothing to do with how it reports. Its reporting should be guided by the truth, by verifiable facts, and by the objective meaning of words [notably, NPR's excuse -- "the Right will get angry at us if we call it 'torture'" -- is identical to The Washington Post's excuse for why they stopped calling Dan Froomkin a reporter (it angers the Right); it's amazing how much The Liberal Media makes editorial decisions based on a desire to please the Right].
Also, note that Shepard explicitly admits that, with its language choice, NPR has opted to be "seen siding with the White House and the language that some U.S. officials, particularly in the Bush administration, prefer." That, too, is an odd choice for a supposedly Liberal Media outlet. And note her snide and revealing assumption -- conventional wisdom among the establishment media -- that the only people who want these tactics to be called "torture" are those "who are particularly and visibly still angry at the previous administration" (or, as David Ignatius put it, "liberal score-settlers").
Greenwald then extended an interview request to Shepard so that the two could discuss the issue on Salon Radio. Shepard declined the request saying that she didn't want to get into a "shouting match". Instead, Shepard has gone on a couple of NPR shows to discuss and defend her article. Here is an audio clip of her on "On The Media" offering some of the same justification:
In response Greenwald wrote another piece highlighting the fact that Shepard had declined the interview request, pointing out that none of his interviews could be categorized as a "shouting match", and further criticizing her position. That entry resulted in this wacky email exchange between NPR's Senior Manager of Media Relations, Anna Christopher, and Glenn:
E-mail from Anna Christopher to GG:
Glenn,
I just saw your most recent column, criticizing Lisa [sic] Shepard for declining your interview request. Could you please give me a call when you have a chance?
If you or your interns want to make a request to interview NPR staff, that goes through me. I would have been able to tell your intern – who so tenaciously pursued her last week – that Lisa was on vacation and unreachable until Thursday. She didn’t ignore your request. And the last time I checked, requests are just that – requests. Not demands. Able to be accepted or declined.
Thank you,
Anna
Anna Christopher | Senior Manager, Media Relations
* * * * *
Reply from GG to Anna Christopher:
Anna - You apparently didn't read the column very carefully. We were told by someone from NPR -- Anna Tauzin -- that Alicia Shepard was [out of the office] last week and would therefore respond to the interview request by Monday. That's exactly what I wrote today. Tauzin did authorize us to say: "We were told by NPR that the Ombudsman is out of the office this week and her office will get back to us by Monday with a response." That's exactly what I wrote.
I didn't say she ignored my request, so why would you deny that she did? In fact, I said the opposite: that she responded to the request by refusing to be interviewed.
If there are internal NPR structures about who has what responsibilities, that's up to NPR to make clear. Tauzin never once said it was you who had to be contacted for the interview request. She was more than willing to convey the request to Shepard, and the Salon intern then spoke with Shepard herself yesterday.
I didn't suggest that Shepard broke the law by refusing to be interviewed by me -- only that people like her who opine pedantically on controversial matters have an ethical obligation to engage critics of their views.
If you'd still like to talk, let me know and I'll give you a call -
Glenn Greenwald
* * * * *
No further reply received from NPR.
In listening to Shepard's responses and her other appearance on NPR's "Talk of the Nation" yesterday, she continues to assert that this is a political debate and that NPR should not be taking sides in this debate by labeling tactics such as waterboarding, as torture. This is an important point in her defense and in journalism today as a whole. Shepard appears to view objectivity as presenting both sides of a debate and letting the viewers/listeners decide for themselves what is true. This should not be the role of journalists whose job it is to collect facts on a story and then present these facts regardless of who it offends or how they will be "perceived" by one side of the debate.
Objectivity is not saying "while one side of the debate claims that 2 plus 2 equals four, others are arguing that 2 plus 2 actually equals five." The role of journalism is to assert that it is an undeniable fact that 2 plus 2 equals four and that the people who disputing this fact have no basis for doing so. In this example above, if one presents both "sides" of this story, it gives equal validation to both arguments regardless of the indisputable fact that 2 plus 2 really does equal four. There can be no debate over this so why should it be the role of a journalist to pretend like there is one?
Similarly, just because the Bush Administration claims that waterboarding, a tactic which they approved and used on detainees, does not constitute torture does not automatically make it so. I am glad that Greenwald pointed out an exchange that happened on the Daily Show back in 2004 which illustrates this quite well:
Stewart: Here's what puzzles me most, Rob. John Kerry's record in Vietnam is pretty much right there in the official records of the U.S. military, and hasn't been disputed for 35 years. Corddry: That's right, Jon, and that's certainly the spin you'll be hearing coming from the Kerry campaign over the next few days. Stewart: That's not a spin thing, that's a fact. That's established. Corddry: Exactly, Jon, and that established, incontrovertible fact is one side of the story. Stewart: But isn't that the end of the story? I mean, you've seen the records, haven't you? What's your opinion? Corddry: I'm sorry, "my opinion"? I don't have opinions. I'm a reporter, Jon, and my job is to spend half the time repeating what one side says, and half the time repeating the other. Little thing called "objectivity"—might want to look it up some day. Stewart: Doesn't objectivity mean objectively weighing the evidence, and calling out what's credible and what isn't? Corddry: Whoa-ho! Sounds like someone wants the media to act as a filter! Listen, buddy: Not my job to stand between the people talking to me and the people listening to me.
Without objective analysis of facts and evidence by journalists, they merely become stenographers who repeat what they hear no matter the validity of the claims. Under this policy, all one side would need to do would be to lie, assert the lies as fact, and get them out into the media to make their claims look like they have credibility. As Judith Miller knows all too well, this is probably not the best strategy.
Alicia Shepard's defense of the official NPR policy is a prime example of what is wrong with the so-called "mainstream media" in today's country and it shows just have far journalistic integrity has slipped over the years. In the "Talk of the Nation" segment she specifically states that in the discussion surrounding torture the Bush Administration does "have a different side. Whether it is to dupe people or not, again, the role of a journalist is to put that information out there..." So according to Shepard, even if government officials are lying or trying to "dupe" people, it is the "role of journalists" to put that false message out to the public without any investigation into the validity of the claims so the public can draw their own conclusions.
If anyone is still wondering how the media could have provided us with coverage that helped lead us into the Iraq War, this is a prime exhibit of the mindset that allows for the media to uncritically report facetious claims.
Author Naomi Klein has been spending time in the Middle East on a "non-conventional" book tour for her book The Shock Doctrine which has recently been translated into Arabic and Hebrew. Here is video of her speaking in Bil'in:
Klein is on this trip to the Middle East continuing her call to boycott Israel in a manner similar to the movement that led to the end of apartheid in South Africa. From an AFP story:
"Boycott is a tactic . . . we're trying to create a dynamic which was the dynamic that ultimately ended apartheid in South Africa," said Klein, the author of "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism."
"It's an extraordinarily important part of Israel's identity to be able to have the illusion of Western normalcy," the Canadian writer and activist said.
"When that is threatened, when the rock concerts don't come, when the symphonies don't come, when a film you really want to see doesn't play at the Jerusalem film festival . . . then it starts to threaten the very idea of what the Israeli state is."
