The Latest Nefarious Liberal Scheme: Reporting
Julian Sanchez | September 10, 2005, 11:06am
Instapundit appears to think that this is a clever point:
THE PRESS WANTS TO SHOW BODIES from Katrina. It didn't want to show bodies, or jumpers, on 9/11, for fear that doing so would inflame the public.
I can only conclude that this time around, the press thinks it's a good thing to inflame the public. What could the difference be?
PowerLine agrees, which as a rough rule of thumb, should hint there's something wrong with the logic there. Perhaps it's that George Bush, Roy Nagin, and even weather patterns are unlikely to be beaten to death in the streets?
ADDENDUM: Just to clarify, I actually would've been fine with showing everything in 2001 also—though obviously that's a call for each news outlet to make based on any number of factors. I just don't think it's particularly mysterious why some editor might be concerned about touching off a violent public reaction in one case and not the other—and that the difference between the relevant ways of "inflaming" the public in each case is sufficiently obvious that it's silly to reach for an anti-Bush plot as the first explanation.
Jeff in NY | September 10, 2005, 6:41pm | #
A friend of mine who is a freelance writer spent a month volunteering at Ground Zero during the rescue and cleanup operations right after 9/11. She had a series of pieces published in the New York Times Magazine detailing her observations and her interviews with the rescuers and other working cleanup. She was disturbed at how much detail was censored from her work.
Even when avoiding being graphic with her own descriptions and being careful with what she quoted from the rescuers (and survivors) testimonies, she found the Times deleting almost every reference to the dead bodies, body parts, the witnessing of jumper impacts, the sheer scale of the carnage that was scattered all about Ground Zero.
Those jumpers didn't disappear when they jumped- they hit the ground, many falling completely clear of the impact zone of the later collapse of the towers. More than one person described the sound of the falling bodies hitting the ground, one after another, how it didn't stop until the towers actually fell. The remains of those who were trapped but did not jump were also scattered about, sometimes having been thrown quite a distance and later turning up when the cleanup crews least expected it.
Much of this was censored by the "paper of record" and other organs of the MSM, all the while fretting about the civil rights of innocent Muslims. Slandering the vast majority of Americans of all colors while insulting their intelligence and judgement with their paternalistic control of the flow of information.
My friend later donated copies of her manuscript drafts, notes and interview tapes to Columbia University. Maybe some future historian can put together an account of how our media lied to us with their selective presentation of 9/11. With such a sterling record, how can we not view with suspicion the media's newfound need to show dead bodies in prime time?
For a more succint account of the news media's selective focus, see here:
http://www.seanet.com/~jimxc/Politics/August2005_4.html#jrm3527
Bob | September 11, 2005, 7:39am | #
Oh, and Tom Crick, What The F**k, Over!
Bob writes:
"If the commentators on this post are regular, Libertarian minded, Reason readers, it's sad to see how so many Libertarians infected by Bush hating liberalism."
Tom Crick responds:
Are people who oppose the Bush Administration wrong by definition?
Bob responds: Now, I can see how you might be offended by my lumping together all the critics, on this thread, of Glenn's comments with Bush hating liberals. I'm sorry. That may be unfair. But, to me, they sound a lot alike: they're both failing to acknowledge obvious hypocrisy when it's presented to them. That said, however, could you please explain to me how I even came close, in my original comments, to implying that all opponents of the Bush Administration are generally wrong by definition. After all the lengthy analysis I provided in my original post, that's your best shot at me? That's just sloppy thinking, Tom. Let's do a quick review, Tom; it may help you. This thread is about Glenn's original implication that CNN's efforts to photograph the dead bodies of Katrina is an example of their hypocrisy (given their position of embargoing the gruesome pictures of 9/11) that results from their left wing bias. Now, all my remarks were focused on defending Glen's narrow implication. I provided numerous examples of biased press coverage related to Katrina. I did not write about abortion, the Iraq War, Terry Schiavo, evolution (unlike some of Glen's critics on this thread), or any other of the many topics on which Bush has vociferous opponents. So how can that be construed as claiming that Bush's opponents are generally wrong by definition. I disagree with the President on many issues. The press coverage of Katrina, however, is another matter. Given the evidence we have now, I think it's indisputably clear to any rational, intelligent, person that, to the extent government can be blamed at all for the death and destruction caused by Katrina, then at least 90% of the blame should go to the city government, state government and other liberal groups like the save our wetlands people who fought in court, tooth and nail, every attempt strengthen the dyke system in, and around, New Orleans. And yet 90% of the press coverage is focused on blaming Bush. Again, the anti Bush bias of the press in general, and CNN in particular (as well CNN's hypocrisy that results from it), is striking and clear; acknowledging it and pointing it out has nothing to do with whether or not he, or his opponents, are wrong on any other issue.
In addition, Bob writes:
"Implying that censorship is OK if it's to protect against a possible anti Muslim backlash but not OK if CNN, and the rest of the MSM, is pushing a false Bush-is-to-blame backlash?"
Tom Crank responds:
I don't see any comments implying that censorship is okay. ...but maybe I missed one, can you point it out?
Bob responds: Er, Helllloooo. How about the comment by jf at September 10, 2005 02:01 PM:
Is there any purpose to showing the Katrina victims? I don't know. Is there any reason NOT to show the Katrina victims? Probably not. Was there a good reason NOT to show the 9/11 victims? Again, probably not.
Unless you're truly concerned that the ignorant masses would have risen up and bashed in the heads of every Muslim, Sikh, and anyone else with dirt-colored skin while chanting "USA! USA!".
Bob continues: The point is clear in this post. This person believes there is no good reason not to show the Katrina pics but does provide a good reason not to show 9/11 pics (a potential anti dark skinned backlash in the U.S.). Therefore, this person is clearly implying that, because the press had a good reason, self censorship in this case is okay.
Bob continues: Or how about Julian Sanchez's original post. In critiquing a comment by Greg at September 10, 2005 11:04 PM, you seem to dispute Greg's claim that Julian share's the proposition that Arabs and Muslims would get beaten in the streets if the press didn't censor itself by not showing the gruesome pictures of 9/11 to the public. To fully evaluate the claim let's look at Glenn's original post and Julian's response.
Glenn writes:
THE PRESS WANTS TO SHOW BODIES from Katrina. It didn't want to show bodies, or jumpers, on 9/11, for fear that doing so would inflame the public.
I can only conclude that this time around, the press thinks it's a good thing to inflame the public. What could the difference be?
To which Julian Responds:
PowerLine agrees, which as a rough rule of thumb, should hint there's something wrong with the logic there. Perhaps it's that George Bush, Roy Nagin, and even weather patterns are unlikely to be beaten to death in the streets?
Bob continues in response to Tom Crank: I don't know where you're not getting it here. Glenn clearly seems to be implying press hypocrisy resulting from liberal bias. While Julian clearly seems to be saying that, no, the situations are not similar, they are different, there is no hypocrisy here because Glenn's logic is "wrong". As evidence of how "wrong" Glenn's logic is, Julian points out his view that "George Bush, Roy Nagin, and even weather patterns are unlikely to be beaten to death in the streets." The implication clearly is that Muslims and Arabs, however, could be beaten to death in the streets if 9/11 pics were shown to the public. Therefore, clearly, in Julian's view the situations are completely different and that it was okay for the press to censor itself by not showing the gruesome 9/11 pics.
Well, Tom Crank, I hope this adequately responds to your points.
Brian | September 11, 2005, 11:38am | #
Rob Serling writes:
I've carefully read through all the responses and not one of you has refuted Instapundit. Fact is, most press organs did what they could to minimize public reaction to 9/11 because public rage aided Bush, and now they're doing the opposite, because they believe public rage harms Bush. It's very simple.
I had a teacher whose husband was an AP photographer. He was at the Twin Towers from 8:30 a.m. Tuesday, September 11, 2001 to 8:30 a.m. Wednesday, September 12. He shot photographs of the towers falling and of people leaping to their deaths, without any thought as to how it would harm the President. His only thought was for those poor souls killed in that horrendous manner, to the point where he had a nervous breakdown later in the week and was unable to return to work.
He thought first about the victims, then his photos. Bush was far far far far far down his list of priorities.
And for those of you who think we saw the worst of 9/11 casualties on TV: we did not. We never saw people reduced to hamburger on TV - and yes, that's what the jumpers looked like when they hit the street - conical meat patties. We never saw the charred corpses of the people who were set on fire in the North Tower elevators and erupted out into the lobby, screaming, or the bodies of all the other people who were in the lobby that morning. We never saw the cadavers out on the street south of the WTC complex, remains of those who were doused with flaming jet fuel that fell from the sky and burned to death - one victim survived for six weeks with no skin.
Put yourself in the TV producer's shoes. You are presented with footage of people turned to hamburger, and photos of charred bodies. Those remains have not been identified, and the process will take months, if the victims can ever really be identified. Families will know nothing about their children for months on end -- unless an image of body comes up on you network, and you se your husabnd, your wife or your child turned into charred cinders.
The key is how to tell the story while showing respect to the dead. Hell, if images are all that matter, then why don't we show the remains of John Wayne Gacy's victims? After all, we can't get the horror of a man raping and murdering children without the images -- can we? I mean, the media must obviously be trying to dampen our enthusiasm for the death penalty if they don't have the cojones to show the corpses of dead children.
All of a sudden the press wants to show the bodies of the dead? Please. It's obvious what's going on. There are people who want to raise America up and people who want to bring it down - CNN falls into the latter category.
The question of displaying bodies is never easy for editors -- who
are human beings, despite what some bloggers would like you to believe. You don't want to revel in the gory details of the death, but you don't want to hide from the reality of the situation, either. When contractors were attacked, burned and strung up on a bridge in Iraq, most outlets obscured the bodies -- not because showing them would have helped (or hurt) Bush, but because the story could be told effectively without seeing those charred corpses.
The main question for most media outlets is whether the body is identifiable as an individual person, and whether the story can be told without them. As far as I've seen, most media aren't showing the bodies of the victims of Hurricane Katrina. There have been many print descriptions (like the NYT's horrifying story about a corpse rotting in the middle of a New Orleans street), but visual images are at a minimum. It's always a difficult call, but the reasons to do it are rarely, if ever, political.
Tom Crick | September 11, 2005, 5:51pm | #
"Tom Crick - I didn't find anything useful at your 6:26 link."
I'm sorry to hear that. I'd hoped that Cavanaugh's counter-arguments to that conspiracy theorist who thought 9/11 was perpetrated by the President might be helpful. Short of that, I understand Rick Ross helps cult victims and others who idealize figureheads and have somehow lost the ability to think critically.
...Of course, if you can think critically, it really doesn't matter what some biased news agency broadcasts or doesn't broadcast.
"Are you really so committed to the notion that CNN is objective that you can't acknowledge their hypocrisy when you see it?"
No.
I don't watch CNN, generally speaking, and I don't care about CNN. I don't watch or care about Fox News either. I get most of my news from print and sources on the web--all of them have biases.
...Sometimes I catch the news broadcasts on ABC, CBS, NBC or PBS--I know they're biased too, but I don't really care.
I also don't watch or care about
Desperate Housewives,
The Amazing Race,
Will and Grace,
Fear Factor,
Life with Jim,
Survivor,
American Idol or
Judging Amy. That's the short list--there are many more programs that I don't watch or care about.
I like cooking shows, gardening shows,
Battlestar Galactica, fights, CNBC while the market's trading, football and, although I don't understand Spanish, I like watching the hot chicks on Spanish speaking networks like Univision. I used to really like
Farscape. I guess I'm just biased.
Tom Crick = Eason Jordan.
I don't know who Eason Jordan is, and I don't think I care.
Rob Sterling | September 11, 2005, 9:11pm | #
Lowney - It's not absurd to attribute a mass-motive or will behind the actions of disparate individuals. Any reasonably intelligent person who favors one side or another can identify the "spin" his side is pursuing or going to pursue from context, 9 times out of 10, and join right in. For example, I received no instructions to come here and bash CNN's decision, nor did anyone else who has commented here criticizing Julian's post. But we're here, aren't we?
It is beyond dispute that most of the media worked to soften the blow of 9/11 in the United States. See
this . The effort included refraining from showing the worst imagery that was captured.
The media (CNN, specifically) is now pursuing the opposite course with Katrina, and it is obvious why it has arrived at a different decision this time.
Similarly, in both of the last two presidential elections the TV networks' election day coverage has miscalled state returns or breached their supposed journalistic ethics in a fashion that has been damaging to George Bush's campaign. In 2000 there was the bad Florida call, BEFORE polls had closed in the Republican panhandle, which suppressed GOP turnout there and elsewhere. And in 2004 there were the stupendously incompetent and inaccurate Zogby exit poll results for several states in contention east of the Mississippi, leaked to Wonkette and other leftist blogs by persons unknown, and dutifully spread.
Have you noticed the common thread? It's always George Bush's campaign that's damaged. And in 2008 I'm confident there will be another huge error or breach that will influence the voting behavior of late afternoon and evening voters, and that it will aid the Democrat. Maybe I'm just jaded?
I'm not suggesting a conspiracy - it's not an either/or proposition between conspiracy and coincidence. There's plenty of room in between the two, and the more wired we get the more nuanced becomes the pathways information can take.
Rob Sterling | September 11, 2005, 10:49pm | #
I'm not looking for anything, Tom, we're not talking about fnords. It's right there, presenting itself for viewing. If you don't like the election night 2000 & 2004 comparisons, look at the difference in treatment of the Bush ANG story and the Kerry Swift Boat story. It doesn't take a conspiracy - it just takes a few people with shared sympathies. How more obvious can this be?
Here's an example: what are the chances of a coin flip going heads? 50%, right? And what if you get two in a row heads? Still 50%? What about four in a row? Or eight? Or 15?
See, if you get a substantial number of flips in a row that are all heads, then it becomes obvious that the odds, at least for that particular coin, are not 50%. The game is rigged.
Why does information get passed along? Let's stipulate for this argument that information gets passed along because it's interesting or useful. Some individuals may have perverse or personal reasons for spreading information, but if it's not interesting or useful, broad spread doesn't happen. It takes a large number of people to spread information, and they are usually acting spontaneously without any kind of conspiracy.
On the other hand, how does information get blocked? Some individuals may have perverse or personal reasons NOT to spread information. If it's early enough in the spread, failure to pass it along can kill the information. It doesn't matter what other people think about it because they never see it.
So it's easier for one person to successfully block interesting or useful information than it is for one person to successfully spread it.
When you have an ideologically uniform, or nearly uniform, press room, you get the block effect. Negative information about Bush was allowed to pass on and spread because it was interesting, but negative information about Kerry had trouble making it out - it was blocked by individuals who didn't care for the implications and possible consequences, or who simply disregarded it because it was at odds with their preconceptions.
Tom Red | September 12, 2005, 11:54am | #
I am not afraid. I will say this aloud. The media works hard to discredit Republicans. However, this does not work and somehow more Republicans are elected than ever before or lately. Is the media a double agent? Do they attack the President and Republicans openly to turn opinion against the MSM and gather sympathy for the President? Is it true Jack Welch used his position as CEO of GE to influence the coverage at NBC and the early call for Bush?
I don't know. I agree that disagreeing with Bush is disloyalty to Bush. Any instance of any information or statement that goes against Bush, Bush policies, Bush anything is an act of disloyalty, treason, if you will against Bush. It is either with us or against us.
Sometimes it seems that the media and people are not agreeing with Bush enough, they are not supporting Bush enough, they are being disloyal. This is so unfortunate. They hate Bush, yes, and Bush is president, so they hate America too.
I forgot what I was trying to say.
Oh, yeah, the media has published stories that are negative against Clinton, take your pick which one. This has zero relevance to what I have written.
What does have relevance is that as a consumer I have choice. I can find images I want of Saddam chopping off heads and arms, dead 9-11 bodies charred, smushed, crushed, etc., dead American soldiers, from several wars, dead Iraqi civilians, dead children, dead New Orleans bodies with their throat slit and pockets stuff with looted merchandise from Rite Aid (what was really stolen? The American Dream) dead Presidents, Dead Kurt Cobain, I can view as much death as I want. I can swim in a visual sea of mortality. It is awesome.
What are we talking about?
Yes, America hates itself. Yes America implies two continents and dozens of countries but the United States of America has never stopped doing what it does best.
I think I've clearly made my point.
America, when will you be worthy of your Freedom Walkers?
America, when will you earn the trust of your SS payroll tax payers?
America, when will it be obvious that the country is kind of silly?
America, everybody looking to blame everybody for things beyond comprehension should remember that it doesn't matter. We are all going to die.
And if we are lucky, pictures from that moment will appear on CNN and The New York Times and the official White House/ Pentagon website.
Amen!
Rob Sterling | September 12, 2005, 1:46pm | #
That's close enough, Tom. To have a conspiracy there must be conspirers, and I don't believe there are conspirers. But I do believe that similar blinders and attention to similar culture cues tends to homogenize the output of most mainstream news sources, and thus guarantees a steady stream of news and "errors" that benefit the Democrats at the expense of the Republicans.
Joe - I remember you, I think. You had a brother who was around sometimes, right?
I happen to believe that the Swift Boat Vets were telling the truth about John Kerry's conduct in Vietnam. But it doesn't really matter - they had the affidavits of dozens of men, all of whom served either on the same boat, the same squadron or the same command unit as Kerry. And the MSM ignored them. In court, two credible witnesses are enough to convict. In this case we had dozens.
On the other hand, there was a story with far, far less grounding and evidence than the Swifties' story, based entirely on some obvious forgeries with no chain of custody. Unlike the Swifties' story, it was aired before a national broadcast audience on 60 Minutes. The reporter who aired the report never fully retracted it, even though the forgeries were completely exposed and demolished by bloggers.
What amazed me most about the story was how many people (lefties all) saw the document overlay of the forgeries on top of the same words typed with the default Word document settings, and yet still denied that the docs were forgeries.
And I'm not saying you have to believe one story and not the other. But you DO have to recognize that there were two profoundly different standards of proof going on. Once again, that disparity was to the detriment of the Republican. It always is.
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
