Media Missteps. Context gets lost in hysteria and grandstanding.

NRO ^ | May 07, 2004, 9:40 a.m. | By Jonah Goldberg

[.cnI redruM]

Because it is required to repeat the obvious as if it were catechism during feeding-frenzy moments like this, let me say again: The abuse of Iraqi prisoners depicted in those now world-famous photos is an outrageous scandal and the perpetrators must be punished.

O.K., now can I say something else?

CBS should be ashamed for running those photos.

Since the journalistic priesthood insists that context is everything, let's get some context. The investigation into these abuses was long and well-underway before CBS's 60 Minutes II broke the story. In fact, it was the U.S. military that really broke the story by putting out a press release.

In January, the U.S. Central Command announced, "An investigation has been initiated into reported incidents of detainee abuse at a Coalition Forces detention facility." Other investigations were well underway by the time CBS ran its story.

Also, journalist Seymour Hersh was preparing an article for The New Yorker on the abuses. 60 Minutes II knew this because they'd tried to hire him as a consultant.

This is all very relevant, to me at least, because the case for broadcasting those photos to the world would be much, much stronger if the good reasons to do it weren't vastly outweighed by the bad.

The good reasons are obvious. The people have the right to know. The scandal firestorm sharpens the resolve of politicians and the military to investigate and stop the abuse of prisoners. The bad is that uproar from these pictures drowns out all other messages, explanations, and journalistic "context."

Lost is the fact that in America torturers get punished, while in the Arab world they get promotions. Huge percentages of Arabs are illiterate, which means these pictures will tell the whole story, particularly in the hands of the vilely anti-American Arab media. This will harden hearts against us and almost certainly result in lost American and Iraqi lives.

Now before you get all pious with table-thumping sermons about the glories of the First Amendment and the need to publish news without fear and all that, consider a few facts.

In 1994, ten Belgian peacekeepers were horribly mutilated alive (castrated, their Achilles tendons slashed, etc.) in Rwanda. The full extent of the barbarity wasn't disclosed for a long time for fear of reprisals.

Just a month ago, television news networks agonized about how much they should show of the butchery of Americans in Fallujah. They opted for very, very little.

Within 48 hours of the 9/11 attacks, the major news networks and leading newspapers were settling on a policy to stop showing images of victims leaping to their death from the World Trade Center. NBC ran one clip of a man plunging to his death, and then admitted it was a mistake. An NBC News v.p. told the New York Times, "Once it was on, we decided not to use it again. It's stunning photography, I understand that, but we felt the image was disturbing."

In fact, post-9/11 coverage illuminates an interesting cultural cleavage in the media. When shocking images might stir Americans to favor war, the Serious Journalists show great restraint. When those images have the opposite effect, the Ted Koppels let it fly.

In 2002, Salon.com — the left-wing web magazine — ran a finger-wagging story full of condescending quotes and observations about how America was too obsessed with 9/11. The author, Michelle Goldberg (no relation), wrote that the appetite for documentaries about the attacks "suggests a voyeuristic impulse cloaked in patriotic piety."

Maybe what stoked America's appetite wasn't pious voyeurism but the decision of the networks to withhold the footage in the first place?

Regardless, now Salon asks another question. The lead story by Eric Boehlert on May 6 asks: "The media are finally showing the war in its full horror. What took them so long?"

That's a fair, if slightly creepy, question. But it underscores my point: The media decide which images are too disturbing, too sensational, too dangerous all of the time. Ms. Goldberg, for example, spoke for the establishment media when she declared that the Danny Pearl murder-video was "too sickening to broadcast even once."

So the question is, What was gained by releasing these images now? CBS could have reported the story without the pictures. They could have still beaten their competition to the punch.

But these pictures are so inflammatory, so offensive to Muslim and American sensibilities, whatever news value they have is far, far outweighed by the damage they are doing. "Context" — the supposed holy grail of responsible journalism — is lost in the hysteria and political grandstanding.

Of course, CBS had every right to do what it did. But that's irrelevant. Nobody's suggesting the government should have stopped them. I'm suggesting that CBS should have stopped itself. Now we'll all have to live with the consequences — and some of us will die from them.

[.cnI redruM]

Well said. CBS has the right to publish kiddie porn if they feel that perverted tommorrow evening during primetime. The images presented and the news editing are straight out of the old Soviet propaganda film methodology.

A methodology kown as the Koloshov Effect. To achieve the Koloshov Effect, an editor rearranges images to achieve a desired effect. In other words, the photojournalists that shot this story designed the film clips to be as inflammatory and damaging to the war effort as they possibly could.

Their aim had nothing to do with enhancing their story. They were attempting to change or undermine US government policy through their media outlet. This is why THird World villains feel safe and comfortable killing Americans. These people know whose side our media is on.

[jjackson]

How did the stuff get to CBS?

Did an Army lawyer slip these pictures and videos to CBS?

[Spok]

I've been watching this pattern since the Watergate story broke. The press reports the facts, then comments, then editorializes outrage, then reports, comments and editorializes again, then repeats the process. Every miniscule piece of new information is an excuse to recycle all of the facts and all of the editorial raving. Small events can then stir people to action with the manufacture of popular rage and indignation, which does, over time, become real.
The contrast during the Clinton presidency was striking-scandals were reported in a very objective, factual manner and then followed up with...nothing. No commentary, no outrage, no redundancy. The rationale given: "it's old news".

[Irish Eyes]

Jonah Goldberg is SO on the mark with this story. Bump to the very top. Everyone should read this one.

[.cnI redruM]

Quite possible. Although I tend to think an Army Civilian did this one. Some of the DA Civilians I work with are ardent opponents of transformation, the WOT, Gen Schumaker and anything even remotely connected with Donald Rumsfeld.

[MHGinTN]

I wish Jonah had mentioned that the story was out in January, that the Senators had the news reports in January, and that not one of the now squealing liberal democrat senator pukes asked to be briefed on the story (which, of course, had even one asked to be better informed from the Pentagon, would have gotten them a limo ride to the Pentagon and a debriefing, asap--at most within days). It is quite clear the democrats wanted to play politicas with this outrage and saw no value to impugn the administration until VISUALS surfaced. My disgust for the abusive acts is now pailing to the disgust I feel for the partisan anti-American military liberal hack democrats. Time for these bastards to go and not return to power over US for at least a decade, maybe not for two decades!

[Steve_Seattle]

If it's true that the Boomer generation was irrevocably shaped by Vietnam, it is also true that the boomer generation of journalists was irrevocably shaped by Watergate. NOTHING gets their juices flowing more than a scandal in a Republican administration, and nothing excites them more than the possibility of a coverup. Hence the obsessive affixing of the word "-gate" to every scandal, even when the resulting monicker (e.g., "Nannygate") makes no etymological sense whatsoever. And also there's the endless question, "What did __________ know, and when did he know it?" This scandal tells us as much about the news media as it does about the military or the Bush administration. When the Joseph Wilson story broke, Aaron Brown of CNN said, "This is like the good old days," and what he meant was the good old days of Watergate, when the press - in what was clearly the highlight of their lives - brought down a Republican administration.

[vanmorrison]

It has gotten to the point that I don't even bother to turn on major media TV programming any more, or read the big city papers, or pick up popular magazines. From the first few words uttered with hysterical tones, it seems every single minute of air time is a Bush bash-fest. I don't even read Time or Newsweek or anything else in the doctors office anymore, their articles are pure unadulterated bullshit.

I am completely dependent on the Internet and select cable channels for all of my news and other information. I am beginning to feel like a Christian living in the catacombs in days of old. And I have grown to actually like it this way!

[codder too]

How did the stuff get to CBS?

Rumsfeld testified that the release was illegal. Lets hope they follow up on the source of the release.

[denlittle]

I quite agree. Who initially leaked the photos to CBS?

[45Auto]

I don't even bother to turn on major media TV programming

Nor do I. The bastards lost any respect I might have had for the "noble" profession of journalism the day I realized that one man had more to do with our loss of the Vietnam War than any other: Walter Pig-Face Cronkite. Today I merely assume that EVERYTHING coming out of the dominant press is a lie. I don't even trust 'em on weather reporting; I stick my head outdoors and verify. Its entirely possible that the last honest journalist was Edward R. Murrow, and I'm not even too sure about him.

The commie press in this country (and the world) would like nothing better to finally realize their agenda: to destroy what's left of the Republic and install a stooge like Kerry in the White House. They are more concerned with their own short-term return to power than with the long-term survival of the USA. Morons all of 'em. And worse, they are Enemies of Freedom.

[rightazrain]

I think it's an outrage that CBS ran these pictures even though General Meyers, a four-star general, asked that they delay the showing because it would endanger the lives of our troops!

BOYCOTT C-BS!

[cwb]

Let's also remember CNNs own actions when dealing with damaging information and just how they handled such a situation. As CNNs Eason Jordan reminded us over a year ago, this network admitted to having knowledge of Saddam's brutality.

Aside from the access they were granted in exchange for soft-coverage of Saddam's atrocities, Jordan admitted that one of the other reasons the stories and photos of Saddam's brutality weren't released was because of the danger it would've put their reporters and Iraqi counterparts in. In other words, the media can and does censor itself when they think it has the potential to endanger the lives of their folks.

CNN specifically hid Saddam's atrocities from the world because it would supposedly endanger their people...yet here we have an American media outlet that already has the story, but decides to show the pictures of American atrocities with no concern on how it might effect the lives of others in harms way. Tells you something about our media.

[vanmorrison]

I was watching "Jesse James", the 1939 movie last night on the Westerns Channel, with Tyrone Power (a WWII Marine). In the picture, the Horace Greeley character, who was the hometown newspaperman sympathetic to James, had a scene where he was dictating the "news" to print in the next days' edition. He said, "To restore law and order in this fair city we need to round up all of the politicians and shoot 'em down like dogs!...Paragraph."

Now that's the kind of "reporting" I can get behind!

[Steve_Seattle]

"Rumsfeld testified that the release was illegal. Lets hope they follow up on the source of the release."

And you know when an enraged press and angry Democrats will demand an investigation into the origin of this leak that endangers the lives of American soldiers - when hell freezes over.

[Jonah Johansen]

People are fooling themselves if they think Fox News and conservative talk news have any real power in this country.

The three broadcast networks can destroy any indivudul, any coporation and any elected official they want to. They can repeat a story "Rodney King" over again and over again until they destroy part of a city.
Now that they have their weapon they will beat George Bush with it no matter what the consequence for the nation and the war against terrorism and their ain't a thing conservatives can do about it.

[vanmorrison]

...except turn their shit off!