Posted on 08/15/2005 4:41:02 AM PDT by abb
Rosemary Goudreau, the editorial page editor of The Tampa Tribune, has received the same e-mail message a dozen times over the last year.
"Did you know that 47 countries have re-established their embassies in Iraq?" the anonymous polemic asks, in part. "Did you know that 3,100 schools have been renovated?"
"Of course we didn't know!" the message concludes. "Our media doesn't tell us!"
Ms. Goudreau's newspaper, like most dailies in America, relies largely on The Associated Press for its coverage of the Iraq war. So she finally forwarded the e-mail message to Mike Silverman, managing editor of The A.P., asking if there was a way to check these assertions and to put them into context. Like many other journalists, Mr. Silverman had also received a copy of the message.
Ms. Goudreau's query prompted an unusual discussion last month in New York at a regular meeting of editors whose newspapers are members of The Associated Press. Some editors expressed concern that a kind of bunker mentality was preventing reporters in Iraq from getting out and explaining the bigger picture beyond the daily death tolls.
"The bottom-line question was, people wanted to know if we're making progress in Iraq," Ms. Goudreau said, and the A.P. articles were not helping to answer that question.
"It was uncomfortable questioning The A.P., knowing that Iraq is such a dangerous place," she said. "But there's a perception that we're not telling the whole story."
Mr. Silverman said in an interview that he was aware of that perception. "Other editors said they get calls from readers who are hearing stories from returning troops of the good things they have accomplished while there, and readers find that at odds with the generally gloomy portrayal in the papers of what's going on in Iraq," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Hello no. There're all camped out in Crawford, Tx.
I love the spin of this artice. They can't report any of the positive news because it's just so dangerous to be a journalist in Iraq. Every time they type a hopeful sentence bullets go whizzing over head.
the MSM knows whats happening but it is their mission with the help and cooperation of the DNC to do everything to discredit this administration, they stopped being in the news reporting business about the start of the nixon administration
their problem is that as time goes by they are being exposed for what they are and for them as the old adage goes an old dog cant learn new tricks
nice post. I had seen a couple of headlines about this but no story. Thanks.
Drudge had the tease up last night, but he just linked the story a little while ago.
"the MSM knows whats happening but it is their mission with the help and cooperation of the DNC to do everything to discredit this administration, they stopped being in the news reporting business about the start of the nixon administration"
You got that right!
Getting a balanced picture from them is the same as getting a balanced picture from Josef Goebells.
Ain't gonna happen.
It's nice to see them looking in the mirror. Now let's see if anything actually comes of this self examination.
The only reason they're doing this self-examination at all, is because they know their credibility is taking major hits, as people get the information on what's really happening from Internet sources.
They're still operating as if they control information flow. Fortunately, the Internet sees this blockage of information flow as damage, and routes around it.
"But there's a perception that we're not telling the whole story."
"Perception"? I will let that sentence just sink in for a bit.
The "bunker mentality" is also known as liberalism, or simply "hatebush."
And an interesting detail: In the URL to the NYT article, look at the name of the html page on which the story, about AP, appears.
Well that's an interesting observation. What? Is questioning the A.P. akin to a subordinate looking Hillary in the eye?
Glimpses of the real problem are emerging.
No, that's the wrong approach. They need to give us the facts and then back off and allow us to decide for ourselves what it means.
I thought all those macho men and women in the press sit around their watering holes in NY and DC waxing sentimental about how they risked their lives under fire in Viet Nam, Laos, Cambodia, Nicaragua, and Mogadishu to bring us undeserving Americans all the news we're fit to see? I think we, the Americans, are gonna win this one and the press will be relegated to their righteous status reporting dog attacks and which celebrities are shanking each other.
It amazes me that I - a housewife from a rural town in Texas - could discover that the military actually writes press releases covering both the good and bad that happens and posts them in several places on line, yet somehow these trained, educated, employed reports can ONLY rely on AP sources.......Is there a reason that any newspaper can't start the article with "U.S. Central Command" as their source instead of "Associated Press?"
Media: It's all about us, you simple peasants!
What a load of horse-poop! It wasn't too dangerous for Fox News to cover the battle for Fallujah, which they portrayed in their excellent special "A Company of Heroes" this weekend. The AP must have a bunch of women covering the war if all they can do is cower in the hotel and wait for the daily death-count. I think they're still using the Vietnam-era press reporting in which great victories by brave US warriors (the Tet offensive comes to mind) are spun by the anti-war msm into defeats. This costs US servicemen their lives and earns liberal msm reporters Pulitzers and Peabodies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.