They Shoot Journeys, Don't They?

The Village Voice ^ | October 19, 2003 | Cynthia Cotts

[Squantos]

Excellant...........I Salute you Sir !

Stay Safe and stay on em !

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

In a display of independence from the government, U.S. media companies should join CPJ in pressuring the Pentagon to produce a full account of the killings. With so many war stories now in question and media credibility at a record low, it's time for news professionals to get back to where they once belonged: distrusting public officials and providing accurate information to citizens so they can make informed decisions. Defending the rights of nonembedded media in wartime would be a good first step.

The problem is not, having U.S. media be independent of the government. The problem is how to have democratic U.S. government which is not controlled by the U.S. media.

As a whole, journalists oppose the US.

Their lives are worth no more than our troops who have been ruthlessly murdered lately. Murders The VV couldn't care less about.

Journalists are foolhardily brave when it comes to risking mistaken defensive fire by U.S. soldiers. CNN wasn't quite so daring when Saddam was in charge, and putting people through shredders.

Reports of human rights abuses come in inverse proportion as the human rights abuses get more severe.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

They knew the risks of being there. They unfortunately were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Not only so, but the information they gathered in the Palestine Hotel didn't make Peter Arnett a particularly accurate reporter of current events in Baghdad, did it? He could have just as well been in Paris, if all he was going to do was spout anti-U.S. propaganda.

Propaganda that Saddam would have--might have, actually--paid handsomely for.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

In typical liberal fashion, they all piled on and just tried to hammer me into the ground, arguing that in a case where millions of viewers could stay informed of the "truth" it was worth the lives of journalists . . . [and soldiers].

As an opponent of "campaign finance reform," I have no qualms about claiming that I am far more of a proponent of the First Amendment than any journalist (or other) advocate of CFR is.

But the truth is that while journalism styles itself "the press," journalism is merely a genre of nonfiction publishing. And that the rules under which practitioners of that particular genre operate have been developed over the years to make journalism profitable. And that journalism is profitable only if it entertains.

It is also the case that we-the-people express our sovereinty only on election day, and actually do not need to keep up with events on a day-to-day basis (a feat which was not technologically possible in the founding era) in order to vote prudently. And that, indeed, "October Suprise" manipulations of the public mood immediately before an election depend on journalism for their effect. And it is true that any given significant subject will be more accurately and completely covered by a nonfiction book on the subject than it ever will be in news reports.

In sum, journalism is tainted by its deadlines and by all other entertainment imperatives under which it operates--including superficiality and emphasis on bad news. And journalism is tainted by its guild mentality which, in plain sight, functions as a conspiracy against actual objectivity.

Journalists are fearmongers, and fear is anticonservative. Journalists portray fearmongering as "objective," and condemn any who counsel courage as "not objective, not a journalist." Journalists use their own deadlines as an excuse for their incompleteness and inaccuracy, yet boast that journalism is "the first draft of history" even though--as in the case of journalism's "red scare" scare, contemporaneous publication by journalism of claims that journalism is being "muzzled" are self-falsifying.

I will link this into my on-going thread

Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate

of analysis of the characteristics and perspective of journalism.

Of course the irony is, ExSoldier, that after the fact you have cause to be glad that the embeds were there to document the valor and restraint of the U.S. military. It is your opponents who rue it; their journalist heroes now are the "victim" garritroopers of the Palestine Hotel whose "first draft of history" was--and could only be--Ba'athist propaganda. Just remember to use the deadline as your excuse, and never allow journalism to be critiqued against the actual facts . . .