Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: D. Long who wrote (42251)	5/5/2004 5:20:46 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793845

Good analysis. It also gives the anti-war crowd a good hammer to beat the administration with. I noticed that Koppel was wallowing in it tonight. I think we are getting more on it than the Arab press is putting out in the ME. Dean's World Blog - IRAQI PRISONER CONTROVERSY FOSTERS SENSATIONALISM AND EXTREMISM The scandal over the physical and sexual abuse of Iraqi prisoners is like a dirty bomb explosion in the face of US policy goals (one highly touted goal was to make Iraq freer by getting rid of Saddam's infamous prison torture chambers and rape rooms). Consequently, with each news cycle there's a new story about military topbrass working to find out precisely what happened, punish the soldiers involved and to take steps to ensure this kind of event never happens again. But there are two other consequences. And they aren't pretty. The scandal has cast light on a problem -- deficient military chain-of-command supervision leading to abuses. And now you can see the cockroaches scurrying out of the darkness into its bright beam. Note these troubling developments: (1)AN EXPLOSION IN SENSATIONALISM: There have been some serious, stay-on-the-theme stories about the Iraqi scandal, notably the New Yorker's piece by the controversial investigative reporter Seymour Hersh. But it was the 60 Minutes II piece that thrust the story into the international mass media and Internet headlines, sparking a frenzied race among media and Internet news outlets to find a new twist -- ANY kind of new twist -- on this story. How does this work? Take it from someone who worked in the media, as both a freelancer and staffer on two papers: there's nothing insidious or conspiratorial about it. But if there's a major story and it has not petered out, editors are looking for the next follow up story. If the story is alive and there is no substantive follow up, sometimes a weaker peg will be used. Editors usually ensure a peg or follow up story is a valid and solid. But on the Internet that doesn't necessarily happen since most websites (and blogs) don't have editors. A prime example of internet sensationalism that ran a highly touted story (which later disappeared from the website's front pagefront page) was Matt Drudge's truly reprehensible now-it-can-be-told-see-we-have-the-scoop-on-all-the-media-including-the-establishment-media report today about a French cable television station's alleged planned broadcast. The French station, Drudge reported, planned to broadcast "images, stolen in Iraq, of a US army helicopter killing three Iraqis who do not appear to be posing any threat, one of whom was wounded." It was breathlessly headlined: "French TV to show images of US helicopter killing Iraqis." Oh. I never knew American forces killed people in the Iraq war. I never knew they used helicopters. I never knew they used helicopters to kill. I thought soldiers needed something like a formal search warrant or court order from the high command before they pulled the trigger. The Drudge story goes on to tell how the footage shows the Americans making sure a wounded Iraqi was killed, even as the Iraqi crawled and tried to hide under a truck. And it added this paragraph:"In March, the rights watchdog group Amnesty International said "scores of civilians have been killed apparently as a result of excessive use of force by US troops, or have been shot dead in disputed circumstances." PROBLEMS WITH THIS STORY: (a)How does this relate to the Iraqi prisoner scandal..at ALL? (b)Even though it TRULY is a revelation to us that American military forces kill people, perhaps death happens in war. (c)The description of the military action does not conclusively prove that it fits into the Amnesty quote. Drudge offers us little in the way of explanation. So what is the implication? This item suggests U.S. military were simply wiping out innocent Iraqis. --How do we know they are totally innocent and what the military mission is? --And for all the talk about letting the military fight wars, does this imply they need to call in for permission on helicopter missions and have a long list of taboos before they use lethal force in battle? -- Does the enemy have such a list too? Why does this story appear at all? Competition. News outlets want to get something new FIRST which is not a crime. But this item is so flimsy it would not be on the front page of any newspaper (well, England's Guardian, perhaps..) deanesmay.com