*

I haven’t been following the Scott Beauchamp – New Republic fabrication scandal before today – it seemed just a little too removed from my usual scope. Then I learned of the magazine’s Canadian connection;

The New Republic is currently owned by my old friends and compatriots, the Asper family. Back when I toiled for the company in Canada, David Asper publicly told one of his own newspapers to “put up or shut up”. He should have said the same months ago when The New Republic was bragging about its commitment to rigorous and open investigation of the matter. The magazine is unable to “put up”, so it has shut up, and hopes that its silence will help the story die in the shadows. Beauchamp’s 15 minutes are up. The issue now is the magazine’s conduct, and the Aspers should recognize that and act accordingly.

Click here if you aren’t familiar with the controversy – “How the New Republic got suckered”

Iraq: Violence-related deaths drop ‘remarkably’, say authorities and UN;

According to [Adel Muhsin, the health ministry’s inspector-general], the average number of dead bodies sent to Baghdad’s main morgue just over a year ago was between 100 and 150 a day. Now, it is no more than 10 bodies a day, and about 50 percent of them are dying in normal circumstances.
[…]
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon recently said that September witnessed the lowest number of Iraqi casualties in any month this year. He added that there had been a decease in violence in general due to a cessation of attacks by the Mahdi Army, led by Shia religious leader Muqtada al-Sadr, who in August ordered a temporary freeze of his followers’ activities, including attacks on US troops.
As a result, Ban said he had strengthened the UN team in Iraq by increasing staff in Baghdad and Erbil from 65 to 85 and was considering the establishment of a small UN presence in Basra.

YOU’D THINK THIS would be a big story…

After all, the mainstream media makes such a show of “supporting the troops” at every turn, you’d think it would rush to report the amazing story of our soldiers accomplishing what many observers declared “impossible” and “unwinnable” not so long ago.
It hasn’t worked out that way. When General Ricardo Sanchez (ret.) addressed the situation in Iraq on October 11, he proclaimed that America was “living a nightmare with no end in sight.” Naturally, the “nightmare” quote wound up in the first paragraph of the New York Times report on Sanchez’s comments. What didn’t find its way into the Times’ report was any context of what’s going on in Iraq. The “nightmare” assessment would have been a whole lot more fitting when Sanchez was helping run the show in Iraq in 2006 than it is today.
[…]
The mainstream media’s failure to report what’s been happening in Iraq frustrates [Michael] Yon perhaps more than anyone. He has risked his life to tell that story, and the American media has yawned, apparently preferring the anachronistic pronouncements of a former general who hasn’t been in the theatre since the surge began. Earlier this week, Yon offered his dispatches free of charge to any paper willing to publish them. It will be interesting to see if he has any takers.

Emphasis mine. Because I don’t want my readers at The Star, The Globe, Macleans, and CBC to claim they didn’t know.
More from Jules Crittenden on a media Desperately Seeking Fly.

*

Memo to Kady O’Malley: You seem to be suffering some confusion as to your professional role. Allow me to clarify – you work on behalf of the media.
Before you may claim “behalf of the people” status, you’ll need our permission. Run for office.

There goes that law of unintended consequences again.
*sigh*
(Related)

(Be sure to read the comments)

Not that you’d know it by this morning’s coverage of his speech to the Military Reporters and Editors’ annual conference. Here’s the portion about which they’re strangely silent;

I WILL ATTEMPT TO DO TWO THINGS – FIRST I WILL GIVE YOU MY ASSESSMENT OF THE MILITARY AND PRESS RELATIONSHIP AND THEN I WILL PROVIDE YOU SOME THOUGHTS ON THE CURRENT STATE OF OUR WAR EFFORT. AS ALL OF YOU KNOW I HAVE A WIDE RANGE OF RELATIONSHIPS AND EXPERIENCES WITH OUR NATIONS MILITARY WRITERS AND EDITORS. THERE ARE SOME IN YOUR RANKS WHO I CONSIDER TO BE THE EPITOME OF JOURNALISTIC PROFESSIONALISM – JOE GALLOWAY, THOM SHANKER, SIG CHRISTENSEN, AND JOHN BURNS IMMEDIATELY COME TO MIND. THEY EXEMPLIFY WHAT AMERICA SHOULD DEMAND OF OUR JOURNALISTS – TOUGH REPORTING THAT RELIES UPON INTEGRITY, OBJECTIVITY AND FAIRNESS TO GIVE ACCURATE AND THOROUGH ACCOUNTS THAT STRENGTHEN OUR FREEDOM OF THE PRESS AND IN TURN OUR DEMOCRACY. ON THE OTHER HAND, UNFORTUNATELY, I HAVE ISSUED ULTIMATUMS TO SOME OF YOU FOR UNSCRUPULOUS REPORTING THAT WAS SOLELY FOCUSED ON SUPPORTING YOUR AGENDA AND PRECONCIEVED NOTIONS OF WHAT OUR MILITARY HAD DONE. I ALSO REFUSED TO TALK TO THE EUROPEAN STARS AND STRIPES FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS OF MY COMMAND IN GERMANY FOR THEIR EXTREME BIAS AND SINGLE MINDED FOCUS ON ABU GHARAIB.
LET ME REVIEW SOME OF THE DESCRIPTIVE PHRASES THAT HAVE BEEN USED BY SOME OF YOU THAT HAVE MADE MY PERSONAL INTERFACES WITH THE PRESS CORPS DIFFICULT:
“DICTATORIAL AND SOMEWHAT DENSE”,
“NOT A STRATEGIC THOUGHT”,
LIAR,
“DOES NOT GET IT” AND
THE MOST INEXPERIENCED LTG.
IN SOME CASES I HAVE NEVER EVEN MET YOU, YET YOU FEEL QUALIFIED TO MAKE CHARACTER JUDGMENTS THAT ARE COMMUNICATED TO THE WORLD. MY EXPERIENCE IS NOT UNIQUE AND WE CAN FIND OTHER EXAMPLES SUCH AS THE TREATMENT OF SECRETARY BROWN DURING KATRINA. THIS IS THE WORST DISPLAY OF JOURNALISM IMAGINABLE BY THOSE OF US THAT ARE BOUND BY A STRICT VALUE SYSTEM OF SELFLESS SERVICE, HONOR AND INTEGRITY. ALMOST INVARIABLY, MY PERCEPTION IS THAT THE SENSATIONALISTIC VALUE OF THESE ASSESSMENTS IS WHAT PROVIDED THE EDGE THAT YOU SEEK FOR SELF AGRANDIZEMENT OR TO ADVANCE YOUR INDIVIDUAL QUEST FOR GETTING ON THE FRONT PAGE WITH YOUR STORIES!
AS I UNDERSTAND IT, YOUR MEASURE OF WORTH IS HOW MANY FRONT PAGE STORIES YOU HAVE WRITTEN AND UNFORTUNATELY SOME OF YOU WILL COMPROMISE YOUR INTEGRITY AND DISPLAY QUESTIONABLE ETHICS AS YOU SEEK TO KEEP AMERICA INFORMED. THIS IS MUCH LIKE THE INTELLIGENCE ANALYSTS WHOSE EFFECTIVENESS WAS MEASURED BY THE NUMBER OF INTELLIGENCE REPORTS HE PRODUCED. FOR SOME, IT SEEMS THAT AS LONG AS YOU GET A FRONT PAGE STORY THERE IS LITTLE OR NO REGARD FOR THE “COLLATERAL DAMAGE” YOU WILL CAUSE. PERSONAL REPUTATIONS HAVE NO VALUE AND YOU REPORT WITH TOTAL IMPUNITY AND ARE RARELY HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR UNETHICAL CONDUCT.
GIVEN THE NEAR INSTANTANEOUS ABILITY TO REPORT ACTIONS ON THE GROUND, THE RESPONSIBILITY TO ACCURATELY AND TRUTHFULLY REPORT TAKES ON AN UNPRECEDENTED IMPORTANCE. THE SPECULATIVE AND OFTEN UNINFORMED INITIAL REPORTING THAT CHARACTERIZES OUR MEDIA APPEARS TO BE RAPIDLY BECOMING THE STANDARD OF THE INDUSTRY. AN ARAB PROVERB STATES – “Four things come not back: the spoken word, the spent arrow, the past, the neglected opportunity.”
ONCE REPORTED, YOUR ASSESSMENTS BECOME CONVENTIONAL WISDOM AND NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO CHANGE. OTHER MAJOR CHALLENGES ARE YOUR WILLINGNESS TO BE MANIPULATED BY “HIGH LEVEL OFFICIALS” WHO LEAK STORIES AND BY LAWYERS WHO USE HYPERBOLE TO STRENGHTEN THEIR ARGUMENTS. YOUR UNWILLINGNESS TO ACCURATELY AND PROMINENTLY CORRECT YOUR MISTAKES AND YOUR AGENDA DRIVEN BIASES CONTRIBUTE TO THIS CORROSIVE ENVIRONMENT. ALL OF THESE CHALLENGES COMBINED CREATE A MEDIA ENVIRONMENT THAT DOES A TREMENDOUS DISSERVICE TO AMERICA. OVER THE COURSE OF THIS WAR TACTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT EVENTS HAVE BECOME STRATEGIC DEFEATS FOR AMERICA BECAUSE OF THE TREMENDOUS POWER AND IMPACT OF THE MEDIA AND BY EXTENSION YOU THE JOURNALIST. IN MANY CASES THE MEDIA HAS UNJUSTLY DESTROYED THE INDIVIDUAL REPUTATIONS AND CAREERS OF THOSE INVOLVED. WE REALIZE THAT BECAUSE OF THE NEAR REAL TIME REPORTING ENVIRONMENT THAT YOU FACE IT IS DIFFICULT TO REPORT ACCURATELY.
IN MY BUSINESS ONE OF OUR FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS IS THAT “THE FIRST REPORT IS ALWAYS WRONG.” UNFORTUNATELY, IN YOUR BUSINESS “THE FIRST REPORT” GIVES AMERICANS WHO RELY ON THE SNIPPETS OF CNN, IF YOU WILL, THEIR “TRUTHS” AND PERSPECTIVES ON AN ISSUE. AS A COROLLARY TO THIS DEADLINE DRIVEN NEED TO PUBLISH “INITIAL IMPRESSIONS OR OBSERVATIONS” VERSUS OBJECTIVE FACTS THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL CHALLENGE FOR US WHO ARE THE SUBJECT OF YOUR REPORTING. WHEN YOU ASSUME THAT YOU ARE CORRECT AND ON THE MORAL HIGH GROUND ON A STORY BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT RESPOND TO QUESTIONS YOU PROVIDED IS THE ULTIMATE ARROGANCE AND DISTORTION OF ETHICS. ONE OF YOUR HIGHLY REPECTED FELLOW JOURNALISTS ONCE TOLD ME THAT THERE ARE SOME AMONGST YOU WHO “FEED FROM A PIG’S TROUGH.” IF THAT IS WHO I AM DEALING WITH THEN I WILL NEVER RESPOND OTHERWISE WE WILL BOTH GET DIRTY AND THE PIG WILL LOVE IT. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOUR STORY IS ACCURATE.

This is why we loathe you.
(More on the under-reported and unreported comments by Sanchez here.)

Now, they brag;

[…] Cuomo and Washington Post reporter seemed to be proud of the media’s ability to turn Americans against the war in Iraq. Kurtz, who has written a book on the subject, asserted, “I believe that these newscasts in 2005 and 2006 played the biggest single role in helping to turn public opinion against the war.”
Cuomo agreed and complimented the journalist’s analysis. He enthused, “It’s easy to say, ‘Oh, well. The war was unpopular. People were looking for the unpopularity of it. At some point, the networks gave that to them.’ But you have a more penetrating look at it. You take a look at it in terms of the role of the nightly newscasts in shaping the ideas about the news…” According to Kurtz, the top three network anchors kept “framing the story in such a way” that the bad news finally had an impact.

Is paid an undisclosed sum anyway.
News of Glen McGregor’s non-story comes at a time when the relationship between Liberal-friendly media and the Liberal Party is assumed “business as usual” in Canadian media.

The Montreal Gazette goes content free.

(From the comments; “Usually they have more words with their no-content.”)

“It’s the PPG’s job to care about what Stephen Harper thinks, not the other way around.“

Ed Lasky;

Bloggers have performed an invaluable function since their emergence in the media world a few years ago. Whether it is uncovering the forgery of the RatherGate documents, the fauxtography that is propaganda in the service of terrorists, revealing and publicizing the odious practice of earmarks, the bias that has corrupted the media-the quest for truth is what has driven the best of the bloggers.
Now the Washington Post joins the campaign: today the paper starts a new feature-The FactChecker, which will be focused on examining the veracity of claims made by politicians. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery as the opprobrium formerly heaped on the new media practitioners (clad in pajamas, hairy knuckles, anti-social nerds, zealots-take your pick) is transformed into unintended praise.

A good first step. Let’s hope there are similar plans in the works for examining the veracity of claims made by columnists and reporters.

*
Related: “Wound. Self-inflicted.”

Is there truth to rumours that Bruce Cheadle conducts 911 reconstruction experiments utilizing chicken wire in his spare time? The evidence mounts…

… Stephen Harper … secret agenda … radioactive … sweeping American-led initiative … new nuclear club … closely guarded secret … no public debate … nuclear … hover like a plume …

You be the judge.

*

It starts out as a relatively straight-forward news item from Newfoundland;

The federal Liberal environmental plan would make the Hebron offshore oil megaproject “dead on arrival,” a Newfoundland Tory MP says.
Fabian Manning said Liberal policies will at least still if not kill the Hebron, which the Newfoundland and Labrador government expects to deliver at least $16 billion in royalties over a 25-year production period.
[…]
“If anybody thinks [Bill C-288] is not going to drastically reduce economic activity in this country … they’re dreaming in Technicolor,” Manning said in an interview.

Followed by a typical “get response from the other side”. (In this case, a non-response);

Federal Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion, who met with the Liberal caucus this week in St. John’s, described Manning’s remarks as fear-mongering.

But wait! They’re not done yet – here comes another Liberal non-rebuttal, this one from MP Scott Simms, who gets four paragraphs to suggest ulterior motives. CBC does him the additional favour of inserting this mid-report eye-catcher to be doubly sure you won’t miss it – Political motivation claimed;

Scott Simms, a Liberal MP representing a central Newfoundland riding, said Manning’s remarks have more to do with improving the federal Conservatives’ electoral standing than the environment. […]
Simms said he believes Manning is using the issue to steer voters in Newfoundland and Labrador away from the Liberals. Largely because of a long-running dispute between Premier Danny Williams and Prime Minister Stephen Harper, support for the federal Tories in the province has dropped like a stone this year.

(Those dastardly Conservatives! Steering voters away from Liberals! Is nothing sacred?)
This is where things get really good – watch while the CBC goes on the hunt for information to support Simms;

For example, a Corporate Research Associates poll released in June suggested that only 17 per cent of Newfoundland and Labrador respondents would vote Conservative federally.

Remember now what this “news report” is purportedly based upon – a claimed risk to Newfoundland oil development posed by Liberal demands for implementation of Bill C-288.
We received the opinion of a sociology professor.
We received the opinion of a weatherman*.
As a bonus prize, we received results of June public opinion polling in Newfoundland.
Did we hear from an economist? No.
Did they interview an industry expert? No.
Did they ask Chevron? No.
Did the CBC make any effort at all to determine if the concerns of the Conservative MP quoted were valid?
No.
And that is why we mock you.

A 6-part series.

Welcome to the I-don’t-care-azoic Period ;

[F]or the media ponderers there’s a more troubling issue than the restoration of trust. It’s the possibility that too many people now simply don’t much care about the major media anymore. Normally the great media combines would overcome periods of lassitude by forming up focus groups to tell them what to do next. Hah! They want “Survivor”! Alas, living as we do now in a world of seemingly infinite choice, it is possible not to care for a seeming infinity of reasons, which is why the established media are having such a hard time knowing what to do.

As a news consumer, stories like this raise an obvious question – why wasn’t this a firing offense?

JOE SCARBOROUGH: There was a story out of Seattle, and the reason I love it is that it’s transparency in the news. You have an editor who was actually outing his own people. The Seattle Times newsroom broke into applause when Karl Rove resigned. And of course that’s bad. What I like about it is that the editor actually wrote about it and went in and told the people in the newsroom that was unacceptable.
And I’ve got to say, my first night here at MSNBC was the President’s State of the Union address in 2003, and I was shocked because there were actually people in the newsroom that were booing the president actually from the beginning to the end. And I actually talked to [NBC/MSNBC executive] Phil Griffin about it, and he said “how was it last night?” Because he was the one that called me out of the Ace Hardware store, got my vest on. He said “how was it last night?” I said “well, it’s OK, I understand it’s a little bit different up here than it is down in northwest Florida, but you had people in the newsroom actively booing the President of the United States. Phil turned red very quickly. That didn’t happen again.

Read the whole entry. There’s an amusing update, as well.
Flashback – “I’ve also been witness to two shocking acts that literally define America’s liberal media – a media so radical, so extreme, with an agenda so out of the mainstream and a prejudice against conservative Republicans so strong and so vicious that it borders on outright hate and loathing. “