Examples of an unbiased media
You ever have one of those days where you a stuck wondering just what are editors for? Apparently their main purpose is to go to power lunches with other MSM'ers or appear on television talk shows to discuss the issues of the day. Whatever they're doing, they don't seem to be reading their own reporters work. How else could stories like these make it to print.
The first is a AP story that John at Power Line noticed a slight mischaracterization occurring in. You know, the type where A is said to have cause B where in reality B occurred first. A simple Michael Moorism of the timeline really, nothing we haven't seen before. The fact that the AP article in question just happens to be another glowing report on Cindy Sheehans Crusade against the Bush Administration is just a coincidence I'm sure. Although most Sheehan articles just leave out material facts (like most of the rantings from Ms. Sheehan's speeches), Ms. Brown (the AP writer) decides to go for the double and outright drastically distort the truth to make her point. That Angela, never content with just keeping up, always looking to get one step ahead of her MSM competition.
The second is a bit more serious. Jack Kelly's article over at Jewish World Review shows an even more blatant distortion of the facts in order to make the war in Iraq look bad. In this case the story involved reporting on improvements to military body armor to make it even more resistant to enemy fire. The kicker, the improvements are for ammunition that the insurgence don't even have. They are merely improving the armor now, so that they are prepared for any future conflicts, where the hard to find, high powered ordnance may come into play. The current armor is quite capable of stopping everything, including a AK-47 at a 10 foot range, that the insurgents are firing at the soldiers.
So when the fact that the military is using foresight and taking the precautionary step of improving body armor, even though there are no indications that the enemy currently has access to the few types of rounds that can penetrate the current armor, is presented to a NY Times reporter what do you think his article would say. If you bet on a dire warning that American soldiers are in harms way because of slow moving on the Pentagon's (aka Administration's) part, you'd be a winner. Just look at this statement:
Michelle Malkin has some more links, including the two from above, of more 'oddities' in MSM reporting.
The first is a AP story that John at Power Line noticed a slight mischaracterization occurring in. You know, the type where A is said to have cause B where in reality B occurred first. A simple Michael Moorism of the timeline really, nothing we haven't seen before. The fact that the AP article in question just happens to be another glowing report on Cindy Sheehans Crusade against the Bush Administration is just a coincidence I'm sure. Although most Sheehan articles just leave out material facts (like most of the rantings from Ms. Sheehan's speeches), Ms. Brown (the AP writer) decides to go for the double and outright drastically distort the truth to make her point. That Angela, never content with just keeping up, always looking to get one step ahead of her MSM competition.
The second is a bit more serious. Jack Kelly's article over at Jewish World Review shows an even more blatant distortion of the facts in order to make the war in Iraq look bad. In this case the story involved reporting on improvements to military body armor to make it even more resistant to enemy fire. The kicker, the improvements are for ammunition that the insurgence don't even have. They are merely improving the armor now, so that they are prepared for any future conflicts, where the hard to find, high powered ordnance may come into play. The current armor is quite capable of stopping everything, including a AK-47 at a 10 foot range, that the insurgents are firing at the soldiers.
So when the fact that the military is using foresight and taking the precautionary step of improving body armor, even though there are no indications that the enemy currently has access to the few types of rounds that can penetrate the current armor, is presented to a NY Times reporter what do you think his article would say. If you bet on a dire warning that American soldiers are in harms way because of slow moving on the Pentagon's (aka Administration's) part, you'd be a winner. Just look at this statement:
"The ceramic plates in vests worn by most personnel cannot withstand certain munitions the insurgents use. But more than a year after military officials initiated an effort to replace the armor with thicker, more resistant plates, tens of thousands of soldiers are still without the stronger protection because of a string of delays in the Pentagon's procurement system."No wonder people who only get their news from TV and papers like the Times have such a negative view of the war. As Captain Sherman Powell so eloquently put it, after Matt Lauer (during his recent trip to an Iraqi army base) unsuccessfully tried to put a negative spin on several soldiers' comments that morale was in fact pretty good over there:
"Well sir, I'd tell you, if I got my news from the newspapers also I'd be pretty depressed as well!"You gotta wonder how long Captain Powell had that one ready to go and just looking for an arrogant media personality to challenge him. Funny, I don't remember that sound bite being replayed on any of the major news networks.
Michelle Malkin has some more links, including the two from above, of more 'oddities' in MSM reporting.
posted by Bic at 11:15 a.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home