« Max Baucus--(D-Blue Cross, Schering Plough, New York Life) | tpmgary's Blog | Blunderdick 2: "DETAIN THAT TELEPROMPTER!!" »
How well-informed is your newspaper?
I saw a story in the paper today. The Times writes that Iran test-fired a new mid-range surface-to-surface missile. It was a new "Sejil-2 missile", with a "reported range" of 1200 miles, according to the Times article, according to the news agency IRNA, according to a quote that news agency lifted from a speech made by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
I know. Lots of attributions. Not including the person who translated it into English. I guess it's hard to know these things first hand or second hand or even third hand, because in reality, no one seems to know for sure that this actually happened. We are not being asked to take the Time's word for it, or the IRNA's word for it--nor the interpreter's word for it. I guess we're being asked to take Ahmadinejad's word for it.
We're not given actual visual evidence of this event. The cable news programs just repeat the story and run some old stock footage of some generic missile flying ominously in the sky somewhere. It could be any missile, really. As long as it looks, well, like a missile flying ominously in the sky.
Fox News seems to have a lot of generic stock footage of missiles flying ominously in the sky-they run it quite a bit, and only occasionally does it correspond to a story about actual missiles being launched. I think I remember them running missile footage while reporting on Obama's proposed health care plan.
If the Times reports that the Pentagon confirms that a missile was launched, we still can't take their word for it, can we? I recall the Pentagon marketing a completely unnecessary war recently, don't you? I have a problem with the Times taking the Pentagon's word for something--because the Times has had a tendency to print the Pentagon's word for everything. (Credit where credit is due, David Barstow of the Times reported the story about the Pentagon's marketing of the war on television--but it was years after the Times marketed that war in print.)
Someone once asked me how well-informed I was. And I said that I guess that depends on how well informed my newspaper is.
How well-informed is your newspaper? How well-informed are the reporters reporting your news?
There are certain subjects, like energy and health care reform, for example, that I've really learned a lot about in the last few years. And there are times when it seems that I'm more informed than the newspapers and news programs I used to rely on.
But missiles and war and casualty counts? There are so many degrees of separation all mired in political spin it's hard for me to know what's really going on.
Further down in the aforementioned Times article, Kenneth Katzman, a specialist in Middle East affairs at the Congressional Research Service in Washington, suggests that the missile launched today did not appear to be significantly different from an earlier version of the missile Iran test-launched last November.
And that missile was reportedly just an earlier version of an older missile Iran had launched prior to that. I know, because I remember reading about that back in November.
It was reported that Iran test-fired a "new Sejil-2 missile" , but later, Western officials said it was just an earlier version of an older, less advanced missile, and that Iran just gave it a new name. Here's that story.
So to sum up, let's review what we know for sure:
Iran reportedly test-fired a new "Sejil-2 missile" which is reportedly the same as the old "Sejil-2 missile" that Iran reportedly launched last November, which was reportedly not really a "Sejil-2 missile".
Any questions?
Advertisement
The news media is the establishment...
May 20, 2009 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
We are through the looking glass. What's up is down, and what's down is up. Or more realistically, what you thought was up is now what you think is down. The gestalt begins to feel like living with an unfaithful spouse, in that you have to sift through acres of subterfuge and nuance, before you can even begin to trust your own thoughts, and then at your peril. Good post on the reality of interpreting the imagery, PR, wordplay, et al on which we all base our perception of our understanding of the world we inhabit.
May 20, 2009 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn ain't that the truth. I try to scan the China Daily, the
Guardian, and al jeezera (sorry TPM has a 2 link maximum) every week to see if they highlight any stories that so often fall through the cracks here.
Between the three (and my TPM addiction) I flatter myself that I am getting a balanced picture of the world. I have been in the habit ever since I first traveled internationally and was blown away at the difference in both coverage and tone of stories throughout the world. I often find so much of US media just repeats the accepted bias. I am shocked at how even outlets like NPR or Frontline often use the same tired cliches, outdated views, and loaded words, to frame international stories.
With the internet this has both improved as more about the world is available, and worsened as types of 'informeds' are separated due to outlet choice. My internet 'informed-ness' (which I suspect most here at TPM share) creates a sense of alienation from much of the rest of our country- particularly with those of the fox persuasion. We literally have different world paradigms and can't even agree on the same facts.
This does not bode well for civil conversation, or political debate.
May 20, 2009 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know, Saladin. I can't take the news for granted anymore. News organizations can't take the news for granted anymore. I guess we have a crisis of trust in this country.
May 20, 2009 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe we can't agree on the definition of "fact."
Quoting a news source nowadays is like quoting an Op-Ed.
I tend to rely on source material.
Even that is problematic.
May 20, 2009 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
So true. What are we to believe? It reminds me of those absurd conflicting stories about how many former prisoners of Gitmo have returned to the field of battle. 67 over the last six years, according to the Pentagon. No. Wait. 43. 43, according to the Pentagon's unsubstantiated reports. There. Glad we straightened that out. No? Not 43? 18? Are you sure this time? Okay. 18, according to the thirtieth revised unsubstantiated Pentagon statement that comes with zero supporting documentation.
It got to a point where you'd have to be an absolute idiot to file a report about this subject and expect it to have any credibility whatsoever.
I mean, seriously, suppose I told you that as of today, right now, 1 in 7 freed detainees rejoins the fight, would you believe me?
What about the New York Times? Would you believe it if it came from them? Cause it's on their front page as we speak:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21gitmo.html?_r=1&hp
And they're thinking about charging online for content like this?
May 20, 2009 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great catch Gary, so infuriating.
And who is leaking those stories from the pentagon? It hardly takes a brain to realize its the same bastard who has played the nytimes since Valerie Plane. Tomorrow Cheney will probably go out and cite this story "as the nytimes reported" in his trumpeted "torture makes us safe" speech just like he did with WMDs in the run up to Iraq. One of his moles or someone in the pentagon looking to protect there own ass completely leaked a report with made up numbers, as you point out, yet again. Then this meme will rule our countries media world.
I am sure Elisabeth Bumiller and her editors know it, but this is the quid pro quo they play to get the sources to keep revealing stuff. They don't ask questions as to the veracity of the claim, or even mention questions about methodology or the obvious discrepancies with past accounts.
Nope, here you go Dick, go ahead and tell the country this repeated unprovable lie from your buddy yet again but with our NY TIMES seal of approval. Best of luck on your big speech, kisses
Like quoting an op-ed.
May 20, 2009 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
And by 'Valerie Plame' I mean 'Judith Miller'. I am sure that TPM readers probably knew what I meant.
May 21, 2009 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
The press seems to forget the Pentagon and etc. needs them as much as the press needs the Pentagon et al.
May 21, 2009 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
As an American I could not be more proud. Do you realize that means 6 out of 7 are NOT militants! Our military is so through and eager to please. For every person of interest we wanted they brought us six more! They get a 700% on their final exam for giving us these bonus prisoners. And don't forget the great meals and healthcare afforded to them. We are the greatest nation on Earth!*
* In case you came over from Red State, please be advised this is snark. It is unconscionable for America to imprison anyone ever without stating what the charges are and giving them an opportunity to face their accusers. We have kept these people in the camps for years. Shame on us.
May 21, 2009 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post Gary! A story nicely unraveled...
May 20, 2009 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
thanks Obey, always good to have you drop by.
May 20, 2009 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wasn't going to read this because the Rocky Mountain News is no more... so there's that. The truth is I didn't read the local papers because of their bias and carelessness anyway.
We are in a very fragile place when it comes to information, journalistic standards, and power and influence on the flow of information.
I am not sure what the answers are.
I was recently thinking that if there were a non-profit, non-political (utopian idea) organization that set up some journalism standards and offered a rating service like A.M. Best (only in theory because it would have to be much better). And news organizations would pay to have themselves rated. That rating would be something that could be posted to their websites, publications etc. and you could go to the organizations site to see why a given publications ratings are what they are.
I was just trying to come up with some kind of organizing strategy where there is a journalism watchdog. You would lose points for misleading headlines and lack of genuine sources and the public would see that rating updated every month perhaps and it would give you some idea how much weight to give to the information provided from a given source.
If something like that happened then I would be willing to pay for some news sources that were being held to a standard. Until then... I stick to doing the best I can online.
May 21, 2009 4:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
"We're not given actual visual evidence of this event. The cable news programs just repeat the story and run some old stock footage of some generic missile flying ominously in the sky somewhere. It could be any missile, really. As long as it looks, well, like a missile flying ominously in the sky."
I just got back on the net this AM after some tech glitch with my provider. So I will now award you the Knightly Line of the Day Award for this here TPMCafe site, given to all of you from all of me. hahahahaha
Its the truth you know. Could be some IPOD of a tenth grader in Arizona with his high school science project for all we know!!!
May 21, 2009 5:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
My newspaper often publishes Dick Morris and his sidekick's (I forget her name- Toe licker comes to mind) column- today it was all about why Nancy Pelosi should resign. Michael Barone is prominent. I am not surprised when Michael Savage shows up.
Although this example is in regards to my yellowsheet, I mean local newspaper's, editorial page, it is consistent with the non-news it publishes. I think the editors and writers are mostly from Ohio, which is a no no around theses parts. We don't like how Ohioans drive and we definitely don't like their jokes (usually about West Virginians).
This is what we have to put up with around here. The Charleston Gazette on OTH is one of the best newspapers in the country. Unfortunately, Charleston is our state capitol and nobobdy outside of Charleston trusts anything coming out of Charleston.
We have a lot more work to do around here.
May 21, 2009 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Minneapolis Star Tribune - endorsed Quimby for Senate. 'Nuff said.
The Pioneer Press barely qualifies as a newspaper any longer.
May 21, 2009 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Waterbury Republican-American, which I like to say is more Republican than American. These guys actually wrote an editorial praising Augusto Pinochet.
The last thing on their minds is either news or information for any topic beyond the city line. My wife reads it for the local news. I can't pick up a paper without looking at the editorial pages, so I generally don't pick this one up at all.
Thanks.
mp
May 21, 2009 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink