Credible Journalism?

[JWright]

Credible Journalism?

Got a great morning post item for DT fans sent to us by an alert reader yesterday. Unfortunately, other items nudged themselves in front of this one, but we thought we’d better get it out sooner rather than later.
http://www.defensetech.org/images/bullets.jpg
I know there are a lot of Iraq war skeptics reading this, but if ever there was more solid proof that those who criticize Iraq war coverage by the world’s mainstream press just might have a point, I don’t know how better to distill it than with this picture...

It’s an Agence France Press photo taken by Wissam al-Okaili whose caption reads:An elderly Iraqi woman shows two bullets which she says hit her house following an early coalition forces raid in the predominantly Shiite Baghdad suburb of Sadr City.
Uh, huh...these bullets “hit her house” during the raid. Our readers can certainly understand how that couldn’t have been possible.
So why didn’t an editor catch this obvious error? We’ll let DT readers reach their own conclusions on that one. Obviously some of the reporters, photogs and their editors either need to go to “war coverage school” or have their own ideas on how to portray conflict to the rest of us.

I received the above item in my e-mail today... Thought it was worth posting to see what kind of discussion it generates.

[the_incubus]

i think this is a bad idea. Its just gonna start a heated argument (or so i believe). There have been arguments over things much less trivial so i dont know what the result of a discussion about such a heated topic as the iraq war.

[SkipD]

i think this is a bad idea. Its just gonna start a heated argument (or so i believe). There have been arguments over things much less trivial so i dont know what the result of a discussion about such a heated topic as the iraq war.Nah, this is just about uninformed (or stupid) reporters, assuming the photo and the accompanying text are really something that would have been published as the "truth".

I often get a kick about "news" stories I read or see on television which are so far off base as to be humorous.

[freaking102]

I think that you need to post the original news photo and caption, or we can only assume the story about errors or bias in journalism is either propaganda or 3rd hand jibberish

[JWright]

I think that you need to post the original news photo and caption, or we can only assume the story about errors or bias in journalism is either propaganda or 3rd hand jibberish

I tried to find it by searching, but had no luck...

[Clark]

I tried to find it by searching, but had no luck...

I found some links to the story on another message board. But yahoo news apparently took the story down.

[the_incubus]

Nah, this is just about uninformed (or stupid) reporters, assuming the photo and the accompanying text are really something that would have been published as the "truth".

I often get a kick about "news" stories I read or see on television which are so far off base as to be humorous.

ah ok, if its about the false reporting (which i guess it it considering the title :p) then cool.

[the_incubus]

Nah, this is just about uninformed (or stupid) reporters, assuming the photo and the accompanying text are really something that would have been published as the "truth".

I often get a kick about "news" stories I read or see on television which are so far off base as to be humorous.

oh ok, if its about false eporting (which i guess it is considering the title :p) then cool.

I think its propaganda. Not every joe on the street knows that those were bullets in their shell and were unfired rounds. So i guess they figured that they can use that.

[20droger]

Nah! It's true. Some yahoo threw them at her house.

[Titus213]

Nah! It's true. Some yahoo threw them at her house.

Now are you sure it was some yahoo and not some google? I would expect something like that from AOL.

[ElGordo]

Nah, this is just about uninformed (or stupid) reporters, assuming the photo and the accompanying text are really something that would have been published as the "truth".

I often get a kick about "news" stories I read or see on television which are so far off base as to be humorous.


Reporters, especially the prime time anchors, have to be among the most ignorant asses of all time. Not only do they persistently mispronounce common names, they also offend our ears with atrocious grammar.
Example: "He assumed the Van was going to run him over" Really bad reversal of subject and predicate.
Example: "The travelers were forced to wait in the aircraft out on the tarmac" Right; we have never used "tarmac" in this country and no civilized country in the world uses tarmac today. Obviously, they mean the airfield, or the runways, or the aprons. These nincompoops learned the word 'tarmac' from old British war movies and are too stupid to know the difference between 'tarmac' and concrete!

[wlescall]

I thought 'credible journalism' was an oxymoron nowadays. :rolleyes:

[DocFrankenstein]

Credible Journalism?

I received the above item in my e-mail today... Thought it was worth posting to see what kind of discussion it generates.

I think those were liberal canadian journalists that made the caption. :lol:

Those idiots found a SVD STOCK on a farm. The title read something like: "high power assault rifle found on a farm"

All you need is a receiver... and a barrel. :rolleyes:

And other hacks on TV say about AR-15:
It is extremely easy to convert that weapon to fully automatic fire. Actually it takes less than a minute. All you need is one part - this gets me curious.

The guy proceeds to take off the AR-15 receiver and puts the receiver from M16. Voila - that easy.

[daves-not-here]

I think those were liberal canadian journalists that made the caption. :lol:

Those idiots found a SVD STOCK on a farm. The title read something like: "high power assault rifle found on a farm"

All you need is a receiver... and a barrel. :rolleyes:

And other hacks on TV say about AR-15:
It is extremely easy to convert that weapon to fully automatic fire. Actually it takes less than a minute. All you need is one part - this gets me curious.

The guy proceeds to take off the AR-15 receiver and puts the receiver from M16. Voila - that easy.Yeah, like the lower receiver from an M-16 is readily available on the open market.......

As to the bullets....they probably did hit her house. Just like they did two months ago. The stringer that AFP uses for these photos is a hack. He's been caught doing ME fauxtography many times.

[the_incubus]

I think those were liberal canadian journalists that made the caption. :lol:

Those idiots found a SVD STOCK on a farm. The title read something like: "high power assault rifle found on a farm"

All you need is a receiver... and a barrel. :rolleyes:

And other hacks on TV say about AR-15:
It is extremely easy to convert that weapon to fully automatic fire. Actually it takes less than a minute. All you need is one part - this gets me curious.

The guy proceeds to take off the AR-15 receiver and puts the receiver from M16. Voila - that easy.

Actually, i agree with you with everything up to the AR-15 part. I dont know if it takes less then a minute to install (it takes afew :))but there is a part out there (easily available at most gun shows and the internet) that turns your Ar-15 (also for different semi-auto assault rifles) into fully automatic. So, the reporter is not that dumb...well actually he is but is correct in this instance. :)

[JCR]

It's true... marines spit bullets (shells n all) and pi*s beer.

[20droger]

Ah, yes. The marines. Those with necks of leather and heads of jar. America's first corps of diplomacy.

[rhys]

I remember some incredible reporting....

A BBC journalist was asking what a woman thought of the recent elections in Russia of a Russian Moscovite. She replied that if things changed for the better then that it would be great for Russia. The BBC reporter translated along the lines of the newly elected president was another bandit about to rob Russia. Now I happen to speak Russian and am amazed at the complete bollo**s that the BBC often reports.

A Briish newspaper reported on Russian special police units waiting to take the school (wherever it was - the one where the Moslem terrorists killed a load of schoolchildren) and showed a photo purportedly of Russian police. Except their bullet-proof jackets had "Omon" clearly printed on them. The Omon are the Russian special forces - not the police. Again, reporters writing bollo**s because they underestimate the intelligence of their readers.

It therefore does not surprise me that the French press makes a blunder like that, showing unfired ammunition and claiming it was fired.

[rklepper]

What is DT? Am I suppose to know that?

[deadpass]

What is DT? Am I suppose to know that?

I imagine that's the name of the site, like POTN.

that's a great photo, I hope no one was injured when the marines were winging unspent rounds at those folks.

[JaertX]

there's a lot of chatter going on about this photo on other boards right now (or there was a few days ago)

She has been photographed a few times by the same photographer. It would be interesting to know what's going on, ya know? I'm sure she knows the difference between a live round and bullet...she lives in a war zone. I'm sure a war photographer knows the difference. I can see where some guy sitting in the newsroom in Paris wouldn't know the difference. But still....what's going on?

Anyway, this photo was in yahoo's Top Viewed photos a few days ago, and I saw it with the caption. Funny stuff.

[ggt1_02]

Ah, yes. The marines. Those with necks of leather and heads of jar. America's first corps of diplomacy.
I resemble that comment!

[20droger]

So you do. Semper Fi, Jarhead.

[FlyingPhotog]

Ah, yes. The marines. Those with necks of leather and heads of jar. America's first corps of diplomacy.

Unfair bull**** statement.

Diplomacy stems from government policy. Marines (and the military in general) do not make policy.

Get your facts straight.

[Titus213]

I resemble that comment!

Thanks for your service. I'm really glad lots of folks resemble that comment.

But I would think the Marines are Americas final corps of diplomacy...when all the talking is finished and nothing has been resolved.:lol:

[JWright]

Could someone explain to me why this was moved? I put it in "Talk About Photography" because it was about the use of a photograph to attempt to put forth a point of view.

[rockabilly808]

i love it, unfired rounds hit her house. and the media lapped it up

[DocFrankenstein]

Unfair bull**** statement.

Diplomacy stems from government policy. Marines (and the military in general) do not make policy.

Get your facts straight.
ROFLMAO

Awesome reply and great demonstration of abstract thinking.

[20droger]

Unfair bull**** statement.

Diplomacy stems from government policy. Marines (and the military in general) do not make policy.

Get your facts straight.
My facts are very straight. The fact that the military does not make policy in the U.S. does not mean they are not a part of policies made elsewhere. Several administrations, including the current one, have used the military, and the marines in particular, to "enforce" policy. Remember Ol' Teddy? "Speak softly, and carry a big stick." The marines were his stick more than once.

I suggest a refresher course in U.S. history. Pay special attention when such things as the "Philippine Insurrection" and the Libyan Action are discussed.

There's a reason the song goes "From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli..."

[Titus213]

My facts are very straight. The fact that the military does not make policy in the U.S. does not mean they are not a part of policies made elsewhere. Several administrations, including the current one, have used the military, and the marines in particular, to "enforce" policy. Remember Ol' Teddy? "Speak softly, and carry a big stick." The marines were his stick more than once.

I suggest a refresher course in U.S. history. Pay special attention when such things as the "Philippine Insurrection" and the Libyan Action are discussed.

There's a reason the song goes "From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli..."

Are you referring to the 1986 attacks on Libya and the 1899 - 1902 battle in the Philippines?

[20droger]

Are you referring to the 1986 attacks on Libya and the 1899 - 1902 battle in the Philippines?
Actually, I was referring to Old Teddy's attacks on Libya, but Ronnie's are also a good example.

But anyway you wish to slice it, there are many instances of an administration using the military as a "tool" of diplomacy. Countless instances in the "Indian Wars" alone, though granted that was usually the army, not the marines.

And we didn't always come out on top, either.

[FlyingPhotog]

My facts are very straight. The fact that the military does not make policy in the U.S. does not mean they are not a part of policies made elsewhere. Several administrations, including the current one, have used the military, and the marines in particular, to "enforce" policy. Remember Ol' Teddy? "Speak softly, and carry a big stick." The marines were his stick more than once.

I suggest a refresher course in U.S. history. Pay special attention when such things as the "Philippine Insurrection" and the Libyan Action are discussed.

There's a reason the song goes "From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli..."

You've just made my point. The Marines were an extention (or projection if you like...) of Teddy Roosevelt's policy. The Marine Corp did not come up with "Speak Softly..." on their own and decide that they should act.

I stand by my original statement. The Marines as an organization (and the military in general) do NOT make policy. They are an extension of the policy of the administration and higher authority in place at the time.

And if you want to lay blame for the Iraq mess, lay it where belongs...at the front door of the White House. As for exactly when that blame should have been laid, I'll leave that open to interpretation. But here's a hint, it should be prior to September, 2001.

[20droger]

You've just made my point. The Marines were an extention (or projection if you like...) of Teddy Roosevelt's policy. The Marine Corp did not come up with "Speak Softly..." on their own and decide that they should act.

I stand by my original statement. The Marines as an organization (and the military in general) do NOT make policy. They are an extension of the policy of the administration and higher authority in place at the time.

And if you want to lay blame for the Iraq mess, lay it where belongs...at the front door of the White House. As for exactly when that blame should have been laid, I'll leave that open to interpretation. But here's a hint, it should be prior to September, 2001.
You should learn to read. Nowhere did I say that the marines, or any other branch of the military, made policy.

I said exactly this:
Ah, yes. The marines. Those with necks of leather and heads of jar. America's first corps of diplomacy.

You have tried to put words in my mouth, and I resent it. I have great respect for the marines, and fought shoulder to shoulder with many of them. Yes, they are jarheads, in the same degree that I was a dogface.

And they are America's first corps of diplomacy. When one of our fearless leaders decides he must "diplomatically" swing a bat, he almost invariably calls on the marines. What, you expect a fealess leader to go himself?

I lay the blame for a war, any war, where I feel it belongs, with the agressor nation (not with their soldiers, who a just doing their duty). It saddens me, however, when MY country is the agressor.

[FlyingPhotog]

You should learn to read. Nowhere did I say that the marines, or any other branch of the military, made policy.

I said exactly this:


You have tried to put words in my mouth, and I resent it. I have great respect for the marines, and fought shoulder to shoulder with many of them. Yes, they are jarheads, in the same degree that I was a dogface.

And they are America's first corps of diplomacy. When one of our fearless leaders decides he must "diplomatically" swing a bat, he almost invariably calls on the marines. What, you expect a fealess leader to go himself?

I lay the blame for a war, any war, where I feel it belongs, with the agressor nation (not with their soldiers, who a just doing their duty). It saddens me, however, when MY country is the agressor.

If I offended you, I apologize.

I took your original post to mean that somehow, The Marine Corps are/were a way to make policy as a first choice (and therefore responsible for same...) and not a last choice as another poster pointed out.

I agree with your statement regarding sadness over one's own country being the aggressor, however in this particular case, I do not share your (seeming) opinion that the United States is such.

Trust me, I wish our political system were populated by smarter people at all levels and on BOTH sides of "the aisle." Personally, I feel that "None Of The Above" should absolutely be on this next Presidential ballot.