November 07, 2005
Will the lies live on?
Via Matthew Hoy, an interesting story on the press and the Massey affair, Why did the press swallow Massey's stories?...
Media outlets throughout the world have reported Jimmy Massey's claims of war crimes, frequently without ever seeking to verify them.
For instance, no one ever called any of the five journalists who were embedded with Massey's battalion to ask him or her about his claims.
The Associated Press, which serves more than 8,500 newspaper, radio and television stations worldwide, wrote three stories about Massey, including an interview with him in October about his new book.
But none of the AP reporters ever called Ravi Nessman, an Associated Press reporter who was embedded with Massey's unit. Nessman wrote more than 30 stories about the unit from the beginning of the war until April 15, after Baghdad had fallen.
Jack Stokes, a spokesman for the AP, said he didn't know why the reporters didn't talk to Nessman, nor could he explain why the AP ran stories without seeking a response from the Marine Corps. The organization also refused to allow Nessman to be interviewed for this story....
Some of the news media have issued corrections, some haven't. Why the original failures? Well, do you ever notice the press making mistakes that FAVOR Bush or Republicans?
What I wonder (without being willing to go into the swamps to find out) is whether the lefty/anti-war/pacifist bloggers are issuing corrections? Or whether the lies will live on and on and on?
Posted by John Weidner at November 7, 2005 07:37 AMToo soon to tell, John.
I think that the chance of corrections will occur when Bush has passed from the White House. Until then, the Left (and many liberals) will be utterly focused on destroying Bush and his legacy.
Once a Democrat is in the WH, of course (be it in '08 or '12 or '16), then everything will change.
Just as much of the Left was willing to leave the military be (so long as they were more willing to promote women, admit gays, and not engage in killing, but simply engage in peacekeeping) during the Clinton years, so the Left will suddenly declaim that they have never questioned the utility nor importance of a military---once the Democrats are back in power.
Of course, if the war in Iraq continues for a bit longer, I suspect that much of the anti-war Left, which even now happily spits on US soldiers, will be firmly entrenched once again, and conclude that an Abu Ghraib is a matter of state policy and Jack Massey is the poster-child of the US Marine Corps.
Posted by: Lurking Observer at November 7, 2005 10:26 AMIf the facts don't support their agenda, Old Media will cling to lies. If the facts partially and conditionally support their agenda, they will pig out on supposition and speculation.
Joe Wilson has been as authoritatively debunked as any con man in my lifetime, yet Old Media recycles his fraudulent claims unchallenged. Don't expect anything better with regard to Massey.
Posted by: lyle at November 7, 2005 10:47 AMThis is to Rex Smith and the rest of the "editors" of all of those "left-wing" ragsheets.
Rex Smith: (Reporting lies as fact) Unfortunately, that is the nature of the newspaper business."
Maybe you should go ahead and change the newspaper name the the National Enquirer part 2 or the the Sun Albany NY edition you moron! Just incase you haven't figured it out yet Einstien, thats why newspaper subscriptions have dropped.
"If the government controls the information, it's called censorship. When the press controls the information, it's called editing."
Posted by: John Lanning at November 7, 2005 08:52 PM
