thedrifter
01-04-06, 08:24 AM
'State of War': Anonymous Sources and Journalistic Credibility
Written by Col. Bob Pappas, USMC Ret.
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
At long last Americans are getting more than the one-sided bias of the so-called, “mainstream media” as it pertains to the situation in Iraq. Before the president’s speech of December 18, one cable network, the Fox news channel, aired a lengthy piece on the domestic situation in Iraq. While acknowledging terrorist attacks and the deadly toll that they take, (most of which, not incidentally, are against the Iraqi people,) the piece showed widespread optimism and political, social, and economic progress throughout Iraq.
It is well known that the so-called “insurgency” centers on the Sunni Triangle and Baghdad, while from time to time manifesting itself in other places. It is natural that Baghdad would be the epicenter since it and the remainder of the Sunni triangle are home to the disaffected Sunni/Baath Party population--that portion of Iraq’s population that benefited almost exclusively from Saddam’s “table crumbs.”
As I have written before, it is true that things might have gone better had the president not declared, “mission accomplished,” or said “bring them on,” or “they tried to kill my Daddy.” Paul Bremer, U.S. occupation administrator, should not have summarily disbanded the Iraqi army with no sustained effort to reeducate the amy “professionals.” Nor should he have left those dismissed without compensation, without care for their families and no job prospects, or barred them from further military service. Secretary Rumsfeld should have heeded now retired Army Chief of Staff John Shinseki’s advice about the level of forces required for ocupation. If such mistakes had been avoided, it all might have gone differently. Still, despite the current aministration’s failings, and all administrations have them, there have been no terrorist attacks in the United States since 9/11/2001.
Unfortunately, many, especially politicians with re-election on their minds, are blinded by their dislike of the pesident. Their dislike may be justified, but too many are so out-of-control of their mental processes that they engage in treasonous, seditious, disloyal, anti-American, hate-filled rhetoric and behavior that warrantsa visit to the local “shrink.” Although I did not care for LBJ, and in fact loathed him, I didn’t undermine his legitimate efforts to support the independence and freedom of the South Vietnamese, which, using a pseudonym even while in uniform would have been easy enough to do.
I find it interesting that many reporters and other media pundits wear thin the phrase “anonymous sources.” Of “Rathergate,” Dan Rather and Mary Mapes stand by their story. It is comical that they think the public so dumb (perhaps their liberal viewers are; no, were) as to assert that their standard of proof is that the documents have not been proven illegitimate.
Similarly, the forthcoming book, State of War, by another New York Times “star,” James Risen, quotes “anonymous sources” for its revelations about the NSA program and assumes that readers will infer legitimacy.
The question arises. Given the confidentiality and anonymity of these sources and the probability that they have a political agenda (in addition to the fact that they are in it for the money), isn’t it possible that they, the media in general with all their “secret” sources, are simply fabricating stories, cloaking them in “protection of sources”?
I have come to the belated conclusion that unless the media divulges its sources and whether or not money has changed hands for information from those sources, media credibility will continue its inexorable plunge into a journalistic “black hole.” In short, why should anyone believe either the New York Times or Mr. Risen’s book for anything other than their entertainment value? Of course, partisans use them for partisan purposes, in this case the political left, whether or not there is a scintilla of truth. But for the rest of us, it certainly isn’t for journalistic purity.
Semper Fidelis
Courtesy www.gulf1.com
About the Writer: Bob joined the U.S. Marine Corps in February 1959 and retired in October 1989. He served two combat tours in Vietnam, and flew 500 missions in the F-4 and OV-10 aircraft. His military awards include LoM (2), DFC (2), (SM)AM (2), (SF)AM(24), Purple Heart, MSM, BS (V), and NCM. Bob is married to his best friend, and has a fabulous stepson and daughter-in-law and two wonderful, magnificent, lovely, precious, heart-melting grandchildren. Col. Bob receives e-mail at cheetah@gulf1.com.
Ellie
Written by Col. Bob Pappas, USMC Ret.
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
At long last Americans are getting more than the one-sided bias of the so-called, “mainstream media” as it pertains to the situation in Iraq. Before the president’s speech of December 18, one cable network, the Fox news channel, aired a lengthy piece on the domestic situation in Iraq. While acknowledging terrorist attacks and the deadly toll that they take, (most of which, not incidentally, are against the Iraqi people,) the piece showed widespread optimism and political, social, and economic progress throughout Iraq.
It is well known that the so-called “insurgency” centers on the Sunni Triangle and Baghdad, while from time to time manifesting itself in other places. It is natural that Baghdad would be the epicenter since it and the remainder of the Sunni triangle are home to the disaffected Sunni/Baath Party population--that portion of Iraq’s population that benefited almost exclusively from Saddam’s “table crumbs.”
As I have written before, it is true that things might have gone better had the president not declared, “mission accomplished,” or said “bring them on,” or “they tried to kill my Daddy.” Paul Bremer, U.S. occupation administrator, should not have summarily disbanded the Iraqi army with no sustained effort to reeducate the amy “professionals.” Nor should he have left those dismissed without compensation, without care for their families and no job prospects, or barred them from further military service. Secretary Rumsfeld should have heeded now retired Army Chief of Staff John Shinseki’s advice about the level of forces required for ocupation. If such mistakes had been avoided, it all might have gone differently. Still, despite the current aministration’s failings, and all administrations have them, there have been no terrorist attacks in the United States since 9/11/2001.
Unfortunately, many, especially politicians with re-election on their minds, are blinded by their dislike of the pesident. Their dislike may be justified, but too many are so out-of-control of their mental processes that they engage in treasonous, seditious, disloyal, anti-American, hate-filled rhetoric and behavior that warrantsa visit to the local “shrink.” Although I did not care for LBJ, and in fact loathed him, I didn’t undermine his legitimate efforts to support the independence and freedom of the South Vietnamese, which, using a pseudonym even while in uniform would have been easy enough to do.
I find it interesting that many reporters and other media pundits wear thin the phrase “anonymous sources.” Of “Rathergate,” Dan Rather and Mary Mapes stand by their story. It is comical that they think the public so dumb (perhaps their liberal viewers are; no, were) as to assert that their standard of proof is that the documents have not been proven illegitimate.
Similarly, the forthcoming book, State of War, by another New York Times “star,” James Risen, quotes “anonymous sources” for its revelations about the NSA program and assumes that readers will infer legitimacy.
The question arises. Given the confidentiality and anonymity of these sources and the probability that they have a political agenda (in addition to the fact that they are in it for the money), isn’t it possible that they, the media in general with all their “secret” sources, are simply fabricating stories, cloaking them in “protection of sources”?
I have come to the belated conclusion that unless the media divulges its sources and whether or not money has changed hands for information from those sources, media credibility will continue its inexorable plunge into a journalistic “black hole.” In short, why should anyone believe either the New York Times or Mr. Risen’s book for anything other than their entertainment value? Of course, partisans use them for partisan purposes, in this case the political left, whether or not there is a scintilla of truth. But for the rest of us, it certainly isn’t for journalistic purity.
Semper Fidelis
Courtesy www.gulf1.com
About the Writer: Bob joined the U.S. Marine Corps in February 1959 and retired in October 1989. He served two combat tours in Vietnam, and flew 500 missions in the F-4 and OV-10 aircraft. His military awards include LoM (2), DFC (2), (SM)AM (2), (SF)AM(24), Purple Heart, MSM, BS (V), and NCM. Bob is married to his best friend, and has a fabulous stepson and daughter-in-law and two wonderful, magnificent, lovely, precious, heart-melting grandchildren. Col. Bob receives e-mail at cheetah@gulf1.com.
Ellie