The problem here IS NOT JUST Reuters’ obvious bias for the terrorists; it is NOT JUST AP and AFP and BBC’s bias and CNN’s mis-reporting…

It is ALL of these, coupled with to-this-moment REFUSAL BY THESE “News Agencies” to acknowledge or remedy their bias, that forms a REAL PROBLEM to truth-seekers around the world.

Aw, come on. The news agencies support the leftist narritive, so they can’t be wrong. And even if they are lying in specifics, it is only to correctly paint the larger picture . . . (fake but accurate).

This is especially the case where the sentence in question alludes to other instances of deceipt by the subject.

Glasnost:

I can understand how, if you are already wary of taking someone at face value, you may not get the sarcasm at first pass. But does that justify the high dudgeon Greenwald (and Mona) worked themselves up into over it?

In both cases the sarcastic remarks were intended to reject an unfounded plea for sympathy as a victim. In both cases, the underlying foundation for such victimhood status was questioned. In neither case did the commenter call for the targeting of journalists, although the status as jounalist of the putative “victims” was called into question.

Most importantly, Greenwald was attempting to show Hinderaker and Johnson (and by proxy, the Right) as hypocritical for finding this guy to be “scum”:

If FOX is an essential part of the state propaganda-system which facilitates the war, then how can we absolve their employees from accountability? Doesn’t that make them legitimate targets for resistance organizations?

while uttering, in Greenwald’s view, equally pernicious statements about other journalists. Aside from that fact that, AFAIK, neither Hinderaker or Johnson ever even commented on the guy above, the sarcastic comments they made had nothing to do with approving of jounalists as targets. And to compare two offhand comments to an entire screed about how Fox News reporters are “legitimate targets” is positively ludicrous.

Thanks for the link.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/

PLEASE, I implore you, look at the Big Picture. Look at the LIST OF INCIDENTS provided by Johnson; a list which tops ever post at LGF and which is now 16 links long and includes Zombie’s excellent dissection of the ‘Red Cross Ambulance’ fiasco and EU
Referendum’s critical debunking of Mr Green Helmet’s Terrorist Theater With Dead Children.

The problem here IS NOT JUST Reuters’ obvious bias for the terrorists; it is NOT JUST AP and AFP and BBC’s bias and CNN’s mis-reporting…

It is ALL of these, coupled with to-this-moment REFUSAL BY THESE “News Agencies” to acknowledge or remedy their bias, that forms a REAL PROBLEM to truth-seekers around the world.

The BIG PICTURE, Glasnost… if Greenwarb and his apologists can start seeing the Big Picture, it won’t be productive to engage in wordy dissections at the syntax-level of his posts and pronouncements, at least in part because he will no longer be culling 3-year-old out-of-context statements by (one who sees the Big Picture of Islamo-fascist anti-freedom terrorism) and re-casting that tiny iota of information AS IF it supports an assertion of Mr Johnson’s hateful, bloodthirsty bent.

Or is it Qana? Folks, however Hizballah manipulated and/or exaggerated the event, the kids were real, and they’re really dead.

The photos indicate that the dead kids were posed for the camera. Lots of pictures, with the same dead kids in different locations/poses, making it clear that it was staged. The photographers had to know what was going on, and they went along with it. Reuters and AP as well.

It’s sick, cynical, and lying propaganda. And the fact that editors didn’t catch what the blogs caught suggests that it isn’t only the photographers at fault, but editors are either willing to pass on propaganda or else lack basic competence.

Glasnost,
The third link, above, leads to Reuters-specific incidents which then triggered Reuters taking offline more than 900 of Adnan Hajj’s photos, supposedly factual, but NOW HIGHLY SUSPECT as propaganda!

EU-Referendum, #2 above, leads to a factual, dispassionate and near-exhaustive critical analysis of a Qana Incident in which Reuters was an active participant.

The first link gives several Reuters-related aspects of this case.

Finally, “…the actual post by Hinderaker, titled “Reuters Alleges Israeli Airstrike”:

Given Reuters’s coverage of the conflict in Lebanon, it would perhaps be understandable if the Israelis started firing on Reuters vehicles. Which is what Reuters now says they did:

[snip]
“Understandable” does NOT mean “justifiable”,
and cannnot be justly construed as such! Much of the Islamo-fascist terrorist headhacking and child-killing and misogynist honor-killing is ‘understandable’ within the framework of Islam and the Koran, but it is NOT justifiable, no matter how they rationalize it, and whether or not they know of or accept the Advent of Baha’u'llah, the Glory of God.

I haven’t followed the Reuters issues, but for the moment, it’s beyond my suspension of disbelief that Reuters, as an organization, has deliberately chosen to fabricate news events for the purpose of making Israel look bad.

It’s been noted that Reuters stories were slanted for some time, including their inability to label terrorists “terrorists”. More recently, a Reuters London employee made threats against Charles Johnson, and yet more recently Reuters photos were proved to be altered or staged.

What is clear is that Reuters has a number of employees covering the Middle East who are pushing Islamic facist propaganda, and that the organization only acts to change that under external pressure. What is also clear is that they have long had an institutional bias. The bias per say isn’t the main problem, but it does suggest the problem they face with specific employees is wide spread in Reuters.

A comparable scenario is Haditha: it is clear that the Haditha massacre was committed by US soldiers and that the US Army bureaucracy was involved in covering it up. That does not mean that the US Army is institutionally committed to massacres or to covering them up

Haditha was USMC, not soldiers. And this is odd, as USMC has a good record with respect to these sort of things, compared with the US Army (and compared to other armies, ours has a good rep).

The Haditha killings are currently undergoing investigation, and so far there is no indication of a higher level cover up by USMC or the military. I’ll wait for the final result before I conclude Marines are guilty.

I have to agree with you there.

Glasnost,

Your last two comments are taken as intended. I agree with most of what you say. I guess that is why I am very wary of the Greenwald/Mona style of debate. It is their interpretation that matters, not what it is reasonable to believe about others. I sent an e-mail to Hindraker, and I made a point to say I am asking what he meant by the comment, not what whether he actually thinks such an action might be justifiable. My point and Michael’s is not about what evil might lie in the mans heart, but what he actually is saying. I feel the same about Coulter. She often takes people and strings together statements about people or their beliefs and suggests that it means that they mean or believe something sinister. This is not an ideological point. God knows all sides (including those who label themselves as some form of libertarian) do this kind of thing. I don’t know what lies in John Kerry’s heart, but I am not going to take a statement he makes and pretend it definitely means he wants the terrorists to win or cheers when our troops suffer losses. I have seen those kind of arguments and hate them as well. I disagree with him, I don’t trust him on a number of issues, but I don’t argue he is in favor of our troops being defeated.

I sometimes wonder whether he is more concerned, subconciously with Bush looking bad than what will help us have the best outcome possible in Iraq, but I certainly don’t think he has said anything that proves that. It is suspicion, that is all. It would actually be “understandable” but wrong. To actually claim such a thing is his real agenda would be unfair however and I feel the same with Hindraker. We all have petty emotional urges, I don’t hold them against Kerry, Hindraker or anyone else unless they act on them.

By the way, I know I am not above such instincts myself, I am trying to control them.

As for Reuters. I have surveyed the issue, but I have no links at this moment. Hopefully the LGF guys can help you there or you can Google “pallywood” for a start. These are not people being snookered. These are journalists caught on film staging events that did not happen. Your argument on Qana is well taken, but purposely exaggerating what happened there is wrong, regardless of the fact that some people died there. It may not excuse the attack (there are other excuses for that, but I’ll let you make up your own mind) but neither does the underlying event excuse falsified reporting. Same with the smoke or journalists filming perfectly healthy individuals on stretchers over and over again to get a good anti-Israeli shot. Yes, that happened and more than once from what I have seen.

I haven’t followed the Reuters issues, but for the moment, it’s beyond my suspension of disbelief that Reuters, as an organization, has deliberately chosen to fabricate news events for the purpose of making Israel look bad.

They don’t have to meet such a high standard to be vulnerable to the disdain that Johnson, et. al., have for them. They merely have to be repeatedly negligent in allowing news events fabricated or staged by others to be unverified, and widely disseminated.

They have clearly done this, multiple times, and have not made any indication that they are confronting this problem internally. In essence, they are accused of disseminating enemy propaganda, there’s strong evidence to back up the charge, and they are not defending themselves or making any attempt at rectifying the policies that led to this point.

They might be doing it all unknowingly. They may honestly think they are guilty of no more than some mistakes in the heat of a war. But in the face of multiple incidents that all favor one side, namely the enemies of their own countrymen, and incidents that could seriously affect the outcome of the conflict, such a defense is not tenable.

Reuters starts from the viewpoint that they are reasonably impartial reporters of the news. If they hold one side to higher standards than the other, then they can reasonably be construed to favor the side they are not holding to a high standard. In that case, they are not what they claim to be. They deserve to be severely and continually criticized for that until they admit that they have a systemic problem and attempt to address it.

Greenwald needs more than that to justify claiming Hindraker was okay with journalists being targeted. I suggest we ask Hindraker

To, I guess, his credit, I’m fairly sure that Hinderaker won’t go on record with that statement. I think the question of whether one is justifying something or not is a genuinely slippery question, possibly inherently subjective.
I’ll give you that Greenwald did not source any advocacy for the deaths of Retuers journalists, nor any direct apologies (although apologists rarely apologize, oddly!), but frankly, I’m agnostic on concluisvely having proved anything specific on either Hinderaker or Greenwald.

Politicians and pundits are masters of the subtextual.

on the lines of what you were saying, well, it’s amazing, with people in general, how much ambiguity and nuance is built into the English language (all languages?). Furthermore, there are no uniform agreements, not only on what is offensive, but the lines between explaining a point of view, ‘justifying’ it, defending it, endorsing it, advocating it… doing none of these but talking about the topic in such a way as to concentrate on the weaknesses of the people asking the question instead of the question… and when any of this is “wrong”.

Usually, if everyone involved is interested in seeing differing opinions on a subject as reasonable, they usually can. If they’re interested in demonizing people, others will buy into that as well. It’s all a function of motivation.

I haven’t followed the Reuters issues, but for the moment, it’s beyond my suspension of disbelief that Reuters, as an organization, has deliberately chosen to fabricate news events for the purpose of making Israel look bad. A comparable scenario is Haditha: it is clear that the Haditha massacre was committed by US soldiers and that the US Army bureaucracy was involved in covering it up. That does not mean that the US Army is institutionally committed to massacres or to covering them up (although the second one is not, sadly, beyond imagination, most organizations on the planet do it).

If you want to give me a link that demonstrates that Reuters has organizationally chosen to deliberately fabricate or genuinely misconstrue the factual events of the news (NOT place their own emphasis on the selection of relevant facts, or use publish unproven statements)
for the purpose of making Israel look bad, by all means, show me the link. Otherwise, I suspect we’re looking at the odd greedy, lazy, and-or, possibly and regretabbly, ideologically driven journalist who slipped through the cracks. That’s bad, of course. Point out the factual innaccuracies and demand corrections, but those who attempt to misrepsent or accuse without substantiation, the much graver picture I laid out up there,
I question their motives as well as their grip on reality.

Reuters has been caught actively staging and falsifying news reports in the Middle East.

Is this the picture with the extra smoke? Can the journalist, but a) I have no reason to believe this was a deliberate organizationally-sanctioned effort, quite the opposite, and b) I don’t think that qualifies as falsifying a news event.

Or is it Qana? Folks, however Hizballah manipulated and/or exaggerated the event, the kids were real, and they’re really dead. Compared, to say, the Kuwaiti propaganda placed in U.S. media by the U.S government in 1991, no one credible suggests the event was *fabricated* or that it wasn’t really the IDF.

Shortly after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, the organization Citizens for a Free Kuwait was formed in the US. It hired the public relations firm Hill and Knowlton for about $11 million, money from the Kuwaiti government. This firm went on to manufacture a fake campaign, which described Iraqi soldiers pulling babies out of incubators in Kuwaiti hospitals and letting them die on the floor. A video news release was widely distributed by US TV networks; false supporting testimony was given before Congress and before the UN Security Council. The fifteen-year-old girl testifying before Congress was later revealed to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States; the supposed surgeon testifying at the UN was in fact a dentist who later admitted to having lied.

Whatever Reuters initially or even ultimately got wrong about Qana, whatever Hizballah manipulation they passively accepted – this is not anti-Israel bias. News organizations get suckered. It happens. Sometimes they have hard choices between ignoring an important story completely or accepting the limitations of their ability to sort out the facts with 100% accuracy.

So, my opinion remains: Sure, call out innacuracies, but give Reuters a rest with the claims of being on Osama Bin Laden’s side. It’s not believeable, and personally, it makes me angry.

Lance, I know that you haven’t said anything to that effect. I don’t know about Hinderaker – I’d have to do research that I don’t feel like stomaching, with no real reason to do it.

Anyway, the civility and all is appreciated. I’ll try to reciprocate. I’m suspicious of maximalist arguments- not as suspicious as Hinderaker is of Reuters, but close.

Don, I recongnize that you don’t endorse the bombing of Reuters employees. As to whether Retuers is the enemy, we disagree, and you probably understand the rest of my feelings on that by now.

Frankly, Greenwald sees Hinderaker engaged in a campaign to systematically shame, delegitimitize, and if possible, all-around ruin the lives and businesses of news agencies that don’t report news events with the slant he prefers them to be reported on.

The news agencies that LIE to obtain their desired slant? Those news agencies?

I find that reprehensible in a general sense, but there’s another level involved when he’s trying to crush accountability for those who physically harm journalists.

The ‘journalists’ are doing that themselves, by carrying water for the enemy. And, furthermore, IDF and the US have not been shown to target these ‘journalists’. And further yet, it isn’t clear that the claim of ‘journalists’ being hit is even true.

For IDF to have done wrong in this case, we need a series of things to be true:

1) ‘journalists’ hit by IDF fire.
2) The IDF fire had to have targeted the ‘journalists’.
3) The ‘journalists’ have to be viable journalists, not tools of the enemy.

Once upon a time, we would have taken Reuters at face value with respect to 1 above. That’s no longer the case, and from my reading that’s a key Hinderaker point.

I’d use Don (sorry, don) as a case study of the sort of thinking that Greenwald has a legitimate fear of (Reuters is the enemy?)
and I think that Hinderaker does everything he absolutely can *short* of openly endorsing the IDF blowing up journalists with missiles, to encourage that form of thinking.

But no one, including Don (me) is endorsing blowing up Reuters. I think you probably COULD (in theory, but probably not in the reality of the battlefield) justify blowing up selected Reuters employees, but even then I don’t think you SHOULD. The proper way to deal with them is the way LGF and zombie ARE dealing with them; perhaps that’s what got Greenwald’s and Mona’s panties up in a bunch?

Thanks for stopping back in and clarifying. We like having you around and I far prefer the last comment to you just being flat out disgusted.

Was Hindraker being sarcastic? I think so, but as I said, understanding something is different that endorsing it. So it really doesn’t matter. Greenwald needs more than that to justify claiming Hindraker was okay with journalists being targeted. I suggest we ask Hindraker. Johnson has made it clear he was not endorsing the targeting of journalists, if Hindraker was, Greenwald could have asked before hand to make sure.

So I will ask and see for you.

I suspect the reason Greenwald feels justified in saying that Hindraker is guilty of it is as you say:

Frankly, Greenwald sees Hinderaker engaged in a campaign to systematically shame, delegitimitize, and if possible, all-around ruin the lives and businesses of news agencies that don’t report news events with the slant he prefers them to be reported on. I find that reprehensible in a general sense, but there’s another level involved when he’s trying to crush accountability for those who physically harm journalists.

I have my issues with Hindraker as well, and given the view you ascribe to Greenwald, and yourself(which I think is accurate) might that not explain the willingness to assume the worst about what someone is writing. Many times in my life I have said or written things which it never occurred to me could be taken the way some people have, (including something recently where I clumsily attempted to be sarcastic with Dale Franks) because it never occurred to me that people could possibly think I was suggesting such a thing. That is all the more likely when dealing with someone who is already disposed to see the worst in someone, unlike Dale who is relatively familiar with my general views.

Hindraker is very suspicious of journalists as you say, but his concern with Reuters is not unfounded. Reuters has been caught actively staging and falsifying news reports in the Middle East. In this instance at least much of Hindrakers criticism is justified. I don’t think his little jab about the IDF’s justified anger at them has to be read the way you insist without some kind of confirmation. That it was sarcastic is supported by his feeling that it is likely a fabricated story. My guess is that he is right on that as well.

By the way, if you do get a blog, I’ll be there as well. Heck if you want to interview Hindraker and Johnson on this I’ll let you guest blog even if it takes Michael down a peg or two. I might even enjoy that;>}

Is Retuers ‘biased’? Well, according to whom? Are they more biased than Fox News? Are they more biased than Powerline? I personally prefer agencies with as little ideological predisposition as possible, but if the self-appointed Treason Watch here has designated Reuters as the “enemy”, count me an active opponent.

glasnost,

Get a clue. Charles nailed CBS and Reuters. You don’t like Fox? Fine, nail ‘em.

Reuters doctored photos, staged photos of dead children, etc., to maximise the propaganda effect. They got caught.

If you think Fox does the same, by all means call them on it. I really don’t care what your opinion is, but if you can back it up with something, then put up.

This is not a response to what you’ve said, just a statement of fact: I want to know when you have your own blog. It will be a place to visit, for sure.

-Gil

spmat Says:
August 30th, 2006 at 3:00 am

You lost me, Don. Yes, Reuters seems to have a serious problem keeping their house in order, but providing a conduit for propaganda through inattention and incompetence is expressly different from intentionally doing so. Are you saying that Reuters employees are legitimate military targets? I certainly hope not.

First, no one has said that they are legitimate military targets, at least to my knowledge. However, it is clear that Reuters employees on the ground HAVE BEEN intentionally pushing pro-Islamic propaganda.

The break in the link is that we have no reason to think a GIVEN Reuters employee is pushing Islamic propaganda (until specifically identified). Consequently, IDF and the US military HAS TO treat them as if they are not viable targets. And, even if you could identify a Reuters employee as part of the Islamic fascist threat, that doesn’t mean you should target him with a military strike. The LGF approach of shinning a light on the cockroaches is the proper approach.

But, on the other hand, at this point I’m skeptical of any Reuters’ claims, and if I hear they are hit I’m not inclined to cry about it unless I hear more that suggests the given Reuters employee was indeed innocent. Think O.J.: I KNOW he’s a murderer, but I have no right to take the law into my hands, but that doesn’t mean I’m gonna cry if I hear he’s walked in front of a truck . . .

Hinderaker is not even close, to me. He’s clearly not only justifying, but instantly dismissing the reports of the IDF firing missiles at Reuters journalists.
Now, I think that justifying actions is part of intellectual debate, and I wouldn’t see it prohibited, but Greenwald is not in any wrong to rail against it. That’s just pushing back.
I respect your concern for Greenwald not misrepresenting Hinderaker’s or Charles Johnson’s positions while he pushes back, but I personally don’t find your case convincing that he has done so. I can see your case for Hinderaker being sarcastic, but the first time I read it, I read it as a straight statement. And I think the average reader read it and came away basically thinking, yeah, go ahead, they deserve it.

Frankly, Greenwald sees Hinderaker engaged in a campaign to systematically shame, delegitimitize, and if possible, all-around ruin the lives and businesses of news agencies that don’t report news events with the slant he prefers them to be reported on. I find that reprehensible in a general sense, but there’s another level involved when he’s trying to crush accountability for those who physically harm journalists.

Is Retuers ‘biased’? Well, according to whom? Are they more biased than Fox News? Are they more biased than Powerline? I personally prefer agencies with as little ideological predisposition as possible, but if the self-appointed Treason Watch here has designated Reuters as the “enemy”, count me an active opponent. Reuters’s customers deserve factual accuracy, but beyond that, they can have any opinions they like. That’s a free country. I don’t consider people my enemies for the opinions they hold. That sort of thinking is for fascists and Islamic fundamentalists.

Mona Greenwald and others have been effectively shown where they might improve, develop or CREATE rational skills in discourse, should they choose.

But I’ve never heard of Glenn Sockpuppet…
Who he?