Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
Thomas Sowell :: Townhall.com Columnist
Biased reporting
by Thomas Sowell
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


The same newspapers and television news programs that are constantly reminding us that some people under indictment "are innocent until proven guilty" are nevertheless hyping the story of American troops accused of rape in Iraq, day in and day out, even though these troops have yet to be proven guilty of anything.

What about all the civilian rapes that are charged -- and even proven -- in the United States? None of them gets this 24/7 coverage in the mainstream media.

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated example of media hype of unproven charges against American troops. While military action was still raging in the early days of the Iraq war, there was media condemnation of our troops for not adequately protecting an Iraqi museum from which various items were missing.

When the smoke of battle cleared, it turned out that members of the museum staff had hidden these items for safekeeping during the fighting.

Then there was the incident when a Marine shot a terrorist who was pretending to be asleep and the media turned that into a big scandal until an investigation revealed how these and other tricks used by terrorists had cost the lives of American troops in Iraq.

None of the brutal beheadings of innocent hostages taken by terrorists in Iraq -- and videotaped for distribution throughout the Middle East -- has aroused half the outrage in the mainstream media as unsubstantiated charges made by terrorists imprisoned in Guantanamo.

Nor have most of the media become any more skeptical about charges made by these cutthroats in Guantanamo after the claim that copies of the Koran had been flushed down the toilet at that prison turned out to be a lie.

The idea of trying to flush any book down a toilet ought to have raised suspicions but much of the media treats statements by terrorists and their supporters as true and any denials of wrongdoing by American troops as false and "a coverup."

These are the same liberal media people who claim to be "honoring our troops" when they hype every casualty and make a big production of each landmark death, such as the 1000th American killed in Iraq and then the 2000th.

The multiple-page spread in the New York Times and similarly elaborate coverage of these landmark deaths on liberal television programs show that they had been preparing for these particular deaths for some time.

They may well be disappointed if we don't reach the 3000th American death, since the terrorists have shifted their attacks and now target primarily Iraqi civilians.

We all need to understand the fraudulence of the claim that these media liberals who have been against the military for decades and who have missed no opportunity to smear the military in Iraq are now in the forefront of "honoring" our troops by rubbing our noses in their deaths, day in and day out.

Troops who have won medals for bravery in battle -- including one soldier who won a Congressional Medal of Honor at the cost of his life -- go unmentioned in most of the mainstream media that is focused on our troops as casualties that they can exploit.

A recent study by the Media Research Center found that the three big broadcast news networks -- CBS, ABC, and NBC -- ran 99 stories in 3 and 1/2 hours about the investigation of charges against Marines in the death of Iraqi civilians in Haditha last November.

These remain unproven charges in a country where people on the side of the terrorists include civilian women and children who set off bombs to kill American troops and who can set off lies to discredit those that they do not kill.

But the same networks that lavished 3 and 1/2 hours of coverage of these unproven charges gave less than one hour of coverage of all the American troops who have won medals for bravery under fire.

Every newspaper and every television commentator has a right to criticize any aspect of the war in Iraq or anywhere else. But when they claim to be reporting the news, that does not mean filtering out whatever goes against their editorial views and hyping unsubstantiated claims that discredit the troops.

Those troops deserve the presumption of innocence at least as much as anyone else.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of The Housing Boom and Bust.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Thomas Sowell and Townhall.com's daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
NY Treason hypocrisy
" While military action was still raging in the early days of the Iraq war, there was media condemnation of our troops for not adequately protecting an Iraqi museum from which various items were missing.

When the smoke of battle cleared, it turned out that members of the museum staff had hidden these items for safekeeping during the fighting."

Why didn't the NY Treason report the location of these museum employees? Didn't the public have a right to know? Didn't the terrs have a right to know where they could capture these expensive artifacts and get a few more future beheadees in the bargain?

As to the rights of the captives
Please take a look at the entry in my blog entitled "One 12 Cent Bullet" regarding the courts, Hamdan, Geneva Conventions, etc.

viewfromtheisland.townhall.com


JUST ANOTHER TACTIC
of the liberal MSM. They, like all other businesses and industries seem to follow trends. In the local papers that I read - well, two of them anyway - The NYT, NY Daily News and The Post,the latest trend is "Nazis and White Supremicists." This is what is innudating the military if you are to believe Bob Herbert and Errol Louis. It seems according to Scott Barfield, a "Department of Defense Investigator" the military is routinely and if you are to read between the lines of Herbert's and Louis' accounts, actively seeking out these people to arm them and send them oversea's to act as our avenging angels to smite evil and instill democracy. While admittedly, I have not read Herbert's work, Errol Louis uses the Nazi-Skinhead hook to draw you to his work. As you get into it further, it seems the majority of the problems encountered by the military come from such groups as the Crips, Vice Lords, Gangsta'Disciples, INSANE Gangsta'Disciples and so on. Not only that, but Mr. Louis goes on to say that the above and aforementioned street gangs are routinely ordered to enlist by the powers that be in their respective clans in order to gain footholds in the military towns in the US they are stationed in. Yet, he goes back to say that the White Supremicists that he uses as a hook for his story, will "bring us back to the days of Timothy McVeigh" and the what he wrought. Gee, Mr. Louis, sounds like the black street gangs are more of a danger to the military than "Nazis and White Supremicists."
And just who in the hell is Scott Barfield? A "DOD Investigator"? That's like saying one is an tax analyst for the IRA? If this man- Barfield- has such compelling evidence of this happening, why not come forward with it and present it to the American people? Again, while not reading Bob Herbert's tripe and having read Errol Louis' so-called reporting with the dishonest way it was presented, along with years of being fed the MSM line, I have to take all of this with about a boxcar's load of salt.
Biased reporting, indeed.

Can we 'flag as offensive' the NYT?
And just not read it any more? I know I don't.

I know you will say keep you friends close.... and enemies closer, but if we quit reading it maybe it will have to fold??

Saw a video of the protest... It was pretty good. I wish I could have been there!


Media and war
During WWII the media supported the troops and the war effort. In this war the MSM is supporting the terrorist elements. It is apparent that if a GI makes a terrorist captive unhappy they scream abuse. If a terrorist organization beheads an American and puts it on tape apparently the American asked for it. With their so called moral equivalance we cannot do what the terrorists do with impunity. The MSM does not get it. The terror network wants to control the world and they will if not stopped. The MSM is their ally. NYT has betrayed this country and what they have done will cost innocent lives.

Strange bedfellows
I wonder if Thomas Sowell realizes that he is now in complete agreement with Noam Chomsky. Sowell’s comments could have come straight from the book, Manufacturing Consent. Of course, the history of the news media has always been one of bias by design.

As for the situation with our troops; when the enemy, who is heinous by nature, does a heinous act, it is sad but not shocking. When out troops, who are honorable by nature, do something heinous, the shock and incongruity with our national character is what makes it worse. All should be considered innocent until proven guilty, but that rarely happens. I know that I’ve failed to do so before. I’ve even disagreed with a jury verdict from time to time.

The Un-Liberal Media
The MSN dictionary defines "liberal" as "broad-minded: tolerant of different views and standards of behavior in others". I'm afraid the soon-to-be-former mainstream media doesn't even come close. I think a less misleading, more accurate title would be "virulently socialist leftist media" (or just "socialist media" for short).

And the real irony of this particular casserole of selective reporting is that after three years of warfare, the current casualty count has yet to even approach the number of civilian casualties suffered in ONE DAY in the attack that resulted in and justifies the war. In most eras, 2500 casualties in a three-year war would have been considered a miracle, even by the left-leaning (even at that time) media!

Why stay?
It's ever more obvious that the practitioners in the MSM despise everyting about America. They despise our individualism, they despise our prosperity, they despise our ability and willingness to defend ourselves, both individually and as a nation. They despise our free market economy and the wealthy it produces. They despise Christianity, they despise Judaism, but seemingly not Islam.
There are many nations on earth who also despise all those things about America, and many I haven't mentioned. These nations have plenty of room for more believers in hating America, why do the MSM folks remain here?

Media & War...
Of course "Marx's Socialist Media" supported our troups during WWII - we were defending the Russian communists by teaming with them to defeat their fellow socialist fascists - the German NAZIs. Had we been fighting against Russia, the media would have been just as hateful then as it is today (we also had a socialist serving as president).

Liberals are watermelons - peace-nics on the outside - communists in the inside. The term liberalism is a cover for the communists who are "broad minded" when it comes to anti-Americanism but close minded when it comes to anti-socialism/fascism. In various educational systems, instructors will spew forth Marxist propaganda, condemning any students who don't accept it. Liberal indeed.


Presumption of innocence?
I thought you knew that only applies to people who rape children, shoot cops, and cut off the heads of their ex-wives for not being willing to serve as a punching bag. This cannot possibly apply to those that risk their lives day in and dau out to protect our freedoms here at home, and to bring freedom to the oppressed abroad. Why those brutes carry guns and actually shoot people, there can be no presumption of innocence for them....Mumia Abu Jamaal, yes, US Marines no. So sayeth the American Media, so get used to it!

Selective storytelling
There is far more evidence that Bill Clinton, the god of the anti-American left, was guilty of miltiple rapes than there is of wrongdoing by U.S. troops.

We are supposed to believe that, when one soldier cracks and does something wrong it is evidence of a systemic problem within the military.

When one republican congressman confesses to taking bribes it is emblematic of the "culture of corruption" within the party.

Why, then, did the media that have hyped these angles didn't/doesn't paint the entire left as a pack of philadering rapists. "Fairness" should require it of them. (Were there 99 total stories about Kathleen Willey, or Juanita Broderick?) But it doesn't follow the story line the has been media wants to push forward.

Strong Delusion
Have you ever heard of someone who "lived a lie"? They so invested themselves in the lie they are presenting day in and day out that they actually begin to believe the fabrication to be the truth. Regardless of sound and reasonable evidence they will smugly reject any and all information that doesn't support their LIE.

Marvin Kalb was on The O'Reily Factor last night and affirmed his belief that the New York Times is a good newspaper serving the public well. Mr. Kalb is another example of a kool-aid drinker, and this man is teaching journalism at Harvard!
Is it any wonder so many journalists seem to be so out of touch with reality.

After so many years and the Sophists are still amongst us. Oh, for an honest Journalist!

GEM



People convicted in the Media
The press will very often convict people before they have a fair trial. One example was Scott Peterson whose story was shown every day on CNN for a year or more and he was presumed guilty until proven guilty. There was no physical evidence of his having committed the alleged offense which should raise some doubts about his guilt but he was given the death sentence though there certainly was a shadow of a doubt. But because no one liked the guy he was not given the "shadow of a doubt." In cases like his people will speculate about the case for a whole hour say on Larry King when they don't have the slghtest idea what the physical evidence is. So the person doesn't have to be in the military to be given an unfair trial in the press, the media are equal opportunity executioners.

Speaking of shoddy reporting
On the Haditha killings, I couldn't help but wonder how the three networks managed to cram "99 stories in 3 and 1/2 hours." So, I went back to the report on the Media Research Center website. To clarify, it was 3 and 1/2 hours of coverage over a three week period spead over ten different daily and weekly news programs. That's an average of ten minutes per day spread over Good Morning America, World News Tonight, This Week, Nightline, Today, Nightly News, Meet the Press, The Early Show, CBS Evening News and Face the Nation.

Mr. Sowell is quite correct that the MRC report is quite critical that much less coverage was given (and over a much longer period) to the accomplishments of twenty medal winners.

The - call it cynical or calling it world-weary - response is that bad news trumps good news. Always has, always will. Ask the folks of Aruba if they felt that Fox News ran enough interviews with happy tourists during their Natalie Holoway feeding frenzy. Ask the folks at the UN if they feel the media give their organization's positive accomplishments enough coverage. Ask any police department whether they would expect to get more coverage of an officer awarded a citiation for valor or a corruption scandal.

Mr. Sowell writes: "Troops who have won medals for bravery in battle -- including one soldier who won a Congressional Medal of Honor at the cost of his life -- go unmentioned in most of the mainstream media that is focused on our troops as casualties that they can exploit."

The MRC report states: "The most heavily-covered hero was Medal of Honor winner Paul Smith, who received 41 minutes of coverage during a 24-month period, 79 percent of the heroes' total. CBS's Jim Axelrod had Smith's story on April 9, 2003, just five days after he was killed in action. ABC's Bill Blakemore featured Smith on World News Tonight two weeks later. Blakemore ran a soundbite from First Sergeant Tim Campbell: "He's the epitome of what I look for in a soldier. He was, a good man. When you think in terms of how many soldiers he saved, and he died doing it, it's just phenomenal to me." All three networks offered full reports on their morning and evening news shows when President Bush presented the Medal of Honor to Smith's widow and two children on April 4, 2005, the second anniversary of his death."

It seems to me there is a very legitimate debate and discussion to be had on coverage by the main stream media and by other media outlets. Sadly, I don't think Mr. Sowell's style of carpet chewing polemic underpinned by shoddy - or maybe just downright dishonest - use of sources makes a contribution.

Oh pu-lease modest
One can search minutes of coverage over any period one prefers. It has nothing to really do with it. I've watched the reports, over and over. While giving limited coverage to heros and positive stories, they are done so matter of factly and with tongue in cheek barely out of sight. Then, if the story is negative toward the war, the administration or what American's generally support, the reporting is done with near orgasmic fervor.
How something is said far outweighs what is said.

Repubs Cons Want to Censure MSM
All this complaining from the repubs/cons on Press Coverage by the so-called MSM on the Iraqi War is basically a bunch of bologna.

What it really boils down to is that the Bushites are fed up and frustrated because they dont control what is being reported out of Iraq
on a daily basis, which doesnt allow them for frame the issue as they see it.

If it were up to these people none of the daily carnage, total death counts of U.S. Soldiers or
misbehaviour of U.S. troops would never be reported. Only rosy stories about the "good news"
from Iraq would be reported. This amounts to censorship.

The bottomline is the Bushites dont want bad news reported because it reflects badly on
President Bush and increasingly turns the public
against this nonessential war that will do absolutely nothing to stop a future domestic attack on the U.S. Their primary concern is that bad news hurts President Bush and the Republican Party politically, nothing more, nothing less.

Biased Reporting
It's been said many times but I'll say it again. Thank God the media didn't do this stuff during WWII. A good fiction book and movie, "The Dirty Dozen" tells of murderers, rapists, and other degenerates during WWII that end up on a mission of redemption. We seem to forget that in all wars since the Revolution there have been these sorts in the military. If these people are guilty, hang them, if not, let them alone. There is only one reason that the MSM continues these reports and not reports on how many children went to school, new schools being built, and all the other civil actions our troops perform every day. The reason is that the MSM made a huge turn to the left during Vietnam reporting the same thing to get people against the war and the people who fought it. I know because I was there and one of my most proudest medals was for civil actions with the Vietnamese but when I got home, I was "a baby killer". Our media owes our troops an apology...but fat chance of that ever happening.

Biased Reporting
It's been said many times but I'll say it again. Thank God the media didn't do this stuff during WWII. A good fiction book and movie, "The Dirty Dozen" tells of murderers, rapists, and other degenerates during WWII that end up on a mission of redemption. We seem to forget that in all wars since the Revolution there have been these sorts in the military. If these people are guilty, hang them, if not, let them alone. There is only one reason that the MSM continues these reports and not reports on how many children went to school, new schools being built, and all the other civil actions our troops perform every day. The reason is that the MSM made a huge turn to the left during Vietnam reporting the same thing to get people against the war and the people who fought it. I know because I was there and one of my most proudest medals was for civil actions with the Vietnamese but when I got home, I was "a baby killer". Our media owes our troops an apology...but fat chance of that ever happening.

Dems Libs DO Censure MSM
so let me get this straight, Left Angle. When conservatives (not the administration, mind you, which keeps pretty mum) complain of a blatant bias by the media which day in and day out spins, quite uncensored in any way whatsoever, the war as negatively as possible, the mere desire for SOME balance by the conservative electorate, in your words, "amounts to censorship" by the adminstration. Sorry, but the unfortunate truth is that the only genuine censorship occurring here, with the virtually complete ban on any good or positive news BY the Left Media, is that actual (vs. your theoretical) self-censorship. What are we supposed to believe? Our eyes...or your incredulous imagination?

Left Angle is the Wrong Angle....Again
This liberal troll is always missing the point. Why do you bother reading the columns here? You obviously don't understand what is being discussed because you always come up with some crazy response that has little or nothing to do with the column. It must be nice living in la-la land.

Press coverage of troops in SIraq
I agree with you Dr. Sowell on the negativity of the press towards the troops. I served in special Ops in Vietnam and dealt with the press on occasion. I was amazed at how different the reports of things I was involved in were from the actual events. I think that only Specially trained troops--read special forces and their ilk--should be involved with the people of Iraq. The regular Army, Air force, Navy, etc., is not equipped or trained for sensitive operations that involve close contact with the citizens of foreign countries on a day-to-day basis. Rusty Calley and his kind are an example of what can happen when other than highly specialized forces are involved. SIt was a mistake in Vietnam, and it is a mistake in Iraq.

It's all about access
During the early thirties, that great Pulitzer award winning NYT reporter, Walter Duranty, was privy to the inner most counsels of Soviet authority including access to Stalin himself on occassion. How did he achieve this envious level of Soviet accomodation within a system that was otherwise extremely paranoid of all Western contact? He wrote the most outrageous lies or passed on official disinformation regarding Soviet policies for a gullible and otherwise misinformed West to routinely consume - through the NYT.

When he toured areas of the Ukraine, he chose not to see the rotting evidences of widespread famine, nor paid any heed to other eyewitness accounts that contrasted with official Soviet propaganda. In Stalin's Russia, considering the number of fellow Communists he murdered, Duranty was more trusted than his own comrades - an exalted position indeed!

This is exactly what Keller at the NYT is all about - do you doubt that if Osama himself were to grant an exclusive interview, Keller wouldn't be a priority candidate to get the scoop? Why should the NYT buy with editorial policy what it's already guaranteed through the blood of our soldiers and its army of leftist lawyers (i.e. freedom of the press) when it's so much more useful to maintain good relations with our enemies by bolstering their morale and exposing our secrets?

Keller should be in a cell, denied bail, awaiting trial for treason.

Terminology means everything
Mr. Sowell,

As always, you are right on the money with the assessment of the MSM treatment of the military and their distain toward the United States. One point, however, must be addressed. Your comment:

“Troops who have won medals for bravery in battle -- including one soldier who won a Congressional Medal of Honor at the cost of his life -- go unmentioned in most of the mainstream media that is focused on our troops as casualties that they can exploit. “, needs correction.
There's a big difference between "won" in a civilian sense, and "earned" in a military sense. Military awards and decorations are earned Mr. Sowell, not "won". This is not a contest. It is not an Olympic event. A Medal of Honor is earned for bravery above and beyond the call of duty, such as in the case of Sergeant First Class Paul Ray Smith. SGT Leigh Ann Hester earned the Silver Star for gallantry in action. Capt. Kellie McCoy earned the Bronze Star with "V" for courage and leadership under fire.
The context of "won" when describing the heroism of these Soldiers leaves a bad aftertaste. In the future, please make the conscious effort to apply the right term.

SFC Cheryl McElroy
US ARMY
Veteran of Desert Storm, Bosnia, Operation Iraqi Freedom

Excellent post
Mr. Sowell,

Thank you for these observations. I wonder if the media's handling of the 5-3 Hamdan v. Rumsfeld Supreme Court decision is another reflection of media bias. James Taranto wrote a wonderful piece about this, which I blogged about here:

http://www.alexchediak.com/blog/2006/07/hamdan_v_rumsfeld_media_covera.php

Thanks again!
Alex
www.alexchediak.com

correction
I enjoy TS' articles and find no fault with MOST of what he writes. THat being said...a solider does not "WIN" the Congressional Medal of Honor. It is not a contest, they are AWARDED this highest honor.


Death of Al-Zarqawi
I thought it was interesting that the liberal media preempted the consequences of Al-Zarqawi's death with the tragic story of the two soldiers kidnapped and killed shortly afterwards. I guess it was the first story they could hype so that America wouldn't know the war is being won. No other soldier's death has made the front page since.

Simply the best, Dr Sowell and US Forces
Dr. Sowell is simply one of the best, clearest, most sensible writers today. He works with the data that exists and not what he wishes it to be. If on occasion I have not been completely in agreement with him, he always has something interesting to say and for us to consider. Finding myself in active disagreement causes me to re-examine the subject and see if he has something I have misssed. I find him to be entirely intellectually honest, which is more than I can say for the New York Times and their ilk in the so-called "Main Stream Media." He is one of the few writers whose works I automatically read.

Then, too, the MSM and the Lefties seem to have no understanding of the excellence of our military forces and the brutal world in which the military operates (so that the brutal world does not come home to us, as is did on 9/11.) They seem to long for and insist we operate in a Utopian ideal that never was and will never be, short of Heaven. Our military is entirely made up of volunteers who stand up for all of us and put themselves "between their loved homes and wars' desolation."(From the final verse of the national Anthem.) As George Orwell put it, "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." They are sleeping peaceably and forget (if they ever really knew) that at that same time our forces are in harm's way protecting their right to denigrate them.

While no one is more inclined to love peace (it is they after all who are in harm's way) this is now one of those times that they "do violence" on our behalf. Our forces today, as they have historically - even in the days of the "draft," go out of their way and take casualties to try to avoid civilian casualties. Some civilian losses do occur, and the fact that the military has the term, "collateral damage" to describe undesired damage, injuries, and deaths does not mean that they are not conscious of them and try to avoid them; quite the contrary.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice is the code they live under, and IMO, it is a much sterner system that the civilian justice system. Wrongdoers have been and will be investigated, tried, and convicted. To paint the many with the sins of the few is a monstrous injustice. The UCMJ will cope with the bad apples.

The US Armed Forces are simply the best, God Bless and keep them all.

It is also a grave injustice to these fine men and women that virtually none of the good works they are doing in often dangerous and difficult conditions are being reported by those more interested in damaging the Bush Administration than doing their job, ie., reporting the news. To those "journalists" who think their job is, "to make a diffence" IMO they are in the wrong line of work. Their job is to inform us, and we, the American people, will decide what it means and what, if anything, should be done about it. We want it all, the good, the bad, and the ugly, but not the "classified for national defense." We want "just the facts," as they said on Dragnet. Keep your comments on the editorial page.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.