...it's not dark yet, but it's gettin' there...
MUMBAI (AJN) - A coordinated series of seven exposions ripped through several commuter trains in Mumbai, India yesterday, killing at least 160 people and injuring more than 400. And now the repercussions of this latest apparent terror attack have begun to affect the once revered Mainstream Media.
One day after the attacks, which appear to bear the signature of Islamic terrorists, many observers are asking why the Mainstream Media did not act to prevent these deaths beforehand.
"It is horrible," said one man who asked not to be identified. "I ask myself why? Why did not the New York Times do something about this? Why did they not stop these bad men? Do they not care about the lives of innocent Indians?"
News analyst and terror expert Annika, of the blog Annika's Journal, told AJN that questions are being raised about the Mainstream Media's failure to detect and prevent the Mumbai terror plot.
"A lot of people are scratching their heads today," said Annika. "They wonder how the MSM could have fucked this one up so badly. They have more than adequate resources to detect a plot like this [the Mumbai bombings]. They're always patting themselves on the back about their investigative reporting, yet they couldn't stop these terrorists. And now hundreds of people are dead."
The Mainstream Media has recently come under attack from far right conservative groups for releasing information about secretive American anti-terrorism programs, which some say are designed to uncover information about future terrorist plans.
"When the New York Times spends all it's time investigating the programs that are meant to stop terrorists from killing, you got to ask why they can't spare just a little effort trying to investigate the terrorists," said Annika. "It couldn't hurt, and it might just save lives."
Media representatives responded to Annika's criticisms, on condition of anonymity. "It's not our job to be law enforcement," said one television news executive. "That's the government's job, to stop terrorists. We're just there to report news, not make it."
Yet Annika and other media watchers argue that the Mainstream Press has unique capabilities that the government does not possess, which could be used to unearth terror plots before they occur.
"For instance, covert government investigations can always be revealed by members of the press, often destroying months of hard work," said Annika. "But if the same investigation were conducted by reporters, who's going to rat on them? We all know reporters would rather rot in jail than give up one inch of their precious First Amendment rights."
A former New York Times reporter recently served 85 days in jail rather than reveal the identity of one of her journalistic sources.
"The New York Times, The Washington Post... These guys are so proud of how they brought down Nixon, and he didn't even kill anybody," Annika continued. "The L.A. Times didn't have any problem finding every chick Arnold groped back in the seventies. How come they can't find Osama? Bill Keller seems to think he's got better judgment on national security issues than the freakin' Department of Homeland Security. Let him put that superior judgment to use... fighting terrorists instead of helping them."
Bill Keller is the executive editor of the New York Times, which has come under fire by far right wing extremist groups such as the Republican Party for allegedly revealing details of secret U.S. government anti-terror programs. He could not immediately be reached for comment.
"And CNN? Don't get me started," Annika concluded. "It's unconscionable for CNN to wash their hands of these continued terrorist attacks. They consider themselves 'citizens of the world.' What a fucking joke. They're such hypocrites. The people in Madrid and Bali and London and Baghdad and now Mumbai are all citizens of the world too. The MSM is a disgrace."
AJN's Annika Becker contributed to this report.
Why can't they investigate the terrorists instead of the people trying to catch the terrorists- the age old question.
Posted by: jane on Jul. 11, 2006well done.
Posted by: blu on Jul. 11, 2006I have no problem with the reporting of abuses. It may be the dream of conservative Republicans to make non-GOP news outlets the paragon of evil, but the only people who are going to fall for that are conservative Republicans. So an article like this can be viewed as an attempt to retain/enforce this scenario among those who already believe it.
Posted by: will on Jul. 12, 2006The term "non-GOP news outlets" is redundant.
Posted by: shelly on Jul. 12, 2006Nice one, Annika, but you need to throw in some "root causes" to help justify this act, such as India's Kashmir policy.
BTW, Drudge lists the death toll at 190+ now.
Posted by: reagan80 on Jul. 12, 2006Excellent
Posted by: Jake on Jul. 12, 2006What abuses are those, Will? Perhaps you are speaking of the perfectly legal and very successful financial tracking program that the NY Times decided was crucial for terroists to learn about? Yeah, that really helped the American people out didn't it? Or how about when NY Times reporters call suspected terrorists money laundering groups (otherwise known as Muslim "charities") and tip off planned FBI raid by means of the questions they ask? - I suppose that is "reporting" on abuse as well.
The MSM is a one-sided joke. And as you well know, Will, every credible study ever done on the media and its members demonstrates that an extreme left-wing bias exists. It is not something that can be debated. It is fact. By the way, how does NPR function now that Pravada is no longer around to provide its material? Do they check in with Castro and Chavez to make sure they are getting the story right - making sure all those "abuses" are being covered fairly?
This is kinda off topic, but how much you want to bet that the ever so fair and open-minded MSM will be doing its best to draw a moral equivalence between the Muslims human debris in Lebannon and "Palestine" and the Israel government trying to defend itself? You think the Muslim abuses will covered? Don't hold your breath. No, their abuses will be cloaked in language related to Jewish "oppression." I gurantee that any collateral damage caused by Israel in its defense will be covered and a fucking UN Resolution condeming it will not be far behind.
Anyway, say hi to Alice, the Mad Hatter,and the Red Queen. And remember: keep your head.
Posted by: blu on Jul. 12, 2006"So an article like this can be viewed as an attempt to retain/enforce this scenario among those who already believe it."
sure it can, Will, if you want to ignore the point of the article.
Posted by: annika on Jul. 12, 2006LOL!!! Wouldn't it be amazing if the media DID break up a terror plot!
BTW, I got the dreaded "fruitcake error" when clicking the trackback link.
Hey Will, snap out of it. Got a sense of humor?
Posted by: Beth on Jul. 12, 2006>every credible study ever done on the media and its members demonstrates that an extreme left-wing bias exists.
Please reference the studies you consider to be credible. Oh, and 'hi!'.
> sure it can, Will, if you want to ignore the point of the article.
The point of the article seemed to be advocacy for news organizations to perform covert operations, frequently in foreign countries. In other words, to investigate organizations that are currently under investigation by the FBI, CIA, and others. Though you criticized one news organization for doing just that. So now you are the one cornfusing me...
Do I think that exposing conditions at Abu Ghraib and similar situations was appropriate? Certainly. Don't forget, I became a Republican years ago because of liberal bias in the media.
Posted by: will on Jul. 12, 2006Annie:
Have you ever thought of being an appellate lawyer?
Your writing skills really make you a great candidate for that kind of a job.
Most of them never put on a suit or tie except to argue a cse in the court, opting for shorts and sandals, etc.
Give it some thought.
Posted by: shelly on Jul. 12, 2006Will, Will, Will always so pedantic. There are a ton of studies - not that it is even necessary to cite them. Anybody with a 3-digit IQ who pays attention to the MSM know this. It reminds me of the Time cover that so astutely informed us stupid peasants that men and women are "different." Yeah, no shit Sherlock. That's kinda what I think when somebody says "the media is liberal."
Anyway, I just did a (literally) 30 second search and found a UCLA study cited in the Quarterly Journal of Economics at the beginning of '05 that found distinct liberal bias in the MSM. And guess what - it also found that FOX isn't nearly as conservative as much as the MSM is liberal.
If I say 2 + 2 = 4 will I need to cite a math professor to prove to you that I am correct?
Posted by: blu on Jul. 12, 2006> Will, Will, Will always so pedantic. There are a ton of studies - not that it is even necessary to cite them.
Only trying to understand if you mean what you say or if you are loose with your words, which were, "every credible study ever done on the media and its members demonstrates that an extreme left-wing bias exists." This article does not support that assertion.
> it also found that FOX isn't nearly as conservative as much as the MSM is liberal
It doesn't actually say that. It says that, "The most centrist outlet proved to be the NewsHour With Jim Lehrer, CNN's NewsNight With Aaron Brown, and ABC's Good Morning America were a close second and third. The fourth most centrist outlet was Special Report With Brit Hume on Fox News..."
This seems to confirm my assessment of The NewsHour, which I like to either watch or listen to on the radio, depending on the day's schedule. But the actual metrics they use in the study are crude and ignore placement, emphasis, ommission, and order arrangement of compound statements joined with a "but". So while such a study can give the most rudimentary of indications, it completely misses subtle and not-so-subtle bias.
While there are many good discussions on this subject, I encourage you to read the wikipedia article on media bias and review it;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States
> If I say 2 + 2 = 4 will I need to cite a math professor to prove to you that I am correct?
You are attempting to overly stretch a metaphor as damage control.
Posted by: will on Jul. 12, 2006Hardly need to do damage control, Will. I told you that I found that one study in 30 seconds. No effort. And the point about Fox is that it is most certainly not as conservative as MOST MSN news media is liberal. To listen to some (and you've made this argument yourself), Fox is some right-wing version of Pravada. It is not. Indeed, it appeared to me that the researcher was surprised.
And, Will, I don't mean to underestimate you, but can you kindly tell me your credentials for determining whether a study is "crude." (For example, I have 4 years of graduate school and a career heavy in quantitative analysis. This doesn't make me a PhD in stats but it does help me be a good consumer of data.) I'm not going to go back and analyze this study because frankly I don't care. So, I can't refute your analysis of it as crude. You seem like a smart guy, so I'll take your word for it. Moreover, I know that my fundamental point is accurate. The MSM leans heavily Left.
You already knows this to be true, Will, but feel the need for somebody to go a find you a "link." So, I tossed out something I found in a few seconds that, "crude" or not," makes my point - as have numerous others. It's silly and, yes, pedantic. As silly as asking me to find a link demonstrating simple math.
The end.
> can you kindly tell me your credentials for determining whether a study is "crude."
Simply put, they "tallied the number of times each media outlet referred to think tanks and policy groups, such as the left-leaning NAACP or the right-leaning Heritage Foundation." Fox is well known for selecting general quotes from left leaning organizations while selecting the most appropriate quote from a right wing shop. And it doesn't show how much time they devoted to one side or another, nor the credibility given by the journalist in facial and speech inflections. Note that I previously gave several other examples of metrics that would help to determine bias.
So by any measure, the UCLA metrics were crude. I invite you to speak in support of this study's approach, if you consider it to be a exemplar.
> I told you that I found that one study in 30 seconds. No effort.
And it wasn't hard finding the Wikipedia article either, though you haven't commented on it yet. Your original quote was ""every credible study ever done on the media and its members demonstrates that an extreme left-wing bias exists." I don't see that you've supported your assertion yet, only that you simply want us to believe "the MSM leans heavily left" now. If that's the case, the most Left wing MSM would be the Wall Street Journal, according to this study, which we know to be an absurd conclusion. And many MSM papers or news segments were determined to be neutral, so your blanket statement is not supported by the study you quoted.
I take it by your response that you have no expert credentials in this area. Well, I guess then you are going to have to send me a link proving your analysis is correct. And since I do have the academic expertise to be a good judge, I'll decide whether your study actually holds water. Remember, I'll need that link....and, most certainly, another link to prove this statement: "Fox is well known for selecting general quotes from left leaning organizations while selecting the most appropriate quote from a right wing shop." Says who? Again, I'll be the judge as to whether any study is credible should you decide to present any links.
I'm certain that the Quarterly Journal of Economics regularly includes "crude" analysis. You might want to ask them to provide a link to demonstrate their competency.
And, finally, asking somebody to prove everything they say is simply silly on an internet site. Espeically when you have a tendency of demanding proof and then discounting whatever is provided. Tell you what, Will, you prove to me that the MSM isn't liberal. The overwhelming consensus is that it is. I've never seen any proof to the contrary.
Hint: busting out Wikipedia as a source probably won't score you a lot of points in academic circles. So, I'm going to have to insist that you do better. I'd prefer something peer reviewed if possible.
Posted by: blu on Jul. 13, 2006Annika, it's true that the MSM was responsible for the deaths of these people, but they were not solely responsible.
The senators from New York should obviously be concerned about terrorist acts anywhere in the world. Why did they refuse to stop this carnage?
Similarly (or not so similarly), one would think that an organization with a name like "Focus on the Family" would want to protect families. Where were they when families were (literally) torn apart?
And don't get me started about the failures of the cast of Ocean's Twelve or Ocean's Thirteen or Ocean's Twenty or whatever.
Posted by: Ontario Emperor on Jul. 13, 2006> Well, I guess then you are going to have to send me a link proving your analysis is correct.
By all means, I'll be happy to provide you examples of criteria that can be used to assess bias. These will run the gamut from liberal to conservative examples, though the techniques they describe can be used independently;
http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Media/USA.asp?Print=True
http://www.dallasmorningnewswatch.com/criteria.htm
> And, finally, asking somebody to prove everything they say is simply silly on an internet site.
I merely asked you to support your bold assertion, "every credible study ever done on the media and its members demonstrates that an extreme left-wing bias exists." You then provided an example that said that the WSJ was the most liberal MSM, even more so than CBS Evening News, the NYT, and the LAT. The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third.
> I'm certain that the Quarterly Journal of Economics regularly includes "crude" analysis.
Oddly enough, this was not an economics article, so you would need to ask them how they determined the veracity of the study based on the application of economic theory.
Still looking for your thoughts on the wikipedia link. Seriously.