The news has been agog at the questions thrown at Rumsfeld, because it seems to reinforce exactly what the media have been reporting: Iraq is deteriorating, soldiers are improperly armed and armored, and morale is low.
Ah, ah aaah. Not so fast. As it turns out, this Q&A; was all staged. In other words, it was scripted literally weeks beforehand, then presented as extemporaneous. The soldier is lauded for his courage and candor. In reality he was a patsy, a tool. According to the memo quoted on Drudge's site, the journalist for the Chattanooga Times Free Press embedded with the troops writes to the staff:
I just had one of my best days as a journalist today. As luck would have it, our journey North was delayed just long enough see I could attend a visit today here by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. I was told yesterday that only soldiers could ask questions so I brought two of them along with me as my escorts. Before hand we worked on questions to ask Rumsfeld about the appalling lack of armor their vehicles going into combat have. While waiting for the VIP, I went and found the Sgt. in charge of the microphone for the question and answer session and made sure he knew to get my guys out of the crowd.So during the Q&A; session, one of my guys was the second person called on. . . .
The great part was that after the event was over the throng of national media following Rumsfeld- The New York Times, AP, all the major networks -- swarmed to the two soldiers I brought from the unit I am embedded with. Out of the 1,000 or so troops at the event there were only a handful of guys from my unit b/c the rest were too busy prepping for our trip north. The national media asked if they were the guys with the armor problem and then stuck cameras in their faces. The NY Times reporter asked me to email him the stories I had already done on it, but I said he could search for them himself on the Internet and he better not steal any of my lines. I have been trying to get this story out for weeks- as soon as I found out I would be on an unarmored truck- and my paper published two stories on it. But it felt good to hand it off to the national press. I believe lives are at stake with so many soldiers going across the border riding with scrap metal as protection. It may be to late for the unit I am with, but hopefully not for those who come after.
The press officer in charge of my regiment, the 278th, came up to me afterwords and asked if my story would be positive. I replied that I would write the truth. Then I pointed at the horde of national media pointing cameras and mics at the 278th guys and said he had bigger problems on his hands than the Chattanooga Times Free Press. This is what this job is all about - people need to know. The solider who asked the question said he felt good b/c he took his complaints to the top. When he got back to his unit most of the guys patted him on the back but a few of the officers were upset b/c they thought it would make them look bad. From what I understand this is all over the news back home. [emphasis mine]
Yep. Media bias. Can't trust anything they print or broadcast anymore.
Posted by Clifton at December 9, 2004 12:23 PM | TrackBackDude, welcome to the writte word, the historical account and, by some measure, scripture.
It may have been staged, but is it less true because of the staging? Underhanded and sneaky, sure. Disgusting. Yeah...and depressing. I hate it, actually, that the journalist went this route to get the story out. But that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not this stuff is happening.
Others are looking into it and even the Pentagon has been confessing problems with the supply train in Iraq. None of this is news on some level.
And, this is what muckrakers are. No? People using the media to unearth this stuff? Watergate? Yeah...this underhanded stuff helped improve working conditions, child labor laws and all sorts of stuff in this country.
Staged or not, the journalist states that it is the truth.
Posted by: AngloBaptist at December 9, 2004 01:15 PMThe Trib has an interesting article on all of this. I'll send a link your way.
Posted by: AngloBaptist at December 9, 2004 02:25 PMhttp://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0412090162dec09,0,6421280.story?coll=chi-news-hed
There is the link for you. The Trib backed Bush in the recent elections and may be more ballanced than the NY Times. So, there you go. It is a slightly different spin on the news.
Posted by: AngloBaptist at December 9, 2004 02:49 PMWas the Cheer of the other troops staged as well? That was quite an affirmation they gave after the question was asked.
Posted by: justin at December 9, 2004 03:23 PMJustin:
No. Nor am I claiming that there is no shortage, or that there are no problems. I agree with Tripp's post. This is war, no surprise here. Move along. Nor am I surprised by the cheer. It's what I would expect. These men face life and death everyday. They want some better odds so they can get home to their families.
What I'm reacting against is the dirty-tricks reporting going on. For all of 48 hours, the whole world saw this as something just spontaneously bubbling up, it made Rumsfeld look back (which the media just loves), and gave one more notch on the anti-military belts of the alphabet news corps.
And it was as staged as the Oscars. Indeed, more so. Fake. Fake. Fake.
The issue are real. But this isn't "news." It's showmanship meant to bring criticism against the military and Bush, and to increase soldier demoralization.
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at December 9, 2004 03:29 PM"What I'm reacting against is the dirty-tricks reporting going on"
Jessica Lynch?
Posted by: justin at December 9, 2004 03:37 PMI'm sorry. I missed inference/implication behind the reference.
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at December 9, 2004 03:48 PMThe "dramatic" resuce of Jessica Lynch was staged. Her story was so over-exagerated (sp) that when she came out with the truth she put so much egg on the face of the govt and media that they all had to recant and tell the truth.
But dang it made for a good story.
Posted by: justin at December 9, 2004 03:51 PMOh, sure. 100%. But why did the normally anti-war media run with the story so hard? Well, Americans like dramatic hero stories, to be sure. But you know what? Lynch is a woman.
Oh, damn, but the media love that. Woman on the front lines, shooting at the enemy. Annie get your gun.
Come to find out, she was as clueless as any shmoe.
Now, here's my rhetorical question. Would Lynch have gotten magazine covers, media coverage ad nauseum, and the beaming grins of feminists . . . if she was Jake Lynch from Toadsuck, Arkansas? One, two nights of coverage, max. No magazine covers. No beaming grins.
And in fact, once the "truth" came out about the rescue, that's when the alphabet folks would have gone absolutely nuts! In fact, Dan might have come up with some fake documents just special for the occasion.
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at December 9, 2004 04:00 PMSo you admit that what was revealed is true, so what's the problem? How should this have come out? The soldiers were not forced to ask the questions. The soldeir could have asked another question once he got the microphone. There is more than a reporters or the "media's" bias going on here.
The Government certainly isn't going to tell on itself. Information like this is only forced out never volunteered.
Maybe you think it shouldn't be reproted on. Perhaps there might be an argument there.
Otherwise this does not seem overly objectionable in the grander scheme of things.
"Information like this is only forced out never volunteered."
That's exactly the media bias I'm talking about here.
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at December 9, 2004 04:08 PMLike I posted in my comments to Tripp's blog...the news is the fact the the administration is now forced remove the rose colored glasses they have been wearing.
Yep, the new has been reporting this for a while, but they say "Awww, everything is fine. The kids over there are ok." But when it comes from the mouth of a soldier...shoot, ever the prez. says that "We need to do more."
Posted by: justin at December 9, 2004 04:10 PM"'Information like this is only forced out never volunteered.'
'That's exactly the media bias I'm talking about here.'"
Dude, that is the media's job. They have been doing that since the fist GW was prez. Was the media biased when thye were going after Clinton...depends on who you ask. The same thing is going on. The side that is getting picked apart never likes it.
Posted by: justin at December 9, 2004 04:18 PM"'Information like this is only forced out never volunteered.'
'That's exactly the media bias I'm talking about here.'"
Dude, that is the media's job. They have been doing that since the fist GW was prez. Was the media biased when thye were going after Clinton...depends on who you ask. The same thing is going on. The side that is getting picked apart never likes it.
Posted by: justin at December 9, 2004 04:22 PM""Information like this is only forced out never volunteered."
That's exactly the media bias I'm talking about here."
Cliff, that isn't the media bias, that's my observation and not based on current media opinon or from today's events but from my own study of history.
Posted by: Larry Kamphausen at December 9, 2004 04:26 PMJustin:
You misunderstood what I meant. Look again at what Larry said: "forced out", "never volunteered."
I agree that part of the job of the media is to be vigilant watchdogs. But to assume that the establishment always has something to hide and must always be prodded by shame, embarrassment and outing to do anything is a bias. It is neither a necessary premise nor a logical conclusion.
That bias does lead to the uncovering of truth that needs to be uncovered. And that's a good thing.
But is also leads to the creation of fake scandals (Bush Guard attendance), to the exagerration of otherwise important abuses (Abu Ghraib), and to a stance which suppresses when the government does its own policing and correction.
News is not news anymore. It's ratings. And the bias exemplified in this is dangerous, because it can tend to innoculate us against the truth, and to ignore the bigger picture.
Larry:
Let me clarify. The media also hold the opinion you do. And it is a bias which skews the news they present.
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at December 9, 2004 04:30 PM