Iran

[SSH]

Well, if we want to be political, but stop the anti-american stuff, then lets talk abotu Iran's recent statements. Personally, I had thought that the US, etc. were ebing pretty intolerant about Iran's nuclear stuff but their recent remarks have completely changed my position. When The President can say "As [Ayatollah Khomeni] said, As the imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map." they've obviously got some agenda beyond power.

However, they're now copying the Monty Python Oscar Wilde sketch:

"Your Majesty is like a stream of bat's piss"
"WHAT???"
"I merely meant, sire, that you shine out like a shaft of gold when all around is dark"

Now, they have said "It's absolutely clear that, in his remarks, Mr Ahmadinejad, president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, underlined the key position of Iran, based on the necessity to hold free elections on the occupied territories."

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm just going to have free elections with the crumbs on my desk...

[Nacho]

There is some percent of uranium enrichment which works for civilian purposes, which Iran claims wants to do. Europe offerend giving Iran enriched to 8, what energy centrals should need. Iran refused and bought Uranium enriched to 25, the one that works for making bombs.

Do I need to draw a map?

[Kweepa]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_uranium

8% U-235 is more than is needed for commercial reactors, but less than generally used in research reactors.
25% could theoretically be used to make a bomb, but would require a huge amount of uranium (500kg) and an enormous conventional explosive to compress it, plus a very well shaped and timed explosion. Generally weapons grade uranium is 90% U-235. Does Iran have a uranium enrichment programme?

I think we should be careful about jumping to conclusions - given how the press were duped in the run up to the occupation of Iraq.

Then again,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4384264.stm

[shbaz]

I think we should be careful about jumping to conclusions - given how the press were duped in the run up to the occupation of Iraq.

They weren't duped - all along they kept saying, "While Bush and his administration claim this.. the UN search crews find nothing and say that the US claims are absurd."

It wasn't a needle in a haystack.

Iran surely sees a perfect opportunity now to take on the US while it's down after being outraged at the "axis of evil" comments. I don't know that they'd be willing to fight on their own territory though, which would obviously happen.

[DGMacphee]

They weren't duped - all along they kept saying, "While Bush and his administration claim this.. the UN search crews find nothing and say that the US claims are absurd."

While that is somewhat true, it is a little more accurate to say they reported more of the former than the later. They had to buckle down to the Bush Administration in order to gain coverage.

One of the major criticisms by most media critics in the last few years was there was hardly any scrutiny by the mainstream media on what the Bush Administration was doing at the time. It's only in the last year that the media is saying "hey we've grown some balls now".

You're right -- they weren't duped, but they were certainly playing Bush's bitch.

[shbaz]

I don't really feel like that's the case. American news hasn't been playing "Bush's Bitch" but rather they've shifted to entertainment news corps. People here didn't want to hear that Bush was wrong, so the news said a lot about what Bush was saying while casually mentioning the U.N.'s take on it all along. This allowed die-hard conservatives to say that those pansy U.N. idiots couldn't find a bomb or a hole they fell into while those of us with any sense knew all along that this war would be based on false presumptions.

I don't blame the news, I blame the current attitude of half the American people. The news channels have to balance reporting with profits to survive, and while that may seem to you like a lack of balls, their balls don't mean much if they don't have any blood left to fill them. If any slant still exists (except for FOX) it's usually slight to heavy liberal. I was watching the news heavily at the time leading to and immediately following the Iraq war and I always saw mention of the U.N. hearings and inspections in my very conservative state of Oklahoma. I don't know if you as an Aussie can say that it wasn't there with any accuracy.

[DGMacphee]

You say that the news media has shifted to an entertainment news model and then go on to blame half the US public? You've basically absolved the news media from THEIR lack of responsibility (they are, after all, called The Fourth Estate) and then focused ALL blame on members of the general public.

You are right to suggest that a mainstream news organisation needs an audience to survive. And is there a better way to capture an audience than talk of war? Regardless of whether it has a liberal or conservative bias, news is sensationalist. The more dramatic the news and footage, the better the story.

Sure, you saw a mention of UN hearings but they were exactly that: a mere mention. The TV news organisations were more interested in all the "mushroom cloud" theatrics from the Bush Administration. The Bush Administration basically provided better spin about WMDs than anything from the UN investigators could provide. Hence, they were "Bush's bitch".

To use a shitty metaphor, imagine the news is a  lazy horse. Then imagine the Bush Administration is a farmer with a carrot. Do you see where I'm going with this? Watch the farmer lead the horse to the glue factory!

Don't get me wrong, I also think news audiences need more enlightenment of things that are happening around their world, rather than being interested in dramatic footage or those "mushroom cloud" cliches. But the American public don't have access to what mainstream news organisations have: resources of information, knowledgable people who can provide honest opinion on daily events, and the technolodge to reach (and enlighten) large audiences. Instead, the news media chose the "mushroom cloud" stuff to attract more viewers.

That's not responsible. They should have been more aware of what was happening. But they played right into the hands of the Bush Administration. Horse to the glue factory.

Let me quote from an article by Jonathan Mermin:

The media's independence problem
by Jonathan Mermin

The word occupation ... was never mentioned in the run-up to the war. It was liberation. This was [talked about in Washington as] a war of liberation, not a war of occupation. So as a consequence, those of us in journalism never even looked at the issue of occupation.

   --Jim Lehrer

In other words, if the government isn't talking about it, we don't report it. This somewhat jarring declaration, one of many recent admissions by journalists that their reporting failed to prepare the public for the calamitous occupation that has followed the "liberation" of Iraq, reveals just how far the actual practice of American journalism has deviated from the First Amendment ideal of a press that is independent of the government.

A fundamental tenet of our First Amendment tradition is that journalists do not simply recount what government officials say, but function instead as the people's "watchdog" over their government, subjecting its words and deeds to independent critical scrutiny. As Washington Post columnist David Ignatius explains, however, these expectations are often frustrated, because journalists have "rules of our game" that "make it hard for us to tee up an issue ... without a news peg." This means that "if Senator so and so hasn't criticized post-war planning for Iraq, then it's hard for a reporter to write a story about that." Instead, reporters say to themselves, "I have to wait for somebody [in Washington] to make a statement, and then I'll report on the statement." Ignatius describes the inability of the major media to focus on an issue unless "Senator so and so" has "teed it up" for them as "a professional rule that we really ought to examine." (1)

The same phenomenon is described by Pulitzer Prize--winning Associated Press reporter Charles J. Hanley, whose fall 2003 story on the torture of Iraqis in American prisons--before a U.S. Army report and photographs documenting the abuse surfaced--was ignored by major American newspapers. Hanley ascribes the lack of interest to there having been "no official structure to the story. It was not an officially sanctioned story that begins with a handout from an official source." There is "a very strong prejudice," Hanley explains, "toward investing U.S. official statements with credibility while disregarding statements from almost any other source," such as (in Hanley's story) Iraqis recounting their own personal experience at Abu Ghraib. (2)

While Ignatius and Hanley are concerned about the media's subservience to official sources, Judith Miller of the New York Times--the author of several stories on the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD) issue about which the Times has now expressed misgivings--is not. Responding to the suggestion that she could have been more critical of U.S. claims that Iraq possessed vast WMD stockpiles, Miller declared: "My job isn't to assess the government's information and be an independent intelligence analyst myself. My job is to tell readers of the New York Times what the government thought about Iraq's arsenal." (3) Of course, Iraqi journalists under Saddam Hussein could have said much the same of their relationship with the government of Iraq, their job having been to tell readers what Saddam Hussein thought about the United States.

http://www.worldpolicy.org/journal/articles/wpj04-3/mermin.htm

You'll notice the quote from Judith Miller. You'll most likely know who she is since you're in a greater proximity to her than I am (and she's been in the US news a lot lately in regards to the Plame investigation). But she is an example of what I'm talking about when I say "the news is Bush's bitch". Miller is one of those journalists who has a lot of access to top-ranking government officals, mainly because she presents favourable stories about them. Is there any actual scrutiny in her stories? No. Try reading a few of her stories and tell me she asks tough, critical questions.

So I think as an Aussie I can say that, regardless of accuracy, there is a lack of scrutiny. And I think my comments are justified with Mermin's article and the example of Judith Miller. Likewise, I think I'm justified when some of your comments closely echo my previous sentiments that the media reported more of Bush and less of the UN. However, you seem to place the full blame on "half the American people" and absolve your own country's media of any wrongdoing. In my opinion, and not just an Aussie but a journalist too, I don't think such a view is responsible. If you do not hold the news accountable for their actions, isn't your apathy just as bad as the apathy of the "half the American people" you blame?

EDIT: I just saw a clip from Real Time with Bill Maher where he interviewed Helen Thomas. She said in regards to her colleagues: "I think that they rolled over at a time when they should have been really reacting and asking the questions in the run-up to the war. The silence was deafening. But there were reasons. With 9/11, you'd be called unpatriotic if you asked penetrating questions. And then it segue-wayed into the war and you were jeopardizing the troops. So I think the reporters were intimidated. But they're coming alive again." When the "First Lady of The Press" says her colleagues rolled over, it's a pretty good indication the media was Bush's bitch.

[Kweepa]

And let's not forget the Downing Street Memo.
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/

[MrColossal]

sorry, had too!

[shbaz]

You say that the news media has shifted to an entertainment news model and then go on to blame half the US public? You've basically absolved the news media from THEIR lack of responsibility (they are, after all, called The Fourth Estate) and then focused ALL blame on members of the general public.

You are right to suggest that a mainstream news organisation needs an audience to survive. And is there a better way to capture an audience than talk of war? Regardless of whether it has a liberal or conservative bias, news is sensationalist. The more dramatic the news and footage, the better the story.

Fundamentally what I'm saying is that they've also avoided taking a bias knowing that it'd cause them to lose audience to other media outlets that were biased more in the area of what the audience wanted to hear. Both sides were reported, and yes one happened to have more dramatic characters because the President speaks with stronger words than did the U.N. representatives. The press weren't responsible for that. I vividly recall forming my opinion that Bush was full of it based on what I saw on the news - and other unbiased minds surely did the same. By "entertainment news" I mean they're looking to capture the largest audience. McDonald's makes its burgers bland because any strong taste would be liked by some, indifferent to others, and hated by some. If they take the middle road, they cut out the chance of being hated.

I don't want to see a conservative/liberal news split in my country because then we'll have the even worse problem of people watching whatever news they feel suits their ideology best (and if you think the present news is Bush's bitchpool, you don't want to know what a conservatively biased news corp. would promote). Most people already think the news is liberal right now. A lot of people have switched to Fox (openly conservative) because of it.

The article you've posted isn't very convincing to me because of what has happened in the past when the media picked up stories without "offical" sanction or acknowledgment. A certain high-profile anchorman of several decades destroyed his career by relying on a memo that turned out to be completely fabricated. I can completely understand the medias unwillingness to pick up poorly verified stories about prison abuse, it ruins their reputation as a reliable source of information if they turn out to be wrong.

In any case, 40% of the US has access to broadband internet and the internet news isn't lacking in variety or truthfullness. I'm not worried at all about the press, but about the will of the people to care. You know what our voting turnouts are, how can you not understand my point in that respect?

It's interesting that you bring up 9/11. With regard to that cultural phenomenon I don't know what to say. The media did a little simmering to test the waters initially, bringing up issues like "Why didn't this administration stop this?" and found that going that route would basically be shooting themselves in the face due to the extremist patriotism evoked with an attack on that scale. The press were powerless - if you've ever read "The Fountainhead" this is akin to the newsman there trying to defend Howard Roark blowing up a building. For that I place the blame squarely on the president who, knowing that the people would stand behind him in their confusion and fear, twisted those events to his bidding with such sickly efficiency that it boils my blood.

[TheYak]

I understand what you're saying about the American public at large being culpable while the media was pigeon-holed due to the extreme emotion evoked by the era of terror, but I still belive that you're letting them off the hook too easily. 

The media as a whole was roadblocked by evasive political interviewees and the "anti-patriotic" accusations being ping-ponged about.  However, they were only cripplied due to their reliance on a capitalist media model.   The detailed accuracy and unbiased reporting abilities of any press are inversely proportional to their income level.   We've seen more poignant questions from bloggers and more and more mainstream news programs echoing online journals.   Ultimately, viewers are shocked to discover that some Americans have opinions and some of them are even *gasp* controversial.   The media (I'm pointing in the general direction, though TV attracts the focus of the finger-pointing) had a choice: They could stand by the ethics of journalism and serve their purpose with integrity, or they could cynically use the disaster to further their influence and fatten their wallets.   

Within two weeks of 9/11, I heard about people at Ground Zero selling T-Shirts and souveneirs.  Granted, they were superficially respectful, bearing such deep contemplatives as, "Never Forget" with some mandatory, arbitrarily-chosen image such as an image of the Iwo Jima monument backgrounded by twin towers.  That same amount of callous profiteering was practiced by the media at large.  The only difference between previous front page eye-grabbing news previously and post-9/11 is that now it's practiced with bowed heads and a too-shocked-to-speak delivery.   It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that they're in it for the money and not to serve the people.  Thinking of them as reliable sources of information with which to make an informed decision is laughable.  News programs are now what they've always been: Entertainment with occasional bits of information to be gleaned.  It's actually a bit like the Daily Show in that respect, just that the Daily Show makes no attempt to disguise itself as respectable.

[DGMacphee]

We've seen more poignant questions from bloggers and more and more mainstream news programs echoing online journals.

I totally believe this and it's also something I am believing more and more as each day passes. Ask me two years ago and I would have scoffed at the idea of blogs being reputable news sources. Most blog reporters I've read, despite liberal or conservative biases, really do seem to ask tougher questions than any media organisation. It seems online civic journalism is doing a better job than news organisations.

It's also something I might be doing a Ph.D on next year.

Fundamentally what I'm saying is that they've also avoided taking a bias knowing that it'd cause them to lose audience to other media outlets that were biased more in the area of what the audience wanted to hear. Both sides were reported, and yes one happened to have more dramatic characters because the President speaks with stronger words than did the U.N. representatives. The press weren't responsible for that.

First of all, there was a bias, as you've illustrated. You said the press isn't taking a bias and then you said they reported more on the Bush Administration's side of things. That sounds like a bias to me.

Second, they were responsible for at least asking harder questions than were actually asked. See, my concern wasn't so much that the media was showing the president's side more than the UN. They were, but so what? My concern was that the media wasn't asking things like, "Okay, Mr President, we are skeptical. Care to explain this?" And I think my example of Helen Thomas' comments perfectly illustrate this. And like Thomas said, if they did ask "penetrating questions", they'd be branded as Un-American.

The article you've posted isn't very convincing to me because of what has happened in the past when the media picked up stories without "offical" sanction or acknowledgment. A certain high-profile anchorman of several decades destroyed his career by relying on a memo that turned out to be completely fabricated. I can completely understand the medias unwillingness to pick up poorly verified stories about prison abuse, it ruins their reputation as a reliable source of information if they turn out to be wrong.

This runs into my point as well that news organisations don't scrutinise. Yes, the memo was fabricated. Yes, Rather lost credibility. Did he fact check? No. Why did he use the memo then? Because it was big news! It would attract a lot of viewers! It wasn't about bringing down Bush at all. It was sensationalised garbage, which is what the news (particularly TV news) does. Even I think Rather could have examined his evidence better.

See, the article I posted isn't as much about Rathergate instances of "bringing down the government" blah blah blah. More so, the article is more about keeping the government accountable. How? By the media not being a bunch of pussies and asking better questions.

You know what our voting turnouts are, how can you not understand my point in that respect?

I understand your point, but this is not a liberal vs conservative discussion. What we are talking about here is the accountability of the media, despite libral or conservative biases. It's only now that things have settled down that the news is asking so more serious questions. For example, in the instance of the Harriet Miers nomination, even conservative news sources were asking, "WTF?" That's proper journalism. That's what I mean by keeping the government accountable for their actions.

The press were powerless - if you've ever read "The Fountainhead" this is akin to the newsman there trying to defend Howard Roark blowing up a building. For that I place the blame squarely on the president who, knowing that the people would stand behind him in their confusion and fear, twisted those events to his bidding with such sickly efficiency that it boils my blood.

The press aren't powerless. There have been many instances where reporters have brought down powerful people, mainly because they were keeping a watchful eye on things, and despite public frenzy a la Sept 11. There's a film just released called "Good Night, and Good Luck" which deals with newsman Edward R. Murrow bringing down McCarthy during a time when public tensions were high due to fear of communists (a scenario that sounds very familiar to our present situation). Likewise Woodward and Bernstein during Watergate. In my home town during the 70s and 80s, a few reporters managed to bring down a corrupt state government. These are people who do their jobs properly, especially when the public needs them the most. I don't think your example of "The Fountainhead" is a good analogy because architects do not have obligations to act a "watchdog" and the book mainly dealt the the idea of retaining artistic integrity in face of  corporate fascism, which is not the case here. I think the examples I've shown above are better because they specifically relate to journalism, and they show that the media does have power to keep governments "accountable".

[TheYak]

I still find the idea that the media more readily jumps into familiar waters - that of public scandal in celebrity circles - appalling.  Specifically, questions asked during the Clinton scandal were far more critical and pointed.  Discounting my personal belief that the whole thing was basically none of the public's concern and made far too essential an issue of non-relative events, the press still managed to sharpen its edge on the uttered falsehoods.  Clinton lied over and over while the press, smelling equal amounts of bullshit and blood, cut away the fat to expost the meat of the story.  Its skills were still being practiced at that point, if poorly aimed. 

The difference between the press of yesterday and today is the zealot factor introduced by 9/11.  Public opinion and the elections were essentially as divided as they were during the previous elections.  The segment of the country that thought we were being mislead and wanted different leadership was met by an equal amount that dubbed them unpatriotic and showed up at the polls to declare their support for "moral" leadership.   

This administration has made no secret of its hand-picking of supportive journalists and discrediting of its critics.  It must be a terrifying thing to know that your career could be ended if you broke a decent story that showed the government in a poor light.  It's little wonder that on-line journals have been carrying the bulk of weighty editorials, they've got less to lose and a phenomenal amount to gain if their post grabs the public's attention. 

The American public has been lied to consistently, regardless of the leading political party, for too long to recount.  The difference now is that the lies can be overlooked, forgotten or even believed by those with faith - religious, political, moral or otherwise.

Back on topic, I can't really say I have any idea how to deal with the Iran situation.   The pacifist in me wants to just ignore them until they go away, but the kid in me likes them for their sweet crispy crunch.   It would obviously be a bad thing if they were to establish a threat-worthy nuclear arsenal.  However, to be frank, I don't trust the current administration to deal with it in the correct fashion (whatever that might be) and doubt we'd get the truth about what we were doing anyway.  Thank you media, for being hypocritical cowards that've betrayed every ideal you ever claimed to have stood for.

Freedom of the press . . .  having unused freedoms is like earning a paycheck paid in monopoly money.   

[Oh, yeah, and welcome back DG]