Drew Thornley of My Take writes of the honor killings in Pakistan:
The mainstream American media spent months covering in detail the “atrocities”at Abu Ghraib and continues to give negative press to allegations of inhumane treatment at the hands of American soldiers. As of December 28, 2005, Google searches of “honor killings” and “honor murders” returned 365,000 and 643 results, respectively, while “Abu Ghraib” returned 15,900,000. While few “honor murderers” pay for their crimes, those who perpetrated crimes at Abu Ghraib were dealt with swiftly. They were prosecuted and sentenced; justice was served. The saga of Abu Ghraib should have resulted in negative press for a few shameful soldiers but positive press for the military as a whole due to its response to the events. Yet the events at Abu Ghraib pale in comparison to the real atrocities that receive little or no attention by the same media, such as the crisis in Darfur, Castro’s jailing and/or murder of political dissidents, the May 2005 massacre of public demonstrators in Andijan, Uzbekistan, and the hundreds of “honor murders” committed each year.
When you read this paragraph, you realize there is a deep psychological disturbance in our mainstream media, a kind of willed need to ignore the world around them. It probably was, more or less, forever thus, but modern communications, specifically the internet, have brought this willed ignorance to the surface as never before. And yet the MSM continues in the same direction, even in the face of seeming economic failure.
Sheryl and I were discussing this phenomenon this afternoon with our friend Gerard who reminded us of the obvious. Many of these media outlets that keep ignoring what is happening in the world while trumpeting every US failure are increasingly playing to niche audiences in our society. They have no real interest, financial or otherwise, in the truth – or in the future of humanity, really (that last is my observation).
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
15 Comments
1. beautifulatrocities:No surprise. Intra-Third World conflicts can’t be used to bash America, & might even make it look good!
Dec 29, 2005 - 6:53 pm 2. Barbara Skolaut:“They have no real interest, financial or otherwise, in the truth – or in the future of humanity, really.”
Obviously, since (a) “truth” is whatever fits their worldview and politics (and yes, it was ever thus) and (b) they have no humanity, so why would they care about its future?
Dec 29, 2005 - 8:37 pm 3. greeneyeshade:It’s only a guess, but I suspect that, if pressed, my fellow newsies would argue that Abu Ghraib is our responsibility and “honor killings” in the Muslim world, horrible as they are, aren’t. (I remember, to my shame, making a similar argument about the South Vietnamese government vs. the Communist forces.)
The argument is solipsistic, or close to it _ especially when made by people who are ready to argue for universal human rights when it suits them _ but there you are.
Dec 29, 2005 - 9:37 pm 4. Linc:Rather than the “deep psychological disturbance in our mainstream media,” I think you are sseing the reliance of the press on the accessible–handouts, stories only under the nose of the reporter, the output of the public relations shops, the interview of the partisan who is ready to deliver a studied message. The press is just more banal than evil, relying without truly thinking on what is at hand.
It is much easier to sit in a hotel in the safe zone of Baghdad letting the easy story come through the door than it is to get out and find news–maybe even having to learn Arabic to do so.
I don’t know whether the underlying problem is due to the economics of the MSM, forcing more and more reliance on space fillers irrespective of source, of the idolization of the television visual half hour (really 20 minutes) with time only for the superficial, or of the absence
Dec 29, 2005 - 9:47 pm 5. greeneyeshade:Linc, you have a good point too, even (apparently) unfinished.
Dec 29, 2005 - 11:49 pm 6. David Thomson:“They have no real interest, financial or otherwise, in the truth – or in the future of humanity, really.”
Most MSM journalists are financially rewarded only if they slut on behalf of the leftist establishment. It is estimated, for instance, that Mary Mapes ìearnedî $150,000 annually as a top CBS producer. I am convinced that Mapes lacks the ability to even comprehend an editorial or an op-ed opinion piece.
I desperately try visiting Gerard Vanderleunís blog as often as possible. This must be done to prevent him from shooting any cute little kittens! The man is pitiless.
Dec 30, 2005 - 7:01 am 7. Cosmo:Roger writes:
“It probably was, more or less, forever thus . . .”
True. I believe Orwell commented just before the Second World War on the peculiar habit of intelligentsia of applying vigorous scrutiny and standards of accountability almost exclusively to free market democracies. Raymond Aron made a similar point in his post-war ìThe Opium of the Intellectuals.î
Le traisons des clercs, eh?
Dec 30, 2005 - 7:33 am 8. sarah rolph:The idea that media folks are playing to niche markets for financial gain, with no real interest in the truth, rings true.
Perhaps worse, a lot of these people don’t seem to believe there is such a thing as the truth. Maybe the one leads to the other. They rationalize, telling themselves that there is no truth to make themselves feel better about having abandoned it.
In a similar vein, astonishing as it seems, there do seem to be quite a few people who are able to make themselves believe that reality itself doesn’t exist, or is an artificial construct, etc. Again, the one leads to the other. If there is no one truth, you have your truth and I have mine, which is real? Neither, we are all just in a fog here doing our thing.
I have been re-reading Mark Steyn’s columns from September 11, 2001 – September 11, 2002 in his book The Face of the Tiger, and one of the great fundamental points he makes is that most our mainstream media, like today’s politicians, are incredibly isolated. They live in their own self-reinforcing world. I believe Roger has made a similar point in these pages, referring to Pauline Kael’s famous comment, How could Nixon have won, I don’t know anyone who voted for him. Steyn (and others) also usefully points out that a lot of these “elites” for lack of a better word don’t know anyone in the military or anything about the military–their views were formed in 1974 and haven’t changed. (The military, of course, has.) They really do not understand reality because they have not been paying attention.
So I think psychological disturbance is putting it kindly. It’s willful ignorance, and it’s wrong, and it’s seriously damaging. Politicians everyone knows are corrupt, but there are people who still rely on the mainstream media for their news (like my mom, who can’t even see to read any more, she can only see the tv). They are being brainwashed against their own country.
I am really grateful that the Internet is helping so many of us to learn so much so fast, and I am hopeful about the future, long-term, most of the time. But I sure would like it if more people would cause more trouble for the MSM now, and call them on their idiocy.
My sincere thanks to all of those, such as Roger, who try to do so.
Dec 30, 2005 - 8:21 am 9. Terrye:Yes they are playing to a niche audience, they are also cowards.
George Bush will not put a fatwa out against you.
Dec 30, 2005 - 9:27 am 10. Jamie Irons:Roger,
I believe the time has come to stop complaining about the problem of media bias; unlike the weather, one can actually do something about it.
Whether or not the New York Times (for example) is biased is a question subject to scientific analysis, an hypothesis that can be tested. With search engine technology and the use of a bit of mathematics it should be possible to refute the following null hypothesis:
“The New York Times shows no tendency toward bias against (for example) the Bush Administration, the American military, Christians, the state of Israel, red-state America (or whatever).”
I am virtually certain that at a significance of p less than 10^ -10 (or so!), this hypothesis would fall.
The study’s authors then offer the Grey Lady a first, exclusive shot at publishing the results. When she declines, she becomes the story. (Should she accept, she again becomes the story, but casts herself in a somewhat more sympathetic light.)
After this preliminary trial of the methodology, the same tools are applied to other MSM outlets.
Perhaps it is foolishly optimistic to say this, but behavior might begin to change.
Jamie Irons
Dec 30, 2005 - 9:53 am 11. Sandy P:I found this at Damian Penny’s site:
Reuters is publishing stories on it’s website, though with a twist. Its website now features OpEd style responses to it’s articles in Reuter News Room: It’s somewhat an amalgam of the MSM and the blogosphere’s rapid feedback potential. Surprising really… I had not expected an MSM source such as Reuters to engage it’s consumers in so direct a manner…..
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/005455.html
…Reuters publishes a reader’s response:
“Your journalistic bias is pretty evident in this story. Your very first sentence states that it was in protest to President Bush’s authorization of a domestic spying program. You go on to say that the letter of resignation gave no reason and he, Judge Robertson, declined to comment. So, other than your obvious bias against Bush…how did you make that “logical” determination???
S.C.”
To which Reuters’ Editor replies:
“A number of readers felt the information in this story did not adequately support the lead we put on it: Editor”
—
Someone’s paying attention. Interesting, that the MSM is cutting jobs, but they’re going to need to add jobs to monitor this.
Dec 30, 2005 - 10:15 am 12. Robin Munn:I don’t dispute Drew’s point about the relative coverage of Abu Ghraib vs. “honor killings”, but it needs to be said that Google’s result estimates are nearly always WILDLY inaccurate. The figure of 643 results is probably correct, but the other two figures (365,000 and 15,900,000) are estimates so vague as to be meaningless.
Case in point: I’m a computer programmer, and I’m trying to learn a tool called SQLObject. So I did a Google search for “SQLObject tutorial”. The first page said “Results 1-10 of about 20,800 for SQLObject tutorial” — but when I clicked through to the final page, there were a grand total of 433 results after omitting complete duplicates. Doing a search with duplicates included yielded only 948 “real” results, far short of Google’s 20,800 estimate.
In short: counting search-result estimates from Google is worthless for proving any logical point. Especially when the point is about the relative coverage of any subject in the media (much of which is in print or TV and doesn’t make it to the Web). A Lexis-Nexis database search would be much better for this purpose.
Dec 30, 2005 - 11:26 am 13. Mark Poling:Terrye:
Beat me to it.
But I will add another factor — the inherrent narcissism of the chattering classes. If it’s not “us” doing it or having it done to “us”, it isn’t important. Therefore we DO hear about the fatwa against Rushdi (who is part of the Western Inteligentsia Club) but we don’t hear about Akbar Ganji (who is not).
Of course, with the Web, in addition to the Chattering Classes we have the Chattering Masses, which have the Chattering Classes afraid for (but still showing their) Nattering Asses.
Sorry, slow day at work.
Dec 30, 2005 - 12:36 pm 14. freetotem:I have had the same thought this week as Jamie Irons, above. I become very weary of the latest “Have you seen what the Times printed this time?” stuff. Yes, the Times is a pathological organ that serves a niche audience. Yes, they still carry a lot of influence, but less and less all the time. Yes, they are reactionary, but aren’t those of us who long ago woke up to what the Times has permitted itself to become also reactionary, by definition, if our discussions are largely driven by what the MSM either does or does not print? I think it is time to start treating the entire Times (and the WaPo too, if they print more of the Roggio hit piece kind of stuff) the way most of us have treated Maureen Dowd and the Dan Rathers of the world for years now. Ignore them. For example, I am far more interested in Bill Roggio’s reports from Iraq than I am about what some blustering twits at WaPo say about him.
It is necessary, I realize, to keep an eye on what the fuddy duddy press (as Roger calls it) is up to. But it is better for the blogosphere to focus on replacing it with its own substance, rather than spending so much energy on handwringing over the Times and its ilk. The Times has hit the iceberg, and its going down is a frightful spectacle, but for God’s sake let us focus on manning the lifeboats.
Also, yes the Times serves a niche, but I am far more worried about that niche, which includes a frightful number of my friends, who have not re-examined a single premise of their political worldviews in at least 30 years, and have allowed themselves to descend into this pathological combination of Bush/America hatred and smugness that characterizes the NPR/NYT worldview. How do we connect with them?
Dec 30, 2005 - 4:33 pm 15. Netpowersoft:Auto Loan or Financing is a general term meaning how you pay for the vehicle.
With the money you will be saving, maybe you can move up to that more expensive new car you’ve been eyeing.
Making sure Loan for a vehicle properly will greatly reduce the cost of your next new or used car.
We Provide Automoblie,new car, old car, bad credit car….Loan that serves you Best.
auto loan
bad credit car loan
car loan
Jan 6, 2006 - 3:10 am