Thursday, December 30, 2004

Selective Reporting

Once again, you have to go somewhere like the Washington Times to get the truth behind agenda-driven reporting in the so-called mainstream media. In today's edition, Helmut Sonnenfeldt and Ron Nessen address the press coverage of Donald Rumsfeld's response to a soldier asking a question about armored vehicles.

The question, planted with the soldier by a reporter, got a serious response from Rumsfeld that was only partially reported by the media. In addition, there are important facts left out of media reports because they don't fit the agenda. Here's some of what Sonnenfeldt and Nessen say:

This is the only portion of Mr. Rumsfeld's answer that was — and is still being — quoted endlessly in newspapers and broadcast on television and radio:

"As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time."

Mr. Rumsfeld's response has been repeatedly characterized as an insensitive, brusque, disrespectful, insulting putdown. And that description might be fitting if that was all the secretary said in response to the...question. ...

But the worst shortcoming of media coverage of this controversy was failure to report virtually all the unit's combat vehicles had already been up-armored by the Army and the rest were completed the day after Mr. Rumsfeld's Town Meeting comments to the troops in Kuwait.

4 Comments:

Blogger B.B. said...

Well said. And thank you for your service.

5:52 PM, December 30, 2004  
Blogger Tom Carter said...

Kevin, I don't doubt that the soldier had his own concerns. But the question was formed and planted by the reporter, and stating that fact doesn't amount to saying the soldier is a moron (which I would never do) or attempting to demonize anyone.

I don't know what GEN Schwarzkopf said, but I'll look it up. I briefly worked for him at one time and learned to take him very seriously...or else!

In general, given what the soldier said and how he got the question, what Rumsfeld actually said versus what was reported, the clear implication that the soldier was talking about his unit (unless you mean to say the reporter's question was broader), the fact that his unit was already almost completely up-armored, and how all that was reported by the NYT, I think biased reporting is obvious.

The Times has a serious problem separating the political views of it's bosses and the majority of its reporters from the actual news. I think any fair assessment of the past few years of reporting would show that. However, if the same assessment were done on the Washington Post, I think they would come out as much more "fair and balanced," if I can use that term without being sued. One thing I have to give the more conservative press...at least they make their position clear, and they generally make a greater effort to separate news from opinion.

8:04 PM, December 31, 2004  
Blogger Tom Carter said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

8:14 PM, December 31, 2004  
Blogger Tom Carter said...

According to an MSNBC report, Schwarzkopf said:

"I was very, very disappointed — no, let me put it stronger — I was angry by the words of the secretary of defense when he laid it all on the Army, as if he, as the secretary of defense, didn’t have anything to do with the Army and the Army was over there doing it themselves, screwing up."

Hmmm. I don't think this comment is on your point. He's criticizing Rumsfeld personally, and in defense of the Army. I'm sure he's also basing that comment on press reports, which, as we're talking about, were incomplete. In any case, let me make it very clear: I don't disagree with Schwarzkopf!

8:18 PM, December 31, 2004  

Post a Comment

<< Home