Mainstream Media Fails Again.. and Again - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Seaver · 08-30-2006, 11:10 AM

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...006029,00.html

Quote:

It's bad enough that friends of Hezbollah terrorists could trick so many journalists with just a tall story and a rusty Lebanese ambulance.

Worse is that some of those journalists seemed so eager to believe this ambulance was indeed wickedly blown up by an Israeli missile fired straight through the big red cross on its roof -- leaving not even a scorch mark.

But worst is that even now that this hoax has been exposed, none of the countless writers and commentators who fell for it have admitted to passing on as fact the propaganda of terrorists.

It is this refusal to admit that suggests there was an agenda, after all, to so much of the hysterical reporting of the war in Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah.

No wonder Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer damned that coverage at a conference in Brisbane this week of Australian newspaper publishers: "What concerns me greatly is the evidence of dishonesty in the reporting out of Lebanon."

Downer could have picked half a dozen examples of that dishonesty -- or of incompetence married to a bias. But few are as good as the Case of the Holey Ambulance.

It started on July 24, when Israel was already being accused by much of the Western media of carelessly killing Lebanese civilians. And it started with a cautious paragraph in a media release from the Lebanese Red Cross:

"According to Lebanese Red Cross reports, two of its ambulances were struck by munitions, although both vehicles were clearly marked by the Red Cross emblem and flashing lights that were visible at a great distance. The incident happened while first-aid workers were transferring wounded patients from one ambulance to another."

That same day, Cathy Gannon, a correspondent with the AP news agency, filed the first dramatic account of this latest example of Israeli badness.

She quoted a local Red Cross worker as saying Israeli jets had blasted two ambulances with rockets: "One of the rockets hit right in the middle of the big red cross that was painted on top of the ambulance."

Another worker showed Gannon video of the vehicles he said had been attacked. Gannon wrote that it showed "one large hole and several smaller ones in the roof of one ambulance and a large hole in the roof of the second". She added: "Both were destroyed."

Britain's ITV news promptly accused Israel of war crimes, and showed the same film, given to it by what it called a "local amateur cameraman". Who, exactly?

Britain's Left-wing Guardian added the colour: "(T)he blue light overhead was flashing, and another light illuminated the Red Cross flag when the first Israeli missile hit, shearing off the right leg of the man on the stretcher inside. As he lay screaming beneath fire and smoke, patients and ambulance workers scrambled for safety . . ."

The Boston Globe confirmed there had indeed been an explosion in the ambulance, quoting medic Qasim Chaalan, later pictured lying in hospital, bandages on his head: "A big fire came toward me . . ."

The story now reached Australia. On July 25 The Age listed those injured in the attacks (a list that varied in many reports): "Three patients -- a woman, her son and grandson -- were all injured further, the son losing his leg to a missile."

The Australian the next day reported: "One of the Israeli rockets pierced the centre of the large red cross marked on the roof of one of the ambulances, as if it was used as a target."

The Age then ran the longest and most dramatic account, by a correspondent with the Los Angeles Times, insisting: "Both ambulances were hit, directly and systematically, by Israeli bombs, the medics said . . ."

This was followed by countless other reports. In Australia they were carried by almost every mainstream paper, including the Sydney Morning Herald, Herald Sun, Advertiser and Courier-Mail.

The anti-Israeli tone of it all was exemplified by the Financial Review's Brian Toohey, who scoffed: "Israel would like Australian troops to join a new international force to save it the pain of occupying Lebanon after the latest exercise of its right to self defence included attacks on ambulances . . ."

The usual Israel-damners seized on it, with the Sydney Morning Herald's Mike Carlton asking "why an Israeli missile slammed with deadly accuracy into the unmistakable red cross atop a Lebanese civilian ambulance".

And on TV and in print we were shown again and again the proof: a picture of "the" ambulance that was hit -- Ambulance 782, presumably the worst damaged of the two -- with a missile hole right through the cross-hairs of the Red Cross sign on its roof.

Ah yes, that picture. Soon some bloggers, the media watchdogs of the internet, looked closer and saw something very odd.

Check the pictures on this page. You could even see where the screws went. What's more, the damaged parts of the roof were mottled with the rust of ages.

The bloggers -- notably an American one known as Zombietime, whose research I've drawn on -- dug out other damning photographs.

A side view of the ambulance, revealing the interior, showed no sign of fire or explosion, or anything to indicate a missile had slammed through the roof and landed . . . where? There was not even a dent in the floor.

The front windscreen was collapsed inwards, not outwards as you'd expect from an explosion that had blown up an ambulance and taken off a patient's leg, and the side windows were intact.

There was more. Chaalan, the medic last seen lying in hospital with thick bandages over his chin and ear, was filmed some six days later giving another interview.

But this time he had no bandages -- and the skin once covered by them had no scratch, scab, scar or even stain. A fast healer.

See the complete evidence on www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance. You will, I'm sure, conclude that if Israel fired a missile through the roof of any ambulance, it wasn't this one. And if such a strike had injured a medic, it probably wasn't Chalaan.

In fact, the proof that Israel had fired a missile through the roof of a Lebanese ambulance seemed to rely largely on a fake prop, the word of an exaggerator, and an inconclusive video given to the media by an unnamed Lebanese man.

Was an ambulance truly attacked by Israel? Where's the proof? What we've been shown so far is a hoax.

But it hasn't been the only hoax in the reporting from Lebanon. Reuters had to fire a freelance photographer in Lebanon who'd been caught by bloggers photo-shopping a picture to make a pall of smoke seem thicker.

The cover of US News and World Report magazine showed a picture of a Hezbollah soldier posed with the flames of Israel's vengeance behind him -- flames actually rising from a burning tip.

Then there was the Green Helmet Guy, a Lebanese rescue worker -- or so reporters said -- who always bobbed up at the sites of alleged Israeli atrocities, parading the victims and instructing foreign photographers on how to get the best shots.

There was also the Passion of the Toys, in which spotless, heart-rending toys kept featuring in the foreground of news agency pictures of Lebanese buildings bombed by the Israelis.

On it went, all uncovered by bloggers. A photogenically grieving Lebanese woman was pictured in front of a succession of houses we were told were hers -- and each bombed flat by Israel.

The New York Times even ran a shot of a dead Lebanese civilian, posed just like a pieta of Christ in the ruins -- only for later pictures to show him back on his feet.

What does all this tell us?

That news agencies, which hire local staff in dangerous places, can't be sure bad guys aren't dictating the coverage.

That so many media "errors" in this past war seemed to hurt Israel, not Hezbollah, indicating something more than chance was to blame.

That Western journalists are often too trusting of the claims of terrorists, and too hostile to the excuses of democracies.

And that the media has a new watcher -- internet surfers who ask the awkward questions that too many journalists seem not to ask themselves. Not, that is, if the answer would help Israel.

Well it looks like the Reuters photoshop is a blip on the screen when it comes to false reporting in the region. Adding in smoke pails in comparison to the blatent fraud that is being fed by the Associated Press.

I know 3 year olds that can both see the drilled holes and can tell you that a rocket would do a heck of a lot more damage than that. Yet all of the mainstream media were amazingly fooled simply because it is what they wanted to believe.

In my opinion this does infact proove severe bias in the AP and Mainstream media, as not one article appears to support Israel. You never hear from the victims of Hezbolla rockets, but the second a fake attack is planted the world press decries warcrimes.

The_Jazz · 08-30-2006, 11:17 AM

If that is in fact the hole in the ambulance in question, there's been yet another fraud perpetrated on the world. Then again, Israel did drop cluster bombs on Lebanon, so they're not exactly innocent of all charges in this thing.

feelgood · 08-30-2006, 11:29 AM

I must be blind but what freakin drilled holes?

Seaver · 08-30-2006, 11:29 AM

Quote:

I must be blind but what freakin drilled holes?

Look primarily at the left side, where the aluminum is unpainted (a good giveaway). You can see holes drilled, then cut away, in obviously pre-measured distances.

By the way, if anyone wonders how that hole really got there you can simply check out pictures of other Red Cross ambulances in Lebanon.

If you expect me to believe that a rocket hit dead center on the light, obviously vaporizing it, does not explode, with a miracle healer driver, no blood inside the ambulance, with the high explosive rocket not even touching the floor of the ambulance... well than you mistake me for an employee of the mainstream media.

Ustwo · 08-30-2006, 11:37 AM

I am shocked!!!!!

Oh wait. This is just another IDF (Jewish) plan to spread lies and disinforamtion.

Oh those crafty murderous Jews!

Remember there are two sides to every conflict, the truth and the Jewish one.

Sever I'm not sure if I'm 100% ready to throw the liberal press under the bus as supporters of terrorists, at least not all of them. I think what the core is, is they are extremely lazy, they get a premade front page story supplied by terrorists, they go with it, and they are journalists, not the group known to study hard in college, they wouldn't know rocket damage from a fender bender. Later smart people figure out the story can't be true, and here they are looking like morons, again. Do you think they are going to say 'oh remember that horrible ambulance story, well umm we were duped.' no, they feel like the morons they are and they bury it. Remember Dan Rather, the king of liberal journalists, was snagged by something so obviously fake that it only took a few hours to get across the country as people figured out he was using fake documents. Sure he liked the story he ran with, but he wouldn't have run with it, if he knew it was such an amature forgery. Then after, did he say 'sorry my bad' no they tried to go with 'well perhaps the documents are not real but the story is, we just don't have the real documents' angle, only because they couldn't bury that one.....

Meh I can't convince myself of this, I tried but I can't. Yes, its not just bias but its intentional, one sided bias. We know how fast they would call into question any Isreali claims. Its an amazing combination of laziness, arrogance, and bias. I'm just surprised so many liberals, who like to think of themselves as educated, fall for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

If that is in fact the hole in the ambulance in question, there's been yet another fraud perpetrated on the world. Then again, Israel did drop cluster bombs on Lebanon, so they're not exactly innocent of all charges in this thing.

What do clusterbombs have to do with anything. I don't care if they were dropping anthrax spores dipped in mustard gas, this false story is totally unrelated to anything Israel did.

Willravel · 08-30-2006, 12:42 PM

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=107199

The_Jazz · 08-30-2006, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

What do clusterbombs have to do with anything. I don't care if they were dropping anthrax spores dipped in mustard gas, this false story is totally unrelated to anything Israel did.

Clusterbombs have nothing to do with the OP, just an aside that neither side was particularly aboveboard about the fact that they targeted civilians as a matter of course. I feel sorrow for neither side. I complete agree that cluster bombs are a different topic, but I see a relationship between the blatant falsification of civilian attacks and the actual civilian attacks.

Willravel · 08-30-2006, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I don't care if [Isreal was] dropping anthrax spores dipped in mustard gas...

Lesson one in NeoCon 101: Only one side is suffering, and that side is our ally. If one of our allies is in a struggle with another country, organization, or group, our ally is alowed to do anything they want. The other side, however, cannot do anything to defend themselves. They must sit in their houses with their eyes closed and their finger in their ears, because any resistence is evil.

//threadjack

Even if the stories were faked, why is that a problem? The US media lies about US military and political stuff all the time, and recently it's mostly benifited the not-so-liberal side. Remember Jessica Lynch? Yeah, she was being treated by Iraqi doctors, and even recieved a transfusion of Iraqi blood. She was not rescued by brave soldiers defending her from evil insurgents or terrorists, she was escorted out by her Iraqi doctor, and there were no Iraqi militants in the building. She was not mistreated, and the rescue was staged. This is common practice. It's dispicable, and those who are guilty of fabrication should be punished, but it's commonplace. If we are to say, "Stop trying to mislead people via the media", we should pay closer attention to our own actions. I don't want to be a hypocrite, and I suspect that no one else does, either.

roachboy · 08-30-2006, 02:47 PM

1. i would think it routine by now in this forum that links to sources be provided.

2. in the context of the zombietime blog, and restricting myself to that source (which is linked in the op and which provides a more extensive version of the op), the particular case seems fairly clear-cut. if the ambulance in the photos is supposed to be the same ambulance described in the sequence of press releases, then yes, the claims are obviously false.

but as usual, the inferences made on the basis of this case are wholly worthless: it proves nothing at all about any systematic bias of any kind because it presents no evidence concerning such bias---and you'd think claims like "the mainstream media is anti-israel"---which is preposterous in the american context---would require some type of argument, wouldn't you? and that argument would have to refer to evidence, and that evidence would have to symmetrical with the claims made about it....there is nothing of the sort in either the op or the blog linked in the op.

this is pretty basic stuff, folks, dont you think? i would find it astonishing that the conservative set here swallows this kind of argument and evidence free assertions concerning systematic bias compelling--this in the subjunctive because, well, ustwo is involved with the thread, and i dont ever see much consideration of either quality of evidence or argument in any of his posts. but hey, maybe i just pay too much attention to such trivialities as evidence and argument.

2. like will said above, in a war context there are fake stories floated all the time. by all sides.
duh.

3. there is however a problem that this piece does point to, but it has to do with the reliance on wire service stories by a vast range of news outlets that apparently do not check the fact in these wire stories independently.
most war marketing systems rely on this sorry state of affairs to get their "messages" across--the us government relies on it, the israel defense ministry relies on it, other groups/governments rely on it, etc etc etc.

this has much to do with the logic of vertical integration of media outlets, if you think about it: cuts in staff sizes, the elimination of independent news gathering capabilities in the interest of generating greater profits for the large corporations that dominate newspaper and television--and on the pressure this type of profit-oriented organization places on independent news outlets. it's capitalism in action, kids--the lowest quality that you can get away with that appeals to the greatest number--that driven not by a desire for accuracy, not by any belief that a functional democracy requires good information, but instead by the usual logic of increased shareholder value uber alles. so news is a commodity like any other, and lowering costs is necessarily a good thing for all concerned. this is a fine example of the way capitalism in its present form "floats all boats" aint it---so in the interest of maximizing shareholder profits, we get "news" that is drawn from the hall of mirrors of wire services, repeated without necessarily fact checking--why?--because it's cheaper than having staffs that do the work themselves.

Charlatan · 08-30-2006, 03:02 PM

Will: I don't think your point is a threadjack at all.

I've said this before, I don't know why anyone is upset to find out that the Hezzbollah are faking news. The only difference between Hezbollah and Israel (or the US for that matter) in the PR war is that Hezbollah's efforts have been pointed out. Make no misake, all war since Gulf War I has had more than a healthy share of media manipulation -- it's essential to a successful war. Essential.

Some are just better at hiding their tracks.

That all said, I think it sucks that any side would do this. Additionally, if you are blaming the media for not covering this you are barking up the wrong tree. They will cover this when it becomes something they can prove (much like they will cover the 9/11 consiracies when it is something they can confidently prove). I woldn't be surprised to find that there are journalists exploring this angle but it's getting shelved until more proof can be found (i.e. the editors and/or publishers are waiting for more information).

Seaver · 08-30-2006, 03:10 PM

Sorry for not giving the HTML for the source, simply slipped my mind.

Quote:

this has much to do with the logic of vertical integration of media outlets, if you think about it: cuts in staff sizes, the elimination of independent news gathering capabilities in the interest of generating greater profits for the large corporations that dominate newspaper and television--and on the pressure this type of profit-oriented organization places on independent news outlets. it's capitalism in action, kids--the lowest quality that you can get away with that appeals to the greatest number--that driven not by a desire for accuracy, not by any belief that a functional democracy requires good information, but instead by the usual logic of increased shareholder value uber alles. so news is a commodity like any other, and lowering costs is necessarily a good thing for all concerned. this is a fine example of the way capitalism in its present form "floats all boats" aint it---so in the interest of maximizing shareholder profits, we get "news" that is drawn from the hall of mirrors of wire services, repeated without necessarily fact checking--why?--because it's cheaper than having staffs that do the work themselves.

That logic does not stand up in my opinion. If the greedy fatcats cut their costs down to maximize profits they are digging their own grave. They know that public respect for their word are all that their paychecks come from. This should make them believe even stronger in digging for the truth, instead this is a simple case of wanting to believe it so bad they blind themselves.

Quote:

but as usual, the inferences made on the basis of this case are wholly worthless: it proves nothing at all about any systematic bias of any kind because it presents no evidence concerning such bias---and you'd think claims like "the mainstream media is anti-israel"---which is preposterous in the american context---would require some type of argument, wouldn't you? and that argument would have to refer to evidence, and that evidence would have to symmetrical with the claims made about it....there is nothing of the sort in either the op or the blog linked in the op.

If this was the only occurance of it I would not cry bias. The fact that the news reporters knowingly put the same people in multiple pictures clearly shows intentional deceit. The way I haven't seen a single photo of an Israeli house that was bombed, yet the same house in Lebanon is said to have been destroyed on 4 separate dates clearly shows bias. The way reporters around the world believe this obvious fraud shows negligence and bias.

Quote:

Even if the stories were faked, why is that a problem? The US media lies about US military and political stuff all the time, and recently it's mostly benifited the not-so-liberal side. Remember Jessica Lynch? Yeah, she was being treated by Iraqi doctors, and even recieved a transfusion of Iraqi blood. She was not rescued by brave soldiers defending her from evil insurgents or terrorists, she was escorted out by her Iraqi doctor, and there were no Iraqi militants in the building. She was not mistreated, and the rescue was staged. This is common practice. It's dispicable, and those who are guilty of fabrication should be punished, but it's commonplace. If we are to say, "Stop trying to mislead people via the media", we should pay closer attention to our own actions. I don't want to be a hypocrite, and I suspect that no one else does, either.

I agree Jessica Lynch was a shameless PR stunt. What I'm trying to point out is not misleading statements by obvious political factions, it's the supposably unbiased neutral media which shows its true colors in situations like this.

roachboy · 08-30-2006, 03:47 PM

1. no biggie on the link--i just wanted to know where this came from.

Quote:

That logic does not stand up in my opinion. If the greedy fatcats cut their costs down to maximize profits they are digging their own grave. They know that public respect for their word are all that their paychecks come from. This should make them believe even stronger in digging for the truth, instead this is a simple case of wanting to believe it so bad they blind themselves.

in many ways, i would agree with your argument here, except without the "if" at the beginning of the second sentence.

you had a parallel instance of the effects of news organizations reliance on a very narrow range of pretty much unchecked information sources in the first bush election fiasco in florida, in the premature and false claim that the election was already over before the count had really been undertaken. turns out that all the major television networks (in this case) relied on the same exit poll tabulation company for their information. you wouldn't have known this had the rest of the florida problems not followed. that reliance on the same information source was a big reason why television news treated the election problems as problems for themselves as well, problems of their own legitimacy.

if i have a bit of time to devote to it, i'll try to put together more detailed information about the changes in major american news outlets since the 1980s. it is a *real* problem. you should worry about it.

as for the rest of your response--1. your image of the "greedy fatcat" has more to do with cartoons from the late 19th century (taminy hall, the teapot dome scandal) than a world of publicly held corporations.---2. american business have a long and kind of pathetic history of trading away long-term interests for short-term gain---think about the american steel industry since 1945--if you can pin the decline of american steel on any one factor, it could well be the decision to export the then-buggy continuous casting process to european and japanese steel industries in the context of the marshall plan--batch casting was already up and running and american steel producers were good at that--but continuous casting eliminated the need for welds in big steel sheets and so could produce stronger steel--in the longer run, that is, after the process had the bugs worked out--so the americans exported the process and took short term benefits from the decision--it is hard to say whether the steel corporate types knew that continuous casting would play a big role in running them out of steel--but it did. where did u.s. steel go, for example? that's right, it's been "usx" for 20 years.

fixation of short term gain is a kind of self-defeating hallmark of american capitalism.
i could go on about this.
anyway, there we are for the moment.

Seaver · 08-30-2006, 04:53 PM

I agree about the abandonment of the US steel industry. However in the same way we choose to ensure our future in the ways that the steel industry would have required such as the very heavy agricultural subsidies.

And I know how fatcats is a term from the trust-busting term. With the monopoly the AP effectively has on information drudging for the mainstream media it reflects very closely.

Ustwo · 08-30-2006, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

I've said this before, I don't know why anyone is upset to find out that the Hezzbollah are faking news. The only difference between Hezbollah and Israel (or the US for that matter) in the PR war is that Hezbollah's efforts have been pointed out. Make no misake, all war since Gulf War I has had more than a healthy share of media manipulation -- it's essential to a successful war. Essential.

You know for once, just once I'd like to see something from the left side that didn't just automaticly equate Hezbollah with Israel or the US. When Israel or the US attempt to INCREASE civilian casualties for propaganda purposes then please, speak up on this. Until then I'd say their methods are far far different.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

That all said, I think it sucks that any side would do this. Additionally, if you are blaming the media for not covering this you are barking up the wrong tree. They will cover this when it becomes something they can prove

So you run a story based on the word of known terrorists, but won't refute it without 'proof'?

The reason they won't run the 9/11 wack jobs is the American people would reject it and it would hurt them, I don't think proof has anything to do with it. We see what the left considers proof every time a story like this gets shown.

Seaver · 08-30-2006, 09:37 PM

Quote:

That all said, I think it sucks that any side would do this. Additionally, if you are blaming the media for not covering this you are barking up the wrong tree. They will cover this when it becomes something they can prove

No, they are supposed to verify reports before spreading the word accross the world. That is their job, that is all they do. Get stories, investigate stories, if it's true report the story. Mainstream Media have forgotten step 2 for the last couple years.

Quote:

I woldn't be surprised to find that there are journalists exploring this angle but it's getting shelved until more proof can be found (i.e. the editors and/or publishers are waiting for more information).

I am more prone to assume they don't want to spread knowledge of their own incompetence than trying to investigate. For if they actually did some of that the stories never would have been aired to begin with.

host · 08-30-2006, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

.....The reason they won't run the 9/11 wack jobs is the American people would reject it and it would hurt them, I don't think proof has anything to do with it. We see what the left considers proof every time a story like this gets shown.

Your own government has now decided to address the concerns of the "9/11 wack jobs", and the "answers" are ridiculous. The only three high rise steel structures ever to collapse after experiencing major fires, all collapse, just a few hours apart, on the same day, and the government agency with the principle mission of investigating such fires and the damage that they do.....decides <i>"not to hire new staff to support the investigation"</i>, resulting in the postponement of the investigative report of the most troubling building collapse, for at least two years.....and the folks who question the government response to these unprecedented events are..
...the "wack jobs"?

Quote:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster

Answers to Frequently Asked Questions

10. Why were people seen in the gaps left by the plane impacts if the heat from the fires behind them was so excessive?

NIST believes that the persons seen were away from any strong heat source and most likely in an area that at the time was a point where the air for combustion was being drawn into the building to support the fires. Note that people were observed only in the openings in WTC 1.

According to the International Standard ISO/TS 13571, <h3>people will be in severe pain within seconds if they are near the radiant heat level generated by a large fire. Thus, it is not surprising that none of the photographs show a person standing in those gaps where there also was a sizable fire......</h3>

14. Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 (the 47-story office building that collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, hours after the towers) taking so long to complete? Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being considered to explain the collapse?

<h3>When NIST initiated the WTC investigation, it made a decision not to hire new staff to support the investigation.</h3> After the June 2004 progress report on the WTC investigation was issued, the NIST investigation team stopped working on WTC 7 and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to complete the investigation of the WTC towers. With the release and dissemination of the report on the WTC towers in October 2005, the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse resumed. Considerable progress has been made since that time, including the review of nearly 80 boxes of new documents related to WTC 7, the development of detailed technical approaches for modeling and analyzing various collapse hypotheses, and the selection of a contractor to assist NIST staff in carrying out the analyses. <h3>It is anticipated that a draft report will be released by early 2007.....</h3>

Contrast the bullshit delays and excuses coming from NIST with the NTSB TWA-800 investigation, which included the recovery of most of the wreckage of a 747 Jumbo airliner from the ocean floor, reassembly of that wreckage into a recognizable airliner fuselage, and analysis and determination of the mid-air explosion that brought the aircraft down, all in 17 months.....

Quote:

http://www.cnn.com/US/9707/twa.800/reports/
NTSB releases TWA Flight 800 crash report
TWA/NTSB graphic

December 8, 1997

(CNN) -- The National Transportation Safety Board on Sunday released documents detailing its extensive, 17-month investigation into the crash of TWA Flight 800. The documents will serve as evidence for the week-long NTSB public hearing on the investigation which started Monday. CNN Interactive will provide a live Webcast of the hearing.

The documents include airplane maintenance records, reports on how the plane came apart, diagrams of where parts of the plane were found and information on the reconstruction of the wreckage. Select documents are available here. The remaining documents are available for download from CNN Interactive or the NTSB Web site......

Since at least 5-1/2 years will have gone by, from the time of the WTC7 collapse, until the earliest date of the availability of the NIST determination of the causes of that collapse, and considering that the delay in issuing the NIST report, originally promised in May, 2005, will be a longer period than the entire length of the TWA-800 investigation, and the possible risks posed to all constructed steel framed tall buildings that were built or designed in that five year period, from not having a timely determination of the cause of the WTC7 collapse, why is incuriousity and acceptance of the government "line", not "wacked"?

Quote:

http://www.construction.com/NewsCent.../20021209g.asp
NIST Not Ruling Anything Out on WTC Probe

enr.construction.com - <b>12/09/02</b>

By Tom Ichniowski

<b>About three months into a two-year investigation</b> of the World Trade Center disaster, officials at the National Institute of Standards and Technology say it's too early to rule out any possible scenarios for what caused the buildings to fall.

At a Dec. 9 briefing, NIST Director Arden Bement said NIST feels more study is needed to determine which of the various hypotheses about the WTC collapses is "most probable." Bement adds, "We have concluded that it's too early to exclude any potential sequence of events between the aircrafts' impact and the collapse of the WTC towers."......

...........Bement made a request to the public and the media for photos or video images that could aid NIST's probe. More specifically, NIST is seeking images of WTC 7 and views from the south and west sides of the two WTC towers. Bement says, "In particular, there is a dearth of photos of the south side of WTC 7." That side, some have said, was hit by debris from WTC 1, which may have started the fires that led to WTC 7's collapse."....

The article excerpted above was written nearly four years ago....it described what was supposed to be a two year NIST investigation, which did not even begin until a full year after the 9/11 WTC towers collapsed.

....aren't the real "wack jobs", the incurious folks who not only do not question the government's weird, obstructionist behavior and statements, in the face of such momentous and far reaching 9/11 events, but who make the time and effort to vehemently defend the government's record of obstruction, delay, and non-answers, by repeatedly attacking those who do challenge the "official line", or in this case, the oft postponed, and yet to be disclosed, "official line"?

filtherton · 08-31-2006, 06:49 AM

I've thought the media was a failure ever since the run up to invading iraq. The media fails every time it quotes dick cheney without pointing out that he is obviously lying, that any third grader could do a google search and find proof that he is lying and that the fact that he continues to make such bold lies points to his deep cynicism concerning the intelligence of the american people(not that americans aren't easily spoon-fed what they want to hear).

If you think the media sucks covering foreign wars, you should see how bad they suck covering ones we are directly involved in.

Ustwo · 08-31-2006, 06:58 AM

Yes host, I think people who think that the WTC was destroyed by anything besides the identified aircraft flying into them is a wack job.

It also has nothing to do with another left wing media acceptance of terrorist propaganda as news, which is what this thread is about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

I've thought the media was a failure ever since the run up to invading iraq. The media fails every time it quotes dick cheney without pointing out that he is obviously lying, that any third grader could do a google search and find proof that he is lying and that the fact that he continues to make such bold lies points to his deep cynicism concerning the intelligence of the american people(not that americans aren't easily spoon-fed what they want to hear).

If you think the media sucks covering foreign wars, you should see how bad they suck covering ones we are directly involved in.

Oh they should be googling truthout, common dreams, daily KOS and DU and run with it?

Please, the press may be biased but they don't want to loose all crediblity. They have tried that before and it didn't work out so well for them.

Willravel · 08-31-2006, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Yes host, I think people who think that the WTC was destroyed by anything besides the identified aircraft flying into them is a wack job.

YOU DO?!

Why the change of heart?

roachboy · 08-31-2006, 08:09 AM

ustwo: perhaps you have difficulty reading some of my posts, so let me separate out one of the main points from above:

The article in the OP presents nothing like an argument for systematic anti-israel bias.
It uses anecdotal evidence to set up arbitrary assertions about systematic bias.
It provides no evidence of systematic bias, and therefore provides no proof of systematic bias and makes no coherent argument about it.

Do you have difficulty with the (rudimentary) notion that an assertion is not an argument?
Or are assertions the same as arguments for you?
When you evaluate an argument, is its relation to evidence not an issue?

Another way:
You seem quite convinced--based seemingly on nothing--that there is some kind of anti-israeli bias in the american press--the claim is preposterous---taking it at all seriously would requires some evidence and actual arguments related to that evidence.

Without it, the assertions of systematic bias are not even a joke: they are nothing more than paranoid statements you make because you find them aesthetically appealing.

If aesthetic appeal is the basis for your positions, why not simply say as much so I can stop wasting my time trying to figure out whether to take your posts seriously or not.

filtherton · 08-31-2006, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Oh they should be googling truthout, common dreams, daily KOS and DU and run with it?

Please, the press may be biased but they don't want to loose all crediblity. They have tried that before and it didn't work out so well for them.

No, they should be googling the names of the people who actually know what's going on over there, like, you know, the generals running the show. The people who know that the insurgency isn't in it's last throes. The ones who recently testified before congress about impending civil war in iraq.

You don't need to visit any of the websites you listed to know that the administration is generally completely full of shit when it comes to any kind of statement concerning our current situation in iraq. I didn't think that you were so naive. What's funny to me is that you're so selective in your acknowledgement that wartime governments are liars.

Ustwo on hezbollah and the palestinians: Only an antisemitic liberal wouldn't acknowledge that hezbollah is deceptive and the mainstream media is complicit.

Ustwo on the bush administration: Only a cut-and-run liberal would imply that the bush administration might engage in deception. Only a naive liberal would believe that a credible mainstream media has a responsibility to question obvious falsehoods cheney et al put forth.

It's almost like you have some sort of ideological agenda and you choose only to pay attention to facts that support that agenda.

You should make up your mind. Either the media should report without question the information given to them by various sources like the bush administration or hezbollah or they have a responsibility to determine the veracity of the information.

Seaver · 08-31-2006, 09:53 AM

Quote:

If you think the media sucks covering foreign wars, you should see how bad they suck covering ones we are directly involved in.

Aside from the faulty intelligence, notice not a lie, when has he? He's been supposably quoted about lying how long the war would last or how long the insurgency would continue, but those are predictions and opinions.

Willravel · 08-31-2006, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Aside from the faulty intelligence, notice not a lie, when has he? He's been supposably quoted about lying how long the war would last or how long the insurgency would continue, but those are predictions and opinions.

I think that from now on we should refer to it not as "faulty intelligence", but as "convenient faulty intelligence that alwasy supports the administrations agendas and has repeatedly been called into question, and sometimes proven to be a lie". EX:

Quote:

"[Castro] welcomes sex tourism," Bush told a room of law enforcement officials in Florida, according to the Los Angeles Times. "Here's how he bragged about the industry," Bush said. "This is his quote: 'Cuba has the cleanest and most educated prostitutes in the world.'"

As it turns out, Bush had lifted that quotation not from an actual Castro speech but rather from a 2001 essay written by then Dartmouth University undergraduate Charles Trumbull. In the essay, Trumbull did appear to quote a Castro speech about prostitution. Sadly, the student made the quotation up.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07...cuban_hookers/

How about this one?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dick Clarke

I said 'Mr. President, we've done this before. We - we've been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind, there's no connection.' He came back at me and said, 'Iraq, Saddam - find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean, that we should come back with that answer....

To whihc Condaleeza responded:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Condaleeza Rice

I - I have never seen the president say an - anything to an - people in an intimidating way, to try to get a particular answer out of them. I know this president very well. And the president doesn't talk to his staff in an intimidating way to ask them to produce information - that is false.

Well, Condaleezaliesalot wasn't actually there, and the only two other people in the room with Dick confirmed that president Bush said, "'Iraq, Saddam - find out if there's a connection.' in a very intimidating way.

filtherton · 08-31-2006, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Aside from the faulty intelligence, notice not a lie, when has he? He's been supposably quoted about lying how long the war would last or how long the insurgency would continue, but those are predictions and opinions.

Lying is just one form of deception. There's the implied iraq/911 link, the wmds, the assertion that iraq could attack us with only 45 minute notice, the whole valerie plame fiasco, the whole we-don't-torture-but-we-will-oppose-all-efforts-to-criminalize-our-ability-to-use-torture thing. Really, the list goes on and on.

Do you honestly trust the administration? If so, how can you justify that trust.

host · 08-31-2006, 11:11 AM

At least John Stewart has his "outrage" priorities in logical order. No outrage by the folks who embrace the zombietime blog garbage, when it comes to the MSM failure to widely report the lies and misleading statements that led the US to invade Iraq:
http://www.overspun.com/video/DailyShow.cheneylies.rm
.....but plenty of indignation over this bullshit that affects no one in the US.
Seaver's OP is nothing more than a commercial for Murdoch's News Corp.

Your own, "fair and balanced", Murdoch controlled, foxnews Australian clone printed this, yesterday:

Quote:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599...94-401,00.html
Red Cross slams Downer's hoax claim

By Mark Dodd and Martin Chulov

August 30, 2006 07:33am
Article from: The Australian

THE International Committee of the Red Cross has rebuked Foreign Minister Alexander Downer <b>for relying on an unverified internet blog</b> to claim an Israeli missile strike on one of its ambulances in southern Lebanon was a hoax.

A spokeswoman for the ICRC in Geneva said yesterday there was no evidence to support Mr Downer's assertion that the international media had been duped in reporting that Israel had deliberately targeted the ambulance.

An image of the roof of the ambulance showed what was purportedly an entry hole allegedly made by an Israeli rocket which had pierced the centre of the red cross symbol.

The July 23 incident, in which two ambulances were fired on, injuring six people – including one man who lost his leg in the attack – provoked worldwide condemnation of Israel's apparent direct targeting of an ambulance in breach of the Geneva convention.

Israel apologised for the incident but made no admissions.

The blog site, Zombietime.com, claimed photographs of the interior of the ambulance showed there was not enough damage to have been hit by a missile through the roof, as claimed.

On Monday, in a speech to the National Newspaper Publishers Conference on the Gold Coast, Mr Downer criticised the Australian and international media for sloppy reporting and failing to check facts in their coverage of the Lebanon conflict.

He accused the media of being hoodwinked by Lebanese claims that "Israel had bombed deliberately a (Lebanese) Red Cross ambulance". And he accused "some of the world's most prestigious media outlets", including Time magazine, The New York Times, Los Angeles Times and The Australian of falling for a hoax.

"After closer study of the images of the damage to the ambulance, it is beyond serious dispute that this episode has all the makings of a hoax," he said.

In an internal report, a copy of which was obtained by The Australian, the ICRC claims that on July 23 near the village of Qana, two Red Cross ambulances were "struck by munitions".

Last night, the group manager of the first-aid team for the Lebanese Red Cross, George Kettneh, insisted that two LRC ambulances had been attacked on the night of July 23, near Qana in southern Lebanon.

"I was on duty that night and every ambulance that moved in Lebanon I had to know about," he said.

"I received phone calls from the ambulance drivers and it took us one hour to negotiate a ceasefire through the International Committee of the Red Cross."

Ambulance driver Qassem Shalim was closing the doors of the ambulance when the vehicle was hit.

"I am sure the missile was fired from a drone. The blue light was flashing on our roof, the red cross was clear and there was a light on the Lebanese Red Cross flag above me. Everything I said happened did happen," he told The Australian in Beirut.

But yesterday, Mr Downer's spokesman, Tony Parkinson, said the minister was standing by his comments.

"Those (website) pictures do not show an ambulance that has been struck by a missile nor do they sustain the argument the ambulance was struck by a missile."

Federal Opposition foreign affairs spokesman, Kevin Rudd, said Mr Downer needed to come clean on his sources.

Quote:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...307128,00.html
Downer's unfounded faith in the internet
The Foreign Minister has been hoaxed by a callous blog, writes Middle East correspondent Martin Chulov
31aug06

LATE in the evening of July 23, Qassem Shalin, a volunteer member of the Lebanese Red Cross for 13 years, set off in his ambulance for a cross road near the village of Qana in southern Lebanon. His job that night was to collect, with a second ambulance, six people who had suffered minor injuries the day before during fighting between Hezbollah and Israel.

It was a call-out that almost cost Shalin his life and, according to Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, has since cost him his reputation as an impartial protector of war's wounded.

The run sheets that night of the Lebanese Red Cross in Beirut and the International Committee for the Red Cross, who were working closely with them, show the two ambulances waited at the intersection just north of Qana for another ambulance carrying wounded from the village of Tibnin.

Just after 11.30 a large explosion thundered into Shalin's ambulance. Both drivers were wearing body armour and had just loaded two stretchers carrying Ahmed Mohammed Fawaz and his 14-year-old son, Abdullah.

Shalin is not the only one to have come under attack in the wake of the incident. Representatives of the world's media who covered the aftermath, including this correspondent, are in the Foreign Minister's sights for reporting that the ambulance had been struck by an Israeli missile, in a serious contravention of the rules that govern warfare.

In a speech to Australian newspaper publishers this week, he accused us all of willingly falling for a Hezbollah-contrived conspiracy, our eagerness to do so being dishonest and irresponsible and, according to Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt, fuelled by an anti-Israeli bias.

"What concerns me greatly is the evidence of dishonesty in the reporting out of Lebanon," Downer said, adding later that "it is beyond serious dispute that this episode has all the makings of a hoax".

<h3>The source of his findings was a right-wing Florida-based website, zombietime.com, which had devoted 28 pages to discredit the story and lambasted the world's media for covering it.</h3>

Downer finds the blog to be a compelling condemnation of the foreign media's competence and ideological stance in Lebanon. Key planks of zombietime.com's allegations are that a missile would not cause the type of damage done to Ambulance 782; rust around the damaged roof showed the damage was done some time prior; neither driver was seriously injured; Shalin's injuries seemed to heal miraculously; and the Israeli apology was merely a matter of course.

I was in Tyre on the night of the attack and investigated the incident closely the next day. On July 24, with photographer Stewart Innes, we spoke to Qassem Shalin, who was recovering from a minor wound to his chin that nurses had bandaged to stop it from turning septic. We also visited Ahmed Mohammed Fawaz, whose lower left leg had been amputated and whose severe burns ironically had saved his life by sealing blood vessels and arteries. His son writhed in pain nearby, his stomach riddled with shrapnel and the rear of his scalp opened up.

We inspected both ambulances, whose mangled roofs were not rusting at the time. By the time the photos used on the blog site were taken, rust had appeared. But this is entirely normal in Lebanon's sultry summer climate, where humidity on the coast does not drop below 70per cent.

Downer's spokesman, Tony Parkinson, said on Tuesday: "Those (website) pictures do not show an ambulance that has been struck by a missile nor do they sustain the argument the ambulance was struck by a missile."

He is wrong. The damage done was consistent with ruined cars and vans that I saw elsewhere in Lebanon and earlier in Gaza, which had been hit by a missile fired from a drone. The Israeli-made drones have many types of missiles, but the most regularly used has a small warhead designed for use in urban areas. It aims not to kill anyone outside a small zone and rarely leaves a calling card outside its target.

Downer and Parkinson should know this. The Australian Government last year signed a deal to buy drones from Israel. They would surely have come with a buyer's guide.

The small warhead partly explains the driver's lack of serious wounds. But more telling is the fact that Shalin was lifting the rear ramp of the ambulance when the missile hit. His colleague was stepping into the side door. The concussion wave from the missile easily dispersed through the open spaces. Shalin was protected as he fell under the ramp. The other driver was blown out the side door.

Working in the Lebanese Red Cross operations room in Beirut the night the ambulances were hit was field manager George Kettaneh. "Every ambulance that moved in Lebanon I had to know about," he said. "I received phone calls from the ambulance drivers and it took us one hour to negotiate a ceasefire through the ICRC."

The man doing their bidding for them was Antoine Bieler, the field co-ordinator for the ICRC who yesterday confirmed to Media that he had negotiated a ceasefire with the Israeli Defence Force. "Yes absolutely, that happened," he said from Beirut. The ICRC in Geneva later said there was nothing to support Downer's claim that the events of that night were an anti-Israeli hoax.

I returned to Tyre on Saturday to speak again to Qassem Shalin and inspect the damaged ambulances. "Everything I said happened that night did happen," he said. "There was not a sound in the sky before the explosions. And after that there was a battle for the next hour. We hid in a building nearby convinced we were going to die. It was only when George (Kettaneh) called me that we could leave safely."

The events of July 23 and the reporting that followed was newsworthy and important. The ICRC has documented two other occasions when Lebanese ambulances were hit during the war and to report the incidents does not reflect anti-Israeli bias. The blog site's attempts to create a smokescreen around a shameful truth fail on tests of scrutiny that Downer was happy to overlook.

Beyond serious dispute? Only if you want to believe it, Minister.

Quote:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/...817034562.html
Weapons: Downer admits being told

Marian Wilkinson
September 1, 2006

THE Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, has confirmed for the first time that he was personally told by a senior Australian weapons inspector that the US-led weapons hunt in postwar Iraq was seriously flawed.

But he denies suppressing a damning six-page letter by the inspector, John Gee, who resigned from the Iraq Survey Group in March 2004.

The letter outlines in detail interference by the CIA and the Bush Administration in first reports about the weapons hunt to avoid finding that Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction.

Dr Gee, one of Australia's leading chemical weapons experts, briefed Mr Downer on his concerns after his resignation. He bluntly told him that he believed Iraq had no such weapons.

While praising Dr Gee as "a serious person", Mr Downer said yesterday: "I personally gave no instructions that it [his letter] was to be or wasn't to be distributed."

"As far as I knew, people around the Government were very well aware of Dr Gee's concerns. We had no reason not to want to hear what he had to say."

But Dr Gee repeated his belief, reported in the Herald yesterday, that when he returned from Iraq in March 2004, Mr Downer issued instructions that his letter not be be distributed outside the Department of Foreign Affairs....

Since Wiki is a site comprised of articles assembled by the public, and anyone is invited to edit the content with "neutral", factual material, if you disagree with the articles on the two "wacks" who are the total basis for Seaver's OP argument, have at it!

Quote:

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

Andrew Bolt is an Australian columnist, who writes predominantly for the Rupert Murdoch-owned News Limited stable of newspapers. Politically conservative and religiously agnostic, Bolt is a columnist and associate editor of the Melbourne-based Herald Sun. He regularly appears on the Nine Network's Today programme and the weekly Australian Broadcasting Corporation panel programme, Insiders. In 2005, Bolt released his first book, The Best of Andrew Bolt - Still Not Sorry.....

....He is married to fellow Herald Sun columnist, Sally Morrell. They have three children.
[edit]

Controversy and criticism

Bolt is an outspoken exponent of conservative political and social views. His statements are sometimes controversial; however, he says his columns are well researched and based on fact, rather than popular opinion. He denies the existence of the stolen generation of Australian aborigines, based on the 1995 report "Bringing Them Home: the stolen children report." He downplays the threat of global warming and strongly supported the Iraq War in 2003.....

.........Critics of Bolt include Crikey founder and ABC presenter Stephen Mayne and Sydney Morning Herald writer and former presenter of the ABC program Media Watch David Marr. They say that Bolt makes many sensationalist claims which are rarely substantiated, and that the evidence he does provide is highly questionable. His critics dismiss many of the references Bolt provides as irreputable for personal reasons, to which Bolt responds by asking them to respond to and rebut the facts provided rather than the people who provide them....

Quote:

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

.....He has been a firm supporter of the legality of the war in Iraq and he vociferously defended the claim that weapons of mass destruction would be found in Iraq to justify the 2003 invasion of that country, long after this claim was abandoned by many others [1] [2] [3]

In August 2004 he made a provocative claim that North Korea could launch a ballistic missile to hit Sydney, although this claim is unsupported by any expert opinion. [4]......

.....As Australian Foreign Affairs minister, Downer supported the U.S.A in the incarceration of two Australian citizens, David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib in the Guantanamo Bay detention center. Habib was eventually released without charge and Hicks remains imprisoned having recently made application to the British governement for British citizenship on the basis of his mother's birth. Downer also supported the Bush Administration's position on the special military commissions that were to be used to try Hicks. The commissons were ruled illegal by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 29, 2006. [8]

Michelle is also pushing the "zombietime OP". When was the last time that she was correct about anything that she pushes?
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005802.htm

Seaver · 08-31-2006, 11:43 AM

A small warhead Host? Honestly?

Funny, where's the fire or shapnel damage that would be caused by a rocket? Hell the "rocket" apparently didn't even have enough velocity to hit the floor of the van. Where's the blood from the severed leg? Where's the damage from the explosion... where's the rest of the rocket since it obviously didn't explode?

And don't feed me that crap that the rust appeared over 3 days. Even with 70 percent humidity rust does not appear that fast unless it had been left in the ocean.

filtherton · 08-31-2006, 11:50 AM

Is it too early for this thread to be moved to paranoia?

Haha, just kidding.

Charlatan · 08-31-2006, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

You know for once, just once I'd like to see something from the left side that didn't just automaticly equate Hezbollah with Israel or the US. When Israel or the US attempt to INCREASE civilian casualties for propaganda purposes then please, speak up on this. Until then I'd say their methods are far far different.

So the ends justify the means?

I think others have listed quite well how the US has "spun" the media. But I suppose the thousands of civilians dead in Iraq were just in the way and don't count.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

YSo you run a story based on the word of known terrorists, but won't refute it without 'proof'?

I think you miss the point that I wasn't defending them...

Someone will "uncover" this story when an editor decides it is "newsworthy". Until then, it will just be Internet rumour.

Seaver · 08-31-2006, 03:18 PM

Quote:

I think you miss the point that I wasn't defending them...

Someone will "uncover" this story when an editor decides it is "newsworthy". Until then, it will just be Internet rumour.

They will never decide it's newsworthy. Because that would entail that they were wrong. That would cause everyone to rightfully be pissed that "journalistic integrity" does not go so far as actually looking at a picture before sending it worldwide.

Charlatan · 08-31-2006, 03:25 PM

I agree with you Seaver. I think you just need to remember the media isn't monolithic. Some journalist out there is going to "break" this story.

It may take a while.

In the meantime, realize that this is nothing new. The US mainstream media is lazy. Much of what gets reported comes from press releases. They don't investigate anywhere near what they should (there are exceptions but generally this is common practice).

Willravel · 08-31-2006, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

They will never decide it's newsworthy. Because that would entail that they were wrong. That would cause everyone to rightfully be pissed that "journalistic integrity" does not go so far as actually looking at a picture before sending it worldwide.

Some news organizations do apologize for mistakes. The BBC apologized the the Jessica Lynch stuff when the truth came out.

Back in March 2003, Bill O'Riely told the Good Morning America viewers that "if the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush administration again." Feb 2004, Still lacking any substantive explanations from the White House, Bill O'Reilly apologized on Good Morning America.

Quote:

O'REILLY: Well, my analysis was wrong and I'm sorry. Absolutely, you know.
GIBSON: Camera's right there.
O'REILLY: Um, and I'm not pleased about it.
GIBSON: Camera's right there.
O'REILLY: Yeah, I just said it. What do you want me to do? Go over and kiss the camera?

I've never been so pleased.

Ch'i · 08-31-2006, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Cathy Gannon
...She added: "Both were destroyed."

Rrrriiiigggghhhhhttttttt.......................

host · 08-31-2006, 08:10 PM

Does everyone have me on "ignore", or is the intent here to just keep posting "discussion"?

The following prefaces the article in my last post, titled,
Downer's unfounded faith in the internet
The Foreign Minister has been hoaxed by a callous blog, writes Middle East correspondent Martin Chulov
31aug06
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...307128,00.html

Quote:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...2-7583,00.html
Editorial: Red Cross rocket snares Downer
August 31, 2006

Balance and caution are needed when reporting on war

.......In the media's defence, war reporters often work under time pressure in the most trying of circumstances. And casualty numbers can be imprecise in the immediate aftermath of violence. That the truth is not always easy to discern must be better appreciated by Mr Downer following his embrace of the Lebanese ambulance incident, as presented by internet site http://www.zombietime.com. In his speech to PANPA, Mr Downer said the incident, in which it was claimed Israel had deliberately bombed a Red Cross ambulance, did not stand up to even the most rudimentary scrutiny. Mr Downer said that after closer study of the images of the damage to the ambulance, it was beyond serious dispute that this episode has all the makings of a hoax. His source? A pro-Israel website that specialises in posting pictures of student protests, naked bicycle riders and historic pictures of the prophet Mohammed. In a lengthy posting, the website puts forward its own conspiracy theory and claims the incident never took place. This newspaper was aware of the website claims but, rather than accept them at face value, dispatched reporter Martin Chulov to review the evidence and reinterview those involved. In his report in the Media section today, Chulov stands by the original account and says damage to the ambulance is consistent with the original claims of attack. We have done what a good newspaper should, done the leg work and reported the facts. Mr Downer may himself have fallen for the propaganda trick he is keen to warn against. While his point may be true, that most media have taken a pro-Lebanon, anti-Israeli stance, what Mr Downer's experience most highlights is the benefits of an unbiased, well-resourced, established media, as opposed to its new online cousin. In this case, readers have a choice, a website that relies on analysing photographs a long way from the action or media with resources on the ground. Mr Downer is correct that the first duty of responsible media is to get the facts straight even when that story might not necessarily conform to existing opinions or prejudices. But, as his experience highlights, this is equally true for politicians.

So....what's it gonna be, Seaver....Ustwo....are you going to accept the reporting....and re-checking of news correspondent, Martin Chulov, who reported from Lebanon and inspected the bombed ambulance and interviewed the victims....or a blog that is written by people who only looked at pictures, and who already held a known pro-Israeli bias?

Careful now....if you choose to believe the report on the "blog", you will be embracing a "conspiracy" theory, and you will become the "wacks" that you claim to detest!

Willravel · 08-31-2006, 08:14 PM

If it means anything, I read your posts.

BTW, if anyone here has host on ignore, you might as well add me to your list. If you're going to shield yourself from the world, don't do it half-a$$ed.

Ch'i · 08-31-2006, 10:18 PM

Quote:

If it means anything, I read your posts.

I do too. When I see you've posted, I make a nice cup of Earl Grey, put the dog outside, then sit-back and enjoy. The substance is what really gets me.

Seaver · 09-01-2006, 05:39 AM

Host I read your earlier post, I just did not see it relevant to the thread and did not want it jacked.

Quote:

Mr Downer said international reporting of the conflict was biased in favour of Lebanon, noting exaggerated claims of casualties, a well-worn propaganda tactic utilised to great public relations effect by Hezbollah. Casualty details released by Israel, which shares Australia's respect for free speech and democracy, have generally been respected as accurate by all sides.

Well at least I can agree with Downer.

Anyways Host I dont read zombietime, I in fact never heard of it until reading the article posted. I simply saw the photos and it says to me a fraud. If this is real I would like to know where the unexploded rocket went, where the blood from the severed leg went, or any of the other questions explained.

Just because we both believe it was a fake does not mean I actually believe any conspiracy, I just believe it shows the inherant bias.

And as you've pointed out, check your own source. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...9-2703,00.html Chulov was one of the origional biased/lazy journalists who bought this. Of course he's going to hold out, hoping, that the story is true.

stevo · 09-01-2006, 06:12 AM

Seaver, I read the zombietime story yesterday. I had thought you got these pictures and arguement from there as well. I'm not suprised to learn that you didn't.

For everyone else, here's an aside describing where the major media outlets get their news and some insight that might show anti-israeli bias is systemic in the media.

Quote:

How Much Does It Cost to Buy Global TV News?

The vast majority of the TV news pictures you see are produced by two TV news companies. Presented here is a case for how a large amount of money has been used to inject a clear bias into the heart of the global TV news gathering system. That this happens is not at question, whether it is by accident or design is harder to tell.

You may not realize it, but if you watch any TV news broadcast on any station anywhere in the world, there is a better than even chance you will view pictures from APTN. BBC, Fox, Sky, CNN and every major broadcaster subscribes to and uses APTN pictures. While the method by which they operate is interesting, it is the extra service this US owned and UK based company offers to Arab states that is really interesting.

About the Associated Press

The Associated Press (AP) is a not-for-profit news gathering and dissemination service based in the US.Formed in 1848, the AP grew up from an agreement between the six major New York newspapers of the day. They wanted to defray the large telegraphy costs that they were all independently incurring for sending the same news coast to coast. Despite being highly competitive, they formed the Associated Press as a collection agency and agreed to share the material. Today, that six-newspaper cooperative is an organization serving more than 1,500 newspapers and 5,000 broadcast outlets in the United States. Abroad, AP services are printed and broadcast in 112 countries.

Associated Press Television News

Associated Press Television News (APTN) is a wholly owned subsidiary of AP. It was formally set up as a separate entity in 1994. It is run as a commercial entity and aims to make a profit. Any profit it does make is fed back to AP (which is non-profit making: APTN profits reduce the newsgathering costs incurred by the 1500 US newspapers that collectively own the AP). APTN is the largest television news gathering player (larger than Reuters, its only true competitor in this field). While AP is based in the US, APTN operates out of large premises in Camden, London. They have news teams, offices and broadcast facilities in just about every important place in the world.

APTN uses news crews and broadcast facilities all over the world to record video of newsworthy events (in News, Sport and Entertainment). These pictures are either sent unedited or very partially edited back to London. Most news is fed back within hours but they also cover and feed certain events live (news conferences in Iraq, press conferences after a sporting event etc.). Most of these stories are sent in with “natural sound”: there is no journalist providing a voice over, but the choice of what to shoot is in the hands of the local producer and camera crew. Local crews are sometimes employed directly by APTN, or more often “stringers” are hired for a particular event or paid for the footage they have already captured.

Once the stories have been fed back to the UK they are edited. This is a round the clock operation. The goal is to produce a 30 minute news bulletin comprising 6 or 7 stories every few hours. These stories are made by editing down the raw “rushes” that come in from all over the world. This is done by a team of producers who work for the news editor. They don’t supply a voice over but they do edit, discard and sequence pictures dictating the emphasis and direction of the story. They will accompany each story with a written description of each shot and the general reason this was a story. This is repeated for News, Sport & Entertainment with a geographical emphasis that shifts around the world as different markets wake and sleep. The output of this is called the “Global News Wire” (GNW).

The Business of TV News

This is how APTN makes its money: news organizations (mostly TV but not all) subscribe to APTN and pay an annual amount to both watch and then re-use the stories that are fed over the GNW. The stories are supplied with sound, but no journalist to do a voice over. Most commercial news stations (like the BBC, SKY, Fox or CNN) would take this feed, decide which pictures to use then re-edit it and supply an appropriate voice over for the story. The video comes with a written description of the shots and the events that occur in them.

The fee for this feed depends on the size of the receiving organization, their audience size and a negotiation with APTN’s sales force. It is pretty much impossible, however, to operate a TV news organization without taking feeds from either APTN or Reuters or usually both. The agreement with APTN usually allows the receiving news channel unlimited use of the video for two weeks. If they want to re-show those pictures after that they have to separately license the pictures (which can cost anything from $100 to $10,000 per 30 seconds depending on the content).

A Separate Service for Arab States

However, there is another significant part of their business model that affects the rest of the business. While most of the world takes news pictures with minimal interpretation beyond editing, the Arab Gulf States have asked for and receive a different and far more expensive service. These states pay for a complete news report service including full editing and voice overs from known journalists. The news organizations in the Arab countries don’t do anything (beyond verify that they are appropriate for local tastes) before broadcast.

What this means is that while there are around 50 people producing news pictures for the whole world working in Camden at any time, there are a further 50 Arabic speaking staff producing finished stories exclusively for the Arab states of the gulf. This has a tremendous effect on the whole feel of the building as these two teams feed pictures and people back and forth and sit in adjacent work areas. The slant of the stories required by the Gulf States has a definite effect on which footage is used and discarded. This affects both the Gulf newsroom and the main global newsroom.

This full service feed is much more expensive for the customers than the usual service, but it is also much higher margin for APTN. This is partly because there is great commonality in what they can send to most of the Gulf States taking this service: stories are made once and used in a number of countries.

Disproportionately Negative Coverage of Israel

Anything involving Israel is a favorite with Gulf Arab states for showing to their viewers. Could this be the reason why Israel receives such a disproportionate amount of particularly negative coverage especially and increasingly ever since the early 1970’s? HonestReporting is usually unable to decide which is most biased: AP or BBC. As the BBC is often using APTN footage, the difference is minor. A significant twist to what is seen, concerns what is not seen. Footage such as the Palestinian mob joyfully lynching two Israeli reservists in Ramallah in October 2000 is held by APTN’s library: any attempt to license this film for reshow is carefully vetted. Requests for the use of “sensitive clips” are referred directly to the Library director. This is not the case with clips that paint Israel in a bad light. Likewise, the re-showing of Palestinian celebrations on 9/11 is considered “sensitive”.

The way in which raw footage such as APTN’s is compiled into a news report and sent round the world has also been analyzed. The Second Draft gives a comprehensive view of how editing can make all the difference. APTN is the gatekeeper that sits between you and the actual event. You will never see what the editors at APTN see before they compile your evening news. What do you think is cut out?

The Wrap-Up

Was this organization set up with this in-built bias on purpose? Is there some way that the expensive payments made by Gulf state governments form part of a deliberate attempt to skew the media?

In “Islam and Dhimmitude” (2002) by Bat Ye’or on p294-296 she recounts how decisions were taken in the wake of the Arab-Israeli war of 1967 to try to put across an anti-Jewish, anti-Zionist message. Successive conferences resolved to contribute vast sums “to universities, centers for Islamic studies, international communications agencies, and private and governmental organizations in order to win over world opinion.” (p296).

The messages from these conferences stressed an addition to the more familiar violent jihad: they also emphasized the importance of jihad by the written and spoken word—what we would recognize as classic propaganda. Without question APTN’s interesting business model represents a concrete example of an ongoing financial “contribution” to an important communication agency promoting a pro-Arab bias.

It came from littlegreenfootballs about a month ago. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/webl...l_TV_News&only

Ustwo · 09-01-2006, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

So the ends justify the means?

I think others have listed quite well how the US has "spun" the media. But I suppose the thousands of civilians dead in Iraq were just in the way and don't count.

Charlatan this has absolutely NOTHING not one thing to do with the topic at hand and you know it. The US attempts to minimize civilian casualties, Hezbollah attempts to maximize them amoung their own people. There is no comparison to be made. And beyond that, we are talking about bias in the press twords one side, the terrorists side. Again your statements must be comming from another thread because they have nothing in common with this one.

Quote:

Someone will "uncover" this story when an editor decides it is "newsworthy". Until then, it will just be Internet rumour.

You mean a baised editor, who ran the story on the word of terrorists in the first place, is going to wait for some proof from where? They didn't wait for indisputable proof to run the story, why not point out that it may not be accurate? It may just be an internet rumour but so far internet rumours have been more accurate than offical press coverage. The whole point of the OP is the people who decide what is 'newsworthy' are biased and promoting an agenda.

Willravel · 09-01-2006, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Ustwo on hezbollah and the palestinians: Only an antisemitic liberal wouldn't acknowledge that hezbollah is deceptive and the mainstream media is complicit.

Ustwo on the bush administration: Only a cut-and-run liberal would imply that the bush administration might engage in deception. Only a naive liberal would believe that a credible mainstream media has a responsibility to question obvious falsehoods cheney et al put forth.

Quoted for truth. Ustwo, if you're going to insist on damning the Hezbollah or Palestinians for deceptive media tactis, and insist that the current administration can get away with it, you should simply admit your bias to the world and yourself. Admit your agenda. Admit your favoritism to one side, and admit your intolerance to the other.

Ustwo, the Hezbollah are equatable with the US exept for a few things: The US sits comfortably far away from the middle east madness, the US has a massive military, and the US has massive economic influence.

If Hezbollah has those things, do you really think they'd be firing rockets from fields and towns? Or do yo think they'd do what the US government does: plant warships far out in the ocean and fire rockets?

If Palestinians had a large military, do you think there would be suicide bombings? Or do you think they'd do what the US government does: invade unilaterally and remove the government? That is where the equasion reaches equlibrium.

The US thought that Iraq was a danger to Middle Easten investments, so we removed the dangerous government. The Hezbollah knows that Israel has been occupying Lebanon for 24 years (that's longer than I've been alive) and they know thousands of Lebanese citizens have been kidnapped by Israel (durring the 18 year occupation), so they continue to resist Israel and do everything in their means to remove Israel from Lebanon.

stevo · 09-01-2006, 07:33 AM

liberals just don't see it. there is no use. bye

08-30-2006, 11:17 AM	#2 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	If that is in fact the hole in the ambulance in question, there's been yet another fraud perpetrated on the world. Then again, Israel did drop cluster bombs on Lebanon, so they're not exactly innocent of all charges in this thing. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

08-30-2006, 11:29 AM	#3 (permalink)
feelgood Free Mars! Location: I dunno, there's white people around me saying "eh" all the time	I must be blind but what freakin drilled holes? __________________ Looking out the window, that's an act of war. Staring at my shoes, that's an act of war. Committing an act of war? Oh you better believe that's an act of war

08-30-2006, 02:47 PM	#9 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	1. i would think it routine by now in this forum that links to sources be provided. 2. in the context of the zombietime blog, and restricting myself to that source (which is linked in the op and which provides a more extensive version of the op), the particular case seems fairly clear-cut. if the ambulance in the photos is supposed to be the same ambulance described in the sequence of press releases, then yes, the claims are obviously false. but as usual, the inferences made on the basis of this case are wholly worthless: it proves nothing at all about any systematic bias of any kind because it presents no evidence concerning such bias---and you'd think claims like "the mainstream media is anti-israel"---which is preposterous in the american context---would require some type of argument, wouldn't you? and that argument would have to refer to evidence, and that evidence would have to symmetrical with the claims made about it....there is nothing of the sort in either the op or the blog linked in the op. this is pretty basic stuff, folks, dont you think? i would find it astonishing that the conservative set here swallows this kind of argument and evidence free assertions concerning systematic bias compelling--this in the subjunctive because, well, ustwo is involved with the thread, and i dont ever see much consideration of either quality of evidence or argument in any of his posts. but hey, maybe i just pay too much attention to such trivialities as evidence and argument. 2. like will said above, in a war context there are fake stories floated all the time. by all sides. duh. 3. there is however a problem that this piece does point to, but it has to do with the reliance on wire service stories by a vast range of news outlets that apparently do not check the fact in these wire stories independently. most war marketing systems rely on this sorry state of affairs to get their "messages" across--the us government relies on it, the israel defense ministry relies on it, other groups/governments rely on it, etc etc etc. this has much to do with the logic of vertical integration of media outlets, if you think about it: cuts in staff sizes, the elimination of independent news gathering capabilities in the interest of generating greater profits for the large corporations that dominate newspaper and television--and on the pressure this type of profit-oriented organization places on independent news outlets. it's capitalism in action, kids--the lowest quality that you can get away with that appeals to the greatest number--that driven not by a desire for accuracy, not by any belief that a functional democracy requires good information, but instead by the usual logic of increased shareholder value uber alles. so news is a commodity like any other, and lowering costs is necessarily a good thing for all concerned. this is a fine example of the way capitalism in its present form "floats all boats" aint it---so in the interest of maximizing shareholder profits, we get "news" that is drawn from the hall of mirrors of wire services, repeated without necessarily fact checking--why?--because it's cheaper than having staffs that do the work themselves. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-30-2006, 03:02 PM	#10 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Will: I don't think your point is a threadjack at all. I've said this before, I don't know why anyone is upset to find out that the Hezzbollah are faking news. The only difference between Hezbollah and Israel (or the US for that matter) in the PR war is that Hezbollah's efforts have been pointed out. Make no misake, all war since Gulf War I has had more than a healthy share of media manipulation -- it's essential to a successful war. Essential. Some are just better at hiding their tracks. That all said, I think it sucks that any side would do this. Additionally, if you are blaming the media for not covering this you are barking up the wrong tree. They will cover this when it becomes something they can prove (much like they will cover the 9/11 consiracies when it is something they can confidently prove). I woldn't be surprised to find that there are journalists exploring this angle but it's getting shelved until more proof can be found (i.e. the editors and/or publishers are waiting for more information). __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

08-30-2006, 04:53 PM	#13 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	I agree about the abandonment of the US steel industry. However in the same way we choose to ensure our future in the ways that the steel industry would have required such as the very heavy agricultural subsidies. And I know how fatcats is a term from the trust-busting term. With the monopoly the AP effectively has on information drudging for the mainstream media it reflects very closely. __________________ "Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

08-30-2006, 12:42 PM	#6 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=107199

08-31-2006, 06:49 AM	#17 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I've thought the media was a failure ever since the run up to invading iraq. The media fails every time it quotes dick cheney without pointing out that he is obviously lying, that any third grader could do a google search and find proof that he is lying and that the fact that he continues to make such bold lies points to his deep cynicism concerning the intelligence of the american people(not that americans aren't easily spoon-fed what they want to hear). If you think the media sucks covering foreign wars, you should see how bad they suck covering ones we are directly involved in.

08-31-2006, 08:09 AM	#20 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	ustwo: perhaps you have difficulty reading some of my posts, so let me separate out one of the main points from above: The article in the OP presents nothing like an argument for systematic anti-israel bias. It uses anecdotal evidence to set up arbitrary assertions about systematic bias. It provides no evidence of systematic bias, and therefore provides no proof of systematic bias and makes no coherent argument about it. Do you have difficulty with the (rudimentary) notion that an assertion is not an argument? Or are assertions the same as arguments for you? When you evaluate an argument, is its relation to evidence not an issue? Another way: You seem quite convinced--based seemingly on nothing--that there is some kind of anti-israeli bias in the american press--the claim is preposterous---taking it at all seriously would requires some evidence and actual arguments related to that evidence. Without it, the assertions of systematic bias are not even a joke: they are nothing more than paranoid statements you make because you find them aesthetically appealing. If aesthetic appeal is the basis for your positions, why not simply say as much so I can stop wasting my time trying to figure out whether to take your posts seriously or not. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-31-2006, 11:43 AM	#26 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	A small warhead Host? Honestly? Funny, where's the fire or shapnel damage that would be caused by a rocket? Hell the "rocket" apparently didn't even have enough velocity to hit the floor of the van. Where's the blood from the severed leg? Where's the damage from the explosion... where's the rest of the rocket since it obviously didn't explode? And don't feed me that crap that the rust appeared over 3 days. Even with 70 percent humidity rust does not appear that fast unless it had been left in the ocean. __________________ "Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

08-31-2006, 11:50 AM	#27 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Is it too early for this thread to be moved to paranoia? Haha, just kidding.

08-31-2006, 03:25 PM	#30 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I agree with you Seaver. I think you just need to remember the media isn't monolithic. Some journalist out there is going to "break" this story. It may take a while. In the meantime, realize that this is nothing new. The US mainstream media is lazy. Much of what gets reported comes from press releases. They don't investigate anywhere near what they should (there are exceptions but generally this is common practice). __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

08-31-2006, 08:14 PM	#34 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	If it means anything, I read your posts. BTW, if anyone here has host on ignore, you might as well add me to your list. If you're going to shield yourself from the world, don't do it half-a$$ed.

09-01-2006, 07:33 AM	#40 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	liberals just don't see it. there is no use. bye __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser