Oh Those Wacky London Newspapers

[babylonsister]

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200910050001


Oh Those Wacky London Newspapers

October 05, 2009 2:24 am ET by Oliver Willis


It's a pattern we've seen before and will likely see again. Often during the Clinton presidency, stories embarrassing to the administration - many of them with no basis in reality - were written about in the British press with little to no actual sourcing then highlighted by domestic conservative outlets as if there was some validity to them. This would then infect domestic discourse and prompt reporting from U.S. news outlets about the invented stories. To call this sort of behavior shoddy journalism is almost generous.

Today's example is this story from the London Telegraph, headlined "Barack Obama furious at General Stanley McChrystal speech on Afghanistan". Who does the story cite for its evidence of President Obama's allegedly "furious" state? "{S}ources close to the administration", an "adviser to the administration", "{s}ome commentators" and "critics". Even those anonymous sources discuss differing views on policy, not the supposed events the article's hook relays. No named sources, or even administration sources, support the headline's contention about the President's supposed emotional state.

Predictably conservative bloggers are taking the ball and running down the field.


As did DU.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4089975

[HopeOverFear]

1. I was just about to post that article, too

and decided against it. I'm glad I did.

[babylonsister]

2. I don't understand why people take as gospel what some rags

write when there is absolutely no sourcing. It's basically an opinion piece, but today many 'news' sources have picked up the whiff and are running with it.

[Captain Hilts]

3. I think the President should be pissed. It's as if McC is going around the Prez to make an appeal.

Here's the NYDN's take on this:

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/10/04/2009-10-04_mcchrystals_fullcourt_press_on_afghanistan_is_improper.html

Civilian control of the armed forces is one of the most sacrosanct tenets of American democracy. It assures us that military decision-making will be subordinate to the larger strategic perspective of our nation's elected - and ultimately accountable - leaders.

But the civil-military balance is at risk of being undermined by the recent leak of Gen. Stanley McChrystal's strategic review on Afghanistan. If, as seems likely, the leak emanated from the military - and it does follow a regular pattern of leaking on the issue of troop increases for Afghanistan - it represents a serious breach in civil-military relations.

...

No matter what course Obama adopts on Afghanistan, of perhaps greater concern should be assertive members of the military placing inappropriate political pressure on the President to accede to their wishes.


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/10/04/2009-10-04_mcchrystals_fullcourt_press_on_afghanistan_is_improper.html#ixzz0T4EMDcRj

[babylonsister]

5. The NYDN? You're citing THEM?

:rofl:

Who were their sources, the telegraph? :crazy:

[Captain Hilts]

6. The NYDN is probably the most consistently liberal paper in the US. nt

[NYCGirl]

9. The NY Daily News is a good paper. Perhaps you're thinking of the NY Post? NT

[Buzz Clik]

4. I have noticed over the past month the frequency with which these articles are posted at DU.

It's been interesting to watch.

Thanks for the OP.

K&R

[Clio the Leo]

7. *I* heard he punched McChrystal in the nose.....

.... that, as a matter of fact, he KNEW Chicago was going to lose the Olympics and that whole trip was cover to have a chance to meet face to face with the General. Michelle was a part of it, of course, she was there to hold the General back. And sending her early with a wardrobe of fabulous clothes was all a ruse to throw us off.

That's just what I heard .... I seen it on Maury. :D

They did a pretty good job cleaning him up and his make up applied and putting the bolted down furniture back into place before this staged photo was taken, didn't they? :)

[Phx_Dem]

8. He should be furious at McChrystal.

Thought this doesn't excuse the crappy sourcing from the London Telegraph.

[IndianaGreen]

11. General Zinni has a different perspective on McChrystal

Jones was followed on “Face the Nation” by retired Gen. Anthony Zinni, the former chief of the Central Command. Zinni gave unqualified backing to McChrystal and his proposed troop surge and warned the Obama administration not to delay a decision on US strategy in the region. “But I think we have to be careful how long this goes on,” he said. “It could be seen not only out there in the region but our allies even as the enemy (sic) as being indecisive, unable to make a decision… I just don’t understand why we’re questioning that (McChrystal’s) judgment at this point.”

California Senator Barbara Boxer, who was prominent among Democrats presenting themselves as critics of the Iraq war during the Bush administration, followed Jones on the CNN program. She said that she had supported Obama’s deployment of an additional 21,000 US troops to Afghanistan and indicated she was prepared to support the dispatch of more troops. “We’ve got to finish the business that we started,” she said.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/oct2009/afgh-o05.shtml

[IndianaGreen]

10. It is the height of hypocrisy for an American to refer to the British press as 'wacky'

The British press runs from clearly sensationalist, to shamelessly rightwing to leftwing, and lots in between. BTW, tabloid refers to the print format, not the content.

The US MSM is pure corporate turd disguised as news.

While many of you were scared shitless about Iraq's WMD (as you are now about Iran's WMD), because the MSM told you so, many of us relied on BBC, The Guardian, and The Independent (primarily Robert Fisk), which debunked the MSM lies about WMD just as rapidly as they were reported.

[RepublicanElephant]

12. doesn't the telegraph usually lean to the right? nt