Instapundit posts today on how two stories are playing out in the elite media and in the on-line world. (Aside: I know, I know, it looks incredibly lame to link to Glenn Reynolds’ blog. But hey, the man has already done the heavy lifting on this issue, so why shouldn’t I take advantage? I mean, he’s a public utility, isn’t he?)
To summarize:
The Nick Berg murder story holds all of the top ten slots for searches at Lycos and elsewhere. The elite media, if it ran the story at all, has “moved on” and renewing its obsessive focus on the Abu Ghraib story. This would certainly seem to point up, at a minimum, a disconnect between the elite media and web-savvy info consumers. The kind of disconnect that should have you purging your portfolio of media shares.
The real question is, as always in the blogosphere, what kind of uninformed speculation can I heap onto this occurrence?
First, it certainly seems to support the conclusion that substantial swathes of the elite media are not only opposed to the war in Iraq, they are shaping their publications to justify their opposition and to ensure the political defeat of those who support the war.
Second, it is striking how the elite media’s opposition to the war plays out in ways that undercut the American/coalition side and give aid and comfort to the Islamofascist side. The Islamofascists, of course, want the Abu Ghraib story played up in the West and the Nick Berg murder played down in the West, and this is exactly what the elite media is doing. The phrase “useful idiots” comes to mind, although for the most part “fellow travellers” seems too strong.
For the most part. There are exceptions. I can’t think of a better word for news outlets that peddle obvious fakes and frauds put forth by our enemy’s crudest propagandists. I saw the fake rape pictures a couple of weeks ago, and you would have to be total naif not to see instantly that they are porn – the posing, the production values, the uniforms, the haircuts, the whole thing practically shouts “not candid photos of US servicemen.”
Of some interest is the historical fact that many of Islamofascism’s useful idiots were also Communism’s useful idiots. Make of that what you will.
Finally, it must infuriate the media elite that, despite their most urgent efforts to make Abu Ghraib the logo of the occupation, their best and most sophisticated audience is much more interested in the Nick Berg story. This, I think, bodes well, for it demonstrates the degree to which we set our own priorities and interests, and seek information, independent of those who buy ink by the barrel.
Top down information management is defeated, yet again, by a distributed network.
UPDATE: On the fellow traveller front, we have pretty solid confirmation that the photos of alleged British abuses were faked as well.
I am a little guy, that for a year has gotten 15-30 hits a day. Today I have 900 hits because of the video so you, Glenn and others are exactly right.
So these Islamofascists are both responsible for the encouraging the highly public murder of Nick Berg, and for trying to hush it up? Looks like a contradiction to me.
You seem overly eager to attribute propaganda where other explanations will do.
Frst: the murder was an event, the ongoing Abu Ghraib investigations are a process. You can only keep one event on the front pages for so long, no matter how horrible.
Second: the mass media are squeamish about portraying personalized bloodshed.
Third: Abu Ghraib provides an opportunity to bring low the mighty, namely Bush and Rumsfeld, which is always a good seller. Nick Berg was just an innocent abroad who got killed, there’s nobody to hound into a telegenic resignation. Blame can only be cast upon the already-blameworthy. “Bad guy acts evil” – not much news potential in that.
Julian:
the murder was an event, the ongoing Abu Ghraib investigations are a process.
That doesn’t explain why the images from AG, which have nothing to do with the “process”, have been relentlessly fronted by the media, and why the even more compelling images of Nick Berg were buried.
the mass media are squeamish about portraying personalized bloodshed.
This is their standard excuse for burying pictures of Islamofascism – the Cole, the four mutilated drivers, Nick Berg, Daniel Pearl, etc. “Its all too graphic,” except when its not – the little Palestinian boy shot during a gun battle, the shots of the road to Baghdad at the end fo Gulf War I, various pictures of smashed tanks etc. with burned bodies beside them in Iraq last year, etc. See the pattern? This excuse rings especially hollow after the Globe published anti-American pornography yesterday.
So these Islamofascists are both responsible for encouraging the highly public murder of Nick Berg, and for trying to hush it up?
I didn’t say they were smart. I don’t know what they want, but regardless of their desires, the interesting coincidence is that the story is being played by the elite media in the way that does the most harm to our side, and the least harm to their side.
Blame can only be cast upon the already-blameworthy.
Are you saying that Nick Berg’s murderers are not blameworthy? Or are you saying that the elite media didn’t think Bush was blameworthy right up until AG hit the wires? Either is incredible.
No, I think the pattern here is that the elite media will push what hurts Bush, and bury what would help Bush. Intellectually honesty and impact on the war be damned.
Are you saying that Nick Berg’s murderers are not blameworthy?
No, no, exactly the contrary. Because they are so obviously blameworthy, they have less “scandal potential” than someone in a trusted high office.
“The Nick Berg murder story holds all of the top ten slots for searches at Lycos and elsewhere.”
What does this prove? Who is searching? Are they sickos who love to watch violence? Are they kids? Without evidence as to motive and without demographics, it is hard to say that “… [the] best and most sophisticated audience is much more interested in the Nick Berg story.”
Not really on topic, but could someone tell me just what makes these organisations ‘elite’? I think we need a new word.
They’re not always just “useful idiots”, you know: They’re often on another side. But it’s a third side, not the islamist side. Side 3 may be the most dangerous of all.
USS Clueless has a startling (to me) view of why, and I distilled and adapted some of his stuff, trying to explain why we’re usually in denial about the active complicity of the “Eurosphere” (not the best descriptive word). They need the islamists to win though, and they’re pretty serious about it.
Anyway, pimping for my baby blog. See the link below.
Sam_S
The British pictures were faked, but appear to have been faked by the troops for their own amusement. That doesn’t say much for their idea of fun, but I don’t quite know how it comes under “fellow traveller”.
That sensational pictures were picked up by an incautious tabloid (and what other sort is there?), which was promptly and viciously attacked by all the others (as it would have been even if the pictures were genuine) is an illustration of the normal behaviour of the British yellow press, not a conspiracy of the media elite.
I really don’t understand what the general point that Reynolds is trying to make (and RDC is in accord over). Is it that the mainstream media are ignoring a story that’s somehow more important because it suits their political agenda to do so, but the public really knows better and this is demonstrated by web preferences?
Is it not more plausible that the linear media coverage is driven by one or more of:
1. Qualitative difference. On a rational judgment the Nick Berg murder is actually unimportant. It marks no change in Islamofascist behaviour. They’ve killed many more without videotape.
2. Commercial decision. There is nothing more to say about it. Apart from ghouls who want to see someone’s head sawn off (and who would probably want to do so whoever the sawer and sawee might be), people will become swiftly bored with much time devoted to an essentially quite simple incident that is over. Even ghouls will get more prurient pleasure from contemplating new and different torture than repetition of one beheading and–to them dull–human grief. No news channel wants the bulk of its audience to switch off.
3. Quantitative difference. On the other hand there is more material, continually new material, and the prospect of more, in the torture story.
4. Professional preference. The new torture material is not only literally news, there is also more to find, so it also gives journalists something useful to do.
5. Commercial opportunity. There’s more news to be had for your shareholder’s buck and more different ways of presenting the more complex story. There’s scope for the media to be active not passive. The principals are available for comment, and there are plenty of different angles available. It’s a bigger market space.
6. Future value. The Berg murder is closed. We know who did it. We have a fair idea why. There is nothing we can do about it. On the other hand Congress is able to do, and is doing, something about the torture story, so information and people’s opinions matter.
7. Patriotic duty. Far from being fellow-travelling opposition, covering the torture allegations shows to the world that the US media is not a pawn of the Pentagon. Because it shows something being done about the issue, it potentially mitigates it more effectively than ignoring it. (Would it be better to let the allegations come out, then drop coverage of the investigation? Or to suppress the affair altogether?) It thus can end positively for America. And it certainly matters to America’s standing in the world.
I agree with Julian Morrison. It is not news that Al queda and other groups like killing innocent civilians. The death of Mr Berg *is* news, but the reasons behind it are not. Everyone knows and agrees why it happened, and what should be done about it.
In contrast, the USA carrying out a systematic program of torture, rape and abuse, if it turns out to be true, most definitely *would* be news. Not just the event itself, but why it happened, who authorised it, who should be punished and so on. All those are open questions.
That is the explanation for the relative difference in news coverage. R C Dean’s explanation sounds more like an attempt to spin the facts to suit a political agenda, rather than a dispassionate analysis and explanation of events.
The media had a golden opportunity to compare and contrast what counts as an embarrassing event in one culture (making prisoners wear underwear on their heads) and what makes a heroic jesture of justice (making a prisoner live without a head) in another culture. The media apparently took a different angle entirely.
The fact that people in the west are falling all over themselves trying to be more indignant than anybody else at our brand of “torture” is almost laughable in comtrast with an ACTUAL case of torture proudly engaged in by truely evil people in the Islamic world.
I have seen not one single case of trying gauge the reaction of the “arab street” to this event. My guess would be it illicited the same kind of reaction as 9/11 did: Cheering in the streets of Gaza, the West Bank, Damscus, Riyah, Islamabad, etc.,etc.,etc. I’m sure these same people would want Rumsfeld resignation as well.
As far as the American street (as opposed to teh American mainstream media), I’m yet to encounter anybody that is the least bit outraged by the “torture” that our sldiers have employed. In fact, alot of people take the same attitude I do: If the information gotten by these methods resulted in even one American life being saved, it was worth it. Any administration who wouldn’t do such a thing should be impeached.
OK, DSpears — we understand that in your moral calculus the suffering of an arbitrary number of arbitrarily chosen Iraqi Arabs is not worth one American life. But the “if” is telling. Most advocates for such barbarity tend to skip over that fundamental condition.
How can you be sure that it has saved any American lives? (My guess is that it is at more than likely to have the opposite effect, but we’ll probably never be able to tell.) How sure would you have to be?
While you might personally be up for a peculiar piece of utilitarian calculus, I suspect that the truth might be that the American street is just a mob like any other, and takes a sadistic delight in mauling (if need be by proxy) anyone that represents its fears and fantasies.
Is this a libertarian blog, or a neo-conservative blog for under-educated American half-wits?
If the American street believes what Mr. DSpears suggests then the American Street sucks. The media’s job is to expose Government infringement of liberties, even if the bonehead American street thinks that humiliating or torturing prisoners – whose guilt has not been proven – makes sense. Next they’ll come for you.
The only defence the pro-war posters ( I cannot use neo-con anymore since I am told it is anti-semtic) on this site have given for their goverment prison abuse is that “it is not as bad as the other guys”.
That’s just marvellous. And I assume that if the FBI were to run protection rackets, and torture people who resisted the protection rackets they would be judged as not as bad as the Mafia; and that would be ok then. It would be alright.
Given this level of moral stupidity the government could engage in any type of crimes – upto and including paedophilia – provided it was not as bad as the Bad guys and didn’t get involved in actual beheadings, or go too far.
A libertarian should be concerned with the government engaging in criminality , and not with criminals engaging in criminalty, or terrorists in terror; which is what they do. As for this supposed synchronocity between the beheadings, and the prison torture – the people in prison had nothing to do with the beheadings, nor anything to with Al Queda most likely, and were normal Iraqis – not proved guilty of any criminality yet, and mostly released since. Remember – the people you were to liberate.
So this supposed duality – “they” behead, but we only humiliate “them” is bogus claptrap – unless “they” are all guilty of the actions of Al Queda because they are brown, or Iraqi. And this would be the time to mention that Iraq used to be a secular Republic with no links to Al Queda, and no weapons of mass destruction
This increasingly racist ( and thoroughly statist) nonsense is far from any libertarianism I can understand,
The media’s job is to expose Government infringement of liberties
Noooo, the media’s job is to report the news. Anything else from them is insufferable cheek.
Sincerely,
An Under-Educated American Half-Wit, esq.
As I have posted elsewhere, the core legitimate function of the state is the defense and security of its citizens. There is a defensible, and I believe correct, chain of reasoning that beginning at that point that supports the invasion of Iraq, one that anyone following this debate has encountered and either agrees with or disagrees with.
Saying that an aggressive forward defense following repeated attacks on Americans here and abroad is inherently unlibertarian, though, strikes me as wrong both because it poses as some kind of edict on what libertarians can and cannot think, and because it fundamentally misunderstands the nature and function of the legitimate state.
I have no problem with reporting on Abu Ghraib, but I think the compare and contrast with hte reporting on Islamic atrocities is quite revealing of a number of things not flattering to elite media.
I use the term elite advisedly, both because this is how members of this professional clique see themselves, and because they are quite unabashed elitists.
If the war was wrong, then the opposition to it was right, and the most visible opposition was leftist. If the “leftists” are admitted to be right, they might win elections and our taxes will go up.
We must rape and kill Iraqis to keep marginal tax rates down. See how well it fits into libertarianism?
I too have had the Nick Berg hits avalanche at my blog and at my website, chiefly as a consequence of surfers confusing poor Berg with the entirely unconnnected psychotherpist Aaron Beck on whom I write occasionally. I’d make the point that much of this traffic is not in search of news or information, but the voyeuristic thrill of a snuff movie. While I am of the opinion that Berg’s fate puts Abu Ghraib into perspective, I’m not in favour of ‘elite media’ paying too much attention to consumer demand when that demand is for death on film for its own sake.
But it’s okely-dokely when the ‘elite media’ panders to consumer demand for the voyeuristic thrill of sado-masochistic pornography? Or is the public reading the Abu Graib report for the articles?
Hey Weasel, do you know why the govt lied about having Berg in custody:
Showing sanitised footage of Berg’s execution aids Al Qaeda in my view, as it leaves out the brutality of the act.
If the footage of his execution is gruesome, why show pictures of Berg just prior to his execution? You either show none of it or all of it.
Showing “Edited Highlights” downplays the barbarity, and plays up the Islamofascist’s agenda.
Showing all of the footage may very well turn the stomach’s of Islamofascist apologists.
My guess is the media doesn’t want to stur up “Islamophobia” (of course, Anti-Semitism is fine and dandy).
Besides, who decides what is too graphic for the public to see? Why do journalists have the right to information and pictures which they deem me not fit to see?
The media treats us all like babies, telling us only the things it decides we should know.
BTW The American Feminists (who are in serious trouble, though no mention of this in the media) have still not condemned the pictures from Abu Ghraib; they are morally obligated to condemn the leash photo.
As Elaine Donnelly said, the feminists are secretly very fond of that Lyndie England “walkies” photo.
Mr Weasel
Coming from someone who usually manages to hit the nail on the head every time that previous post of yours was a bit off the mark.
The media’s job is to expose Government infringement of liberties
Noooo, the media’s job is to report the news. Anything else from them is insufferable cheek.
Therefore, according to you, government infringement of liberties is not newsworthy?????
Eamon
The media treats us all like babies, telling us only the things it decides we should know.
The BBC may do that sometimes, and the more usual sorts of state controlled broadcasters do it a lot. But the media in general is a consumer market: as far as it can it tells you what you thinks you want to hear. Newspapers have more scope to do this than broadcasters, because newspapers are less regulated.
However much you carp, watching a network news program is something you when in whole or in part you share its conception of news-value. The news is best tailored to its audiences want to know (rather than what the media, or you, or I, or the readers themselves think they ought to), where it is least constrained by worry about accuracy or any informative mission–down among the supermarket tabloids. If that’s what appeals to the adult mind, then I’ll live with being treated as a baby.
Therefore, according to you, government infringement of liberties is not newsworthy?????
It is profoundly newsworthy. It’s news, therefore it’s their job to report it. As it’s their job to report traffic accidents, lost dogs and the city budget crisis.
Their job is reporting news. Seeing their role as exposing, or educating, or making the world safe for democracy or…anything other than reporting news is how so many of them have gotten so very too-big-for-their-britches.
And I’d have an easier time forgiving them that if they “exposed” with an even hand, no matter who was in power.
“As for this supposed synchronocity between the beheadings, and the prison torture – the people in prison had nothing to do with the beheadings, nor anything to with Al Queda most likely, and were normal Iraqis – not proved guilty of any criminality yet, and mostly released since.”
Based on what facts?
Remember, just for consistency, the so-called “torturers” haven’t been convicted of any crime yet either.
Just curious, what if these people WERE AL-Queda, even the same people who put underwear on Mr.Berg’s head (or removed his head, apparently it’s all the same thing), would that change anything? You are implying that since they weren’t Al Queda (based on what set of facts you do not say) that they shouldn’t have been “tortured” (underwear on heads and the like).
“This increasingly racist ( and thoroughly statist) nonsense is far from any libertarianism I can understand,”
Racist? What race exactly is being discriminated against here, the Islamic race?
Radical Terrorist Islamism is an ideology, not a race. It has nothing to do with genetics, it is about ideas. But I can understand why some people would want to blur that line to make political points.
S.Weasel says: Their job is reporting news. Seeing their role as exposing, or educating, or making the world safe for democracy or…anything other than reporting news is how so many of them have gotten so very too-big-for-their-britches.
That’s silly, how do you think they get the news to report – have it dropped by in a dispatch from the government propaganda office? A major part of the media’s job is to dig out the worms in the “body politic” and expose them to the light.
I’m with S.Weasel. “Exposing to the light” starts with making lists – of facts. Younger self was told that “Readers want to know what to think about (whatever)…”.
Highbrow tosh! Readers want to know what happened; then they (might) want to think about it. If they have no f*** ideas, they might just be ready to be told what to think!
But who want’s to write for people like that?
Re. the debate about what the media “should” report …..
In a free country, newspapers and other media have no “duty” or “responsibility” to report/be silent about anything. It’s their choice to print what they want and it’s our choice to buy their product or not.
Talk of “the duty of the media is to ….” is the surest way to State control and censorship – something which I presume we all wish to avoid.
Cydonia
Cydonia –
I completely agree. I think that the elite media (one of those “know it when you see it” things) is doing a despicable job of reporting on this war, completely consumed as they are with the desire to use any stick to beat George Bush. My consumption of their products has dropped to almost nothing, mostly because the quality is so bad, distorted as it is by their frothing hatred of Bush. I don’t have any desire for government sanctions, though.
That’s silly, how do you think they get the news to report – have it dropped by in a dispatch from the government propaganda office?
Funny you should say that, since the Abu Ghraib story was in fact “dropped in by a dispatch” from Gen. Kimmit. In January, when the investigation was taking place. There was a further press release last month when the Article 32 hearings were held.
But since there were no inflammatory pictures, the media didn’t bother doing much with the story. Until the defense lawyer for one of the accused “dropped in” those nice juicy photographs. The media dug out nothing for this story. All they’re doing is pacing it for maximum damage; that’s the extent of their creative effort, no investigation needed.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the Berg video wasn’t a fake too. It emerged at a classic wag-the-dog moment, just as concern about Lynndie England and her superiors was building in the American media.
Why is Berg wearing Gitmo-style orange fatigues? The guy identified as the murderer has a tin leg in real life. You don’t see blood spurt when Berg’s supposedly decapitated while alive. One of the captors wears a gold ring: forbidden to good Muslims. The tape is full of jump cuts and overdubbing. The al-Qaeda capo identified by US security doesn’t speak in the right accent. Berg is a practising Jew in the telecoms business. He was mysteriously detained both by Iraqi stooge police and by the US military before somehow falling into terrorist hands. I smell CIA or Mossad.
The Gitmo style fatigues would fit into AQ’s propaganda.
The MPEG quality is pretty poor.
As for gold rings and “good Muslims”, these are not “good Muslims” (I’d bet a good few Al Qaeda members drink alcohol).
(BTW I read that Berg was not detained by the US).
Back to the media: The chief requirement for being a journalist is to use the Copy and Paste tool on your Word processor. Most journo’s copy other journo’s stories or copy press releases (witness Sony’s planting of a story about PS2’s being able to affect high tech weaponry; clearly nonsense, yet swallowed by the media).
If journalists see or know something, and decide we should not, they are elitists. That’s the very definition of elitism.