09
Feb
All Roads Lead to Rome (Again)
WERE JOURNALISTS TARGETED IN IRAQ?
MY TESTIMONY FOR THE TRIBUNAL
WHEN FOX VIEWERS ATTACK
A funny thing happened to me as I prepared to leave for Rome today to participate in the citizens-initiated World Tribunal on Iraq session on the role of the media in covering the conflict. Last night I got another summons from the evil empire. I was invited again to appear on the nightly Hannity and Colmes wrestling match on Fox News Channel.
As most readers know, the media war issue is one I have been following with religious intensity, I wrote the book, Embedded, about it and followed up with the film, WMD. I have also written up a storm about even as some jaded reviewers and columnists insist the issue is moribund, over. I can’t tell you how many times I have heard that WMD was released too late even though it was not about the election and deals with a series of ongoing issues.
And yet it keeps coming back, perhaps because the war hasn’t gone away. As I reported in recent days, CNN executive Eason Jordan stirred a hornets nest by telling an off-the-record panel at the World Economic Forum that 12 journalists were killed by the US military in Iraq.
The reaction, to read Howard Kurtz’s account in the Washington Post, was SHOCK and denial by people like Senator Chris Dodd and even Congressman Barney Frank. After a blogger broke the confidentiality of the session, Jordan was besieged with attacks from the right with angry demands for proof. Conservative bloggers went into action by criticizing the rest of the media for not covering the story. Their assumption: Jordan is lying.
As viewers of WMD know, there is a section in the film that asks: “Were Journalists Targeted in Iraq?” It points out that BBC’s Kate Adie was told by the Pentagon that independent journalists would be targeted. It shows how the Al Jazeera office whose coordinates were given to the Pentagon was bombed and its bureau chief Tariq Ayoub was killed. It shows what happened to the Palestine Hotel where two journalists were killed by a tank shell. It interviews one of the journalists who were wounded who asks “why did they target us; what did we do to them?” It reports that press freedom groups and Reuters demanded an investigation that was not forth coming. It concludes with a quote by veteran war correspondent Phillip Knightly, author of “the First Casualty,” a book on the history of censorship in war who says that he believed that occasional shots at media sites are “not accidental.”
I heard about this statement from a friend who was at the panel. I thought that some new information was on the verge of coming out. So I reached out to Jordan who I once worked around at CNN to ask if he could help me get on CNN to discuss and debate the issue. Our PR wizard Gary Kenton wrote to him thusly:
In WMD Danny asks whether independent journalists might have been targeted by the U.S. military, an issue you addressed at Davos, and setting off a firestorm. We wanted to talk to you about two things:
1) We are uncomfortable, as we assume you are, talking about the possible targeting of reporters, but it is too important to ignore. Allowing it to “go away” seems like an abdication of journalistic responsibility. Would you consider scheduling some on-air discussion on some program? The clip from the film deals with the Palestine Hotel incident with original interviews
2) WMD is currently in theaters in New York and elsewhere. As you know, it is difficult to make a documentary such as this, no less get a theatrical release. Any assistance you might provide in getting Danny interviews on any CNN outlets would be greatly appreciated. He’s a great interview and, as you know, he was part of the start-up team in Atlanta “back in the day” before he went on to ABC News.
Eason, seemingly shaken by all the heat coming down on him for discussing something that many journalists and press freedom groups like the International Federation of Journalists has been discussing, began to withdraw from the controversy he stirred. He wrote back to Gary:
I was not as clear as I should have been during the Davos panel discussion. I was trying to make a distinction between journalists killed being the victims of collateral damage and journalists being killed under different circumstances. No doubt most of the 63 journalist deaths in Iraq fall outside the collateral damage category. I have never felt and never intended to suggest, however, that anyone in the U.S. military meant to kill anyone known to be a journalist. As you will see in the Howard Kurtz Washington Post today, my comments were controversial. While I am pleased the spotlight is on the issue of journalist safety in Iraq, I intend to let others do the talking for a while after I gave several interviews and statements on the subject. I will let my colleagues know of Danny’s availability as an on-air guest. I thank you and wish you well.
Eason.
I was hoping CNN might call and we reached out to Lou Dobbs and Aaron Brown to no avail.
I guess CNN was not interested in taking on this fight.
But Fox News was. Fox is always at war with CNN which it brands as a liberal network, a label CNN does not want or like. And so Fox scheduled a segment and asked if I was interested. When I told them I had a film documenting the attack on the Palestine Hotel, they were doubly interested. Frozen out by CNN and most TV networks who we bombarded with Info on WMD (save Court TV) I entered the Fox arena the way Christians were fed to the lions.
Needless to say Fox wanted to trash Eason, not the killing of journalists. They showed a very clip of my film with the sound muted but I did get to make a few points and plug the movie the best I could expect in circumstances of hostility..
Sean Hannity took some predictable whacks along with Brent Bozell but I held my ground and was still standing at the bell. I would score the round as a draw.
It was hard to shift the conversation back to the real issue — the killing of journalists and not what Eason Jordan said or didn’t say — no one there seemed to know or really care in what was really a bash CNN exercise. You can read what some Fox regulars thought of my performance in today’s letters section.
Danny;
February 9th, 2005 at 8:47 amYour self-serving comments further erode your credibility. Brent and Sean and Alan asked for facts, evidence, names, quotes… to support the charge of “military targeting of journalists” - to which you only replied with some incidents of journalists deaths, which may have been, in Jordan’s words, “collateral damage.” You didn’t even quote Jordan fully - “I have never felt and never intended to suggest, however, that anyone in the U.S. military meant to kill anyone known to be a journalist.”
The difference between journalism and propaganda, as you should know but seem to have forgotten, is FACTS. Lacking any FACTS in support of the “Targetiing” theory, you simply trumpet a discredited propaganda line.
What does CNN ombudsman or public editor have to say about the initial statement and subsequent back-tracking. Shouldn’t he/she be interested in ascertaining what was actually said to the panel at the World Economic Forum? Let’s start at the beginning and work forward.
February 9th, 2005 at 8:52 amWMD: Weapons of Mass Deception
February 9th, 2005 at 9:25 am2004 - USA - Special Interest
Reviewed by Ned Martel
REVIEW SUMMARY
Schlubby media gadfly Danny Schechter mimics Michael Moore in his aims but not his showmanship, in this messy broadside against network news divisions. The former “20/20″ producer attacks his old colleagues for Iraqi war coverage that appears, to him, to have been shaped by White House mindbenders and misdirected away from larger, more important themes. The documentary takes on too many targets and irritates the eye with a frenetic rehash of numerous news clips, circa 2003. Still, it’s useful to be reminded how rah-rah cable news anchors and embedded journalists could be when presenting the day-to-day lives of soldiers. Mr. Schechter is hardly as vain or as glib as Mr. Moore, but he is also not as entertaining or as focused. Mr. Schechter’s final conspiracy theories are thinly supported, as he accuses the networks as softening coverage to advance the deregulatory goals of corporate parents. — Ned Martel, The New York Times
Thanks — it’s b.s.
We attack the Times; they discredit us
The review is typical avoidance, does not state what the film says. Implies I did the film because of Moore, to imitate him. Not true.
I’ve been making films since 1968 (well before MM); news dissecting in my shlubby way since 1970… sorry that doesn’t fly.
So Cathe what’s the point –I am not in GQ.
The Times hates the film.
In December they ran a positive profile of me which the reviewer didn’t read. The same day the Buffalo News gave it 4 stars
Have you seen it?
DS
**********
To Bob (comment #1):
They asked for FACTs and then gave me no time to discuss the issue because what they were doing was trashing CNN — There are no shortage of facts — see all the press freedom group reports… facts require context to be made sense of–not sound bites
I gave them a clip of my film on the very incident — they only played a few seconds without sound… What was that about?
When I discussed the killing of Tareq Ayoub, Brent Bozell said he doesn’t give a shit about Al Jazeera. Huh? Aman was killed. His office was a bombed. Terry Lloyd and crew identified themselves. They were shot.
When I cited Reuters request for an independent investigation, it was ignored…You ignore it in our letter
You don’t want facts Bob, be honest, you want your prejudices validated.
Hannity and Colmes is not about FACTS; its about opinion and attitude… Demanding Facts and then not allowing you to make a case is a debater’s trick, not serious
And you know it!
DS
PS: When they fling it, I fling it back
PPS: here is the BBC view: http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2005/02/07/samb_esn.html
PPPS: What makes me so SELF SERVING?– I work for a small company with meager wages — I don’t make the big bucks of the Murdoch boys.
Bob: There’s an old blues song that goes “before you accuse me, take a look at yourself.”
February 9th, 2005 at 11:48 amIt’s my feeling politically enlightened thinkers such as yourself shouldn’t bother appearing on Fox. About ten days ago I accidentally caught Matt Rothschild of Progressive Magazine being “interviewed” by Bill O’Liar. O’Mendacity would ask a question and give Rothschild all of about ten or twelve words to anser before interrupting him and cutting him off. As I subsequently wrote to Rothschild, why bother? Liberals and progressives ought to boycott such drivel and be vocal about the reasons why. Indeed, I have just been in communication with Kurt of the excellent blog kurtnimmo.com, who just yesterday refused an interview about Ward Churchill on MSNBC on similar grounds.
February 9th, 2005 at 11:59 amGlad to have you back, Boss. You take good care, stay well and don’t go pinching any more nerves. Meantime, keep on bloggin’ and NEVER let those blighters up off the mat!
February 9th, 2005 at 1:11 pmJust a little comment on your ‘Journalists targeted in Iraq’ piece. I happen to live in Spain, as you know, and one of the people killed in the Palestine Hotel was Spanish as I assume you also know.
When this happened I was watching Spanish TV and it was patently obvious that this was a purposeful act. No doubt about it. The tank that fired on the hotel had been sitting quietly across the river from the hotel for about an hour where the Spanish cameraman had filmed it a number of times. Then, all of a sudden, the gun swivelled and pointed directly at them and a single shot was fired. The last piece of film the cameraman made was of the muzzle blast from the round that killed him. HORRIBLE!!!
His family, by the way, have just received a medal from the Spanish government for his actions. Along with the families of other journalists killed around the world. They are still trying to get an honest investigation into what happened as it is not often a mother can and has watched her son murdered on live TV.
Have a good trip.
February 9th, 2005 at 1:12 pmI have never in my life seen such things going on in Washington as I do now. The Bush administration has completely closed doors and opened others for the sake of money and power.
February 9th, 2005 at 3:06 pmI wonder how much Fox is paid for pampering the Bushes?
America and other countries are being trashed by the Bush administration. I’m astonished as to the way some American people are blinded by him.
We do not have a free press in the U.S. only those like you and other independant news get the truth out. The only thing is all of you truth tellers pay a high price.
I don’t beleive anything that Bush or his cronies say.
Donna
To put this mildly…your nothing but a 2 bit Michael Moore want to be/never be.How many times did you beg the viewing audiance “go see MY movie” on Fox?
February 9th, 2005 at 4:24 pmHeres a tip: gain another 200 LBS,get scruffyer,and don a leather jacket and a baseball cap.You might sell a ticket or two because people will mistake you for Moore when your hawking your next flick on Fox.
And by the way, al-jerk-zera isnt a real news agency,they are just a terrorist propaganda machine,every one knows this.No one gives a damn if a battalion of Abrams tanks roll through the main studio destroying it,and its terrorist “journalists”. Try sticking up for America, instead of being hatefull towards it.Sticking up for terrorists,and crying pitty for them will only make you look stupid in the end.
I am constantly amazed at the bad manners of the FOX watchers. I guess they must think they are cute, or something. The FOX brainwashing really works. Critical thinking must no longer being taught in schools, even in the voucher schools that the corporate media says are better than public schools. Privatizing is just a way to protect some “business” from citizen oversight. I appreciate, though, that there is a fair and balanced airing of the different sides here.
Journalizm is a valued service. True, some journalists do put themselves into dangerous situations. Real journalists are driven to find out what is really happening. It is always dangerous to tell the unvarnished truth in clear and un-decorated language. I have checked into media around the world as much as possible, and our US media looks very statish.[Meaning government approved] There is even more open reporting on the international CNN than there is in US CNN, and that to me is very telling.
And for someone to say that any news media or journalists should be killed is extremely chilling. When we start saying that people who report something we don’t agree with should be killed, we show savage callousness and our ignorance of the very foundation upon which our country is supposed to be founded.
February 9th, 2005 at 7:30 pmTurning a Critical Lens on Television News
By NED MARTEL
It seems that the media gadfly Danny Schechter took one look at “Fahrenheit 9/11″ and “Roger and Me” and thought to himself, “I can do that.” His target would not be President Bush or the former General Motors C.E.O. Roger Smith or any supercilious emperor. Instead the self-anointed “News Dissector” went after his former colleagues in television news. Eventually, Mr. Schechter takes aim at all mainstream news deliverers, who package reporting in this “post-journalism” era, as he calls it.
Unfortunately, his uneven, unpolished documentary, “WMD: Weapons of Mass Deception,” takes on far too many antagonists. It’s a tired but true media criticism point that broadcast news favors sound bites and crams too few points in too few minutes. A former ABC producer at “20/20,” Mr. Schechter revels in his autonomy and crams too many points in too many minutes.
The film is mainly a long montage of outtakes from news reports of the past two years. Mr. Schechter postulates that after the Sept. 11 attacks, White House mindbenders used television news to rally a traumatized populace behind a tenuously related regime-change plan in Iraq. His spliced-together snippets give the queasy feeling that you’re watching the news with an overcaffeinated channel changer.
Mr. Schechter’s own scenes show his shortcomings as a provocative stalker. He ghosts an aggrieved but accommodating Tom Brokaw, then the NBC “Nightly News” anchor, at a few gatherings. He travels to a media conference in Dubai to get an earful about how journalists felt cloistered in Baghdad hotels and how they were even fired on deliberately by American tanks. Before Mr. Schechter’s own on-air appearance on Fox News, he bum-rushes such easy targets as the hair and makeup artists backstage about whether they even watch that network.
Mr. Schechter is hardly as vain or as glib as Michael Moore, but he is also not as entertaining or as focused. In fact, he denounces showmanship as part of his eulogy for some journalistic heyday in which he used to play a part. He embraces a startled Archbishop Desmond Tutu at a peace rally, and there’s a suggestion that the two had met in past media moments and that his sense of journalism includes fandom.
A nostalgic insider turned outsider can still offer insights, however, and the most useful is that cable news outlets were ludicrously rah-rah during the invasion of Iraq and that embedded reporters felt a credibility-damaging kinship with soldiers. The film reruns some old scenes of retired generals acting out John Madden fantasies while tracing anticipated troop movements across electronic screens.
In another snippet, Fox’s David Asman gets so intimate with the troops that he calls for a limited demonstration of how one soldier manages to defecate in the desert. After his embedded stint, the Fox News correspondent Greg Kelly says, “We got to know these soldiers and we wanted them to be successful.” After her own tour in Iraq, Gwendolen Cates of People magazine recalls her in-the-field anxieties: “How will I be able to handle it if one of my soldiers dies?”
Not all journalists are so malleable, and most are anxious about drawing the attention ofsatirists like Jon Stewart and town criers like Jim Romenesko. As an obsessive insider, Mr. Schechter deserves credit for revealing that networks bribed Iraqi officials for access while in Baghdad. He also usefully captures the careerism that drives on-air reporters to place themselves at the center of any explosive story. The film convincingly notes how war protesters were measured in number and in decibles, and yet rarely in the accuracy of their arguments. And Mr. Schechter explains how ratings pressures and orchestrated accusations of bias can lead to defanged dispatches from the field.
Mr. Schechter’s final conspiracy theories are thinly supported, as he accuses the networks of softening coverage to advance the deregulatory goals of corporate parents. He asserts that powerful media leaders identify with powerful government leaders. Then as evidence, the film quotes the CBS anchor Dan Rather offering “the benefit of any doubt” to the White House and the Pentagon, just after Sept. 11, 2001, although that was obviously not the entire history of Mr. Rather’s relationship with the Bushes.
Through such dissections, Mr. Schechter could have been performing exploratory surgery, but he leaves behind a messy evisceration.
You are welcome. Please do not curse. I have seen this film. I never watch Faux news.
February 9th, 2005 at 9:14 pmYou are an angry man.
[url=http://idisk.mac.com/dchuvi/Public/southwest-airline-plane.html]southwest airline plane[/url]
March 20th, 2007 at 11:27 pm[url=http://idisk.mac.com/dchuvi/Public/southwest-airline-schedule.html]southwest airline schedule[/url]