The need to read

[epeemike81]

I'm so tired of the media in this country playing soundbites and not debunking or following up on them!

Yesterday, in response to allegations of widespread torture of prisoners in military custody, Rumsfeld repeated the administration's claim that there have been 9 investigations and none of them have found a systematic or systemic problem. Well, I haven't read all nine, but the VERY FIRST ONE by Gen. Antonio Taguba DID say the problem was systemic. The administration is banking on the media NOT calling them on their lies and the American public not reading the reports.

People need to start reading primary sources, especially given the jingoistic nature of the mainstream and right wing media in this country. Watching, listening to, and reading most "news" in this country, one now gets at best a simple replay of the administration's views, and at worst propagandistic. At one time, it would have been considered a violation of journalistic ethics to put a soundbite on the air without at least checking those facts which are readily available.

Especially in light of this inadequate coverage by the media, I feel people MUST start taking it upon themselves to read reports such as the Taguba report. Learning about current events by listening to government soundbites is like learning about Nazi Germany by reading only Nazi propaganda. Nazi probaganda is an important source, but you MUST read other sources as well, especially primary sources. (Note: the fact that I feel this administration is about as propagandistic and controlling as the Nazis does NOT mean I'm suggesting they're going to commit mass genocide. please try to rise above the urge to claim that I'm "calling them nazis")

Agree? Disagree? If you agree, what do you think it would take to get Americans to do this?

-m

[Soldier]

Makes sense to me. It frequently amazes me what nonsense people can get away with because nobody bothers to check their source.

[oiuyt]

What? But I thought the media has a massive liberal bias. That's what I keep hearing on the radio anyway... :)

-B :)

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

What? But I thought the media has a massive liberal bias. That's what I keep hearing on the radio anyway...

-B

Would that be the liberally biased radio? Or is radio not considered "the media"?

Funny how despite the massive liberality there seems no countervailing voice to Coulter/O'Reilly/Limbaugh et al...

[keith]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

Funny how despite the massive liberality there seems no countervailing voice to Coulter/O'Reilly/Limbaugh et al...

yes, but they are liberals aren't they?

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by keith

yes, but they are liberals aren't they?

they must be. they're in the media.

-m

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

the VERY FIRST ONE by Gen. Antonio Taguba DID say the problem was systemic.

OK...I just looked at the "Conclusions" segment of the report from your link. I did not see the word "systemic", or any synonym of it. I did not in fact see any wording saying what you say it says. Can you point out just where this damning indictment occurs?

[oiuyt]

Perhaps that's his point... claim that reading the primary sources will say X and then rely on the fact that we're not going to.

Damn, now I need to go actually read the report to figure out which it is.

-B :)
*who now WISHES that that had been epeemike's intent, despite believing that it is extremely unlikely...*

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

OK...I just looked at the "Conclusions" segment of the report from your link. I did not see the word "systemic", or any synonym of it. I did not in fact see any wording saying what you say it says. Can you point out just where this damning indictment occurs?

Doing a quick search of the document, I found this piece:

REGARDING PART ONE OF THE INVESTIGATION, I MAKE THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC FINDINGS OF FACT:
5. (S) That between October and December 2003, at the Abu Ghraib Confinement Facility (BCCF), numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses were inflicted on several detainees. This systemic and illegal abuse of detainees was intentionally perpetrated by several members of the military police guard force (372nd Military Police Company, 320th Military Police Battalion, 800th MP Brigade), in Tier (section) 1-A of the Abu Ghraib Prison (BCCF). The allegations of abuse were substantiated by detailed witness statements (ANNEX 26) and the discovery of extremely graphic photographic evidence. Due to the extremely sensitive nature of these photographs and videos, the ongoing CID investigation, and the potential for the criminal prosecution of several suspects, the photographic evidence is not included in the body of my investigation. The pictures and videos are available from the Criminal Investigative Command and the CTJF-7 prosecution team. In addition to the aforementioned crimes, there were also abuses committed by members of the 325th MI Battalion, 205th MI Brigade, and Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center (JIDC). Specifically, on 24 November 2003, SPC Luciana Spencer, 205th MI Brigade, sought to degrade a detainee by having him strip and returned to cell naked. (ANNEXES 26 and 53)

The word systemic appears numerous times throughout the entire document, but not always referencing this particular issue. Sometime it refers to the allegations of a systemic problem, and other time it refers to lack of organization.

[oiuyt]

Just so other people know what the report says without having to bother go reading it (heh, assuming you trust what I report about my findings), here are a couple of quotes from it:

"LTG Sanchez cited recent reports of detainee abuse, escapes from confinement facilities, and accountability lapses, which indicated systemic problems within the brigade and suggested a lack of clear standards, proficiency, and leadership."

From the background section of the report, and isn't a finding of the report.

"1. (U) The objective of MG Ryder's Team was to observe
detention and prison operations, identify potential
systemic and human rights issues, and provide near-term,
mid-term, and long-term recommendations to improve CJTF-7
operations and transition of the Iraqi prison system from
US military control/oversight to the Coalition
Provisional Authority and eventually to the Iraqi
Government."

Mentions what Gen. Ryder was tasked with looking at, isn't a finding of this report.

"2. (U) Unfortunately, many of the systemic problems that
surfaced during MG Ryder's Team's assessment are the very
same issues that are the subject of this investigation.
In fact, many of the abuses suffered by detainees
occurred during, or near to, the time of that assessment.
As will be pointed out in detail in subsequent portions
of this report, I disagree with the conclusion of MG
Ryder's Team in one critical aspect, that being its
conclusion that the 800th MP Brigade had not been asked
to change its facility procedures to set the conditions
for MI interviews. While clearly the 800th MP Brigade
and its commanders were not tasked to set conditions for
detainees for subsequent MI interrogations, it is obvious
from a review of comprehensive CID interviews of suspects
and witnesses that this was done at lower levels."

Ah, this one certainly seems to say that Taguba found systemic problems.

"5. (S) That between October and December 2003, at the Abu Ghraib Confinement Facility (BCCF), numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses were inflicted on several detainees. This systemic and illegal abuse of detainees was intentionally perpetrated by several members of the military police guard force (372nd Military Police Company, 320th Military Police Battalion, 800th MP Brigade), in Tier (section) 1-A of the Abu Ghraib Prison (BCCF)."

This is from the findings of fact section of the Taguba report and certain says that Taguba found systemic problems.

In short there are several references to systemic abuses. Of these some are merely describing what various examiners were looking for. The last two that I cite actually are examples of what the author describes as systemic abuse. That said, it's not obvious that the report actually says that these weren't incidents caused by a few individuals (in fact, the last quoted bit, which is from the findings of fact, while calling the abuses systemic also mentions that they were perpetuated by "several members" of the guard force, which doesn't fit my definition of systemic or systematic.

Of interesting note, the force in question did not receive "Internment/Resettlement (I/R) and corrections specific
training during their mobilization period" (according the the Taguba report, according to the Ryder report).

So you could make the argument that all the report discovered was problems with this one unit (or even with select members of this one unit). Of course that's all it was looking at. No report that doesn't look at the entire organization can possibly draw reliable conclusions about how things are done throughout the organization as a whole. If standard training methods were involved then you might be able to make an argument that most of the organization likely follows their proceedures, but in this case it appears that very few units actually do receive the specialized training that would apply, and that the unit that was involved in the abuses in specific did not receive such training.

-B :)

[Inquartata]

Thanks, guys, for the finds. So, Epeemike's initial claim is substantiated: the claim of 'systemic' was indeed made by one report, in contravention of Administration claims to the contrary. ( Though it's possible that this report wasn't one of the 9 to which Rumsfeld was referring...which might make his statement accurate, if highly dissimulative. )

OTOH, it's also the case that there seems to be some whimsy involved in the way 'systemic' is being used in the report. "Several individuals", indeed. Even a brigade does not necessarily indict any 'system' larger than itself...

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Thanks, guys, for the finds. So, Epeemike's initial claim is substantiated: the claim of 'systemic' was indeed made by one report, in contravention of Administration claims to the contrary. ( Though it's possible that this report wasn't one of the 9 to which Rumsfeld was referring...which might make his statement accurate, if highly dissimulative. )

Rumsfeld made a claim of "9 or 10" major investigations. including Taguba, there are a TOTAL of 9. it was certainly one of those he was referencing.

Remember, btw, that this is not necessarily the only report which found systemic problems, but rather is the one I've read, and thus the one I can cite. the others well may, too (though, if I remember correctly, at least one of the other reports was seen by many as a Pentagon whitewash, and I assume THAT one did NOT find systemic problems.

-m

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

I'm so tired of the media in this country playing soundbites and not debunking or following up on them!

Especially in light of this inadequate coverage by the media, I feel people MUST start taking it upon themselves to read reports such as the Taguba report. Learning about current events by listening to government soundbites is like learning about Nazi Germany by reading only Nazi propaganda. Nazi probaganda is an important source, but you MUST read other sources as well, especially primary sources. (Note: the fact that I feel this administration is about as propagandistic and controlling as the Nazis does NOT mean I'm suggesting they're going to commit mass genocide. please try to rise above the urge to claim that I'm "calling them nazis")

Agree? Disagree? If you agree, what do you think it would take to get Americans to do this?

-m

I agree. Yesterday I hopped in the car and on the radio was a caller who was discussing the Schiavo case. I found myself wondering where on earth this caller had received the information he was quoting and presenting as the ONLY TRUTH in the Schiavo case. He was citing information I hadn't heard before - and making quite a case for it too. Then at the end of his tirade he impored others to read the facts he knew in this case and join him in the fight for truth... the facts that have been ignored and pushed aside by the demon liberals (and the shamefully confused conservatives who are siding with them) although they identified the truths of her condition, the prejudice of the judges, and the incompetence of the doctors, because he learned these facts when he heard Sean Hannity state them as FACTS on his radio show!

Really, where did journalism go after Watergate? What happened to asking questions of the person you are interviewing, and then asking the question again and again until you get the answer instead of the soundbite? Does anyone have fact checkers on staff anymore? Do any reporters/journalists actually prepare themselves before an interview to ensure they walk out of the conference with the truth to publish?

[esskreemr]

When there is a deliberate attempt to put up smoke screens, to diseminate misleading information, to hide the true information.

http://motherjones.org/news/dailymoj...ictionary.html

I think the media has become "soundbitish". The news channels seem more interested in having blow-hard pundits spewing rhetoric than chasing the true story. Investigative reporting has been replaced by the Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannity's each proclaiming to have the real story and parading a line of "experts" across the screen who support their opinionated bloviations.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

When there is a deliberate attempt to put up smoke screens, to diseminate misleading information, to hide the true information.

http://motherjones.org/news/dailymoj...ictionary.html

I think the media has become "soundbitish". The news channels seem more interested in having blow-hard pundits spewing rhetoric than chasing the true story. Investigative reporting has been replaced by the Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannity's each proclaiming to have the real story and parading a line of "experts" across the screen who support their opinionated bloviations.

What you acknowledge here is that the media has become propagandistic. Tell me why, please, I can't blame them for that? There have ALWAYS been attempts by authority at deliberate smokescreens. in past, though, investigative journalism has made it harder to get away with such (e.g., watergate). Now, the "mainstream media" is at the very least ineffective, and arguably complicit. When the administration says something which is DEMONSTRABLY FALSE (easily, at that) and the stations air it without pointing out the factual error, it IS the media's fault. This, clearly, doesn't alleviate blame on the administration, which (as you're all aware) I blame for a great many things.

-m

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

Tell me why, please, I can't blame them for that? There have ALWAYS been attempts by authority at deliberate smokescreens. in past, though, investigative journalism has made it harder to get away with such (e.g., watergate). Now, the "mainstream media" is at the very least ineffective, and arguably complicit. When the administration says something which is DEMONSTRABLY FALSE (easily, at that) and the stations air it without pointing out the factual error, it IS the media's fault. This, clearly, doesn't alleviate blame on the administration, which (as you're all aware) I blame for a great many things.

-m

You have to ask yourself are they pandering to the simplistic needs of an audience that wants everything in soundbites and videobites. I agree with your point, essentially, however, if the audience is congnizant and educated enough to call them on these issues, would it continue? I feel the blame can be spread out. Communication takes 3 things: 1) sender 2) message 3) reciever. This is not to say that a self-serving media is not part of the problem, it is more to say that a system of information dissemination is in place and it can be argued that it is broken.

To show you that I agree in part with your points, take a look here:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200503220005

It shows how information can be manipulated to mislead.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

What you acknowledge here is that the media has become propagandistic.

Yeah, really. Why, oh why, can't we get back to the days of a hundred years ago when such paragons of journalistic virtue as Joseph Pulitzer (heard of the prize he endowed?) and William Randolph Hearst were responsible for what was reported?

-B :)

[Soldier]

Well, that settles it. Time to set up FNN, Fencing.Net News. Jeff and Inq can do the Hannity/Colmes thing. jBirch and I will debate military-related matters. DFP can do the weather. And for ratings, we'll just drag ReverseLunge onscreen and one lucky viewer each day gets to beat him with a stick.