Welcome to Israel Rules!

Powered by WebAds

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

We Are The New Gate Keepers

From Little Green Footballs to the Joe Shmoe blog of Greetings From The French Hill, we have become the new gate keepers and watch dogs of the main stream media. We are tehe new generation of big brother of the media world. I was watching a movie this morning, called, "Shattered Glass". It was based on the true story of a news reporter for the New Republic that had "cooked" or faked every story he wrote for a year and a half without getting caught. He had exploited the loop-hole in journalism's fact checking precedure by handing all of his notes as the sole sources to verify his stories.

This past summer's war in Lebanon has drastically exposed the bias and irresponsible behavior that is going on within the media. From the Fauxtography scandals to the false reporting of death tolls based solely on unrepudiated sources, the blogosphere, a world composed of regular every-day people writing as hobby and not for a paycheck, has exposed the dark side of the MSM. We all know it started with Charles, at Little Green Footballs, exposing Dan Rather's 60 Minutes false reporting of alleged documents proving that President Bush skirted his National Guard duties. But, obviously, it didn't start there. Before that, G-d only knows how many botched or false reporting has been going on unchecked within the MSM. READ THE REST...

I believe that the self-policing strategy used by the media's upper echelon has caused the current situation. The media is given an awesome responsibility of reporting the news and world events to the public, and because "mistakes" were corrected from within, it is only logical that reporting the news, unchecked, would lead to reporting the news as they saw it. The desire for ratings and Nielson points drove he stories, not the truth. And, who cares, right? If they make a mistake, who's going to know about it? They became almost above the law. Media giants like the New York Times still believe that they have this almost super-natural status in the fact that they see no problem with publicizing classified information that could compromise national security, because as they see it, as long as they see it as fitting within the "public has the right to know" category, they can get away with printing anything. The media that believes it is the checks of the corporate and political world used to have no-one that checked and balanced them. As we all know, government checks and balances exist for a reason. It is so no one political insitution becomes above the law and beyond reproach. The Senate does not govern itself, etc.

This has not been the case with the media until now. I think this has gotten the MSM's panties all in a bunch. Even-though, polls have repeatedly shown that more and more people no longer trust traditional media sources like the New York Times or CBS, the media is do nothing to correct this problem. As more people turn to blogs to get the "real" news, the media seems to be trying to become more insular. I believe this is why the MSM has gone on a fully blown attack agains the new media watch-dogs, the new Internal Affairs Division of the MSM, US. France is suing a media watch dog for publishing opinions and alternative sources that show that their reporting of the Muhammad Al-Dura shooting, the 12 year old boy killed at the Netzarim check-point in Gaza at the start of the second Intifida in 2000, was suspicious at best, and a complete hoax, at worst. The London newspaper, "The Guardian", has gone on an all out offensive against Zombie Time's thorough analysis that exposed that their article accusing Israel of deliberately bombing a Lebanese Red Cross ambulance was a complete sham. "The Guardian" has attempted to discredit Zombie's integrity and has stated repeatedly that their story was found to be the truth and had thoroughly checked for authenticity.

OK, look, this movie's reporter got caught lying about computer hackers that were being paid millions to be security consultants of the very companies that they had hacked. That doesn't really effect any-body's life. However, in today's world of 24 hour cable news and satellite hook-ups from any-where in the world, the media has influenced world policy and opinion. In their attempt to capture the "juiciest" footage and stories in regions where their reporters don't know the local culture and language, they hire any local Joe Shmoe, give him a camera and send him on his way. Many times, these people are supporters, collaborators, or sympathizers with the terrorist groups that are being fought against. That's how they get the best footage and pictures, and the media companies don't say a word and look the other way.

But, WE don't. Evidence shows that Muhammad Al-Dura was most likely shot and killed by PALESTINIAN GUN-MEN, not Israelis. Israel was not responsible for the death of 8 family members that were kileld by land mines planted by HAMAS this past summer on a Gaza beach. Pictures are more frequently being framed, in Israel and in Iraq. No Korans were flushed down toilets in Guantanimo Bay, by American soldiers. The media's desire to print a the "good" story has influenced hatred.

The media is now livid at the fact that Jos Shmoe blogger has become the MSM's fact checkers. This past summer, especially, we bloggers have uncovered the duplicity and immoral and severly biased behavior and policies at the media agencies sworn to give us the truth. Yes, Big Brother is watching. But, we are Big Brother, and we are watching the watchers.

This is a irreversible process unless the media realizes that they are going to be held accountable for their fallacies. We have become the checks and balances of the media. And, we are not going away.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


At 5:39 PM, Blogger Gert said...

I would certainly encourage independent scrutiny of the Media by independents, no question about it. Bu there are some deep flaws in the idea that independent bloggers can somehow replace mainstream professional (paid) journalism.

Firstly, to report on many events around the world, you need eyeballs on the ground, something hardly any blogger can ever achieve. Neither you nor me were there when, say, the ambulance incident took place: we need to rely on external sources; and the choice of these sources is something that cannot be done completely objectively.

Secondly, it presupposes that bloggers are completely unbiased: that's complete nonsense; everyone is biased to some extent, so are you and me. Without interpretation nothing has meaning.

Thirdly, whilst the MSM have recently been dealt a few blows, in terms of having been found out with some instances of photo-fabrication and other incidents, it's unfair and very biased to now simply throw away the child with the bathwater. The fact remains that the vast majority of journalists are hardworking, ethical people who try their hardest and darnest to maintain objectivity, whilst not entirely achieving that lofty but almost impossible goal.

As regards, bloggers, the idea that they are the "new media" is something that went round the bloggosphere like wildfire and snowballed into yet another myth: the "objective blogger warrior cum truth-seeker"

Look at LGF: they're unbiased??? LGF have jumped on the Islamophobia mania bandwagon sooner that I could say "9/11", that actually makes them very, very biased indeed...

At 4:24 PM, Blogger Olah Chadasha said...

gert, you make some good points if your suppositions are correct, and they are NOT. Point by point:

1) The reporters that are going to these battlefields in the Middle East and other third world war zones are not actually "on the ground". It's too dangerous. Therefore, they instead use locals to do the hard-hitting shooting for them (pun intended). There are a few problems with this system. Firstly, it is natoriously known that the reporters that go to these regions, especially one as volatile and complex as the Middle East have no idea or understanding of the local history, culture, or problems. Some of which date back centuries. They don't speak the language, either, so they must rely on local interpreters to not only translate interviews and scenes but to also be as objective and honest as the reporter is supposed to be. Because the reporters do not have any of the area that they're reporting, they report the news in neat and concise packages, making the dynamics of the story "plot", and I use that word deliberately, easy and simple for the reader to understand. Coupling this with using locals as the focal point of the work complicates matters further. These reporters have no idea or clue who they're hiring. What are their loyalties? Do they associate with a local terrorist organization? Whose side are they on? Are they exploiting US, the reporters, for propanda purposes? ETC. You have camera-men and photo-"journalists" out there with their own agendas, and because the various news agencies are in more competition than ever to get the story first, they play the terrorist media propoganda game, willingly. As can be seen in Israel, in Iraq, Iran, etc. The "external" sources are unreliable. In the ambulance "incident", the reporters ADMITTED that they relied solely on the eye wittness accounts taken by the "local camera-man, which again plays into the fact that the reporters have no clue of any history or political dyanmics of the region or area they're reporting on. The entire region of southern Lebanon is a recongnized and renowned state-within-a-state, controlled and dominated by Hezbollah. You do not live in south Lebanon if you are not part of Hezbollah, or loyal to Hezbollah, or simply intimidated into supporting Hezbollah because you're afraid to lose your home and your life. Regardless, you will be part of Hezbollah's war and propoganda program. If the reporters had done any semblence of research on the matter, they would have known better than to trust the objectivity and honesty of some "local" camera man and some "local" eye wittnesses. That's just shotty reporting, at best. The same goes true with the unrelenting reliance on Palestinian eye wittnesses to tell the "truth" surrounding a given instance regardless of the fact that Palestinians are natoriously known for lying to reporters. Why? BECAUSE THEY HAVE THEIR OWN AGENDA AND PROPAGANDA WAR GOING ON, AND THE MEDIA HAS BECOME WILLING PARTICIPANTS OF THIS. If you don't believe or accept this, then you are either naive with your blind acceptance of the "objectivity" of the media, or you're reflexively biased against Israel, so you believe any bad thing reported about them, or you have simply not done enough research to see the bold and blatant truth or what I'm saying.

2)Of course, bloggers are biased. That's a given. But, you absolutely incorrect in your last assumption. Reporters are NOT paid to interpret the news. That's what pundits are for. Reporters are paid to REPORT the news. They're not there to color it, make assumptions, or place blame or guilt without the proper research and with only the minimal amount of research and evidence. The very fact that you say that reporters are supposed to interpret news in order to give "meaning" shows how good a job the media has done in manipulating you into believing that that's their job. But, the sad truth is that it is NOT THEIR JOB TO INTERPET OR GIVE MEANING TO THE NEWS. Their job is to report the news, and let US, the VIEWERS AND READERS give our own interpretations and meaning to the stories.

3) Again, you would be making a good point if your supposition was true. However, if you would have done your research on the media over the course of the past half century, you would learn that media bias is a growing epidemic throughout the world's major media organizations regardless of your assertion that most journalists are ethically hard working people. You think that the latest uncoverings of the media's biased reporting is new news??? No, sir, that would be compeletely incorrect. This kind of media bias and false reporting has been going on for decades. It just hasn't been discovered and unmasked until now. And, that's because of the internet, bloggers, and the more discerning eye of the average citizen. Again, you're giving the reporters and journalists credit that they have somehow sub-human objectivity in this point when one point before you said that they are biased like every-one else. Again, with this statement, it is blatantly apparent that you are making claims based on unsubstantiated assumptions. Much like the reporters that make unsubstantiated assumptions when reporting a story that are only corroborated by "local" eye wittnesses.

4) I never ONCE said that the blogosphere have become the new media source. I said that we have become the new gate-keepers of the MSM. So, I'll ignore that comment. Secondly, just because some-one disagrees with what a religion is doing, you're just so quick to label them "Islamo-phobic". Is that like "Francophobia"? You have problems with what LGF is saying, that's fine, but to say that he's biased simply for pointing out certain opinions, that's ridiculous. See, here's the main difference between a blog, however popular, like Little Green Footballs and The Guardian is that one is being paid to be an objective news source, and repeatedly CLAIMS to be an objective news source, and the other is ADMITTINGLY voicing their own opinions as a HOBBY. Charles is not getting paid for his blog. He may make some money on the side via advertising and merchandise, but this is NOT his job. He spends his own free time doing this because he wants to, not because he has to. That's the main difference and the main problem. A main media source like The Guardian is not supposed to be biased. So, chew on that some more.


Post a Comment

<< Home