Whereas conservative’s definitive answers are always “lies in the present”, such as Saddam’s WMD, or his connection with Al Qaeda. And this isn’t a case of 170,000 = 25, it’s (Enough to threaten the security of America) = 0.
Well Squink, it seems those that we put in charge of such distinctions disagree with you 100%. So your little comparisson seems childish and disingenuous doesn’t it?
Spite, what if the people who were put in charge of such distinctions are the ones who are childish and disingenuous?
That’s certainly the way it looks to a lot of us…
I love how you ignore and throw out a source of information simply because of who owns the company. :rolleyes:
Your credibility is even less than the embedded reporters, because YOU AREN’T THERE. So, rather than ignore something, why don’t you come up with a valid reason other than “I don’t like what that says, so it’s wrong”?
Fine, but that’s a separate topic from media bias.
Yes, I would assume that the 170,000 figure came from some museum official. Should the media have known that it was exaggerated? Should they at least have known that it was uncertain? Should they have communicated the uncertainty of the figure? I don’t know enough to say. But, the fact remains that they started a bit of a firestorm, which may well not have been justified.
That’s a fair analogy, except for three things.
– I am not a professional collector.
– If I were uncertain about the extent of the theft, I’d say I was uncertain.
– If 170,000 my possessions had been stolen, I think I could identify a lot more than 29 of them right off the top of my head.
Reporting slant is what we’re talking about. One way to measure it is in organizational and personal predispositions. Murdoch-owned media are apt to be pro-Bush and pro-Iraq war. Much other media are apt to be the opposite.
Another way to measure slant is compare reporting with actual facts, once they become known. E.g., Fox News’s upbeat reporting during the war looked like chauvinism, but it turned out to be accurated. The war did go better than many expected.
In the case of the museum looting, those who reported 170,000 pieces taken turned out to be too pessimistic. We didn’t know that at the time, but we pretty much know it now.
Wait a second…The whole claim behind this article as far as I read it is “The other reporters are all getting it wrong and here is what the truth really is…” and now you are accusing us of being selective about our sources of information?
Likewise, the OP’s assertion is that the press reporting is biased against the U.S. This is, for the most part, mind you, the U.S. press reporting that, as far as I understand it, is far more sympathetic to the U.S. point of view than most of the foreign reporting.
When I listen to conservatives complain about the reporting in the U.S. and world press (except for the few they like), I am reminded of the joke about the mother watching a military parade and commenting, “Look, everybody is out of step but my Johnny!”
So, which story sounds more plausible, Monster? This one, or the fluffy feel good piece in The Post? Because by all accounts we know the incidents in Fallujah that left all those dead and wounded are factual, whereas there’s precious little in The Post’s article by the embed, that can be corroborated off-site.
So, which story sounds more plausible, Monster? This one, or the fluffy feel good piece in The Post? Because by all accounts we know the incidents in Fallujah that left all those dead and wounded are factual, whereas there’s precious little in The Post’s article by the embed, that can be corroborated off-site.
Frankly, since the Guardian has historically been almost rabidly anti-American, I have no problem at all believing that they could make shit up, or at least leaving out important information…like the reports that the US troops were fired upon first, by AK-47 fire from the crowd and from rooftops.
Granted, they acknowledge the possibility, but only in the most perfunctory way.
If they were fired at from the street, as some reports specify, then their response was justified. In any case, I question the fairness of the report. Was the reporter there at the incident? He doesn’t specify where the info about the “mighty volley.”
The museum in which I work is a relatively small one, but we probably have around 250,000 artifacts in our collection, most of which are not fully and correctly documented. It’s been open for over 100 years, acquiring items, but has only gotten a professionally trained staff and modern record-keeping methods within the past 15. We’re working on documenting everything now, but it’s a job which will take at least three lifetimes. If my muesum were looted, we’d have a * hell * of a time.
This is why I question the validty of arguments that the looting was not “that bad.” First of all, what is the standard for “confirming” an artifact is missing? Do you need to have the records to prove that it was there in the first place? If it happened in my museum, I would know that a Serves vase was missing from a case in the porcelain exhibit, but might not have the documents to prove the item was there. If that is the standard of “confirmation” the task could be impossible. What if only a fraction of their artifacts were properly cateloged? What if records are missing?
If this is the case, they might only be able to * prove * 29 artifacts missing as of right now, because those were the “big fish” which were fully documented. As time goes by the numbers could skyrocket. They’re looking at empty rooms, knowing that hundreds of items are gone, but unable to * confirm * each item is missing.
If looting happened in my museum, we, the staff, would have to sit down, and go off of memory of what was in each room to make inventory lists, if what records we have were destroyed. I could probably name a few hundred artifacts that we have in our collection, and I’m sure the Iraqi curators can as well. It’s that pesky “confirmation” that’s the trouble.
And what should we make of a pile of dust and chips which might have once been a clay pot? If the artifact were pulverized beyond recognition, do we list it as “destoryed” guessing that that’s what made the pile of debris, or do we classify it as “missing?”
Remember, too, that the main Baghdad museum was not the only one which was looted. If anything, I’d guess that the 170,000 figure is low in terms of actual loss nation-wide.
I only have time to answer one question…
- No. Why would they? If the reactions were not appropriate, then they were still based on information that at the time was believed to be true. Expecting an apology in a situation like that is like expecting an apology from someone for getting all upset over someone killing 20 people, then finding out that only 2 were killed. There’s still a loss, and at based on the information available at the time their amount of outrage was certainly justified.
Just in case it matters to anyone:
Iraq National Museum Artifacts Recovered