The national media watch group
Updated: 43 min 16 sec ago
Thanks to the Washington Post, we're still reading lies about the Iraq War ten years later.
Some days the Newspaper of Record says a lot–not always in ways you might expect. Today (3/21/13) a story by Mark Landler and Rick Gladstone about allegations of chemical weapons in Syria includes something you see often–anonymous government sources. That can often be a bad thing; but today it's pretty useful: Two senior Israeli officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak, said that Israel was sure that chemicals were used, but did not have details about what type of weapons were used, where they came from, when they were deployed, or by whom. [...]
There was a pair of pictures on the front page of USA Today today, meant to illustrate a story about President Barack Obama's visit to Israel and the Occupied Territories. It actually illustrated the very different ways Israelis and Palestinians are depicted in U.S. media.
Ten years ago, a front-page New York Times story helped mislead us into war with the idea that Iraq was trying to procure special aluminum tubes for its nuclear weapons program. Last night, one of the PBS NewsHour's two expert journalists to look back on Iraq was the guy who co-authored that piece.
On his last HBO show, Bill Maher complained about how much he and his wealthy cohort pay in taxes. But he's unlikely to get much sympathy from the 2010 version of Bill Maher.
MSNBC host Joe Scarborough's commentary looking back at the Iraq War took aim at some politicians and media outlets who were supportive of removing Saddam Hussein from power. But somehow he forgot to include his own words.
The UN's special human rights envoy found that the CIA's drone strikes in Pakistan have "resulted in far more civilian casualties than the U.S. government has recognized." But that message was muddled by the Washington Post's he said-she said approach to the question of civilian deaths.
Howard Fineman--formerly at Newsweek, now at Huffington Post--tries to come to terms with his Iraq War failures, seemingly with good intentions. But he falls short of addressing a record that shows a remarkable level of enthusiasm for the job of advocating for Bush's "eyes-on-the-prize decisiveness."
George Will offers imaginary headline to prove his point about liberal media bias. Real headlines, unfortunately, don't back up his case.
The New York Times' Michael Shear suggests that Rep. Rand Paul's criticism of Obama's drone attacks are nothing out of the ordinary--but he takes a strange trip down memory lane to make the case.
This week: What the media want you to know about Pope Francis– and what they don't seem to want to talk about. Also: Why is a UN report about dozens of Gazans killed in the Israeli attacks last year generating coverage about a baby who perhaps wasn't killed by Israel? And the New York Times wonders if U.S. policy in Africa will stress human rights over elite interests. Is that really a question? It's all here on this week's episode:
The Washington Post's Howard Schneider asks, "In Europe's grand battle over growth vs. austerity, has Ireland proved that austerity works?" If so, keeping unemployment more than 10 percentage points above pre-recession levels is an odd sort of "working."
Argentine cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio was chosen as the new pope this week. But coverage often glossed over the most intense political controversies about him.
Citing anonymous officials, the New York Times reported that "no party [to an] armistice can unilaterally terminate or alter its terms." International law expert Francis Boyle says that's nonsense.
A new report from the United Nations' High Commissioner for Human Rights tallies the extent of the death and destruction from Israel's attacks on the Gaza Strip last November. But the headlines generated by the report focused on one child in Gaza, 11-month-old Omar al-Masharawi, and the claim that he was not killed by Israelis.
The Obama administration has not wanted to explain in any great detail how it justified killing an American citizen in Yemen. But there were apparently plenty of current and former officials willing to explain their case to the New York Times.
It was not altogether surprising to see a headline in the New York Times, "Leader of Vote Count in Kenya Faces U.S. With Tough Choices." The "tough choice" is apparently that the candidate in the lead, Uhuru Kenyatta, has a terrible human rights record.
This week on FAIR TV: Hugo Chavez was loathed by the U.S. press--and that didn't change when they reported his death. Plus Time magazine provides a look at the "Path to War" with Iran--omitting a key fact along the way.
And the Keystone XL pipeline is back in the news. But when it came up on ABC's This Week, "left" pundit James Carville had a curious message.
"On Eve of His Funeral, Debating Chávez’s Legacy" is the headline over William Neuman's piece in the New York Times today. Funny headline, since there was no one in the Times' "debate" who argued that Chávez left much of anything.
Nowhere does Time's Massimo Calabresi mention one rather inconvenient fact: There is no evidence that Iran is actually pursuing a nuclear weapon. Regular inspections have failed to turn up any evidence of that.