News Management: Saving Private Lynch
I'm somewhat surprised that this has not already come up for discussion. The BBC recently claimed that the rescue of Private Jessica Lynch was "one of the most stunning pieces of news management ever conceived."
According to the BBC:
The Pentagon is ? naturally ? denying claims that it staged or even managed the event...stating that it never reported a firefight at the hospital where Lynch was located.
So, what do you think. Was the saving of Private Lynch a carefully constructed media event to create a focal point for patriotic feelings? Alternatively, did the Pentagon merely allow inaccurate 'speculative reports' to go uncorrected? Either way, is this a dishonest and cynical manipulation of the press and the emotions of the American people?
According to the BBC:
Quote:
The US military knew there were no Iraqi forces guarding the hospital, and quoted a local doctor saying that the troops used blank rounds to "make a show" of the operation.
The US military knew there were no Iraqi forces guarding the hospital, and quoted a local doctor saying that the troops used blank rounds to "make a show" of the operation.
The Pentagon is ? naturally ? denying claims that it staged or even managed the event...stating that it never reported a firefight at the hospital where Lynch was located.
Quote:
Speculative reports in the media were responsible for some of the misinformation [discussed in the original BBC report], not Pentagon statements... The Pentagon never released an account of what happened to Lynch because it didn't have an account.
Speculative reports in the media were responsible for some of the misinformation [discussed in the original BBC report], not Pentagon statements... The Pentagon never released an account of what happened to Lynch because it didn't have an account.
So, what do you think. Was the saving of Private Lynch a carefully constructed media event to create a focal point for patriotic feelings? Alternatively, did the Pentagon merely allow inaccurate 'speculative reports' to go uncorrected? Either way, is this a dishonest and cynical manipulation of the press and the emotions of the American people?
Comments
....reproach.....
....but after this crap with the NYT I think the BBC needs to spread their reporting on the lawn for best results.
It sounds monumentally contrived.
ena could you point out the connection please as i'm so brainwashed by the appalling BBC that i just can't see it. Oh and i watched the programme, i think your monumentally contrived jibe is perhaps not aimed correctly.
(and everybody knows it)
You have my permission to take them seriously---although I feel sorry for the brits who are forced to pay for their tripe.
Originally posted by ena
Get real, the BBC is a rabid liberal rag edited and staffed by people who simply cannot distinguish fact from fantasy.
(and everybody knows it)
You have my permission to take them seriously---although I feel sorry for the brits who are forced to pay for their tripe.
You are Ann Coulter's less articulate but equally blinkered teenage sister, and I claim my five pounds.
Besides it has been discussed here before about a couple of weeks ago.
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
You are Ann Coulter's less articulate but equally blinkered teenage sister, and I claim my five pounds.
Bla Bla Bla
This has the same aroma as the Franks war crimes trial. Which as a parent, I can tell you is something not even my six-year-old would try pull with a straight face.
Your hatred of the U.S. (the current administration, etc.) simply has gotten you to the point where the methods you use to smear these people come off as comical.
Some of these threads have all the earmarks of trying orient someone with dementia.
*leaves thread in pissy mood*
Originally posted by ena
*leaves thread in pissy mood*
The sound of a "man" knowing he went too far out but is too proud to be a man and admit it.
Originally posted by ena
Your hatred of the U.S. (the current administration, etc.) simply has gotten you to the point where the methods you use to smear these people come off as comical.
If I hated the US I wouldn't care about the lies, deceit, obfuscation and misdirection...I'd just say it was typical of the US. But I don't hate the US and therefore wouldn?t want to see this kind of behavior become typical.
If you are so in love with the current administration that you defend it unquestioningly against any and all allegations of wrongdoing then you are being incredibly naive.
a superb online service,
While I generally don't want to associate myself with certain moron's opinions, the BBC online coverage of the Americas or more specifically the US is mediocre at best. They frequently have simple factual inaccuracies which are horrid and they tend to state that various populist forces are afoot which often are non-existent. It is just vastly inferior on the whole to many online or print sources. Though no less inferior I guess to US TV news which is all shit anyway.
Besides that, their coverage of US sports, even hockey and basketball which are fairly popular international sports is so inept as to border on parody. If you can imagine how a George Bush Homer Simpson broadcast team might call a Manchester United vs. Arsenel game, well, their baseball and their football (as in the oblong pigskin) coverage comes across as inferior to what that would be like. I mean really, they shouldn't even try.
As for the rescue, I don't know about that reporter's memory, but when it was first reported I don't recall any (US) news outlet claiming there was a firefight. I do remember lots of "without firing a shot"s. And does he really expect the military would send a chaplain in a jeep into enemy territory to knock on the door and ask for the POW? They had no idea, really, what could be at the hospital. The doctor interviewed even said that a few days earlier it was "swarming" with Fedayeen. Even if they had reason to suspect there would be no resistance, they'd still go in ready to meet it, just in case. Doesn't that make sense? With all the flash-bang grenades and starship-trooper-looking operators, though, I'm sure it would look like an action movie to anyone watching. Especially since no one got hurt.
CoD i said online service, not online news service, i was meaning bbci which is at bbc.co.uk and which includes the news stuff.
OK well then my error. But nevertheless, the issue was the quality of their coverage which is what I was talking about. I was referring to the bbc.co.uk page, actually to this page ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/default.stm ). I wasn't aware of the distinction between the web content I see and whatever else you get for your bling bling but now I know.
No news providers are free from mistakes (especially about sports) but for ena to say that the bbc is "edited and staffed by people who simply cannot distinguish fact from fantasy." is bollocks.
I suppose it is fair to call the statement that they cannot distinguish fact from fantasy as bollocks and I made clear in my first sentence that I didn't want to go as far as him. On the other hand, for an organization whose reputation is that it is perhaps the foremost English language news organization in the world their coverage of the US, political and news as well as sports, remains inferior to that of other major news organizations by a significant margin. JMO of course.
I cannot comment on how their quality of work relates to this story though, I dunno. I tuned out the Lynch story immediately as it became the sensationalist story de jour. I guess we need more schools shootings or sharks or kidnappings or something else for the media to fixate on.
I dunno why you guys can't spell these words right, in fact you've been spelling them wrong since well before we Americans started spelling them right.
Don't be ridiculous.