Uk Times Smears Our Marines (1 Viewer)

[oldreliable67]

As specified by forum rules, the thread title is the headline of the cited source, in this case, an article at Michelle Malkin's blog. On June 1, 2006, The UK Times ran a story headlined "Massacre Marines blinded by hate". Accompanying the story was a photo of a number of dead Iraqis, all of whom appeared to be bound; the caption underneath the photo read "Victims in Haditha. The US is carrying out two inquiries" Bad, eh?

Turns out that the photo is not of the Nov. 19 incident in Haditha involving our Marines, as the UK Times would have you believe. The photo is actually a cropped version of a Newsweek photo dating a number of months prior to the Haditha incident; the original Newsweek caption reads, "Insurgents in Haditha executed 19 Shiite fishermen and National Guardsmen in a sports stadium."

Our Marines did not kill these people.

The terrorists did.

Protestations of the UK Times US editor and whatever else happened in Haditha not withstanding, IMO this was a deliberate misrepresentation and the result of slanted journalism.

Go to Michelle Malkin's site and read the whole story.

 

[massive_attack]

Update : The article in question has been corrected.

You can find the article in question here.

The picture is no longer there and the article begins with :

[Note: This story originally appeared with a picture of slain Iraqis whose caption erroneously described the scene as being related to the alleged incidents in al-Haditha. The image was in fact from a separate incident in the area in which Iraqi insurgents are believed to have massacred local fishermen. We apologise for the mistake.]

Link

It's a testimate to the current state of the mass media. That picture should have been fact checked twice before it was ever published with the article. End of story.

Are the days of fact checking over in the mass media ?

Is it to the point that the above is considered a rhetorical question ?

 

[cherokee]

As specified by forum rules, the thread title is the headline of the cited source, in this case, an article at Michelle Malkin's blog. On June 1, 2006, The UK Times ran a story headlined "Massacre Marines blinded by hate". Accompanying the story was a photo of a number of dead Iraqis, all of whom appeared to be bound; the caption underneath the photo read "Victims in Haditha. The US is carrying out two inquiries" Bad, eh?

Turns out that the photo is not of the Nov. 19 incident in Haditha involving our Marines, as the UK Times would have you believe. The photo is actually a cropped version of a Newsweek photo dating a number of months prior to the Haditha incident; the original Newsweek caption reads, "Insurgents in Haditha executed 19 Shiite fishermen and National Guardsmen in a sports stadium."

Our Marines did not kill these people.

The terrorists did.

Protestations of the UK Times US editor and whatever else happened in Haditha not withstanding, IMO this was a deliberate misrepresentation and the result of slanted journalism.

Go to Michelle Malkin's site and read the whole story.

Somehow I don’t feel it was a mistake. They just wanted a shot of dead Iraqis. After all are we not the blame of all of them...:roll: :roll:

Good find 67th!

 

[massive_attack]

On my last post I was thinking I want to write these fools a letter but couldn't find any contact info. It makes me mad these mega companies got all these resources yet still manage to mess up on the most elementary of levels.

Mistake or not this is a supposed "profession news agency". These kinds of mistakes should not occur, especially on such a sensitive subject IMHO.

Shazam , here it is.

Editor : online.editor@timesonline.co.uk

Editorial Director, The Times and The Sunday Times online : editor@timesonline.co.uk

Newsdesk : news@timesonline.co.uk

Contact information page

 

[MSgt]

Are the days of fact checking over in the mass media ?

The information age is causing havoc in all regions and in all civilizations. In today's extremely fast paced world where a story and a picture can be sent from one side of the planet to the other in seconds, the world media has ushered themselves into a race to get their "scoops" to the audience. The race is as frantic and as quickly paced as a guy who can click a mouse or transmit via teleconference.

Fact checking often comes later and usually without apology when inaccurate. Also, a follow up story for closure in the issue is often un heard of. Those just don't make as good headlines for the bank accounts.

 

[PeteEU]

At least they corrected it.. not something we can say of certain US medias. But other than the picture was the story wrong in any other way?

 

[MSgt]

At least they corrected it.. not something we can say of certain US medias. But other than the picture was the story wrong in any other way?

You tell us. I'm sure you were there and know the truth, as it's told by numerous different aspects and versions.

This isn't a U.S. media versus European media thing, despite your never ending need to pompously parade around your discontent for all things American. This is a global media thing. All media is getting things wrong these days. It's the frenzied need of the audience and their willingness to pay for their next drama.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

As specified by forum rules, the thread title is the headline of the cited source, in this case, an article at Michelle Malkin's blog.

I think this rule only applies to 'Breaking News,' not 'Bias in the Media'

 

[oldreliable67]

At least they corrected it.. not something we can say of certain US medias. But other than the picture was the story wrong in any other way?

When you refer to it as being "corrected", you suggest that the usage of the photo was inadvertant or a mistake. It is very hard to reconcile the use of a cropped photo, complete with a new caption as being such. Realistically, how could one apply a new caption to a photo without having first read the old one? How would one know that a new caption was needed, otherwise?

According to the UK Times editor, the Times...

"has been meticulously fair in its coverage of the Iraq war and of US policy in general. Our editorial line has been to support the war and we continue to do so, though not without some reservations, of course. We have eschewed completely the sort of vile anti-Americanism so common in much of the British press and our correspondents have done their level best to paint a fair picture of conditions in Iraq today."


Really? A Michelle Malkin reader reportedly searched the UK Times website and found these headlines:

Revealed: how US marines massacred 24
May 28, 2006 - The Times

Iraqis killed by US troops ‘on rampage’
March 26, 2006 - Sunday Times

Tales of US shame and dishonour blight the week of Memorial Day
June 03, 2006 - The Times

US Marines investigated for Iraq war crimes
March 17, 2006 - Times Online

Source.

Are these the headlines of a non-biased newspaper? I think not.
Is the usage of the "wrong" picture intentional? Of course it is.

But thats just my opinion. YMMV.

 

[PeteEU]

You tell us. I'm sure you were there and know the truth, as it's told by numerous different aspects and versions.

Dont know squat, as I have not followed the story other what I have heard on the fly.

This isn't a U.S. media versus European media thing, despite your never ending need to pompously parade around your discontent for all things American.

Totaly wrong. Exchange American with Bush and Co and then I will admit it. I still eat McD, drink Coke, watch my favorite US tv shows. And its not about US meida versus European.. its only about one media outlet in the US.... bet ya cant guess which one? :lol:

This is a global media thing. All media is getting things wrong these days. It's the frenzied need of the audience and their willingness to pay for their next drama.

I agree fully. But that dont change the fact that they did retract the picture, something that other news organisations have failed to do on stories that were factually wrong and biased.

And oldreliable67 .. because a newspaper has some so called negative stories about the disasterous US involvment in Iraq, that makes them all of a sudden biased toward the anti war side? The Times has been a backer of the war for a long time, however as the editor wrote.. not without reservations. Other media outlets who are pro war should have the balls to do the same instead of being a propoganda machine of the Bush administration.

Was it wrong that they published the picture.. you bet it was, but its not the first time that pictures in newspapers or on TV dont match the commentary. Question is, do we read newspapers for the pictures (other than the nude lady on page 3 or 9 or whatever page ) or for the text?

 

[oldreliable67]

but its not the first time that pictures in newspapers or on TV dont match the commentary

But doesn't journalistic integrity (boy, there is an oxymoron for you!) require a statement accompanying the pictures to that effect?

because a newspaper has some so called negative stories about the disasterous US involvment in Iraq, that makes them all of a sudden biased toward the anti war side...Other media outlets who are pro war should have the balls to do the same instead of being a propoganda machine of the Bush administration

Of course. IMO, all should report their stories factually and objectively. BTW, which media outlets would you characterize as "being a propoganda machine of the Bush administration"?

 

[hipsterdufus]

Update : The article in question has been corrected.

You can find the article in question here.

The picture is no longer there and the article begins with :



It's a testimate to the current state of the mass media. That picture should have been fact checked twice before it was ever published with the article. End of story.

Are the days of fact checking over in the mass media ?

Is it to the point that the above is considered a rhetorical question ?

Well at least they didn't pull an O'Reilly/Newsmax and change the transcripts without apologising. Mistakes happen. When you find them, correct them and move on.

In the rush to be first, and the cutbacks in news coverage and news journalistrs, there are going to be more mistakes in the future too.

 

[PeteEU]

But doesn't journalistic integrity (boy, there is an oxymoron for you!) require a statement accompanying the pictures to that effect?



Of course. IMO, all should report their stories factually and objectively. BTW, which media outlets would you characterize as "being a propoganda machine of the Bush administration"?

On the jounalistic integrity bit.. sure if a picture makes or breaks a newspaper article.. IMO it does not. If a story in a newspaper is dependant of a picture for its validity then the story itself is crap and bad journalism.

If it had been a TV news story then it would be a different thing as the primary way of presenting a story is by pictures.. else it would be radio :roll:

As for the mouth piece of the Bush adminstration.. there is two that come to mind... Fox News and Washington Times.

And finally I agree that all should report thier stories factually (as best they can get to the facts that is) and objectively, however in the world today and especially in the extremely partisan US political world, this is near impossible. Even the news organisations that attempt and get pretty close of publishing stories factually and objectively are thrown the tag of bias by one side or the other, usually based a few out of loads of stories that could be seen as biased and non factual. It seems today that some news organisations are not allowed to make mistakes, where as others go almost untouched when they do...