Who pissed on who?
The Pentagon has released a report detailing the results of its investigations into the treatment of the Koran at Guantanamo Bay. Interesting the interpretation of the mainstream news media and bloggers. Both have focussed on different parts of the report.
It's pretty clear that Michelle Mankin is a conservative through an through. As such we know she's going to act as any good Republican web-filter would. And so she does, zooming in on allegations that the detainees committed most the misdeeds.
What's the BBC's take? Headline: US Guard kicked Koran. Which is strange because this is one of the allegations that report states could not be confirmed! It doesn't mention the unconfirmed nature of a lot of the incidents. Meanwhile, the BBC sells itself as an objective news REPORTING organisation. Apparently the fact that mainstream news organisations (MSMs) report the news, is why they'll always be around and bloggers will always need them.
How does REPORTING involve zooming in on one particular allegation and not mention the others? My point is that no one really knows what happens at Guantanamo. This Pentagon report is our only clue. Now sure, as a reporter you can express doubts about the validity of the report. However, at no point in the piece does the BBC express doubt about its validity. Thus, we have to assume that they're taking it as gospel. And if it is gospel don't they have a duty to report it in its entirety?
It's ironic that the opinions of bloggers are the only thing keeping the fourth estate in check. Pre-the internet/blogging revolution we never would have been able to read the full report.
So what does the blogging/internet revolution allow me to say? BBC makes several critical interpretation errors. Large numbers of the allegations seem to have been unproven. The most shocking incidents (such as sleeping on the Koran and tearing its pages) were committed by the detainees themselves. Where incidents were confirmed, the soldiers involved were punished.
Not as entertaining as the hysteria-ridden piece published by the BBC.. but as far as I can tell, it seems to have one important element: it's the truth.
It's pretty clear that Michelle Mankin is a conservative through an through. As such we know she's going to act as any good Republican web-filter would. And so she does, zooming in on allegations that the detainees committed most the misdeeds.
What's the BBC's take? Headline: US Guard kicked Koran. Which is strange because this is one of the allegations that report states could not be confirmed! It doesn't mention the unconfirmed nature of a lot of the incidents. Meanwhile, the BBC sells itself as an objective news REPORTING organisation. Apparently the fact that mainstream news organisations (MSMs) report the news, is why they'll always be around and bloggers will always need them.
How does REPORTING involve zooming in on one particular allegation and not mention the others? My point is that no one really knows what happens at Guantanamo. This Pentagon report is our only clue. Now sure, as a reporter you can express doubts about the validity of the report. However, at no point in the piece does the BBC express doubt about its validity. Thus, we have to assume that they're taking it as gospel. And if it is gospel don't they have a duty to report it in its entirety?
It's ironic that the opinions of bloggers are the only thing keeping the fourth estate in check. Pre-the internet/blogging revolution we never would have been able to read the full report.
So what does the blogging/internet revolution allow me to say? BBC makes several critical interpretation errors. Large numbers of the allegations seem to have been unproven. The most shocking incidents (such as sleeping on the Koran and tearing its pages) were committed by the detainees themselves. Where incidents were confirmed, the soldiers involved were punished.
Not as entertaining as the hysteria-ridden piece published by the BBC.. but as far as I can tell, it seems to have one important element: it's the truth.
posted by Dileepa at 11:48 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home