Posted by Curt on 11 December, 2006 at 9:55 am. 5 comments already!


Michael Fumento, a writer for many different MSM outfits, has a post on his blog that notices a slight change in reporting from Iraq recently:

In a Nov. 29 blog, "Will the real Ramadi please stand up?" I observed that three articles on conditions in Ramadi and al Anbar Province had appeared within a week of each other giving entirely different points of view. Mine and one in the Times of London said we’re winning the war in Ramadi; a Washington Post A1 story co-authored by "Fiasco" author Thomas Ricks claimed exactly the opposite. The difference, I said, could be explained simply. I and the Times writer reported from Ramadi. Ricks and his co-author have not only never been to Ramadi, they wrote their piece from Washington. Well now the WashPost has printed another article on the city, this time an upbeat one. What gives? You guessed it.The second one was reported from Ramadi. Case closed, thank you very much. Unfortunately, it’s little solace knowing how few journalists ever leave their safe little hovels in Baghdad hotels or Washington, D.C.

Amazing isn’t it?  A reporter actually visiting the locations, maybe staying there a few days getting to know the scene, will write a totally different story of that area.  What we have now is reporters who rarely leave the safety of their rooms while listening to some fantasies spun by those with an obvious agenda.

The WaPo article Michael points us to is indeed quite different.  While the writer, Will Weissert, gives the usual negative news at some points, what is different about this article is that he writes some very positive things also:

RAMADI, Iraq — The soldiers swallow diet pills and slurp can after can of Red Bull, fighting to stay awake as they peer from armored Humvees into the pre-dawn darkness. Twangy country music pours from some vehicle sound systems, angry rap from others.

Every few minutes, an explosion is heard, but it’s only the Marines blowing down doors as they storm from house to house, searching for sniper rifles, bomb-making materials and suspected insurgents.

"Operation Squeeze Play" is proving easier than expected considering this 20-block section of southeastern Ramadi _ known as "Second Officer’s District" because it’s home to so many former leaders of Saddam Hussein’s army _ was not so long ago a no-go zone for U.S. troops.

"You used to look at a map and it’d be like the Columbus-era, ‘South of here lies dragons,’ because nobody ever went there," said Capt. Jon Paul Hart, assistant operations officer for the Army’s 1st Battalion, 37th Armored Regiment. "All we knew was that it was really bad, really dangerous."

Ramadi, the capital of the western, overwhelming Sunni Arab province of al-Anbar, has seen some of the bloodiest street battles of the war. Sunni insurgents remain well-entrenched here and continue to move freely through parts of downtown where Americans often dare not set foot.

At least six U.S. troops were killed in fierce fighting in the province on Wednesday, the military said.

But as the White House faces calls to revisit its Iraq policy, U.S. forces in Ramadi insist their strategy here _ taking ground and holding it _ is proving effective.

"You have to occupy ground and stay there," said Capt. Greg Pavlichko, commander of a company involved in "Squeeze Play." "You have to live where you’re fighting and let the people see you’re committed to an area."

Commanders also say that any progress in Ramadi will evaporate almost overnight if U.S. forces pull out of the city. There is speculation the U.S. may scale back its operations here and throughout Anbar to focus on the violence and chaos in Baghdad.

"I think to give up on Anbar would be to give up on Iraq," Hart said. "It would be giving up all that we’ve worked very hard, sacrificed a lot of lives, to gain."

[…]Without U.S. forces, all pretense of government could collapse, said Tedesco, the task force commander.

"A lot of people may not like that so many years after the war ended, there are still Americans here," he said. "They may not love us, but they need us because the alternative is to live in a terrorist state."

Tom from BizzyBlog wonders why the AP would now send a real live reporter out into the field all of a sudden:

  • Does this recent report indicate that AP might begin putting more real named reporters onsite in response to the errors found in previous stories, and the general dubiousness of their “mystery sources”? (Yeah, it could be a temporary measure until the pesky bloggers pipe down.)
  • Is AP responding to the concerns about overwhelming negativity of reporting out of Iraq raised by the military, blogs, and others? (Or they could be making sure their tracks are covered.)
  • As to Ramadi, is AP out there with a real, named reporter because of doubts first raised prominently by Patterico about the LA Times’ “airstrike” story, the people they quoted, and the stringer involved? (AP could be using the same stringer.)

All interesting points and questions but we all know, deep down, that the MSM will not change its modus operandi.  Case in point, Kristen at RedStater has done some research of a certain "investigative reporter" named David Podvin.  Someone who refuses interviews, either phone or in person, but continues to write vitrolic articles that many different MSM  and blogs use:

As I wrote earlier in “FAKE JOURNALISM= Zero Accountability for Liberals”, Mr. Podvin is "shy and wants to remain anonymous" according to Carolyn Kay of who seems to be the only person ever to see or talk to David Podvin, (who is definitely not shy about writing his political opinions as fact and claiming to be an investigative reporter).

Doing a simple Google search for “investigative reporter david podvin” yields a couple of interesting things aside from the praise and glory.

This website is dedicated to responding to Mr. Podvin’s prolific political pontifications and debunks virtually everything written by David Podvin but doesn’t question who he is or whether he even exists (outside the blogosphere).

David Podvin is referred to as an “ investigative reporter” quite a bit on the blogs etc. and even in a couple of newspaper articles like this one from The Boston Phoenix florida recount story . (They debunk “investigative reporter” David Podvin’s claims in the story) This College Newspaper refers to "investigative reporter" David Podvin’s story as fact however.

Then this little nugget popped up.

The “Journal of Mass Media Ethics”- “Three Essays on Journalism and Virtueco authored by G. Stuart Adam, Stephanie Craft and Elliot D. Cohen

David Podvin is used in the text of the essays as an “investigative reporter” in reference to the Florida Recount story and Podvin’s reporting of election corruption and results manipulation by NBC and the “big-media” in favor of Bush over Gore.

The thing that’s surprising (and alarming) about these essays, is that they are teaching tools available at a company that “provides academic and professional journals and software to schools, universities, teachers, librarians and professional educators”.

So, David Podvin- a vile leftwing Democrat pundit/fake journalist (at best) is being spoon-fed to teachers and students as an “investigative journalist” by academic authors in a piece titled of all things “Journalism and Virtue”. ???

She then goes on to investigate the three authors of this teaching manual for journalism students and finds that all three are deeply leftist who hate right-wing radio and everything Bush while teaching "ethics":

So, Three academic “media experts” (one of them, Elliot Cohen is also a Democrat pundit) teach journalism students how to be good journalists by using anonymous fake investigative reporters/democrat pundits in their material, and this is sold to our schools, teachers and librarians to teach them about “ethics and virtue in journalism”??? (purchased with tax our dollars of course)

How poetic.

And this is just three PHD’s writing one book for students.  Imagine what the professors in journalism schools teach.  They teach, indoctrinate, and brainwash the young minds in their class to use any methods, any means, to MAKE news.  They teach them to report and spin stories which over time push people to their way of thinking. 

Case in point, "civil war" in Iraq.

Meanwhile it looks like Jamil Hussein will be Time’s Person of the Year: (via Doug Ross @ Journal)


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x