Red-handed
Jason van Steenwyk has a damning round-up of the way the big media played Gen. Mattis' quote about not having to apologize for the conduct of his troops in Iraq. I already provided a link to the press conference where the quote originated, but here's the relevant section of it:
Garbles aside, it's clear that a reporter asked a question about the wedding tragedy in Al Qaim, to which Mattis answered, in part, "let's not be naïve." Mattis then took another question, probably about the footage from that attack, which he responded to by making several attempts to frame an answer, including uttering the partial sentence "bad things happenED" [emphasis added].
He then tried to give context (or else change the subject somewhat) by making reference to the fighting in Fallujah, and he described the way the U.S. Marines fought THERE, and what they didn't do THERE (presumably by comparison to what their attackers did, and suggesting, perhaps, that this is what happened in Al Qaim). And in reference to THAT -- to Marine behavior in Fallujah -- he said, "I don't have to apologize for the conduct of my Marines."
It is possible that Mattis meant that he didn't have to apologize for Al Qaim. But that is not at all clear from the context. He had changed the topic and was talking about Fallujah, not Al Qaim, right before he said that. If reporters were going to peg their stories on that quote, they should have followed up and asked the general exactly what he meant. But they did something entirely different and devious.
Here's how this quote turns out in a sampling of major media:
In "The Independent":
In the "New York Times":
In the "Guardian":
In Reuters:
In the Toronto "Globe and Mail":
It's unclear how many of these papers were even at the news conference. They seem in some cases to be quoting one another. What is clear is that the money line about "not apologizing" is explicitly connected to the Al Qaim footage, without any indication that Mattis had changed the subject and was talking about Fallujah. In some cases bits of what he said in answer to two different questions are jammed together as if they were a single statement, without even the necessary elipsis (...) to indicate omitted material.
When you read a sentence or passage in a newspaper, with a quotation mark at one end and a quotation mark at the other, you should be safe in assuming that the person to whom the quote is attributed said all that, at one time, and nothing more or less, with no one else introducing new questions or comments in the process.
If you assumed that about the Reuters, "Guardian," or "Globe and Mail" articles quoted above, you'd be wrong. And it wouldn't be your fault. They deceived you. They broke a cardinal rule of journalism.
The "Independent" weaseled through the quote by the tactic of placing the attributions at the key places where they skipped material. Having a "he said" breaks up a quote. So technically, they haven't broken the rules. But if you go right back into the source's quote, as they do, without a paragraph break, without indicating that the topic has changed, then you've, at best, severely warped the rules in the direction of deceiving the reader.
The "New York Times" accomplishes the same thing by breaking up the key quotes into two short paragraphs, each ending with a close-quote. Now, the NYT is no friend of brief paragraphs; theirs often run a yard and a half without taking a breath. Their sudden use of the device here is more than suspicious. It allows them to be technically accurate, and still highly misleading.
[Reuters seems to have aimed for the same effect, since the "apology" line is a new paragraph, but the absence of a close-quote at the end of the graph above it makes it read as a continuation of that sentence. Whether they tried to stay on the right side of the "legitimacy" line or not, Reuters failed.]
Not changing a quote is the prime directive of news writing. I wouldn't let a junior high school newspaper get away with what the "Guardian" did, if I were its advisor. My old editors would have told me any reporter who twists a quote like that has no business in this business. But evidently it's OK -- in the right circumstances -- for the big media.
The difference between this war and World War II is, Bush is no Roosevelt, and the media is determined to present the war in the worst possible light for the American side. I can just imagine what the "Battle of the Bulge" would have looked like if covered by the modern "New York Times" and the "Guardian" and Reuters.
(so can Allahpundit)
Meanwhile, the president made a major speech, and the networks didn't cover it. I can recall them tuning out a president like that before, I think they did it to Clinton at least once, but this smelled like a deliberate snub. Yet the more I read about it, the more it seems like something more subtle. As I understand it, the White House didn't request airtime. The networks could have covered the Carlisle speech anyway, of course. But this seems actually to jibe with the Bush strategy of marginalizing the big media. Other people have proposed this as the administration's strategy. If so, it's working. After 9-11, I tuned in to the major world media every day to learn what was happening and why. By now, I can't read an AP or Reuters story on Iraq without shaking my head in disbelief at the sheer ignorance and bias of the writing. I get my information online. I haven't watched TV in years.
Unnamed Reporter: What happened yesterday at 3 a.m. in Al Qaim? Was there a wedding on? A wedding celebration?
Gen. Mattis: You joined us a little late, as I said to the young lady here, I said how many people how many people go to the desert 10 miles from the Syrian border and hold a wedding 80 miles from the nearest civilization? Over two-dozen military-aged males ... let's not be naïve. Let's leave it at that.
(Question unintelligible)
Gen. Mattis: I can't ... I've seen the pictures, but I can't ... bad things happened. Generally ... in Fallujah, I never saw a Marine hide behind a woman or a child or hold them in their house and fire out of the building. I don't have to apologize for the conduct of my Marines.
Garbles aside, it's clear that a reporter asked a question about the wedding tragedy in Al Qaim, to which Mattis answered, in part, "let's not be naïve." Mattis then took another question, probably about the footage from that attack, which he responded to by making several attempts to frame an answer, including uttering the partial sentence "bad things happenED" [emphasis added].
He then tried to give context (or else change the subject somewhat) by making reference to the fighting in Fallujah, and he described the way the U.S. Marines fought THERE, and what they didn't do THERE (presumably by comparison to what their attackers did, and suggesting, perhaps, that this is what happened in Al Qaim). And in reference to THAT -- to Marine behavior in Fallujah -- he said, "I don't have to apologize for the conduct of my Marines."
It is possible that Mattis meant that he didn't have to apologize for Al Qaim. But that is not at all clear from the context. He had changed the topic and was talking about Fallujah, not Al Qaim, right before he said that. If reporters were going to peg their stories on that quote, they should have followed up and asked the general exactly what he meant. But they did something entirely different and devious.
Here's how this quote turns out in a sampling of major media:
In "The Independent":
"These were more than two dozen military-age males. Let's not be naive," Major General James Mattis, commander of the US 1st Marine Division, said. But he had no explanation of where the dead women and children in the video came from. "I have not seen the pictures but bad things happen in wars," he said cryptically. "I don't have to apologise for the conduct of my men."
In the "New York Times":
At a news conference in Falluja, west of Baghdad, he [Mattis] said that two dozen men of military age were among those killed.
"Let's not be naive," he said. "Bad things happen in wars."
"I don't have to apologize for the conduct of my men," he added.
In the "Guardian":
Major General James Mattis, commander of the 1st Marine Division, was scathing of those who suggested a wedding party had been hit. "How many people go to the middle of the desert ... to hold a wedding 80 miles (130km) from the nearest civilization? These were more than two dozen military-age males. Let's not be naive."
When reporters asked him about footage on Arabic television of a child's body being lowered into a grave, he replied: "I have not seen the pictures but bad things happen in wars. I don't have to apologize for the conduct of my men."
In Reuters:
"How many people go to the middle of the desert 10 miles from the Syrian border to hold a wedding 80 miles from the nearest civilization?" Mattis said in Falluja.
"These were more than two dozen military-age males. Let's not be naive ... Bad things happen in wars.
"I don't have to apologize for the conduct of my men."
In the Toronto "Globe and Mail":
"Bad things happen in wars," said Major-General James Mattis, the U.S. Marine commander in charge of occupation forces in western Iraq.
"These were more than two dozen military-age males. I don't have to apologize for the conduct of my men."
It's unclear how many of these papers were even at the news conference. They seem in some cases to be quoting one another. What is clear is that the money line about "not apologizing" is explicitly connected to the Al Qaim footage, without any indication that Mattis had changed the subject and was talking about Fallujah. In some cases bits of what he said in answer to two different questions are jammed together as if they were a single statement, without even the necessary elipsis (...) to indicate omitted material.
When you read a sentence or passage in a newspaper, with a quotation mark at one end and a quotation mark at the other, you should be safe in assuming that the person to whom the quote is attributed said all that, at one time, and nothing more or less, with no one else introducing new questions or comments in the process.
If you assumed that about the Reuters, "Guardian," or "Globe and Mail" articles quoted above, you'd be wrong. And it wouldn't be your fault. They deceived you. They broke a cardinal rule of journalism.
The "Independent" weaseled through the quote by the tactic of placing the attributions at the key places where they skipped material. Having a "he said" breaks up a quote. So technically, they haven't broken the rules. But if you go right back into the source's quote, as they do, without a paragraph break, without indicating that the topic has changed, then you've, at best, severely warped the rules in the direction of deceiving the reader.
The "New York Times" accomplishes the same thing by breaking up the key quotes into two short paragraphs, each ending with a close-quote. Now, the NYT is no friend of brief paragraphs; theirs often run a yard and a half without taking a breath. Their sudden use of the device here is more than suspicious. It allows them to be technically accurate, and still highly misleading.
[Reuters seems to have aimed for the same effect, since the "apology" line is a new paragraph, but the absence of a close-quote at the end of the graph above it makes it read as a continuation of that sentence. Whether they tried to stay on the right side of the "legitimacy" line or not, Reuters failed.]
Not changing a quote is the prime directive of news writing. I wouldn't let a junior high school newspaper get away with what the "Guardian" did, if I were its advisor. My old editors would have told me any reporter who twists a quote like that has no business in this business. But evidently it's OK -- in the right circumstances -- for the big media.
The difference between this war and World War II is, Bush is no Roosevelt, and the media is determined to present the war in the worst possible light for the American side. I can just imagine what the "Battle of the Bulge" would have looked like if covered by the modern "New York Times" and the "Guardian" and Reuters.
(so can Allahpundit)
Meanwhile, the president made a major speech, and the networks didn't cover it. I can recall them tuning out a president like that before, I think they did it to Clinton at least once, but this smelled like a deliberate snub. Yet the more I read about it, the more it seems like something more subtle. As I understand it, the White House didn't request airtime. The networks could have covered the Carlisle speech anyway, of course. But this seems actually to jibe with the Bush strategy of marginalizing the big media. Other people have proposed this as the administration's strategy. If so, it's working. After 9-11, I tuned in to the major world media every day to learn what was happening and why. By now, I can't read an AP or Reuters story on Iraq without shaking my head in disbelief at the sheer ignorance and bias of the writing. I get my information online. I haven't watched TV in years.
<< Home