Speaking of \"sour grapes\"
Monday, December 15th, 2003 - 5:44pm
MSNBC is running a story headlined:
"Iraqis' joy at Saddam arrest quickly fades:
Celebration gives way to frustrations about daily life"
Read the story. From MSNBC.
Now, there are exactly three quotes in the story. one from an Iraqi, "still dizzy with joy." Here are the other two:
Quote:
"It's great that he's caught, but it wasn't him who screwed up the petrol and the electricity and everything else so badly, so now a canister of gas that was 250 dinars costs 4,000, if you can get one," said Ghazi, a 52-year-old dentist. "This is an oil country and it should be rich. It should not be Afghanistan."
Now this quote doesn't indicate that the person's joy at Saddam's arrest has faded, it just means that his joy doesn't make him immune to wanting things even better.
How about this one:
Quote:
"The Americans promised freedom and prosperity; what's this? Go up to their headquarters, at one of those checkpoints where they point their guns at you, and tell them that you hate them as much as Saddam, and see what they do to you," said Mohammad Saleh, 39, a building contractor."The only difference is that Saddam would kill you in private, where the Americans will kill you in public," he said.
This quote is blatantly false. If there is one by-product that is unarguable from getting rid of Saddam, it is the explosion of free speech - even speech directed against Americans.
I realize that, yes, it is too much to ask for fairness in reporting. But do three quotes, one from someone "dizzy with joy" at Saddam's arrest, and the others from people waiting in a long line, really represent the prevalent feelings among Iraqis? Does anyone think this is good reporting? If not, why? Incompetence, bias, or both?
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
I''d call it incomplete. But, if you happen to read it with a bias, you tend to see things. This quote from the article, while not explicit as the direct quotes from interveiwees, says something as well:
In their defense, it is better than quoting an unamed government source or citing a classified report illegally leaked to certain, like-minded members of the press.
"Men like sex, thus boobies! Oogaba!" - dejanzie
"If ads put your sanity to the test
come on down to Rat Boy's nest!
light up a stogie, and soon you'll see
how rock can be commercial-free!
'I'd hit it!'" - HP Lovesauce
How so? How is a reporter deciding to paraphrase people instead of actually reporting on their words a good thing in any way? I don''t want to know what the reporter thinks about these people''s opinions, I want to hear them myself.
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
How is that an opinion? Are you saying that he lied? Where is your proof? In fact, in your entire critique of this piece, you haven''t shown anything to refute it.
"Men like sex, thus boobies! Oogaba!" - dejanzie
"If ads put your sanity to the test
come on down to Rat Boy's nest!
light up a stogie, and soon you'll see
how rock can be commercial-free!
'I'd hit it!'" - HP Lovesauce
I''m not gonna argue that it isn''t sloppy reporting overall. But two points:
* So what you''re saying here is that you read this guy''s mind? Even though he''s complaining outwardly, inwardly he is still crying tears of joy? True he does say, ""It''s great that he''s caught..."" however all that really shows is that he thinks it was a good thing, it doesn''t say one way or another that he is still feeling joy inside but is just masking it by complaining.
* The byline on the report is ""The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report."" It looks like it''s relying on the specific quotes to back up a general impression the authors gleaned from observation. If they had not used any specific quotes, wouldn''t someone be complaining that, ""How could they accurately report whats happening in Baghdad if they didn''t even ask anyone and get some quotes?""
I guess what I''m asking here is, how many people do they have to get quotes from to satisfy you when you don''t like the subject matter? Presumably, if you read initial reports about celebrations yesterday you wouldn''t have similarly questioned their veracity. You probably would have just accepted the validity of the reporters general observations, backed up by a few quotes, right? This article is fundamentally no different is it?
"That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history. "
- Aldous Huxley
The point is that it''s impossible to refute, or to support for that matter. We are not given a set of facts and asked to draw a conclusion, we are given a conclusion, that may or may not have been supported by reality. Shoddy work.
I''m going to say that it''s moe than the number of licks needed to get to the tootsie roll center of a tootsie pop. The implication of the story is that people''s gripes about the US are stronger than their happiness at being rid of Saddam, since one ""fades"" while the other is quoteworthy. I think that quotes from two people, one of whom has the preconception that he will be shot for complaining out loud, isn''t a particularly representative sample.
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
Here''s a better, broader article.
"Men like sex, thus boobies! Oogaba!" - dejanzie
"If ads put your sanity to the test
come on down to Rat Boy's nest!
light up a stogie, and soon you'll see
how rock can be commercial-free!
'I'd hit it!'" - HP Lovesauce
That''s sarcasm, right? The story says:
and follows that up with quotes by two Iraqis - one of whom is a Saddam fan.
So, celebrations ring out across the country, but two Iraqis have something lukewarm/negative to say. That''s not what I would call ""overshadowed"".
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
Well of course oil and gas are expensive. What do you expect, Halliburton is setting the prices.
"Anakin, as embodied by [Hayden] Christensen, is the kind of needlessly moody kid you might see getting punched out in a Dairy Queen parking lot."
"”Paul Tatara on SW:Episode II
Another media bias spotting for me today. An MSN headline this morning proclaimed:
""17 killed in Baghdad as Violence Continues""
That headline is gone, since the apparently the explosion was an accident, caused when a fuel tanker had a collision at an intersection, killing 10 people. So us the part of the story talking about how violence seems to be excalating in the wake of Saddam''s capture.
From Yahoo / Reuters
Oops. But hey, sensationalism sells - even if the story is wrong. Well, at least they got across their point that Saddam''s capture is escalating violence, even if it isn''t supported by this story...
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer