Imagine my surprise to read this article in my paper on Sunday which completely bebunks the stories told by an OIF veteran named Jimmy Massey.
Among his claims:Marines fired on and killed peaceful Iraqi protesters.
Americans shot a 4-year-old Iraqi girl in the head.
A tractor-trailer was filled with the bodies of civilian men, women and children killed by American artillery.
…
Each of his claims is either demonstrably false or exaggerated – according to his fellow Marines, Massey’s own admissions, and the five journalists who were embedded with Massey’s unit, including a reporter and photographer from the Post-Dispatch and reporters from The Associated Press and The Wall Street Journal.
Gateway Pundit is all over this and thinks Mr Massey should be behind bars; I think he should be in a mental institution getting the help he obviously needs (along with his partner in madness, Cindy Sheehan.)
And not content with that, Mr. Ron Harris then goes on to ask “Why did the press swallow Massey’s stories?” The quotes Mr. Harris presents do not paint a pretty picture of the press:
Media outlets throughout the world have reported Jimmy Massey’s claims of war crimes, frequently without ever seeking to verify them.For instance, no one ever called any of the five journalists who were embedded with Massey’s battalion to ask him or her about his claims.
The Associated Press, which serves more than 8,500 newspaper, radio and television stations worldwide, wrote three stories about Massey, including an interview with him in October about his new book.
But none of the AP reporters ever called Ravi Nessman, an Associated Press reporter who was embedded with Massey’s unit. Nessman wrote more than 30 stories about the unit from the beginning of the war until April 15, after Baghdad had fallen.
Jack Stokes, a spokesman for the AP, said he didn’t know why the reporters didn’t talk to Nessman, nor could he explain why the AP ran stories without seeking a response from the Marine Corps. The organization also refused to allow Nessman to be interviewed for this story.
How typical — stonewall when called on shoddy journalism.
While the story never comes to a conclusion about why didn’t the press checkout his stories, I’ll give you my answer – in some cases they wanted to believe them, and in other cases they just never bother. I don’t know which is worse, but check out more quotes from the story:
David Holwerk, editorial page editor for The Sacramento Bee, said he thought the newspaper handled its story, a question and answer interview with Massey, poorly.
“I feel fairly confident that we did not subject this to the rigorous scrutiny that we should have or to which we would subject it today,” he said.
Mr. Holwerk, please don’t pee on my leg and tell me its raining. What steps have you specifically taken so this doesn’t happen again? Yes, no doubt today, after having been alerted, you wouldn’t run Mr. Massey’s ravings without the slightest scrutiny like you did the last time, but what about other stories?
Rex Smith, editor of the Albany (N.Y.) Times Union, said he thought the newspaper’s story about Massey could have “benefited from some additional reporting.” But he didn’t necessarily see anything particularly at odds with standard journalism practices.The paper printed a story in which Massey reportedly told an audience how he and other Marines killed peaceful demonstrators. There was no response from the Marine Corps or any other evidence to back Massey’s claims.
Smith said that, unfortunately, that is the nature of the newspaper business.
“You could take any day’s newspaper and probably pick out a half dozen or more stories that ought to be subjected to a more rigorous truth test,” he said.
“Yes, it would have been much better if we had the other side. But all I’m saying is that this is unfortunately something that happens every day in our newspapers and with practically every story on television.”
Mr Smith, I have to credit you with telling it like it is, and in the immortal words of Latigo Smith, “the Truth hurts”, but how do you look at yourself in the mirror every morning while willingly and knowingly participating in a gigantic fraud on the American people. Yes, fraud. We pay newspapars to tell us the facts and provide all sides to a story, and here you are telling us that what we get for our money is a collection of fairy tales that on a good day might concievably have some ever so slight basis in fact, but you don’t really have any idea.
Michael Parks sees it differently. He is the director of the University of Southern California Annenberg School of Journalism and formerly the editor of the Los Angeles Times. Parks also reviewed stories written about Massey.”A reporter’s obligation is to check the allegation, to seek comment from the organization that’s accused,” said Parks, a Pulitzer Prize winner who covered the Vietnam War as a reporter for the Baltimore Sun. “They can’t let allegations lie on the table, unchecked or unchallenged. When they don’t do that, it’s a clear disservice to the reader.”
Dear Mr. Parks, it isn’t a disservice to the reader, its fraud. When the press claims one to fact check but doesn’t, it’s fraud. And this happens over, and over, and over.
“We’re not stenographers, we’re journalists,” Dixon [former managing editor of The Philadelphia Inquirer and currently chairman of the Howard University Department of Journalism] said. “What separates journalism from other forms of writing is that we practice the craft of verification. By not doing that, that’s saying they’re abdicating any responsibility from exercising news judgment. … As a journalist, you want to put accurate information before the public so they can make opinions and decisions based on accurate information. When something like this happens, harm is done, the truth suffers.”
Amen Brother Dixon, Amen. Now if you can make that teaching stick with your students, I’ll be much obliged to you.
My own theory on why Mr. Harris wrote two such take-no-prisoners articles: His sense of truth was offended by what happened. He was one of the imbedded reporters with the marine unit that Mr. Massey was maligning and as such he was a witness to the truth. And so he wrote two articles, one that looked at the liar, and the other that looked at those who uncritically spread the lies, and he discharged his duty to the truth.
Mr Harris and the Post delivered real journalism, powerfully delivered in two short articles. And Mr. Arnie Robbins, new editor in chief of the Post, that’s something that I, and plenty others who also want real journalism, are willing to pay for, whatever the format.
