Who's spinning you and why?

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, U.S. Air Force General Richard B. Myers, last week spoke to the annual convention of the American Society of Newspaper Editors.

ASNE is comprised of the editors of the country's leading newspapers. These editors determine what news you, as a news consumer, will read.

Considering the sheer number of the nation's editors gathered under one roof, one might think that the information contained in a speech by Gen. Myers would be reported factually, if not fully, across the news channels. Failure to report all the facts in a report to the police, is called perjury, a lie of omission. In journalism, failure to report all the facts to the readers is called editorial discretion.

The problem is that when newspaper editors decide not to report on a topic themselves, they rely on syndicates or wire services to report the news. If the wire service reporter has his or her own personal agenda, that agenda is repeated in the newspapers, and on the tv and radio stations around the world. And now, since the creation of the internet, that information is repeated across the ether by well-meaning but uneducated junior blog journalists who take the news from such places like the Associated Press or British wire service Reuters as complete, objective and balanced.

Nothing, however, could be farther from the truth and the facts.

The speech by Gen. Myers is a classic example of what the press hears and what the press reports.

According to the Department of Defense and journalism trade publication Editor & Publisher, Gen. Myers spoke at length to the gathering of the nation's news gatekeepers about the relationship between the press and the military, asking the editors to report on the full and complete story about U.S. actions in Afghanistan and Iraq.

As reported by the Armed Forces Press Service, the DoD's own reporters:

“It’s particularly important today … because the American people need to know the full story,” said Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, “because it is going to be their resolve that is so critical to our ability to confront the extremist threat.”

Myers told the editors that he reads far more about the problems of servicemembers’ equipment and the latest insurgent attack than about “the thousands of amazing things our troops are accomplishing.” This concerns him, he said, because American resolve is key to success.

The chairman said that part of the problem lies with the military. He said commanders must be more responsive and give more access to reporters. “We’re working on that,” he told the editors.

But still, “a bomb blast is seen as more newsworthy than the steady progress of rebuilding communities and lives, remodeling schools and running vaccination programs and water purification plants.”

Of course, the liberals would say that since this was reported by the DoD's own stable of reporters, it must be "fake news." But it's news that was also reported independently by Editor & Publisher.

After the end of Gen. Myers' speech to the editors, J. Ford Huffman, an openly gay deputy managing editor at Gannett's flagship USA Today, mounted a soapbox making a statement out his question on whether Gen. Myers continued his support of "Don't ask, don't tell."

As reported by Andrew Ackerman for Editor & Publisher:

When asked by J. Ford Huffman, an assistant managing editor at USA Today, if he has reconsidered his support for the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy in light of a recent government study that found the military has spent more than $220 million on enforcing it, and considering that the military is having trouble reaching recruitment goals, Myers declined to offer any personal reflections: "The way I feel about it right now is support the law the Congress passed in the mid-1990s, and we'll see if we have hearings on this or what."

This was one question with one answer. And, considering Gen. Myers hadn't changed his position on the subject of gays in the military, it was old news and a non-issue. What would the nation's editors deem the most newsworthy part of the speech -- the chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff's request to editors that the newspapers' coverage of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan be balanced and fair, the question about gays in the military or both?

If you're a well-read individual, you already know the answer. The nation's newspapers, radio and television stations, and the internet news outlets used an unsigned Associated Press report on the "Don't ask, don't tell" question, covering the answer by Gen. Myers, filling in with historical information on how many gay, lesbian and transgendered service persons have been cashiered from the military since 1993 but declining to inform readers that the question was in fact asked by an openly activist gay editor from USA Today more interested in making a statement and making news himself than covering the news and reporting it fully and accurately.

A Reuters reporter also covered the speech by Gen. Myers. You might think he'd independently write his own story, being from a different news service and a British news service at that. You'd be wrong. Reuters correspondent Will Dunham reported solely about Gen. Myers' position on "Don't ask; don't tell" and declined to include any information about Gen. Myers' request for fair and balanced coverage from the nation's editors.

Only the report by Ackerman at Editor & Publisher contained all the information.

I don't mean to imply there's some kind of conspiracy going on here at the nation's newspapers among the nation's editors, but both reports from the wire services brought in information recently contained in pro-gay, pro-lesbian and pro-transgendered service personnel editorials recently printed in the Washington Post and the Miami Herald that could have been written by the same editorial writer. (I've written about these editorials previously.) And those reports by the Associated Press and Reuters were suprisingly similar to the report written by Paul Johnson, Washington Bureau Chief of 365Gay.com, a gay, lesbian and transgendered news web site with no pretense of balance or objectivity considering the heterosexual viewpoint or the viewpoint of the military on the "gays in the military" issue.

Now don't go believing that Editor & Publisher will always contain balanced information either. Just because Ackerman reported the full story from the speech by Gen. Myers doesn't mean that his associate Joe Strupp didn't short-sheet his report of the comments by conservative Kathleen Parker in a discussion on newspaper bias. Strupp allocated Parker a measely 57 words in his 1,035 word report on the discussion, which quoted heavily from the liberals on the panel.

Strupp wrote: "By and large, however, the other panelists dominated the discussion." But Parker assures me she contributed as much information to the discussion as any of the others, despite being a last minute substitute for a missing panelist. "Anyone who was there would be surprised by that report (in E&P by Strupp)," she wrote me in an e-mail.

Caveat lector -- Reader beware. Considering how the nation's media covered his speech, I hope Gen. Myers isn't counting on complete, fair and balanced coverage of the military in Afghanistan and Iraq. And the news consumer will still be getting ripped off by second rate, agenda-filled reporting masking as journalism.

[Update 4/18/2005: Media that used the unsigned AP report on "Don't ask, don't tell," failing to give their readers a complete and accurate report of Gen. Myers' speech included, at least: Army Times, Miami Herald/Nuevo Herald, USA Today, MSNBC, Kansas City Star, The Guardian (U.K.), San Francisco Chronicle, The Times-Leader, The Herald-Sun, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, and San Diego Union-Tribune. If you subscribe to any of the newspapers and are unhappy being short-changed by the reporting of the AP on this particular story, you might want to write the editor and tell them. They may not know their readers missed any information at all.]

[Update 4/18/2005: I've sent notes myself to several of the editors at newspapers which printed the AP story. If I could find an e-mail address or a feedback form on their web site, I sent them a note. Editors select which stories should be printed and it is left to their news judgement what stories the news consumer reads. I personalized each note sent to each publication, citing the URL where the editor printed the particular story. I'll post the responses as I receive them. What follows is the general format of each note I sent out:

Dear XXXXXX,

I just wanted to alert you that an Associated Press wire story your newspaper printed last week contained incomplete information and could mislead readers.

The article in question concerned a speech given by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard Myers, to the national convention of the American Society of Newspaper Editors. The article is displayed on your website at the following hyperlink:

[URL for the particular page at each newspaper upon which the AP report was printed.]

Gen. Myers' speech contained much more information than this AP article would lead readers to believe. Editor & Publisher and the Armed Forces Press Service contained salient information the AP failed to report. [Following paragraph added to note to San Francisco Chronicle/SFGate.com: I realize the San Francisco area has a large gay, lesbian and transgendered community, but giving that community information regarding only gay, lesbian and transgendered issues panders to a particular aspect of their lives and fails to fully serve their news and information needs.][In the e-mail to USA Today, I noted that the question regarding "Don't ask, don't tell" was reportedly asked by USA Today deputy managing editor J. Ford Huffman and added the following paragraph: I realize USA Today may have a large gay, lesbian and transgendered readership, but giving that community information regarding only gay, lesbian and transgendered issues panders to a particular aspect of their lives and fails to fully serve their news and information needs. Moreover, I believe it should be the job of an editor to seek balance and fairness and not be an advocate to any particular cause. That crosses the boundaries of most Codes of Ethics.]

I've also written about this apparent failure on my blog, including hyperlinks to more complete versions of the story:

http://news4a2.blogspot.com/2005/04/whos-spinning-you-and-why.html

I just thought you'd appreciate knowing that your readers are being under-served and short-changed by the AP.

Sincerely,

Mark McBride
Editor, Publisher
The 6th Estate

Response from Kent Miller, Editor, Army Times, Time-News Online: "I'll take a look. Thanks."

Response from Bob Ashley, Editor, The Herald-Sun of Durham, N.C.: "Thank you for your note, and for bringing your concerns about the AP story to my attention. I don't doubt that any wire-service report may include less detail than some who were familiar with the original intent may have wished to see. I would suggest you might want to convey your concerns to the Associated Press." [NEWS4A2, blood-sucking journalist, note: I've contacted the Associated Press on previous occasions regarding another post on The 6th Estate and failed to get a response to my interrogatories. I can guess what their response on this particular report would be -- de nada. But then I don't give them any money. Your local newspaper does.]

First Response from David de la Fuente, Online Editor, SFGate.com -- the internet portal for the San Francisco Chronicle: "This is not for publication on your blog. News doesn't often run stories on itself. You can say that's because it wants to protect its own biases; personally, I think it's because most people (other than the diehard "the media is all liberal!" crowd) just aren't as interested in the media itself as in what it reports. Inside baseball, so to speak. If your argument is from the school that believes that the AP photographers don't deserve their Pulitzer because they weren't showing all the great things that came out of Bush's war and were only showing the nasty bits, then I don't have a lot of use for it." [NEWS4A2, blood-sucking journalist, note: I replied to Mr. de la Fuente's order for me to keep his comments off the record: Thank you for your response. I will publish it on the blog. Since we had no prior agreement, I must deny your request for your comment not to be published. I reported the information to the editor of SFGate.com as the editor of a blog not as your buddy. I was soliciting feedback; you chose to respond. You should have the expectation that I was seeking a response for publication. If I called you on the telephone and told you I was a reporter, would you expect any comments you make to be kept off the record? Of course not. That's the news business. Again, thank you for your reply.]

Second response from David de la Fuente, Online Editor, SFGate.com: "Let me further suggest that E&P, whose audience is journalists, would have an interest in running that story; so would the Armed Forces Press Service, which has an interest in publishing it (both based on who "owns" it and who its audience is). Please remember that we are a general audience medium, and your average John Doe is just not going to be interested in the inside baseball of media reporting. If you'd rather chalk it up to media bias than how we try to serve our audience, be my guest. As a conservative friend of mine once said years ago, You can't convince anyone of anything. These days, he's more right than ever." [NEWS4A2, blood-sucking journalist, responds: To claim that what Gen. Myers had to say to editors was shoptalk strictly for journalists and wouldn't appeal to the public is ludicrous. I wasn't there but let me rewrite the lead based on information I have read: The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff accused reporters of slanting the news in Iraq and Afghanistan, concentrating solely on covering the on-going violence but neglecting the progress made. "A bomb blast is seen as more newsworthy than the steady progress of rebuilding communities and lives, remodeling schools and running vaccination programs and water purification plants," Gen. Richard B. Myers told the group of journalists assembled here for an annual editors convention. I'd guarantee the public would be interested in that claim, although this country's admittedly liberal journalists wouldn't want to air their dirty laundry.]

Third response from David de la Fuente, Online Editor, SFGate.com, obviously unhappy with my refusal to follow his order to keep his comments off the record: "Then I further have no use for you, as you do not respect the conventions of the business. Any newspaper would not publish a letter that said "not for publication" at the top. Why, then, are you doing so? If I said early in a phone conversation that these comments were off the record, you ought to respect that. I don't know whether you would; apparently you would not. Nice reporting there. I truly would be surprised if you ever had been a journalist for a reputable news source. Of course, I'm guessing that in your mind, none of us are reputable. [NEWS4A2, blood-sucking journalist, responds: I guess some journalists don't like to be news subjects themselves. Note to news sources who might be interviewed by Mr. de la Fuente, when he calls or writes and identifies himself as the Online Editor of SFGate.com and you've never met him before, he's just doing it to be friendly and chat you up. Trust me, I'm with the press! Any comments you make -- written or otherwise -- won't be recorded for publication until you give him the high sign. I'll bet President Bush will be relieved by that policy! He won't send e-mail to his daughters because he learned his personal e-mail is subject to the Freedom of Information Act, not that any journalist would ever try to obtain private information about the President's daughters just to embarass him ... or them. I'll go by the rules set by the mainstream media: What's good for the President is good for the press. Make your words sweet; one day you may have to eat them.]

[Update 6/5/2005: Read the news the press didn't want to report, and you decide what was the most important information from Air Force Gen. Richard Myers. The website for the Joint Chiefs of Staff has provided transcripts, not only of JCS Chairman Myers' speech to the ASNE convention, but also the follow up question and answer session.]

---

Porn spam Easter egg of the day:

Nature has never read the Declaration of Independence. It continues to make us unequal.