Media-ocrity

27 April 2004

Last Friday, I happened to see a brief blurb on ABC's Good Morning America. They reported that American forces had gotten a tip that led to the discovery of 24 Iraqi Mig 25 fighters buried in the sand.

Cool, I thought. I even called my brother, "guess what I heard?" I only saw the story for a few seconds, but my curiosity was fully engaged. When I got home, I went to ABC's web site. No story. So I googled.

Apparently the story broke a bit before ABC reported it. Say about eight and a half months earlier. The pictures ABC showed were from another source that published to the web on August 6. Using my handy dandy digital counter on the end of my wrist gave me a figure of nearly nine months.

Also, they mentioned 24 fighters which the other story contradicted. So ABC wasn't only late but not quite accurate either. Oh Mr. Murrow, are you listening?

This story seemed important to me. After all the "there are no WMD's" we've heard, this seemed troubling. There are still 10,000 gallons or so of anthrax missing. That quantity would fit in two tanker trailers each measuring about 48 by 8 by 12 feet. A single Mig 25 fighter is about 70 feet long and 20 feet high. If they could hide numerous aircraft buried in the desert, what else could they be hiding?

Apparently it was only important to me since I'd never heard of it. All the major news outlets had access to this info. But it seems evidence of Saddam's regime hiding weapons wasn't fit to air. Maybe I'm not the biggest news junkie, but I do manage to keep up on the big things. Given the implications of hidden weapons caches, shouldn't there be a larger alarm?

After the 1991 war, we looked at Saddam's WMD capabilities. If we found evidence that he had acquired or made X amount of a WMD, but either he or the UN had destroyed (or used!!) Y amount, we assumed that he still had the remainder. Not just the US, but the UN, France, Germany and everyone else. But when we opened the second front by invading Iraq, the world and much of the US changed their minds. Now, if something isn't in plain sight, and Saddam says he doesn't have anymore, we should just believe him. After all why would he lie? Someone as nice as Saddam hiding weapons? Pshaw! I hope the State Department has forwarded Saddam's invitation to my next candlelight supper.

But the buried aircraft ruin that theory. We still can't account for the missing WMD's. The thought of a terrorist getting their hands on a WMD is chilling. Just the other day, the Jordanians broke up a terror cell that was going to do a WMD attack there hoping to kill 80,000. That's 80,000 islamics they wanted to murder. And the fact that Saddam was less than honest about his weapons doesn't make the cut over the latest Jackson fiasco (just pick which Jackson) is appalling. The same morning I heard about the planes, I heard NBC's Today show on my car radio. "Next, we'll have the hottest spring colors". I swear. My, how newsworthy.

While Richard Clark's fifteen minutes were ebbing thankfully away, Fox news took him to task. Jim Angle remembered the briefing that Clark had done on background. He also remembered that what was said totally contradicted Clark's printed and "60 Minutes" version. I don't think that briefing was an exclusive. Where were the reporters from ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC? Didn't they remember Clark? Didn't they remember what he said? Playing "Gotcha" and catching bureaucrats and politicians changing stories is a big part of the news game. Are those other reporters so inept and incompetent? If so, why weren't they fired? There is only one other possible explanation.

Some nameless faceless network editors decided that these stories weren't worthy of air time. We didn't really need to know. These facts didn't fit into their agenda of what is good for us to hear. "Really, we're not biased". What a load of poop. They claim to be non-biased because they get guests and interviews from different sides. They pick the best advocate they can for their position, and the most ravenous, salivating near mental patient on the other.

A non-biased visual media just doesn't exist. We now have a multiple biased media. We can just tune to whichever channel most closely shares our bias and enjoy.

Silly me, I thought reporters were supposed to report facts. Not opine or describe the feelings. Just the facts. But they can't do that well. For example, they miss the fact that most news viewers aren't airheads only interested in spring colors. We are , in fact, relatively smart. We don't need or want someone to "interpret" the facts for us. That's why we have brains. We can figure these things out pretty well.

Hey, we've had reporters figured out for a long time without you telling us.

Until later

Dr. Peter M. Grout

grout@i-55.com

Postscript:

Look, I know what you're going to say. I do opine quite a bit. But I don't claim to be non-biased. I'm not trying to tell you the basic facts. These are just what dribbles out of my head. If you don't like them, just send a check for $10,000 to me and I'll be sure you don't get them anymore. If you do like them, Please send the same check for ten grand to renew your subscription