[vmarks]

Remember the looting of the National Museum in Baghdad, where 170,000 items were supposed to have been stolen?

It didn't happen. Or at least, not the way it was reported. Apparently, most of the small stuff was hidden in vaults before the US troops landed. There was, regrettably, some small looting, but the bulk of the collection was protected.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0...974063,00.html

Lost from the Baghdad museum: truth

David Aaronovitch
Tuesday June 10, 2003
The Guardian


Civilians inspect Torah scrolls stored in the vault of the National Museum
in Baghdad
When, back in mid-April, the news first arrived of the looting at the Iraqi
National Museum in Baghdad, words hardly failed anyone. No fewer than
170,000 items had, it was universally reported, been stolen or destroyed,
representing a large proportion of Iraq's tangible culture. And it had all
happened as some US troops stood by and watched, and others had guarded the
oil ministry.

Professors wrote articles. Professor Michalowski of Michigan argued that
this was "a tragedy that has no parallel in world history; it is as if the
Uffizi, the Louvre, or all the museums of Washington DC had been wiped out
in one fell swoop". Professor Zinab Bahrani from Columbia University claimed
that, "By April 12 the entire museum had been looted," and added, "Blame
must be placed with the Bush administration for a catastrophic destruction
of culture unparalleled in modern history." From Edinburgh Professor Trevor
Watkins lamented that, "The loss of Iraq's cultural heritage will go down in
history - like the burning of the Library at Alexandria - and Britain and
the US will be to blame." Others used phrases such as cultural genocide and
compared the US in particular to the Mongol invaders of 13th-century Iraq.

Back in Baghdad there was anger. On April 14, Dr Donny George, the museum's
director of research, was distraught. The museum had housed the leading
collection of the continuous history of mankind, "And it's gone, and it's
lost. If Marines had started [protecting the museum] before, none of this
would have happened. It's too late. It's no use. It's no use."

A few weeks later - in London to address a meeting at the British Museum -
George was interviewed for this newspaper by Neal Ascherson. George, said
Ascherson, did not throw blame around, but did remark that most of the
looters responsible for the damage were not educated.

On June 1, George was reported in the German newspaper Welt am Sonntag as
reiterating that witnesses had seen US soldiers enter the museum on April 9,
stay inside two hours and leave with some objects. When asked whether he
believed that the US military and international art thieves had been acting
in concert, George replied that a year earlier, at a meeting in a London
restaurant, someone (unnamed) had told him that he couldn't wait till he
could go inside the National Museum with US soldiers and give it a good
pillage - ie, yes.

So, there's the picture: 100,000-plus priceless items looted either under
the very noses of the Yanks, or by the Yanks themselves. And the only
problem with it is that it's nonsense. It isn't true. It's made up. It's
bollocks.

Not all of it, of course. There was some looting and damage to a small
number of galleries and storerooms, and that is grievous enough. But over
the past six weeks it has gradually become clear that most of the objects
which had been on display in the museum galleries were removed before the
war. Some of the most valuable went into bank vaults, where they were
discovered last week. Eight thousand more have been found in 179 boxes
hidden "in a secret vault". And several of the larger and most remarked
items seem to have been spirited away long before the Americans arrived in
Baghdad.

George is now quoted as saying that that items lost could represent "a small
percentage" of the collection and blamed shoddy reporting for the
exaggeration.

"There was a mistake," he said. "Someone asked us what is the number of
pieces in the whole collection. We said over 170,000, and they took that as
the number lost. Reporters came in and saw empty shelves and reached the
conclusion that all was gone. But before the war we evacuated all of the
small pieces and emptied the showcases except for fragile or heavy material
that was difficult to move."

This indictment of world journalism has caused some surprise to those who
listened to George and others speak at the British Museum meeting. One art
historian, Dr Tom Flynn, now speaks of his "great bewilderment". "Donny
George himself had ample opportunity to clarify to the best of [his]
knowledge the extent of the looting and the likely number of missing
objects," says Flynn. "Is it not a little strange that quite so many
journalists went away with the wrong impression, while Mr George made little
or not attempt to clarify the context of the figure of 170,000 which he
repeated with such regularity and gusto before, during, and after that
meeting." To Flynn it is also odd that George didn't seem to know that
pieces had been taken into hiding or evacuated. "There is a queasy subtext
here if you bother to seek it out," he suggests.

On Sunday night, in a remarkable programme on BBC2, the architectural
historian Dan Cruikshank both sought and found. Cruikshank had been to the
museum in Baghdad, had inspected the collection, the storerooms, the
outbuildings, and had interviewed people who had been present around the
time of the looting, including George and some US troops. And Cruikshank was
present when, for the first time, US personnel along with Iraqi museum staff
broke into the storerooms.

One, which had clearly been used as a sniper point by Ba'ath forces, had
also been looted of its best items, although they had been stacked in a far
corner. The room had been opened with a key. Another storeroom looked as
though the looters had just departed with broken artefacts all over the
floor. But this, Cruikshank learned, was the way it had been left by the
museum staff. No wonder, he told the viewers - the staff hadn't wanted
anyone inside this room. Overall, he concluded, most of the serious looting
"was an inside job".

Cruikshank also tackled George directly on events leading up to the looting.
The Americans had said that the museum was a substantial point of Iraqi
resistance, and this explained their reticence in occupying it. Not true,
said George, a few militia-men had fired from the grounds and that was all.
This, as Cruikshank heavily implied, was a lie. Not only were there firing
positions in the grounds, but at the back of the museum there was a room
that seemed to have been used as a military command post. And it was hardly
credible that senior staff at the museum would not have known that.
Cruikshank's closing thought was to wonder whether the museum's senior staff
- all Ba'ath party appointees - could safely be left in post.

Furious, I conclude two things from all this. The first is the credulousness
of many western academics and others who cannot conceive that a plausible
and intelligent fellow-professional might have been an apparatchiks of a
fascist regime and a propagandist for his own past. The second is that -
these days - you cannot say anything too bad about the Yanks and not be
believed.

[daimoni]

.

[Timo]

Here's more links for those skeptical of skepticism:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Jun7.html

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/...424400,00.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n..._iraqgold.html

[thunderous_funker]

I'm relieved to no end that the treasures are almost entirely accounted for. What a relief.

I'm completely and totally astounded that such a huge story could have been so widely reported without someone noticing it wasn't true.

Combined with the media's trumpeting of everything they are now accusing the administration of "lying" about, I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that the watchdog of democracy is most definitely dead.

[Timo]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Combined with the media's trumpeting of everything they are now accusing the administration of "lying" about, I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that the watchdog of democracy is most definitely dead.

It does suggest that the watchdog of democracy, the fourth estate, has a very short leash.

And people poo-poo the concentration of media outlets in fewer and fewer hands as beneath comment.

[vmarks]

There's something to be said for exercising the resources at your disposal-

You have the internet. You can make a web-page. What's to stop you from out-doing Drudge? At least that way, you're one more media outlet that isn't concentrated- Media concentration has been a problem for years. Consider the days of the Big Three Networks and their Network-Owned Stations. This isn't new, it's just a problem that isn't getting much better.

Remember, the first newspapers in the US were scandal-rags, more akin to the Enquirer than serious news. The media didn't suddenly go south just this year.

[Hugi]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I'm completely and totally astounded that such a huge story could have been so widely reported without someone noticing it wasn't true.

Combined with the media's trumpeting of everything they are now accusing the administration of "lying" about, I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that the watchdog of democracy is most definitely dead.

I don't know. I don't blame the media for this one, since it was probably very difficult to see the truth here. At least if what is implied in the article is true, that the head of the museum himself was involved in this charade.

Anyway, I'm just happy that most of the treasures have been recovered. (mental note: go to Baghdad and look at them before the next war)

[Lerkfish]

-

[Lerkfish]

-

[thunderous_funker]

I'm just saying that it's more and more apparant to me that they are not in the "truth business". They are in the entertainment business.

[Lerkfish]

-

[davesimondotcom]

There is one thing that the press could have done, but didn't - wait and see.

I can't blame an individual reporter for taking someone's word at face value. After all, it's awfully hard to prove someone wrong without total access to what they know.

But beyond the press, people HERE jumped on this and ran. The same people who get upset when someone posts a speculative article about how an embedded reporter saw something that COULD be WMD. What was the mantra, "Wait and see."

What is going on is that many people are using new stories to advance their personal agendas - not waiting for the news to be verified. On both sides.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
There is one thing that the press could have done, but didn't - wait and see.

I can't blame an individual reporter for taking someone's word at face value. After all, it's awfully hard to prove someone wrong without total access to what they know.

But beyond the press, people HERE jumped on this and ran. The same people who get upset when someone posts a speculative article about how an embedded reporter saw something that COULD be WMD. What was the mantra, "Wait and see."

What is going on is that many people are using new stories to advance their personal agendas - not waiting for the news to be verified. On both sides.

Thank you.

[Lerkfish]

-

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
you people have no clue. sorry to have expected you to.

So we shouldn't expect the press to fact find, fact check, have multiple sources, etc. before they report something as potentially inflamitory as the Museum looting story?

Maybe this just hits too close to home for you, Lerk.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
news does not have a shelf life. Wait and see is a luxury the press cannot afford. The press faithfully reported a PRESS CONFERENCE!!!!!!!

you people have no clue. sorry to have expected you to.

Now you seem to be saying that the press is obligated to pass on the unsubstantiated assertions of anyone capable of hosting a press conference.

What then differentiates them from a microphone or recording device?

In their zeal to deliver a "scoop", they neglected to investigate the truth of the claims or even present an alternative viewpoint.

"Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?" --T.S. Eliot

If all the media is supposed to do is disseminate the spoutings of whomever cares to make public pronouncements, I submit that they can be replaced by machines.

[moki]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Furious, I conclude two things from all this. The first is the credulousness
of many western academics and others who cannot conceive that a plausible
and intelligent fellow-professional might have been an apparatchiks of a
fascist regime and a propagandist for his own past. The second is that -
these days - you cannot say anything too bad about the Yanks and not be
believed

yeah, that sounds about right...

[Lerkfish]

-

[Lerkfish]

-

[Timo]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
in what way could an alternate view be researched?
Think.

person A says" items are missing." Unless the press knows where those items are, how do they present an alternative viewpoint?

[snip]

If someone says "items were stolen" and those items are indeed not where they are supposed to be, and their whereabouts are unknown, how do you propose researching that claim to disprove it or to offer an alternate view?
If you do not know the location or even the existence of a secret vault, how do you determine that there is one?

Please elaborate how this could have been disproven, or an alternate view could have been researched?

Lerk, how do you think the discrepancy arose between the initial reports (and pictures) of massive looting and these later assessments? Do you have any theories?

[Lerkfish]

-

[Lerkfish]

-

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
There is one thing that the press could have done, but didn't - wait and see.

I can't blame an individual reporter for taking someone's word at face value. After all, it's awfully hard to prove someone wrong without total access to what they know.

But beyond the press, people HERE jumped on this and ran. The same people who get upset when someone posts a speculative article about how an embedded reporter saw something that COULD be WMD. What was the mantra, "Wait and see."

What is going on is that many people are using new stories to advance their personal agendas - not waiting for the news to be verified. On both sides.

Exactly what I was thinking.

That is the very reason I am not saying anything about the WMD thing yet.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
you people have no clue. sorry to have expected you to.

Because as well all know. You are he KING of being in the know

[zigzag]

I wouldn't blame any one party, apart from those who outright lied. It's in the nature of things that stories like this get out of hand. Someone observes something, or concocts a story, or there's a major event. The press reports it. If they don't, they risk being accused of protecting the source or being lazy. They just need to be careful not to report the story as true before they've had an opportunity to corroborate it (which is why they're usually careful to make attributions to third parties). There's also the danger of sensationalizing, and of running with the herd in the race to get the story out first - even conscientious reporters are vulnerable to this. Meanwhile, it's up to the citizenry to wait and see, i.e. not take reports at face value until they've been corroborated. As dave pointed out, people tend to automatically put faith in stories that reflect their values/agendas.

It's regrettable that this story got out of hand but I don't think it's the end of journalism as we know it. I suspect that this sort of thing has always happened and always will. In this case, I'm happy to hear that the worst fears were unfounded.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
no, I just know what I'm talking about, and you do not.

How sickenly pretentious. You don't have a history of being right. So really, you cannot make such baseless statements.

I remember I said something of the like that it had more to do with the people who RAN the place. I was told I was wrong. I didn't know what I was talking about.

Hmm not why does your posts in here remind me of that?

Who was right?

Is this another one of those things where you are DEAD RIGHT about Lerk? Your track record isn't that great lately is it?

Maybe you'll remember these times before you stick your foot in your mouth again.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
How sickenly pretentious. You don't have a history of being right. So really, you cannot make such baseless statements.

I remember I said something of the like that it had more to do with the people who RAN the place. I was told I was wrong. I didn't know what I was talking about.

Hmm not why does your posts in here remind me of that?

Who was right?

Is this another one of those things where you are DEAD RIGHT about Lerk? Your track record isn't that great lately is it?

Maybe you'll remember these times before you stick your foot in your mouth again.

Are you losing your cool Z?

[boots]

How about you put each other on your respective ignore lists for a while.

The pettiness is getting tedious.

[nvaughan3]

Udderly horrendous reporting job.

[Lerkfish]

-

[Lerkfish]

-

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Are you losing your cool Z?

Not at all. I found all of this VERY humorous.

I think it's Lerk that has lost his cool.

[nvaughan3]

lerkfish given what I've seen there should have been at least references to the fact that his claims could not be verified.

3. fact-checking only works when you have access to facts. Its great if you have that, but if you don't, you cannot print what you think or suspect is true. For example, both the police and the press were convinced susan smith was lying and likely killed her own children for quite some time, but they could not report that until they had something concrete to go on (in that case, a confession).

Scott Peterson ring a bell?

More relevant is the fact that since the '96 atlanta bombing the press is worried about liability and the cops dont want their "suspects" to lawyer up once they know they are "suspect"(ed.)

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
well, actually I do know what I'm talking about and Dave does not, because I have decades of experience in journalism,

That doesn't mean you are right Lerk.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:
lerkfish given what I've seen there should have been at least references to the fact that his claims could not be verified.

Exactly.

Now wait and see Lerk reply and try to justify this not being so.

[Timo]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I would also direct you to reread the story again and see that many of the people writing presumptious conclusions are professors, and not journalists. They are simply being quoted by journalists.

Thanks for sharing your POV.

Oh and Zim: why don't you take a break from the attacks? Not very Christian of you.

[zigzag]

I take it that the next time George Bush gives a press conference and the reporters second-guess some of his statements, we won't hear complaints about the "disrespectful liberal media"?

You can't have it both ways, and that goes for people on both the right and left. The press can be dumb and irresponsible - no profession is perfect - but the water it works in is inherently murky. I think it's ultimately up to us to maintain a perspective on - and a healthy dose of skepticism about - the things we read/hear, whether they're from the President of The Unites States or the head of some museum halfway across the world or a newspaper that reports them.

[Spliffdaddy]

"Maybe this just hits too close to home for you, Lerk."

heh.

That's what Dubya-bashing will get you.

"I bet the Iraqis won't be dancing in the streets..."

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Timo:
Oh and Zim: why don't you take a break from the attacks? Not very Christian of you.

Attacks? Please.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
"Maybe this just hits too close to home for you, Lerk."

heh.

That's what Dubya-bashing will get you.

"I bet the Iraqis won't be dancing in the streets..."

There is nothing wrong with "dubya" bashing. As long as it's warranted. But trying to find ANYTHING, and even to go as far as making up stuff to do it will get you laughed at.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Attacks? Please.

Yes attacks - of pettiness, as boots mentioned. Instead of trying to one-up each other, it would be nice if you and Lerk would re-direct your energies towards debating in a constructive way. Insulting each other does nothing but turn an otherwise interesting thread into yet another flamefest.

[Zimphire]

If Lerk wouldn't come in with such a pretentious "I know it all" attitude while belittling others, he would not receieve such posts.

No one treated Lerk like this when he was acting rational. But those days are few and far between lately.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
well, actually I do know what I'm talking about and Dave does not, because I have decades of experience in journalism, and I know how things are reported, and why they're reported a certain way. Therefore, what I say is not "baseless", its based on actual experience.

Your decades of journalistic experience (compared to the ~6 months I spent working at a newspaper) should tell you that stories grow and change.

Yes, the reporters reported what was said to them. That is their duty. However, at some point, the story got a life of it's own, with reporters showing "empty" museums and gushing about how the "cultural history" of Iraq had been lost.

What you seem to forget is that some people AT THE TIME were suggesting that the items had not been looted, but had been hidden or placed in protected storage - exactly what DID happen. Only these people weren't reported on with the same zest. Why? Perhaps because those saying the items were gone had a better story.

But, what do I know, I'm not a journalist.

[boots]

Wow. It seems like the title "journalist" is starting to take on the same connotation as "Lawyer" amongst the population.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by boots:
Wow. It seems like the title "journalist" is starting to take on the same connotation as "Lawyer" amongst the population.

Ironic too, at least in the context of this forum.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by boots:
Wow. It seems like the title "journalist" is starting to take on the same connotation as "Lawyer" amongst the population.

Yep, we can get lectures in the law and lectures in journalism - but those of us who are the bourgeois* can't comment.

*If offended by the french terminology, please replace with "freedom serfs."

[vmpaul]

According the the Daily Show - "The most popular show on Iraqi TV is 'Antiques Roadshow.'"

So somebody MUST HAVE looted something. Unless you're going to criticize their journalistic credentials as well.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
According the the Daily Show - "The most popular show on Iraqi TV is 'Antiques Roadshow.'"

LOL

I can just see it:

"I found this in my aunt's attic."

"What's an attic?"

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by boots:
Wow. It seems like the title "journalist" is starting to take on the same connotation as "Lawyer" amongst the population.

But the difference is the legal profession at least pretends to police itself. People do get suspended, disbarred, and occasionally jailed for legal malpractice.

Alas, the journalistic profession doesn't have the same integrity. On the whole, they seem to think that a grudging retraction posted 6 weeks late and in small print in the bottom right hand corner on page 37 is adequate. Or in the case of Maureen Dowd, not even that.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Alas, the journalistic profession doesn't have the same integrity. On the whole, they seem to think that a grudging retraction posted 6 weeks late and in small print in the bottom right hand corner on page 37 is adequate. Or in the case of Maureen Dowd, not even that.