[mojo2]

CBS News reporter, Tom Fenton accepts his part of the blame reserved for mainstream media's role in allowing 9/11 to become a possibility.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005309.php

« Pakistan: The jihad lives on | Main | Secret FBI Report Questions Al Qaida Capability »
March 12, 2005

CBS News Senior Foreign Correspondent criticizes media coverage of terrorism
Soul-searching at CBS? Well, we'll see what happens to Fenton. From Accuracy in Media, with thanks to Nicolei and RB:

"We know we could have saved thousands of lives if we had done more to bring the public's attention to the threat of an Al-Qaeda attack in the years before 9/11. What we must ask now is why did we fail?"
That startling statement is made by CBS News Senior Foreign Correspondent Tom Fenton in his just released book "Bad News: The Decline of Reporting, The Business of News, and The Danger to Us All." This fascinating insider's account of broadcast news serves up 9/11 as a wake-up call to those concerned over declining standards in media. He says, "CBS News like most of the broadcast news industry, had been sliding blithely downhill for years; for me it was the failure of my own profession that cut deepest."

Fenton and his colleagues had been tracking stories about Al-Qaeda and its allied networks for more than a decade, but they rarely reported what they knew on network news -- "because much of the time, our bosses didn't consider such developments newsworthy."

I got breaking news for you, Tom: they still don't.

When it comes to media failures, Fenton contends the real questions are "the ones that go to the heart of the system" and "never get asked." He asks, "Do media organs give us enough of the truth (otherwise known as news) or do they consistently miss large, crucial chunks of it? Do they even know what real news is?"
Excellent question. It seems that they don't, and I have written about this just recently.

Accuracy in Media is on the case:

Fenton's account is fascinating, but it's not the first time such questions have been raised. Accuracy in Media is one group that has focused on media's failure to do proactive reporting on terrorism. Even years after 9/11 we're still getting "after the fact" reporting-after a tragedy, or after a Justice Department or FBI announcement of an indictment, arrest or investigation.
But consider the case of Florida professor Sami Al-Arian and his alleged role in the terrorist group, Islamic Jihad. Al-Arian was under scrutiny by journalist Steven Emerson long before most American media even knew who he was. Emerson is still the exception to the rule.

Groups like the Islamic Society of North America get a free pass when it comes to media coverage. No tough questions are asked about why they launched a legal defense fund for admitted HAMAS terrorist leaders Abu Marzuk and Mohammed Salah. No questions are asked about hosting such controversial figures as Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who is famous for penning the "theological" justification for suicide bombing that was posted on the HAMAS website, or Rashid Ganushi, who referred to Jews as a "cancer" and "Satans."...

MSM = MAINSTREAM MEDIA

Posted by Robert at March 12, 2005 02:31 AM
Comments

For a very long time, the journalistic subculture has demanded an adversarial stance towards the rest of society, including government and business. At best, this was to ensure that the "left outs" had something of a voice (at least a few of them). But coupled with a romantic third worldism, infantile leftism, and a consuming ambition to shock the bourgeoisie, the MSM probably would've found itself an accomplice of 9/11 had the reporters been in a position to call Bin Laden's mind on the matter.

The MSM is also pussyfooting with Communist CHina, since it fears being denied access should it report too honestly and truthfully on that last, best hope for 20th century totalitarianism.

Posted by: Kepha at March 12, 2005 02:52 AM

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by mojo2

CBS News reporter, Tom Fenton accepts his part of the blame reserved for mainstream media's role in allowing 9/11 to become a possibility.

"We know we could have saved thousands of lives if we had done more to bring the public's attention to the threat of an Al-Qaeda attack in the years before 9/11. What we must ask now is why did we fail?"

What a nonsense! The media is not there to protect the US, that's the job of the NSA and FBI and to a smaller extent of the CIA and Pentagon.

Regardless of how much media-coverage there was about Al-Qaida previous of 9/11 it wouldn't have prevented it, a dozen of Saudi-Arabians took charge of planes with the help of carpet-knives and flew them into buildings, how should the media have prevented that?

Besides after 9/11, the whole international media reported about Al-Qaida intensively, did it prevent the Madrid- and London-bombings?

Taliesin

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

What a nonsense! The media is not there to protect the US, that's the job of the NSA and FBI and to a smaller extent of the CIA and Pentagon.

Regardless of how much media-coverage there was about Al-Qaida previous of 9/11 it wouldn't have prevented it, a dozen of Saudi-Arabians took charge of planes with the help of carpet-knives and flew them into buildings, how should the media have prevented that?

Besides after 9/11, the whole international media reported about Al-Qaida intensively, did it prevent the Madrid- and London-bombings?

Taliesin

Talie, you don't understand the role of a free press. If it isn't to educate the people they serve then the only reason for the press is to provide entertainment and deliver commercial messages.

But we all know education is THE major role of a free press to a free society. If you ever worked in the media you would understand this. But you haven't and so you don't. What's more, someone as bright as you would never have said what you just did had you really given the matter any real thought.

Think again.

As things stand we can look back upon how closely the hijacking AZZOLES came to being prevented from completing their devilish deeds. If the MSM had done a better job of impressing upon the people the danger, intent and capability of OBL it is easy to imagine a different sensibility existing in the governmental agencies. A sensibility that would have been alerted by the pre-9/11 reports of the activities of these misfits.

You really can't see the role education can play in preventing attacks? What? Do you think the media is ONLY for spreading disinformation and inciting the young and impressionable to commit suicide?

If the MSM had done a better job and if EVERY FBI agent knew OBL's history and the modus operandi of all his other attacks and attempted attacks it is very likely the 9/11 attacks would have been prevented.

The Madrid and London attackers are unlikely to have enjoyed the same freedom from scrutiny the 9/11 attackers had. The alarm had been sounded and people were very much more aware. But the Madrid and London attackers were able to take advantage of the European liberal atmosphere and belief that AMERICA was the main target. And it is always much easier for a terrorist to pick the place and time of his attack than it is for the govt. to prevent said attack.

(Who was it that has been continually mentioning JFK's book, "Why England Slept?")

Let's put it this way, there's a thin line between a MSM that educates the public to a danger so well that the public is scared of every single thing that goes 'bump' in the night and a MSM that is so afraid to deal with serious issues that it allows the people to be unprepared for an attack that many reporters KNEW was coming.

Fenton feels that responsibility. He's a newsman. He would know.

Why not read his book?

[Millennium]

There are some 19 people who can be blamed for 9/11. It so happens that they all died in the attack. You might also blame people up their chain of command, but other than that there is no one else.

[zizban]

Originally Posted by Millennium

There are some 19 people who can be blamed for 9/11. It so happens that they all died in the attack. You might also blame people up their chain of command, but other than that there is no one else.

When Osama's head is on a pike in Time Square, then justice will have been served.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Millennium

There are some 19 people who can be blamed for 9/11. It so happens that they all died in the attack. You might also blame people up their chain of command, but other than that there is no one else.

Well, there's BLAME and then there's, uh, blame.

BLAME goes to the nogood nineteen.

However a little bit of SOMETHING akin to blame could be laid at the feet of many.

Are you trying to say that a different climate of awareness reflecting everything we knew AT THAT POINT IN TIME wouldn't have made a difference?

If every FBI agent in the country was simply aware of OBL's previous multi airliner hijacking attempt can you say that this group of Arabs taking "one way" flight training wouldn't have raised more eyebrows? What if EVERYONE in the nation had been told that OBL's interview with ABC News reporter John Miller was something every adult in America needed to watch?

No, the MSM wasn't to BLAME but there are reporters, like Fenton, who seem to believe that he, his bosses and his industry could have done more and better to prepare us for what eventually befell us.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by mojo2

...but there are reporters, like Fenton, who seem to believe that he, his bosses and his industry could have done more and better to prepare us for what eventually befell us.

He’s giving himself and the media far too much credit if he believes that. There’s nothing he or the ‘mainstream media’ could have done to prevent 9/11 short of have crystal balls with A/V connectors to record and broadcast (long enough before the fact) what was only in the minds of the attackers.

Subsequently, 9/11 is not the media’s fault in any way shape, matter or form.

It’s ridiculous to spin media inaccuracies into: “news media to blame for 9/11”, or any act of terrorism. We live in an era where everyone is lightning fast to shed responsibility for their own actions, and quick to find a third party to blame. In this case it’s imagined responsibility for someone else’s actions.

Also, the very idea that simple ‘awareness’ of something always = prevention of it is naïve. Merely being more ‘aware’ of yet another group of fundamentalist Islamic terrorists prior to 9/11 would have just gotten lost in the ‘noise’ of a million other ‘imminent doomsday/boogeyman de jour’ scenarios people are bombarded with constantly. It also wouldn’t have done one thing to stop 19 individuals from stepping onto airliners with intentions known only to them.

[nath]

I agree that 9/11 could have been prevented if the media had warned that something like that could happen.

But I also think that 9/11 could have been prevented in any case, because the president himself was warned that something like that could happen.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in509294.shtml

Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al Qaeda's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House," the September 1999 report said.

Of course the problem with any kind of suicide attack is that by their nature they are very difficult to prevent. However the highly detailed warnings received by the US government itself appears to put any attempt to blame the meedja into perspective.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by mojo2

CBS News reporter, Tom Fenton accepts his part of the blame reserved for mainstream media's role in allowing 9/11 to become a possibility.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005309.php



MSM = MAINSTREAM MEDIA

As much as some in this country would like to make the media the enemy of this country they are not. They serve us well in contributing to the checks and balances that make this nation great. Perhaps you don't always agree with their opinion, perhaps at times they are slanted more to one ideology or another but they are, particularly in these times, much needed, whether they write for the Washington Post or the National Review. To try to implicate them in some way to 9/11 is just silly.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

As much as some in this country would like to make the media the enemy of this country they are not. They serve us well in contributing to the checks and balances that make this nation great. Perhaps you don't always agree with their opinion, perhaps at times they are slanted more to one ideology or another but they are, particularly in these times, much needed, whether they write for the Washington Post or the National Review. To try to implicate them in some way to 9/11 is just silly.

Your post is the QUINTESSENTIAL proof of how the media needs to do a better job. People like YOU have (for whatever reason) a failure to function with all the brain power you were born with.

You decided NOT to bother reading the article I linked to. Not a smart decision but no big deal.

Or, you weren't able to understand what you read. OH MY GAWD!

I am constantly amazed at the broad spectrum of what passes for functionality in this world.

CBS News Reporter Tom Fenton wrote a book which says his colleagues, bosses and industry (as a whole) could have done more and better in informing the American people of the true danger posed by OBL.

It isn't ME saying it. It is a NETWORK NEWS REPORTER!!!!

If he were trying to effectively get a message through to someone who functions the way you seem to, one gets the impression he would have to strap you to a chair in a room with NO other possible distractions and tape your eyes open and use a megaphone and blare the news at you repeatedly until you were able to repeat back to him what he had said.

Then, he'd have to promise you all the video games you wanted for a year if you could pass a test the next day which showed you had actually understood the ramifications of the news and had retained the meaning.

You say, they (MSM) serve us well.

How would YOU know? How would someone believe your assertion was true when your actions speak louder than your words.

This is so funny, but not ha ha funny. More like kinda scary, sad funny.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by nath

I agree that 9/11 could have been prevented if the media had warned that something like that could happen.

But I also think that 9/11 could have been prevented in any case, because the president himself was warned that something like that could happen.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in509294.shtml


Of course the problem with any kind of suicide attack is that by their nature they are very difficult to prevent. However the highly detailed warnings received by the US government itself appears to put any attempt to blame the meedja into perspective.

Your words are echoed by the realization that British authorities considered one of the London bombers a potential threat about a year ago but did nothing about him.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

He’s giving himself and the media far too much credit if he believes that. There’s nothing he or the ‘mainstream media’ could have done to prevent 9/11 short of have crystal balls with A/V connectors to record and broadcast (long enough before the fact) what was only in the minds of the attackers.

Subsequently, 9/11 is not the media’s fault in any way shape, matter or form.

It’s ridiculous to spin media inaccuracies into: “news media to blame for 9/11”, or any act of terrorism. We live in an era where everyone is lightning fast to shed responsibility for their own actions, and quick to find a third party to blame. In this case it’s imagined responsibility for someone else’s actions.

Also, the very idea that simple ‘awareness’ of something always = prevention of it is naïve. Merely being more ‘aware’ of yet another group of fundamentalist Islamic terrorists prior to 9/11 would have just gotten lost in the ‘noise’ of a million other ‘imminent doomsday/boogeyman de jour’ scenarios people are bombarded with constantly. It also wouldn’t have done one thing to stop 19 individuals from stepping onto airliners with intentions known only to them.

Yesterday I was driving along the highway and saw a commercial vehicle with an empty flatbed trailer whose wheels looked like they were going to bounce loose of the vehicle possibly causing an accident.

Well, I didn't want to get involved and I figured he knew there was a danger so I slowed down and just let the vehicle go by where there would be no danger to me.

A few miles later I saw that vehicle overturned and in flames on the side of the road and I wondered if I couldn't have done SOMETHING to have prevented the accident I knew was possible.

Now.

The above story is only PARTIALLY true.

The commercial vehicle I saw DID have a wheel problem which seemed severe enough that I called the phone # I saw painted on the truck and notified the company that their truck was at risk.

I don't know what might have happened after that, but I did what I could to prevent a forseeable disaster.

Yes, you CAN predict the possibility of a problem before it happens, sometimes. What you decide to do OR NOT DO about a clear and present potential danger might be a bitter pill to have to live with the rest of your life.

My conscience is clear about the truck on the highway.

I believe Tom Fenton is trying to clear his own conscience by writing this book.

You don't know what you are talking about. He does. Listen to what he says and try to learn from it rather than dispute his wisdom and experience.

[nath]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Your words are echoed by the realization that British authorities considered one of the London bombers a potential threat about a year ago but did nothing about him.

So says some French guy. We shall see. It's not something you can keep quiet for long.

What do you think about the fact the US govt. had specific warnings about a 9/11 style attack, aberdeen? In light of how seriously you take Tom Fenton's brow beating, do you not find it odd that the president is not also racked with guilt about what he might have done?

[Y3a]

Perhaps if the mainstream media had been less biased and incorrect and had the US interest in mind then maybe they would have been more responsible in helping us avoid the 9/11 tragedy. Whe know that many 'news services' had decided instead to lie to us just to keep the doors open at the foreign offices. We had "journalists" who had friendly chats with Saddam, Castro, Kaddafi, and the like for a few decades. The erosion of trust in the MSM is their OWN DOING. The NYT had to clean up a mess because of the sloppy, unprofessional job the 'editors' were doing. The Washington Post had a problem like that a few years back. CBS should never be trusted because it's clear they are biased and sleazy. Same for CNN.

The 9/11 tragedy can be blamed on the Muslim extremists, and the saudi funded Wahabbist schools that teach hate of the infidels, and other rubbish.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by mojo2

I wondered if I couldn't have done SOMETHING to have prevented the accident I knew was possible.

It’s only human to wonder that. However, one fact is clear despite whatever you did or didn’t do: you are not responsible for the accident; you didn’t cause the accident.

Your example also doesn’t parallel the media’s real-world relationship to 9/11. You’re talking about being eyewitness an actual event. The 9/11 equivalent would have to involve CBS, ABC, NBC, etc. stationed on site in airports the morning of 9/11, noticing people getting onto airplanes with box-cutters and evil intent in their eyes and not reporting it. Or perhaps the networks possessed a videotape of the hijackers planning the actual act prior to carrying it out, which they failed to report.

For your example to square with the media reality, you’d have to blame yourself in advance of, and not be an eyewitness to the accident. Blaming you would be based on the fact that you knew: “…tires sometimes can come loose and cause accidents,” and that this could happen somewhere, at sometime. Do you have such a crystal ball? The ‘mainstream’ media doesn’t either.

I believe Tom Fenton is trying to clear his own conscience by writing this book.

You don't know what you are talking about. He does. Listen to what he says and try to learn from it rather than dispute his wisdom and experience.

He may have much to clear his conscience about as far as his industry’s inaccurate reporting (especially since 9/11) but none of it means the "MSM" is responsible for 9/11 happening any more than anyone other than those who planned and executed it.

His intentions may be good, but this really boils down to yet another silly excuse being made for terrorism that’s completely unfounded, and that the terrorists themselves would laugh at.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by Millennium

There are some 19 people who can be blamed for 9/11. It so happens that they all died in the attack. You might also blame people up their chain of command, but other than that there is no one else.

Exactly what I was going to post.

[saab95]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

What a nonsense! The media is not there to protect the US, that's the job of the NSA and FBI and to a smaller extent of the CIA and Pentagon.

Regardless of how much media-coverage there was about Al-Qaida previous of 9/11 it wouldn't have prevented it, a dozen of Saudi-Arabians took charge of planes with the help of carpet-knives and flew them into buildings, how should the media have prevented that?

Besides after 9/11, the whole international media reported about Al-Qaida intensively, did it prevent the Madrid- and London-bombings?

Taliesin

I don't often agree with taliesin but here he makes a very valid point about the role of the media.

The job of protecting Americans here from such assaults lies in the Government agencies who are directly responsible for our defense.

There is no way the media could prevent such assaults in and on its own.

The assertion by Jihad Watch regarding the media's coverage of 9-11 makes a few good points, but it is nothing that leads to anywhere of interest.

The West's appeasement of terrorists after their heinous acts, prior to 9-11, is the real underlying cause of 9-11. All else is jibberish.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

It’s only human to wonder that. However, one fact is clear despite whatever you did or didn’t do: you are not responsible for the accident; you didn’t cause the accident.

Your example also doesn’t parallel the media’s real-world relationship to 9/11. You’re talking about being eyewitness an actual event. The 9/11 equivalent would have to involve CBS, ABC, NBC, etc. stationed on site in airports the morning of 9/11, noticing people getting onto airplanes with box-cutters and evil intent in their eyes and not reporting it. Or perhaps the networks possessed a videotape of the hijackers planning the actual act prior to carrying it out, which they failed to report.

For your example to square with the media reality, you’d have to blame yourself in advance of, and not be an eyewitness to the accident. Blaming you would be based on the fact that you knew: “…tires sometimes can come loose and cause accidents,” and that this could happen somewhere, at sometime. Do you have such a crystal ball? The ‘mainstream’ media doesn’t either.

OK, let's talk about the role of media and the definition of responsible journalism.

I pose you this question: Why are there things on a newspaper called, HEADLINES?

You might reply: Because it's a device used to sell more newspapers.

Well, if that's your (albeit cynical) answer you are getting to the heart of the matter.

News organizations harvest news, they manage news, they sell a brand or a certain quality of news and they are keenly interested in harvesting, managing, packaging and selling that news as best they can. That's their "Business." Not business. Business. Without the Business aspects of the "news business" all you have are rumors, unconnected eye witness reports and a whole world of events that may happen without your knowledge. These events may affect you or not. You may have an interest in these events or not. None of them would reliably reach you in a timely manner without the Business part of the news business. The Business part is what you pay for. What they sell.

When we talk about how they manage, package and sell the news you must know this news management affects their ability to meet their expenses and even produce a profit.

All of this is based on their harvesting, management, packaging and sales of THEIR BRAND of news.

News organizations have an interest in and a responsibility to provide it's consumers (that is what we do to the news, we CONSUME it) a product that is digestible, which looks appetizing, is easy to digest, low on additives and is served in the correct portions and in the right sequence.

In the last 10 - 15 years or so newspaper readership has been in decline. Network TV news departments have been reduced in size. They've been placed under different management, revamped and given a new mandate than ever before.

News must generate a PROFIT.

Entertainment divisions at TV networks had traditionally been the 'rainmakers' which produced enough money for the networks such that ABC, CBS and NBC could afford to deliver a quality news product -- objective, fair and balanced -- in the public's interest.

It is impossible for human beings to be COMPLETELY unbiased in finding, reporting and editing the news but THAT has always been the journalistic ideal. Unbiased presentation of the news as much as is humanly possible. And why unbiased? Because it IS difficult to do. Because it is crucial that it be done.

Ideally, unbiased news is news without anything added or omitted.

We depend on news we can TRUST because we make LIFE CHANGING decisions based on that trust.

For example, a dangerous intersection is the scene of a fatal accident and the story accurately notes the numbers of fatal accidents at that intersection prompting pedestrians to take greater care when crossing the street at that location.


However, there are occasions when a straight, unbiased news report has no meaning to a consumer without explanation, background information or history of the subject or the possible impact of this event on future events. Using the same example, this time the story includes a heart rending interview with the fatally injured elderly woman's son. The son points out that the intersection is dangerous because it is close to the freeway off ramp and drivers are still driving at close to freeway speeds leading to that crossing.

And that information could prompt other readers to lobby the city council to install a traffic signal at the intersection to prevent future tragedy.

That is where people in the news chain, from the reporter to the editor to the publisher must have a commitment to the highest journalistic ideals as well as to the consumers it serves. If a person doesn't care about the well being of his audience then anything beyond a cut and dried parsimonious distribution of the news will be considered too much of a problem or not worth my time. Hardly the correct attitude for anyone in the news business.

Without a news person's dedication to providing any necessary explanations, background information or history of the subject or (understanding and then) considering the possible impact this event could have on future events the consumers' accurate interpretation of the news story can lead to repercussions ranging from unimportant to totally devastating and possibly impacting the world for generations to come.

When the people involved in managing, packaging or selling the news are given a higher priority to consider than that of journalistic integrity, the door opens to all kinds of factors and dangers to the end product being served to the consumer.

Without going into the history or a detailed explanation of the ingenious "inverted pyramid" form of writing a news story, where the most important information is mentioned first and if a reader, (listeners or viewers generally so) have only a moment or two, they will get the jist of a story so they can be at least THAT much informed and/or know whether or not the remainder of the story is worth their time.

In addition to the inverted pyramid there is another way of managing news by bringing the most important news first and foremost to the consumer.

In that way you can now understand that a headline story is arguably more important to a news organization's consumer than a story further down the front page or "buried" on one of the back pages. On TV or Radio news the TOP story or lead story is more important than the story at the end of the news cast.

Still another way of managing and packaging the news has to do with continuing stories.

A house fire is certainly newsworthy. But, without any deaths or injuries, without substantial financial damage, historical importance, connection to any notable people or the like, the fire would be a back page story at best and certainly run only once.

But what if this house fire had all the earmarks of arson and there had been several similar arson fires over the past few weeks, months or years? Would this make the single house fire story gain in importance? Yes.

What if there were a spate of such fires in recent memory?

What if the authorities attributed these acts of arson to one man who said he was committed to getting even with county authorities for some ideological reason?

Then this news story of the house fire takes on a whole new significance.

What if the story of his vow was only published only once? What if that story had been buried inside the paper?

Then, someone in the news chain dropped the ball.

What if all of the aforementioned suppositions were true but STILL the story was buried on page 7? You might say, " No big deal," right? But what if one morning you awoke to a news story where an arson fire had occurred in the County Auditorium filled with concert goers the night before and hundreds had died?

You might say, "the newspaper didn't cause the fire." And you would be correct. The newspaper didn't start the fire and no one has crystal balls (except maybe a glass blower...sorry, bad joke).

But if you or anyone looks at the correlation between an event and an interpretation of POSSIBLE future events as some mysterious process that NO ONE could possibly understand unless they had a crystal ball or ESP or something, then I would say, (with all due respect and sincerity) please stay out of the news business.

This type of understanding and interpretation of events and how they might impact an audience and or future events is not only an expected trait of a good reporter, it is MANDATORY in an editor because that is one of the ways an editor decides which story goes first or on the front page or gets printed or mentioned as part of the story.

He may have much to clear his conscience about as far as his industry’s inaccurate reporting (especially since 9/11) but none of it means the "MSM" is responsible for 9/11 happening any more than anyone other than those who planned and executed it.

His intentions may be good, but this really boils down to yet another silly excuse being made for terrorism that’s completely unfounded, and that the terrorists themselves would laugh at.

Your statement that no one else is responsible for 9/11 other than those who planned and executed it begs the obvious!

Though no one else was RESPONSIBLE for the actions on that day, it IS and (Tom Fenton maintains) WAS possible for the MSM to have done more to possibly alert the PUBLIC to the real danger so that public hue and cry could have been generated.

A great national concern over OBL and Islamic terrorism very well could have forced US authorities to have taken a closer look at OBL and the potential for radical Islamic terrorism on our shores.

We ALL knew about the 1993 WTC attack, and the Somali ambush of our Rangers in Mogadishu, but we DIDN'T all generally know what the people in the news business knew...that those two attacks as well as several OTHER attempted attacks, were all due to OBL!

This information was known by those who manage the news and what I believe Tom Fenton is saying is that had the full story of OBL and his attacks and attempted attacks on America been made a priority by he and his bosses they would have run OBL stories more frequently and those stories would have been more prominent than they were.

At a certain point people in the news business have to go with their hunches. When you KNOW something is true or important deep in your heart, but you can't quantify it or prove it and you can act on your hunch to run an accurately reported story which your hunch tells you needs to be given more airtime/column inches or instead just let it go, make a $$ based choice and hope for the best.

MSM had more than a hunch. (Google Jon Miller's ABC News interview with OBL (conducted in the 1990's) and THEN tell me you needed a crystal ball to understand OBL's potential for harm.)

The people in the news business are not demonically disposed to killing America or anything like that. But when you are a news editor and you have a half hour news show and need to live by your journalistic standards but also (not only generate revenue, but) increase profits for your division and you have a choice between:

* A story about some rich Arab living in the desert who has attacked America once but only killed a few dozen people (though that bomb did come close to bringing the building down had it been placed in a different spot) and tried to attack it before using hijacked airliners but that attack was foiled. This story has little titillation value.

OR

* A story about Monica and Bill which people can't seem to get enough of. HIGH titillation value.

Which story do you go with if both stories have been run at least twice in the same week?

Crash, I'll give you that no one else was RESPONSIBLE but is there any other blame that can be assigned so that the failures of an industry might be made stronger and better in the future??

Sure.

Or would you say this is impossible to know without an in-house 'gypsy with a gold-capped tooth?'

[mojo2]

Not to beat a dead horse, but only to better illustrate the point...

What if the message quoted below were issued to the US MSM and broadcast nationally but no one seemed to take notice or action? Would you just let it go and take your chances, or would you keep telling the people and the government to take action until they did so (lest we lose some more cities)???!!!

Tom Fenton had this kind of knowledge. OBL had been responsible for some heavy duty attacks and for some REALLY heavy duty attempts that were foiled (10 airliners hijacked over the Pacific to be crashed into West Coast targets like L.A., S.F. and Seattle) and a calm statement of intent from OBL to wage war on the USA. In effect, a declaration of war.

HELLO!!!??? Anybody home???

A bit of something like blame for 9/11 can be laid at the feet of the MSM.

SimpleLife
Addicted to MacNN

Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,280
Status: Offline
report abuse
Today, 08:15 AM

Here are translations of the leaflets dropped following the nuclear blast:

Quote:
Translations of Two Leaflets Dropped on Japanese Cities Shortly after the First Atomic Bomb was Dropped
August 6, 1945

TOP SECRET

Part I - Psychological Warfare

1. Below is a copy of the first leaflet (AB-11) which was dropped on Japanese cities in conjunction with the Atomic bomb.
2. A translation of the above leaflet follows:

TO THE JAPANESE PEOPLE:

"America asks that you take immediate heed of what we say on this leaflet.

"We are in possession of the most destructive explosive ever devised by man. A single one of our newly developed atomic bombs is actually the equivalent in explosive power to what 2000 of our giant B-29's can carry on a single mission. This awful fact is one for you to ponder and we solemnly assure you it is grimly accurate.

"We have just begun to use this weapon against your homeland. If you still have any doubt, make inquiry as to what happened to Hiroshima when just one atomic bomb fell on that city.

"Before using this bomb to destroy every resource of the military by which they are prolonging this useless war, we ask that you now petition the Emperor to end the war. Our President has outlined for you the thirteen consequences of an honorable surrendor: We urge that you accept these consequences and begin the work of building a new, better, and peace-loving Japan.

"You should take stops now to cease military resistance. Otherwise, we shall resolutely employ this bomb and all out other superior weapons to promptly and forcefully end the war."

EVACUATE YOUR CITIES

3. Below is a copy of the second leaflet (AB-12) which was dropped on Japanese cities in conjunction with the Atomic Bomb.

4. A translation of the above leaflet follows:

"ATTENTION JAPANESE PEOPLE" EVACUATE YOUR CITIES

"Because your military leaders have rejected the thirteen part surrender declaration, two momentous events have occurred in the last few days.

"The Soviet Union, because of this rejection on the part of the military has notified your Ambassador Sato that it has declared war on your nation. Thus, all powerful countries of the world are now at war against you.

"Also because of your leaders' refusal to accept the surrender declaration that would enable Japan to honorably end this useless war, we have employed our atomic bomb.

"A single one of our newly developed atomic bombs is actually the equivalent in explosive power to what 2000 of our giant B-29's could have carried on a single mission. Radio Tokyo has told you that with the first use of this weapon of total destruction, Hiroshima was virtually destroyed.

"Before we use this bomb again and again to destroy every resourse of the military by which they are prolonging this useless war, petition the Emperor now to end the war. Our President has outlined for you the thirteen consequences of an honorable surrender; We urge that you accept these consequences and begin the work of building a new, better, and peace loving Japan.

"Act at once or we shall resolutely employ this bomb and all our other superior weapons to promptly and forcefully end the war."

EVACUATE YOUR CITIES

[malvolio]

The MSM news "reporting" in the US has been a bad joke for decades now.
Case in point: Anyone who cared to read international and "alternative" news sources during the run-up to the Iraq war knew damn well that the Bush administration was feeding us pure BS about the terrible WMD.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by malvolio

The MSM news "reporting" in the US has been a bad joke for decades now.
Case in point: Anyone who cared to read international and "alternative" news sources during the run-up to the Iraq war knew damn well that the Bush administration was feeding us pure BS about the terrible WMD.

Off Topic.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Your post is the QUINTESSENTIAL proof of how the media needs to do a better job. People like YOU have (for whatever reason) a failure to function with all the brain power you were born with.

You decided NOT to bother reading the article I linked to. Not a smart decision but no big deal.

Or, you weren't able to understand what you read. OH MY GAWD!

I am constantly amazed at the broad spectrum of what passes for functionality in this world.

CBS News Reporter Tom Fenton wrote a book which says his colleagues, bosses and industry (as a whole) could have done more and better in informing the American people of the true danger posed by OBL.

It isn't ME saying it. It is a NETWORK NEWS REPORTER!!!!

If he were trying to effectively get a message through to someone who functions the way you seem to, one gets the impression he would have to strap you to a chair in a room with NO other possible distractions and tape your eyes open and use a megaphone and blare the news at you repeatedly until you were able to repeat back to him what he had said.

Then, he'd have to promise you all the video games you wanted for a year if you could pass a test the next day which showed you had actually understood the ramifications of the news and had retained the meaning.

You say, they (MSM) serve us well.

How would YOU know? How would someone believe your assertion was true when your actions speak louder than your words.

This is so funny, but not ha ha funny. More like kinda scary, sad funny.

Your the QUINTESSENTIAL media conspiracy theory nutcase. OK, now that we have traded insults I'll reply to your diatribe.

I am fully aware of the content of the article, that had the press dug a little harder here, researched more there, perhaps 9/11 would not have happened. Since your dealing with maybes, could ofs, would ofs and what not it is all just speculative. The fact that Time Magazine did not do an expose on bin Laden in 1999 doesn't implicate them in 9/11 or place the blame of that event on them.

The blame rests with the 19 and their supporters who committed the act. One can argue that there was negliance on the part of our intelligence community which resulted in the act itself being allowed to happen but last I checked it wasn't the role of the press to protect our borders and citizens.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

Your the QUINTESSENTIAL media conspiracy theory nutcase. OK, now that we have traded insults I'll reply to your diatribe.

I am fully aware of the content of the article, that had the press dug a little harder here, researched more there, perhaps 9/11 would not have happened. Since your dealing with maybes, could ofs, would ofs and what not it is all just speculative. The fact that Time Magazine did not do an expose on bin Laden in 1999 doesn't implicate them in 9/11 or place the blame of that event on them.

The blame rests with the 19 and their supporters who committed the act. One can argue that there was negliance on the part of our intelligence community which resulted in the act itself being allowed to happen but last I checked it wasn't the role of the press to protect our borders and citizens.

STILL you fail to get the message. I am astounded!

To use an analogy let's pretend you are the American people and I am the MSM.

My previous posts have a story to convey. Based on your response I can tell you don't get the importance of my message or you just don't understand it.

There is no more digging or research needed. It's a matter of comitting myself to keep hammering out the message until the lightbulb turns on over your head.

Now, I'm going to do an imitation of what the MSM did when they broadcast info about OBL and got the kind of response you have displayed on these pages.

Here's the imitation...

[EdGein]

Originally Posted by Millennium

There are some 19 people who can be blamed for 9/11. It so happens that they all died in the attack. You might also blame people up their chain of command, but other than that there is no one else.

[mojo2]

Terror Networks in the U.S.
By Sherrie Gossett | March 11, 2005

"Because much of the time, our bosses didn't consider such developments newsworthy."
"We know we could have saved thousands of lives if we had done more to bring the public's attention to the threat of an Al-Qaeda attack in the years before 9/11. What we must ask now is why did we fail?"

That startling statement is made by CBS News Senior Foreign Correspondent Tom Fenton in his just released book "Bad News: The Decline of Reporting, The Business of News, and The Danger to Us All." This fascinating insider's account of broadcast news serves up 9/11 as a wake-up call to those concerned over declining standards in media. He says, "CBS News like most of the broadcast news industry, had been sliding blithely downhill for years; …for me it was the failure of my own profession that cut deepest."

Fenton and his colleagues had been tracking stories about Al-Qaeda and its allied networks for more than a decade, but they rarely reported what they knew on network news –"because much of the time, our bosses didn't consider such developments newsworthy." Fenton notes that in the three months leading up to 9/11 Al-Qaeda was never mentioned in any of the three evening news broadcasts. Fenton himself had fought in vain to interest CBS in an interview with Bin Laden.

When it comes to media failures, Fenton contends the real questions are "the ones that go to the heart of the system" and "never get asked." He asks, "Do media organs give us enough of the truth (otherwise known as news) or do they consistently miss large, crucial chunks of it? Do they even know what real news is?"

Fenton's account is fascinating, but it's not the first time such questions have been raised. Accuracy in Media is one group that has focused on media's failure to do proactive reporting on terrorism. Even years after 9/11 we're still getting "after the fact" reporting-after a tragedy, or after a Justice Department or FBI announcement of an indictment, arrest or investigation.

But consider the case of Florida professor Sami Al-Arian and his alleged role in the terrorist group, Islamic Jihad. Al-Arian was under scrutiny by journalist Steven Emerson long before most American media even knew who he was. Emerson is still the exception to the rule.

Groups like the Islamic Society of North America get a free pass when it comes to media coverage. No tough questions are asked about why they launched a legal defense fund for admitted HAMAS terrorist leaders Abu Marzuk and Mohammed Salah. No questions are asked about hosting such controversial figures as Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who is famous for penning the "theological" justification for suicide bombing that was posted on the HAMAS website, or Rashid Ganushi, who referred to Jews as a "cancer" and "Satans."

Positive press is given to another group, the Islamic Circle of North America, despite charges that it functions as the North American branch of Jama'at-i-Islami, a radical Pakistani group that calls Bin Laden the "hero of the Islamic world" and raises millions of dollars for armed jihad around the world. Conferences hosting individuals who support suicide bombing don't make news in the post-9/11 American mediascape.

Last November Peter Bergen commented at the National Press Club that "There are more Al-Qaeda in Brooklyn than in Baghdad." One wonders, with all these Al-Qaeda abounding in the Big Apple, why journalists haven't investigated to find out who they are.

The media can start anew. A ground-breaking book, Lightning Out of Lebanon: Hezbollah Terrorists on American Soil, by Tom Diaz and Barabara Newman, has just been released. The book reveals Hezbollah cells are operating in 14 American cities. Will our media follow up on the sensational charges in this book?

Lisa Myers, senior investigative correspondent for NBC News, has broken an incredibly important story revealing that the terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, now locked up in a maximum-security federal prison, are still involved in terrorist activities. Myers reported, "Letters and articles obtained by NBC News show that while behind bars, the 1993 bombers…wrote letters to other suspected terrorists and brazenly praised Osama bin Laden in Arabic newspapers." One of the letters has been used as a recruiting tool for Islamic terrorists.

Who was responsible for what law enforcement officials admit was a "lapse?" Will anybody be fired? This is far more important than Condoleeza Rice's black high-heeled boots, a subject of a recent story in the Washington Post that ran under a headline about her "commanding clothes."

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by mojo2

STILL you fail to get the message. I am astounded!

To use an analogy let's pretend you are the American people and I am the MSM.

My previous posts have a story to convey. Based on your response I can tell you don't get the importance of my message or you just don't understand it.

There is no more digging or research needed. It's a matter of comitting myself to keep hammering out the message until the lightbulb turns on over your head.

Now, I'm going to do an imitation of what the MSM did when they broadcast info about OBL and got the kind of response you have displayed on these pages.

Here's the imitation...

What message am I not getting? Your blaming the mainstream media for 9/11 because they didn't do enough exposes on bin Laden et al before 9/11.

Keep hammering away if it somehow makes you feel better.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by EdGein

The "BLAME" is a strange thing to wrap our brains around here.

The only ones who decided to do the dastardly deeds were those who took the action. Agreed. You have made a point which no one has tried denying and can not escape any but those who are not serious or those who are ignorant. Neither of which categories describe any of the posters here.

Then, consider what could have been done to prevent the attack?

Fenton says more could have been done. If that is not rightfully called BLAME, I ask your input.

What would a failure to do more to alert the American people to a danger of the types of attacks we saw on 9/11 be called?

They knew what he was capable of better than we. They knew his intent better than we. They broadcast only part of what they knew and they broadcast it fewer times than the danger they knew existed would have warranted, given the lack of response after the broadcasts.

If your neighbor's house is on fire and they are upstairs asleep and you go to wake them up and alert them to the danger, do you stop after a few tries because they are heavy sleepers?

Do you rationalize after the fact and say to the world (though not to yourself because you know the truth) "Well, I tried to wake them up but they wouldn't wake. So there is nothing more I can be faulted for."

[budster101]

There are 20 people directly responsible for 9/11.

19 died.
1 is at Gitmo spilling his guts. Thank you Gitmo and all who serve.

---

There are far more responsible for 9/11 and their leadah is OBL. Not that killing or capturing this jackrabbit is going to do anything to slow down the terrorists. On the contrary, it may even give more fire to their drive to kill more, but some justice will have been served, and it will have been one more leader in the fight against those that would terrify nations and influence governments for their hatred and twisted beliefs. The world would be better off without these men.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by budster101

There are 20 people directly responsible for 9/11.

19 died.
1 is at Gitmo spilling his guts. Thank you Gitmo and all who serve.

---

There are far more responsible for 9/11 and their leadah is OBL. Not that killing or capturing this jackrabbit is going to do anything to slow down the terrorists. On the contrary, it may even give more fire to their drive to kill more, but some justice will have been served, and it will have been one more leader in the fight against those that would terrify nations and influence governments for their hatred and twisted beliefs. The world would be better off without these men.

In case you missed this here's a reprint:

The "BLAME" is a strange thing to wrap our brains around here.

The only ones who decided to do the dastardly deeds were those who took the action. Agreed.You have made a point which no one has tried denying and can not escape any but those who are not serious or those who are ignorant. Neither of which categories describe any of the posters here.

Then, consider what could have been done to prevent the attack?

Fenton says more could have been done. If that is not rightfully called BLAME, I ask your input.

What would a failure to do more to alert the American people to a danger of the types of attacks we saw on 9/11 be called?

They knew what he was capable of better than we. They knew his intent better than we. They broadcast only part of what they knew and they broadcast it fewer times than the danger they knew existed would have warranted, given the lack of response after the broadcasts.

If your neighbor's house is on fire and they are upstairs asleep and you go to wake them up and alert them to the danger, do you stop after a few tries because they are heavy sleepers?

Do you rationalize after the fact and say to the world (though not to yourself because you know the truth) "Well, I tried to wake them up but they wouldn't wake. So there is nothing more I can be faulted for."

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by mojo2

The "BLAME" is a strange thing to wrap our brains around here.

The only ones who decided to do the dastardly deeds were those who took the action. Agreed. You have made a point which no one has tried denying and can not escape any but those who are not serious or those who are ignorant. Neither of which categories describe any of the posters here.

Then, consider what could have been done to prevent the attack?

Fenton says more could have been done. If that is not rightfully called BLAME, I ask your input.

What would a failure to do more to alert the American people to a danger of the types of attacks we saw on 9/11 be called?

They knew what he was capable of better than we. They knew his intent better than we. They broadcast only part of what they knew and they broadcast it fewer times than the danger they knew existed would have warranted, given the lack of response after the broadcasts.

If your neighbor's house is on fire and they are upstairs asleep and you go to wake them up and alert them to the danger, do you stop after a few tries because they are heavy sleepers?

Do you rationalize after the fact and say to the world (though not to yourself because you know the truth) "Well, I tried to wake them up but they wouldn't wake. So there is nothing more I can be faulted for."

Right on! I thought you had given up. I'm digging the persistence here.

Let's, I guess if you could show me somewhere in the National charter that it is the presses role to find all threats to the United States and expose those threats then I would agree with you that they deserve the blame. Otherwise, the blame solely lies with those who did the act. Perhaps we can site those whose job it is to protect America with some sort of blame, though failing would probably be more accurate.

>>If your neighbor's house is on fire and they are upstairs asleep and you go to wake them up and alert them to the danger, do you stop after a few tries because they are heavy sleepers?<<

Huh? That's not even a logical analogy to your argument. The situation is apples and not even oranges, almonds. Of course if you see a fire (or crime) taking place it is your duty, if not legally then at least morally, to try and help. But no one (other than those who's role it is) are obligated to go around looking to prevent crime or fires. Once again, it is not the role of the press to root out all threats to the US. Would we have been better served if they had reported more on bin Laden in the summer of '01? Perhaps, though my suspicion is that most Americans would have yawned and not taken the reports that seriously, if I recall most Americans were wrapped up with Ben and Jen that summer.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

Right on! I thought you had given up. I'm digging the persistence here.

Let's, I guess if you could show me somewhere in the National charter that it is the presses role to find all threats to the United States and expose those threats then I would agree with you that they deserve the blame. Otherwise, the blame solely lies with those who did the act. Perhaps we can site those whose job it is to protect America with some sort of blame, though failing would probably be more accurate.

>>If your neighbor's house is on fire and they are upstairs asleep and you go to wake them up and alert them to the danger, do you stop after a few tries because they are heavy sleepers?<<

Huh? That's not even a logical analogy to your argument. The situation is apples and not even oranges, almonds. Of course if you see a fire (or crime) taking place it is your duty, if not legally then at least morally, to try and help. But no one (other than those who's role it is) are obligated to go around looking to prevent crime or fires. Once again, it is not the role of the press to root out all threats to the US. Would we have been better served if they had reported more on bin Laden in the summer of '01? Perhaps, though my suspicion is that most Americans would have yawned and not taken the reports that seriously, if I recall most Americans were wrapped up with Ben and Jen that summer.

Obviously you aren't a newsperson. They LIVE for the opportunity to make a difference.

What do you think a free press is for anyway?

I find myself about to re-post my previous attempts to convey to you what you are missing.

My thoughts at this point are:

1. I have not made clear my points.
2. You are unable to understand the information presented the way I've tried so far.
3. You haven't read my previous posts.
4. You haven't tried to understand.
5. You are goofin on me and you view this as sport.

Going over all the previous posts I feel will provide anyone of even moderate intellectual horsepower, and which you seem to possess in even greater amounts, the jist of my argument.

So, now RIRedinPA, the time has come for you to dig your own persistence.

I have posed you an argument you can't seem to figure out. It is beyond my intent to go any further with you along this road. But YOU have the ability to explore not only this train of thought but others as well if you are only persistent enough to research and study and ponder and ask questions until you reach the intellectual clarity you so desire.

And if you would not be as persistent in the cause of your own enlightenment, why, I ask you, why should I be so committed?

As they used to say on X-Files...

The Truth Is Out There.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

UGH. Forgot about this thread.

Mojo, it doesn’t matter if you write 4 words, or your usual 40,000 words on the subject- word count and meandering diatribes won’t change the simple fact that the mainstream media is not at fault for 9/11.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

UGH. Forgot about this thread.

Mojo, it doesn’t matter if you write 4 words, or your usual 40,000 words on the subject- word count and meandering diatribes won’t change the simple fact that the mainstream media is not at fault for 9/11.

Hey Crash, don't make me get medieval on yo ass. I'm trying to turn over a new leaf but I'll be glad to make a meandering dia-trilobite out of you. Show me some love or respect or somethin, boy.

[Moderator]

The media is certainly at fault for Iraq though...On the other hand, Iraq is proof positive that the media is not liberal.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Moderator

The media is certainly at fault for Iraq though...On the other hand, Iraq is proof positive that the media is not liberal.

Oh, did a network newsman publish a book fessing up to the media's dropping the ball on Iraq the way Tom Fenton copped to 9/11?

[budster101]

What? Moderator, you are way off base in your assertion.

The media is not at fault for Iraq. That would be soley the responsibility of the UN members that failed to support the UN resolutions. France, Russia, and Germany. Also, Saddam Hussein in large part for his bribing, and being allowed to move his WMDs out of country along with Billions of Dollars.

The media is most certainly liberal. Self-professed as well. They all vote Democrat, but a few.

Your thinking is flawed.