Re: UPI editor: dissent is like soviet propoganda
-- James A. Donald:
For example the viewer sees CBU-15 described as nerve gas. The viewer then sees Moorer and the interviewer talking about a battle in Laos, then there is an editing cut, and then the viewer sees:
On 10 Dec 2001, at 14:53, Declan McCullagh wrote:
I don't think your summary is correct. CNN hired an outside reviewer who came up with this report, which recommends retraction of the story but accuses the reporters of no malice: http://www.cnn.com/US/9807/02/tailwind.findings/
"No malice", not "no lies" The reason he concludes "no malice" is that he concludes the reporters really believed the US had used nerve gas, not because he believes the reporters had truthfully reported the evidence. The edited Moorer seemingly admits to the use of nerve gas, and another witness seemingly admits to personally massacring civilians. In the unedited versions, they do not. The reason it was "no malice" is that the reporters actually had some evidence -- but not evidence persuasive enough to report on television. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG LU0N6i897F7dj1cMd1Rd3z4T8cvfH/3QdF6Yx98j 4B2ygdObW0RForD1jMTcV2PBVSHc8W09z7xvkq3y9
Well, by your standards, any journalist who makes an innocent mistake would be a liar. I think the truth is that the reporters honestly believed they had a solid story -- but their editors should have stepped in and killed it or postponed it until they had unearthed more evidence. Reporters can get carried away on a story and lose focus; this is why you have multiple layers of editors at most news organizations. I don't remember how the videotape was edited -- you may be right; I just don't remember the details. -Declan Disclaimer: I worked at Time Inc. at the time but was not involved with the story -- I didn't see it until it hit the airwaves/newsstands. At 09:09 AM 12/11/2001 -0800, jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
"No malice", not "no lies"
The reason he concludes "no malice" is that he concludes the reporters really believed the US had used nerve gas, not because he believes the reporters had truthfully reported the evidence. The edited Moorer seemingly admits to the use of nerve gas, and another witness seemingly admits to personally massacring civilians. In the unedited versions, they do not.
The reason it was "no malice" is that the reporters actually had some evidence -- but not evidence persuasive enough to report on television.
-- On 11 Dec 2001, at 12:20, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Well, by your standards, any journalist who makes an innocent mistake would be a liar.
CNN edited interviews with people so as to make them appear to admit to war crimes commited against civilians during the Vietnam war, when the full transcript showed no such admissions. Those people threatened to sue. CNN then paid those people large sums of money in settlement of threatened libel suits. Under America's extremely liberal libel laws, CNN would not have done so unless those defamed had a good case of malicious libel.
I think the truth is that the reporters honestly believed they had a solid story
If they believed that, why then did they falsify the interviews? The reporters may well have honestly believed that the US used nerve gas to massacre civilians during the Vietnam war, but they did not believe they had evidence for this that they could show to the public. So their perhaps honestly held beliefs justified them in their own minds, in lying to the public, in fabricating evidence that they did not possess. If that was their rationalization then this was a classic example of the vision of the anointed. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG BTQftYHIf8GtXCl4n9FZfxmMwvBd3TChGeVZEFDC 4n0C1INs3LyzmQTF0zJYUiz0kZ7tFH7DNS1G9gLm5
Of course there are other considerations in a settlement, such as avoiding bad publicity -- even if you think you might win a case by arguing you made a mistake but it was not malicious. But you know that. I expect this will be my last message in the thread. -Declan At 10:13 PM 12/11/2001 -0800, jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
CNN edited interviews with people so as to make them appear to admit to war crimes commited against civilians during the Vietnam war, when the full transcript showed no such admissions. Those people threatened to sue. CNN then paid those people large sums of money in settlement of threatened libel suits. Under America's extremely liberal libel laws, CNN would not have done so unless those defamed had a good case of malicious libel.
-- On 12 Dec 2001, at 1:16, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Of course there are other considerations in a settlement, such as avoiding bad publicity -- even if you think you might win a case by arguing you made a mistake but it was not malicious.
Just google through the Tailwind debate. The CNN supporters said that the tape contained clear admissions of war crimes, which of course it did. I just quoted one such seemingly clear, unambiguous admission of enormous war crimes at the start of this thread. The interviewees denied saying what the tape showed them to be saying. Then, under great pressure, CNN released the transcript. The CNN opponents pointed out that the transcript of the material that was edited into the tape did not contain these admissions. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG vwLPU/rJyiCOkPVZmXdWV4gTv42cEm3WgHDYaeaG 4w/137NdrfRTn1IAcef9FvJYsRFgjs++515BhAJ2d
participants (2)
-
Declan McCullagh -
jamesd＠echeque.com