Credible G&M journalism - an oxymoron
From today's Globe & Mail, that paragon of journalistic integrity:
I was oh-so-curious about that source, so I used my mad Google-fu skillz to dig up a url. Warning: if you're afraid of things that slink and slither and scurry in the dark, you won't want to look under the rock I'm turning over here - some may also find the images posted at the link disturbing.
On a positive note, you don't really have to read beyond the site's header to know all you need to about the quality of information you'll find there:
Ahh, I see. Read a little further and you'll find them conflating the Iraqi and Afghan conflicts, calling U.S. soldiers liars when they outline the good work they're doing, but quoting them approvingly when they're admitting terrible atrocities, and accusing the Pentagon of "pre-meditated murder." Quite the credible source to be showing up in Canada's self-proclaimed national newspaper.
Even better, the site purposely ignores the masses of Afghans killed - deliberately killed in many instances - by the Taliban in their attempt to depose the democratically elected government of Afghanistan and re-establish a medievally brutal and backward regime.
Bruce Rolston, in typically meticulous detail, lays out a more fair and realistic assessment of civilian casualties in Afghanistan here, here, and here. Do yourself a favour and read each post.
I know the G&M has been pushing an agenda for awhile now (when you tell your star Afghanistan correspondent to "ignore everything but the most urgent breaking news and devote himself to finding the detainees turned over by Canada," you can't really call your reporting unbiased and keep a straight face), but this represents a new low, even for them.
Publishing a stat from such a rabidly partisan source, with no context about casualties in general or the source's stated bias in particular, and pawning it off as straight news is a complete and utter disgrace. Someone who still holds out hope for this fishwrap should write a letter to the editor - I've quite frankly given up on them, and can't be bothered.
By the numbers
5,043
Minimum number of civilians killed in Afghanistan by U.S. or NATO troops since the war began on Oct. 7, 2001, according to figures compiled from media and NGO reports.
Source: Afghan Victim Memorial Project
I was oh-so-curious about that source, so I used my mad Google-fu skillz to dig up a url. Warning: if you're afraid of things that slink and slither and scurry in the dark, you won't want to look under the rock I'm turning over here - some may also find the images posted at the link disturbing.
On a positive note, you don't really have to read beyond the site's header to know all you need to about the quality of information you'll find there:
The Afghan Victim Memorial Project:
An Online Memorial to the civilians killed by the U.S. Bombing, Invasion and Occupation of Afghanistan after September 11th
Ahh, I see. Read a little further and you'll find them conflating the Iraqi and Afghan conflicts, calling U.S. soldiers liars when they outline the good work they're doing, but quoting them approvingly when they're admitting terrible atrocities, and accusing the Pentagon of "pre-meditated murder." Quite the credible source to be showing up in Canada's self-proclaimed national newspaper.
Even better, the site purposely ignores the masses of Afghans killed - deliberately killed in many instances - by the Taliban in their attempt to depose the democratically elected government of Afghanistan and re-establish a medievally brutal and backward regime.
Bruce Rolston, in typically meticulous detail, lays out a more fair and realistic assessment of civilian casualties in Afghanistan here, here, and here. Do yourself a favour and read each post.
I know the G&M has been pushing an agenda for awhile now (when you tell your star Afghanistan correspondent to "ignore everything but the most urgent breaking news and devote himself to finding the detainees turned over by Canada," you can't really call your reporting unbiased and keep a straight face), but this represents a new low, even for them.
Publishing a stat from such a rabidly partisan source, with no context about casualties in general or the source's stated bias in particular, and pawning it off as straight news is a complete and utter disgrace. Someone who still holds out hope for this fishwrap should write a letter to the editor - I've quite frankly given up on them, and can't be bothered.
posted by Babbling Brooks at 11:17 a.m.
5 Comments:
What a joke. I wish the Globe and Mail would answer why they used this source, and if they themselves feel it is good journalism.
I like on the website where they quote a little girl on how her and her classmates are sad in because of the Americans in Afghanistan.....and without them she would be happily in school with her classmates?
Nominations being accepted here:
http://www.westernstandard.ca/globies/
--------------------
"Introducing The Globies, Canada's first Media Bias Award!
The Globies is a new, interactive website that allows you, the reader, to submit examples of the most unfair, the most biased, and the most unethical journalism in Canada and to have your fellow Canadians vote on the worst of the worst! It's simple to nominate a candidate. Just go Globies.ca and submit the web address of a biased article, add your thoughts as to why it should be nominated and voila!
We'll highlight a particular aspect of the article that's biased, and post it on the website with a ranking from 1 - 10 for its balance. You can agree or disagree with our vote by visiting Globies.ca, and the results will be calculated automatically.
It's that easy! Help us - and Canadian media - by submitting articles and voting today."
Already did that, Cal.
Here is another article by leftist newspaper "The New York Times"
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/13/world/asia/13AFGHAN.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp
Wow. The man can't even paste a link properly. The NYT article can be found here.
And it doesn't address my point, which is not the issue of civilian deaths, but rather the fact that the G&M is willing to use any source, no matter how discreditable, in order to further its agenda.
Since the NYT article doesn't stoop to that level, it is moot in this context.
Taxpayer, you're really not adding anything of value here - not in one single thread. It's time for you to go away.
Post a Comment
<< Home