Commentary and links relating to media coverage of war; both before, during, and after.
|
William A. Dorman is Professor of Government at California State University, Sacramento, and has taught a course in War, Peace and the Mass Media since 1970.
Web Page
U.S. Foreign Policy Blog
E-Mail: dormanw at csus.edu
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
War, Peace, and the Mass Media
|
|
| |
Saturday, July 05, 2003
Biased broadcasting corporation
A survey of the main broadcasters' coverage of the invasion of Iraq shows the claim that the BBC was anti-war is the opposite of the truth
Professor Justin Lewis
Friday July 4, 2003
The Guardian
The recent furore about the BBC's coverage of the war in Iraq has generated rather more heat than light. But behind the government's attack on the BBC lies the serious accusation that the corporation's coverage of the conflict was anti-war. This claim goes much further than the much publicised attack on Andrew Gilligan - the BBC's critics in the government have clearly implied that Gilligan's stories are part of a more systematic, institutional bias. For the rest of Prof. Lewis' analysis, which is entirely consistent with research done on American broadcasting during wartime as well, see Guardian
7:21 AM
Friday, July 04, 2003
JULY 02, 2003
Still Miller Time: 'NY Times' Circles the Wagons
Paper Criticized for Iraq WMD Coverage
By William E. Jackson, Jr.
Opinion
On July 2, Judith Miller's byline appeared in The New York Times for the first time since June 7. But, based on comments by a Times spokeswoman, it is obvious that the wagons are still circling at the Times, in this case to protect an embattled star reporter. For more of this critical view of Miller's role in Iraq by a Editor & Publisher commentator, see Editor & Publisher
7:36 AM
Tuesday, July 01, 2003
Are U.S. journalists truly spineless?
By DAVID HUNTER
June 30, 2003
Justin Webb, a Washington correspondent for the British Broadcasting Corporation, recently posed this question to his audience: "Are American journalists simply spineless? Do they toe the line because they love the President? Or because their employers do?"
Webb raised the question after hearing Vice President Dick Cheney deliver the following statement in reference to the war in Iraq: "You did well - you have my thanks." This praise was not directed to our troops or members of the president's Cabinet; it was lavished upon members of the American Radio and Television Correspondents Association at their annual dinner. For the rest of this scathing indictment of American journalism by a columnist, see Knoxville News Sentinel
4:40 PM
Monday, June 30, 2003
A Long, and Incomplete, Correction
By Michael Getler (Washington Post Ombudsman)
Sunday, June 29, 2003; Page B06
This is the third column in as many months devoted in whole or in part to the case of Army Pfc. Jessica Lynch. If you're tired of it, I can't blame you. But judging from the response to The Post's recent effort to reconstruct how Lynch was captured and rescued, many readers are not yet tired of it, and neither am I.
As I have said before, the issue here is not Lynch, a courageous young soldier who has been through -- and is still going through -- a terrible ordeal. Rather, it is about journalism: about sources and reporters, motivation and manipulation, and finding the truth, as best we can, about a story that became the best known saga of the war in Iraq.
Coverage by Post correspondents during the war and now well into the occupation has been excellent. That is also a reason, from my perspective, why the original Lynch story, which was written from Washington, stands out. It is inconsistent with an otherwise top-notch effort. To read the rest of this analysis of the Lynch Affair and the role of the Washington Post, see WashingtonPost.com
11:56 AM
|
|
| |
|
|
|
