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



























 
Archives
<< current













 































War, Peace, and the Mass Media
 
Thursday, October 07, 2004  
Most at Guantanamo to Be Freed or Sent Home, Officer Says

By John Mintz

Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 6, 2004; Page A16

Blog editor's note: One interesting question in all of this is why the Post published the story on page A16 rather than the front page.

Most of the alleged al Qaeda and Taliban inmates at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, are likely to be freed or sent to their home countries for further investigation because many pose little threat and are not providing much valuable intelligence, the facility's deputy commander has said.

The remarks by Army Brig. Gen. Martin Lucenti in yesterday's edition of London's Financial Times appeared to conflict with past comments by U.S. military commanders who have stressed the value of the information obtained from the detainees and the danger many would pose if released.

"Of the 550 [detainees] that we have, I would say most of them, the majority of them, will either be released or transferred to their own countries," Lucenti was quoted as saying in the British newspaper. "Most of these guys weren't fighting. They were running. Even if somebody has been found to be an enemy combatant, many of them will be released because they will be of low intelligence value and low threat status.

To read the rest of the story, see Washingtonpost.com

8:07 AM

Tuesday, October 05, 2004  
Will 'WSJ' Reporter Who Wrote Famous E-mail on Horrid Conditions In Iraq Lose Her Beat?
Farnaz Fassihi just left Baghdad on vacation, but one Journal editor says, "it's a very sensitive situation and it is one we are trying to make sure we all understand."


By Greg Mitchell
Editor & Publisher

Blog editor's note: In this piece on the aftermath of the now (in)famous e-mail, Mitchell puts his finger on the critical question: "Why is the situation 'sensitive,' and what do Journal editors have to decide about it"?

(October 04, 2004) -- Will Wall Street Journal reporter Farnaz Fassihi be taken off her Baghdad beat in response to the notoriety surrounding the world-famous e-mail that she wrote 11 days ago? Her editor, Paul Steiger, says no, she is just taking a well-earned and long-scheduled vacation, out of the country. Fassihi confirmed this in an e-mail to E&P on Monday night.

That said, it's certainly fortuitous that the vacation started this past weekend, just days after the e-mail, which called Iraq a "disaster" for the U.S. despite President Bush's "rosy assessments," started receiving wide play in the press. (It was the subject of my previous column.)

Some reporters have nominated the e-mail (which was circulated without Fassihi's permission) for a Pulitzer Prize; others feel she compromised her news reporting by revealing her private opinions.

To read the rest of this anslysis, see E&P

3:47 PM

Monday, October 04, 2004  
Private E-Mail Portrays Iraq Headed For Disaster

By LIZ HALLORAN
Hartford Courant
October 2 2004

Blog editor's note: According to an e-mail from the WSJ's managing editor published in the Los Angeles Times, "Ms. Fassihi is coming out of Iraq shortly on a long planned vacation. That vacation was planned to, and will, extend past the election." In other words, Ms. Fassihi will not be reporting on Iraq until the election is safely past, and she cannot be accused of injecting personal political bias into her work. Personally, I would be fascinated to learn for certain just how long ago planning for her vacation began.

A Wall Street Journal foreign correspondent's revealing e-mail to friends, in which she details deteriorating conditions in Iraq and the growing danger for journalists, has become an Internet phenomenon, driving home stark facts familiar to reporters in the war-riven country.

When Farnaz Fassihi wrote her personal 2½-page e-mail from Baghdad she never imagined it would be launched into cyberspace - but by week's end it had become the subject of online discussions and newspaper stories, and even merited a mention in a speech by former "60 Minutes" producer Don Hewitt.

The Iraq that Fassihi describes is a barbaric place where young men openly mine roads with explosives, Westerners are abducted from their homes and beheaded and reconstruction has largely ground to a halt.

"For those of us on the ground," she wrote, "it's hard to imagine what if anything could salvage [Iraq] from its violent downward spiral."

Contacted Friday by e-mail in Iraq, Fassihi, upset that her personal missive has become public fodder, declined to comment on reaction to her assessment of Iraq as "a disaster," and her life as a reporter there as akin to being under "virtual house arrest" because of threats to Westerners.

But Fassihi's colleagues in Baghdad say her analysis of the situation is dead-on: from the increasing inability of reporters to move around safely to do their job, to the dangers of assassinations, kidnappings and beheadings, to the growing strength of an insurgency that appears more organized every day.

To read the rest of this story, see Hartford Courant

10:12 AM

 
In Its Critique of Rush to War, 'N.Y. Times' Does Not Spare Itself

By Greg Mitchell

Editor & Publisher
October 03, 2004

NEW YORK In Sunday's 10,000-word indictment of the Bush administration's misuse of prewar intelligence on Iraq's nuclear capabilities, The New York Times did not spare itself in apportioning blame in the fateful rush to war. Readers had to dig deep into the massive story, and understand some of the subtleties in the self-criticism, but it was there.

The story, which runs more than three full pages, gained wide play on the Sunday TV talk shows. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said the administration had nothing to apologize for. The Kerry campaign has already quoted from it in a commercial. It's likely to have even wider impact in the days ahead.

To read the rest of this story, see E&P

9:41 AM

 
In Its Critique of Rush to War, 'N.Y. Times' Does Not Spare Itself

By Greg Mitchell

Editor & Publisher
October 03, 2004

NEW YORK In Sunday's 10,000-word indictment of the Bush administration's misuse of prewar intelligence on Iraq's nuclear capabilities, The New York Times did not spare itself in apportioning blame in the fateful rush to war. Readers had to dig deep into the massive story, and understand some of the subtleties in the self-criticism, but it was there.

The story, which runs more than three full pages, gained wide play on the Sunday TV talk shows. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said the administration had nothing to apologize for. The Kerry campaign has already quoted from it in a commercial. It's likely to have even wider impact in the days ahead.

To read the rest of this story, see E&P

9:41 AM

 
This page is powered by Blogger.