Ubiquitous
2007-05-17 23:18:18 UTC
In his Sept. 11, 2000, column the late Bob Bartley argued that the press
tends to deal in stereotypes, which arise "out of a tension between the
ideal of objectivity and the reality of a liberal background and
environment." We were reminded of this observation when we saw a piece
posted on the BBC Web site yesterday, which exemplifies just how blind
journalists can be to their own prejudices--even when the stories they
are reporting run counter to those prejudices.
The headline: "US Detainee 'Mentally Tortured.' " The lead paragraph:
A Pakistani-born US resident detained at Guantanamo
Bay has said he was "mentally tortured" there, according
to a transcript released by the Pentagon.
It is true that the detainee, Majid Khan, claims to have been "mentally
tortured." It is also true that the press stereotypes Guantanamo as a
place where wicked Americans commit unspeakable atrocities against
innocent terrorists. But if you read the BBC story to the end, you
discover that Khan's claims actually refute the press's stereotype:
Mr Khan complained about how US guards had taken
away pictures of his daughter, given him new glasses
with the wrong prescription, shaved his beard off,
forcibly fed him when he went on hunger strike, and
denied him the opportunity for recreation...
Later, Mr Khan produced a list of further examples of
psychological torture, which included the provision of
"cheap, branded, unscented soap," the prison newsletter,
noisy fans and half-inflated balls in the recreation
room that "hardly bounce."
The poor dear has half-inflated balls! Oh, the humanity! None of the
inconveniences Khan describes even remotely qualify as torture, yet the
Beeb accepts his characterization at face value. The stereotype prevails
even though the facts make clear that it is false. This is journalism?
tends to deal in stereotypes, which arise "out of a tension between the
ideal of objectivity and the reality of a liberal background and
environment." We were reminded of this observation when we saw a piece
posted on the BBC Web site yesterday, which exemplifies just how blind
journalists can be to their own prejudices--even when the stories they
are reporting run counter to those prejudices.
The headline: "US Detainee 'Mentally Tortured.' " The lead paragraph:
A Pakistani-born US resident detained at Guantanamo
Bay has said he was "mentally tortured" there, according
to a transcript released by the Pentagon.
It is true that the detainee, Majid Khan, claims to have been "mentally
tortured." It is also true that the press stereotypes Guantanamo as a
place where wicked Americans commit unspeakable atrocities against
innocent terrorists. But if you read the BBC story to the end, you
discover that Khan's claims actually refute the press's stereotype:
Mr Khan complained about how US guards had taken
away pictures of his daughter, given him new glasses
with the wrong prescription, shaved his beard off,
forcibly fed him when he went on hunger strike, and
denied him the opportunity for recreation...
Later, Mr Khan produced a list of further examples of
psychological torture, which included the provision of
"cheap, branded, unscented soap," the prison newsletter,
noisy fans and half-inflated balls in the recreation
room that "hardly bounce."
The poor dear has half-inflated balls! Oh, the humanity! None of the
inconveniences Khan describes even remotely qualify as torture, yet the
Beeb accepts his characterization at face value. The stereotype prevails
even though the facts make clear that it is false. This is journalism?
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.