The AP: Consistently Getting the News WRONG

The text of this entry can be found in unadulterated form on http://pointvcounterpoint.blogspot.com/

Here's a good example from the Alleged Press on how NOT to write a news headline. The story? "Papers: U.S. Troops Disregard Rules of War." The general gist of headline writing can be easily summarized. When bound necessarily by space, a journalist must summarize the major content of a news story, in most cases with the intent of provoking reader interest. From the "5 Ws" that every journalist knows by heart, you are usually stuck with choosing a few, the who and what, and sometimes the when if relevant to the content of the story (Example: "Beijing to Host Summer Olympics in 2008"). The headline is very important in one major regard, it must be accurate. When citing a source of information, rather than a generally known fact, you should include the source in the headline (or HL) as the AP did above. By using "Papers:", rather than "ACLU", one gets a false sense of objectivity from the HL - if one sees ACLU, he would rightly think: "Association of Clueless Lawyers for U.S.defeat". So the source is vague and inaccurate, and just as importantly, even longer than a more accurate descriptor. And to qualify the above, there is a slant to the agenda, so you must qualify the source of the slant. If the HL was simply referring to the "papers," that is, the court documents in question, you should qualify them using the common denominator and be specific about the content of the papers, i.e. who it regards, about what, etc. So, an alternative could be "Papers: Some U.S. Troops Disregard Rules of War." This would more accurately depict the who in question. but you can't have it both ways. If you are going to talk about biased people with an agenda, you should not hide it by blithely referring to false authority, and otherwise, if you are going to state something as a fact and not an opinion, then you should be as accurate and noncontroversial as possible in describing it. Not that the press is interested in accuracy and avoiding controversy, but if one was to claim journalism as their profession, you might actually expect a little professionalism.

As far as the significance of the article in question goes, one must contemplate whether 22 cruel acts of violence in a war spanning six years constitutes a "troubling pattern" (see paragraph one of story). The number of different troops in Afghanistan over six years has to be at least 50,000; seeing an initial presence of about 27,000, current levels about the same, and rotations over the course of six years (assuredly many go to and come from Iraq, and rotation is low). But to be safe, we will call it 44,000 for statistical aesthetics' sake. Over the course of six years, 44,000 troops have committed 22 documented acts of atrocity against Afghan and Taliban resisters. This comes out to about 1/2000 of troops who serve in Afghanistan commit a documented atrocity against a combatant or civilian. I wish our country had a similar dilemma: In 2003 alone 1.8 million serious violent crime cases were committed (by estimate of the federal government). And this is one year, down from recent previous years (up to 50%). Are you serious AP? This is a "troubling pattern"? This is a WAR. This isn't even Baltimore statistically in a country the size of California and you are going to whine about 22 acts of cruelty by never-do-wells in a WAR?

The level of misinformation (or disinformation) being spewed out by the media is simply astounding. And for those who love Wikipedia, don't try looking up any useful information about the War in Afghanistan, you're not going to like what you see unless you're a leftist or a terrorist (the distinction being primarily academic). Here is a line from the entry that is sure to raise some eyebrows, at least from any reader on this forum,"The motive for the invasion and continuing war has been expressed in different terminology by various western governmental leaders. Although neither the Taliban nor any Afghans were involved in the 9/11 attacks, since the group al-Qaeda had a strong presence in Afghanistan at the time, the invasion was presented as a reaction to 9/11. The Bush Administration named Bin-Laden's al-Queda as being the cause of 9/11 and that alleged connection (at the time there was no admission by Bin Laden nor other proof of such a connection) was the announced motive for the invasion (to "root out terrorism"). Bin-Laden was a particular target of the invasion and regime change was also an objective." Besides a dearth of logic, this article is factually incorrect. The U.S. was obviously acting on intel that bin Laden was a prime mover behind the scenes of the 9/11 disaster. Bin Laden came out later, on tape, and claimed responsibility for the whole thing, thus prompting an enormous leap of faith by the leftists to declare that, of course, bin Laden was still in the pay of the CIA and the whole thing was a ruse for the (non-existent) oil reserves in Afghanistan. And of course, everyone knows how much Bush's approval ratings have risen from the wars in the aftermath of 9/11. In all seriousness, conflict is not popular with Americans, and this was demonstrated recently by the Black Hawk Down fiasco. Bush would surely have known this, as every President does. There is a short "rally around the flag effect" with war, but in America (as opposed to many countries) that effect is short-lived. In fact, as the AP story proves, there is an even more insidious side to America's participation in just wars: Acts of sedition and sabotage by the press, who delusionally think themselves patriots and the proxy thinkers for the common man.