Little Green Footballs

Sunday, February 04, 2007

Two-faced news analysis

As we point out time and again, one of the biggest problems with LGF is its glaring hypocrisy. This trait, of condeming something on the one hand but gladly using that same thing when it suits him, is most obvious in Charles Johnson's relationship with the media.

Witness this comment about Reuters' reporting in Gaza:

The mainstream wire services are perpetrating an Orwellian fraud of massive proportions.

It's standard stuff, from Charles. But then we also have the other side, where Charles picks bits out of the same mainstream media that suits his agenda. Just to give an example, look at how he seized upon the Reuters report about alleged indoctrination of Iranian schoolchildren (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=24274). If this story hadn't suited CJ's line, he would have been all over it, poking, prodding and stripping it apart as another instance of bad MSM reporting. And he would have had a point. Because sources tell LGFWatch that the story has pretty shaky foundations.

For one, the report is based on research produced by the 'Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace'. Nowhere does Reuters explain who this group is, or even where they are based. You might want to google them.

Second, the story didn't come directly from CMIP. Invitations to the Brussels news conference (and parallel events in various other European capitals) were relentlessly pushed to journalists for weeks by an organization claiming to be based in London, but calling from Washington.

All of this should make any journalist suspicious, but apparently they were having a slow news day at Reuters in Brussels. Can you imagine what would happen if Reuters picked up a 'report' by an Iranian group on the indoctrination of Israeli or American schoolchildren?

You'd read about it on LGF, but the tone would be pretty different...

4 comments:

yodaking said...

As I said before, Charles does criticize the MSM at large. However, one's disagreement with the a macro institution, does not logically conclude that one cannot agree with a micro point within that institution.

Here is an example. Democrats by and large disagree with the GOP. However, if a Democrat would bring up Giuliani's points for supportting pro-choice, it would still be intellectually consistent.

Now if Charles said that ALL MSM is biased 100% of the time, then you have something….

Paul said...

Of course the tone would be different - you'd expect that if they were disagreeing with the article instead of agreeing.

Now that in itself does not mean they would be wrong - or right. To tell that, you'd need to look at the actual stories, and evidence and facts and such.

Out of interest, since you did raise the subject, are you saying that Iranian schoolkids are not "indoctrinated" with anti-Israeli and anti-western views? Or are you simply using the issue to show that LGF is partisan?

Now I think of it, the hypothetical article you mention about indoctrination in the US might have a point too...

stopmyabortion said...

"Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace (CMIP) is a Zionist NGO monitoring school textbooks used in the Middle East to determine if they are critical of Israel and to pressure the various governments to change the way Israel is portrayed."

Oh...

yodaking said...

oh you mean like the Protocols of Zion?