As Sam Husseini noted, one of the things we’ll miss about print newspapers is ironic juxtaposition of stories. The front page of yesterday’s New York Times (1/20/11) provided a classic example: There was a story about Chinese President Hu Jintao visiting the White House, headlined (in the late print edition) “Obama Raises Human Rights, Pressing China.” And right next to it was an article about how the Obama administration was acknowledging that Guantanamo would stay open indefinitely, with some prisoners to be held forever without trial, while others would be tried by military tribunal instead of a civilian court because they had been tortured while in custody. The story about Obama championing human rights didn’t mention Obama institutionalizing human rights abuses, or vice versa.
The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank (1/20/11) didn’t see the irony; instead, he saw Obama and the White House press corps sharing one of their finest hours. Describing AP’s Ben Feller asking Obama at a joint press conference “how the United States can be so allied with a country that is known for treating its people so poorly” and asked Hu to “justify China’s record”—and Bloomberg’s Hans Nichols repeating the question when it was ignored by Hu—Milbank wrote:
It was a good moment for the American press. Feller and Nichols put the Chinese leader on the spot in a way that Obama, constrained by protocol, could not have done. The White House press corps has at times been too gentle on Obama (recall the adulatory pre-Christmas news conference), but on Wednesday afternoon, Obama and the press corps were justifiably on the same side, displaying the rights of free people.
One of those rights is the right to be much more concerned about human rights abuses when they occur in countries other than your own. I suspect that Hu was less impressed with the press’s demonstration of this freedom than Milbank was.
I agree with this assessment and I agree that the point should be made about the contradictions on Obama’s human rights record. But there are more appropriate places to do that, not in the straight facts stories that I expect and want to see from reporters.
The most important part is that both stories were mentioned on the front page. The NYT did their job in presenting those stories and they did a good job at that. It’s not the job of reporters to be editorializing or doing commentary on Obama’s human rights records in their stories. Fox News does that. We don’t need the NYT and other major newspapers to do the same. I don’t want the NYT or other major media outlets carrying the water buckets of progressive agendas (or conservative agendas for that matter). That’s not their job. Editorializing belongs on the oped page and editorials. I think that’s an appropriate place to point out the contradictions of Obama’s human rights records.
Journalism used to focus on what citizens needed to know, whether they liked it or not. Now it focuses on what the audience wants. I hope the NYT and other papers don’t go down that path. Fox News and Democracy Now! do that. They represent two opposite sides of the political spectrum in the news they present. They both have agendas. Let’s not deny that. I think we need less of it, not more. That doesn’t mean the NYT and other major news outlets need to improve their coverage. The lead up to the war and occupation in Iraq is a prime example and the NYT deserved the criticism.
No American reporter or leader has the standing to criticize another nation’s human rights record now. We have lost the high ground and to maintain otherwise is to lie to ourselves. The rest of the world knows what we have become. Until we try those responsible we are accessories.
Reporters are not supposed to be criticizing others human rights records. They report other nation’s human rights records. Oped writers and bloggers can but not reporters. There’s a big difference, karenvista. FYI, I think the most authoritative place to find out what journalists are supposed to do in theory and practice is right here.
Did you bother to read the above article, ctrenta, or for that matter, check your own link? The behavior of the reporters above is outrageous–they’re essentially cheer-leading for the President, and by extension, the USA. Karenvista is right; People like Dana Milbank have been studiously avoiding the awful truth about the U.S.’s bad behavior for years, from our torture “policies” to the the dreadful criminalty of our detention “policies.” The President actually thinks that we can hold people forever without charge, and Dana Milbank and other reporters are down with that, or at least feel no compunction at all to mention it, and then have the astounding ignorance and chutzpah to actually call the Chinese out for their human rights violations. To buddy up with the President in the ways described in the above article is despicable, the exact opposite of what a real journalist would do. Should I link to the link you provided for confirmation?
Im feeling sick but im going to stand up a bit for Obama.Obama found what Bush knew was true.Those being held at club Gitmo are fanatics.Have you seen the percentages of those released returning to hostile action against this country?Near 80%!They are non uniformed combatants.Not protected under the Geneva convention?Yet should we of shot them as spys or partisans?Shoud they have immediately been tried under military tribunal?Most would probably received death by hanging under that rule system. Should they be tried under our laws?Of course not.So what to do?I leave it to the bloggers here not to just carp….but put forward a solution.
Michael e — I have good news for you! Those terrible, sickening things you believe about Obama finding out what Bush knew about all the fanatics at Gitmo, and how 80 percent of all those “non-uniformed combatants” (pretending to be taxi-drivers and shepherds etc.) who were released have “returned to hostile action against this country” (does that include political demonstrations?) — well, guess what?! It’s not true.
http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2010/01/08/guantanamo-recidivism-mainstream-media-parrot-pentagon-propaganda-again/
Emma, I say, good for you!! Truth to power, truth to power!!
Emma your report deals with the pentagons” confirmed” return to terrorism list.Confirmed indicates many things .Recapture and hard proof being (confession for instance)the requirements.Those are few and far between.In fact when actually captured on the battlefield with weapons in hand those who actually confessed were about…..5%!.Those who would of fit all the criteria you are using -about 3%.So you keep playing with numbers.Most of the world has refused to handle these animals.They see them as a danger to national security.Of course they are all wrong too and your right…right?
The real stats that are the real world- range from 1 in 8 to 1 in every 2(Pentagon military oversea advisory board) have returned to hostile action.Or WILL return to hostilities.But hey if you think they are a bunch of fuzzy wuzzy poo bears wrongly accused- please feel free to invite them to dinner and to stay with you.They can bunk with the kids.
Truth to power ,truth to power!Whatever the hell that means
For me I will stay on earth,and keep sharp implements out of their reach.