I'm afraid, "Bogiewheel," that what's "found to be false" is your comment. On Sept. 29, 1999, the AP reported it had confirmed the U.S. military's mass killing of South Korean refugees at No Gun Ri in July 1950. Forced to investigate, after years of rejecting survivors' claims, the Pentagon finally agreed, issuing a report on Jan. 11, 2001, acknowledging that the No Gun Ri refugees had been killed by ``the effects of small-arms fire, artillery and mortar fire, and strafing” at the hands of the 7th U.S. Cavalry Regiment and U.S. warplanes. See http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/U.S._Department_of_the_Army_No_Gun_Ri_Review_Report .
As for the subject at hand in these comments, it is the job of journalists in a democracy to inform the people about what their government and public servants are doing in their name, whether it is spying on Muslims, Catholics or Jews, cavorting with prostitutes in Colombia, or machine-gunning women and children in South Korea. It is not journalists' job to cover things up. You can defend the NYPD's surveillance programs, but you cannot question the people's right to know, or journalists' obligation to tell them.
Charles J. Hanley
For those who will not do their own research, the names of the Pulitzer "Winners" ........
Awarded to Sang-Hun Choe, Charles J. Hanley and Martha Mendoza of the Associated Press for revealing, with extensive documentation, the decades-old secret of how American soldiers early in the Korean War killed hundreds of Korean civilians in a massacre at the No Gun Ri Bridge.
It was a Korean War story that lay buried for nearly a half-century before exploding in headlines across the world: In the first weeks of the three-year conflict that erupted in June 1950, American soldiers on orders of their superior officers allegedly machine-gunned hundreds of helpless South Korean civilians under a railroad bridge near the village of No Gun Ri.
This story was found to be false, But....three "Journalist", received The Pulitzer.
Like many other patriotic Americans, I too am outraged at the Pulitzer committee's oversight in not awarding Ms. Miller the fiction prize for her Iraq "coverage" in 2001-2002. Following in the proud artistic tradition of Dickens, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, and Zane Grey, she revived the serialized novel as a thoroughly 21st Century literary form.
A grave injustice, indeed!
Still there's always Iran, I suppose.
Did I miss something? I thought the article was about the Pulitzer, not Miller.
The Pulitzer has shown itself to be on the road to irrelevancy by ignoring the investigative reporting/exposing work of James O'Keefe and Breitbart (RIP).
Maybe the Pulitzer Committee simply can't stomach that a relative youngster with a tiny camcorder accomplished more exposing and reporting in a few days than a bevy of mature paper journalists could do in a year.
"That’s not the way most New Yorkers see it."
97% of Americans and 99.99% of the world doesn't really care about the levels of support of fascism by the residents of NYC.
Maybe Judith Miller is just earning her bail money here, but awards are given out for uncovering the abuses of the powerful - not for covering up for them.
I thought the main problem with the NYPD's investigations was that some of it happened outside of NYC, ie. where the NYPD isn't supposed to have jurisdiction.
Typical left response, M. Miller, is to say, "Well, you guys do it too!" Yeah, probably true, and I'm not one to defend the Iraq War. But saying "you're just as bad as us" is hardly inspiring. At least the Republicans (corrupt though they may have been leading up to the war) had an eye toward the national interest, whereas the left media is corruption in service of anti-Americanism. "Useful idiots" is, I believe, the apposite term here.
Don't forget that Obama is a "true believer" in Marxist anti-colonialism and anti-imperialism ideology. His Kenyan father and his "Christian" preacher Wright taught him to hate the accomplishments of Western Civilization. He sees himself as on friendly terms with various "Arab Spring" Muslim Brotherhood ideologues. He's a "brotha'" who's "cool wit dem." His preacher Wright said that white people "have it coming" and Obama sees himself as an instrument of justice in that regard. Our first gangbanger president.
One and done.
Let's see some of your research Judith....
Wednesday 9 November 2011 15.36 GMT
"One of the oldest tricks in the run-up to a war is to spread terrifying stories of things that the enemy may be about to do. Government officials plant these tales, journalists water them and the public, for the most part, swallow them."
The Iraq war of 2003 followed a long media build-up in which talk about Saddam Hussein's imaginary weapons of mass destruction, simply by virtue of its constant repetition, led many prominent journalists to abandon their critical faculties. The Washington Post, for instance, devoted an extraordinary 1,800 words to an extremely flimsy (but scary) story suggesting Iraq had supplied nerve gas to al-Qaida. The paper later conceded that its coverage of the Iraqi WMD issue had been seriously defective, but by then it was too late to undo the damage.
At the New York Times, meanwhile, star reporter Judith Miller was churning out more alarmist stuff about Iraq. One story concerned US attempts to stop Iraq importing atropine, a drug used for treating heart patients which is also an effective antidote against pesticide poisoning ... and nerve gas. There were various possible interpretations, but the implication of this tale, as presented by Miller, with assistance from anonymous official sources, was that Iraq not only possessed nerve gas but intended to use it and wanted to protect its own troops from the harmful effects.
Another of Miller's "scoops" was an unverified claim that a Russian scientist, who once had access to the Soviet Union's entire collection of 120 strains of smallpox, might have visited Iraq in 1990 and might have provided the Iraqis with a version of the virus that could be resistant to vaccines and could be more easily transmitted as a biological weapon.
The story collapsed shortly afterwards when it emerged that the scientist had not, after all, visited Iraq in 1990. Just to be on the safe side, though, the Bush administration still pressed ahead with a smallpox vaccination programme – much to the delight of pharmaceutical companies.....and then there is your untold story of Dr Kelly.
Judith! You of all people, the ultimate manufacturer of news...remember Iraq?! Now go to the comments on other news boards and see how important and credible your piece means to
the majority of people.
Anything Judith Miller says about “journalism” needs to be taken with a heavy dose of salt. She is a liar and betrayed her office as a journalist. The Bush Administration provided “secrets” to NY Times Reporter, Judith Miller, and then claimed that the NY Times “reported” the same things they were lying about in order to justify their continuing lies and defense of the war.
1. Miller’s stories for the Times were based almost entirely on Pentagon assertions, and, in particular, those of the Office of Special Operations, the intelligence-manufacturing group set up by Rumsfeld and Feith to produce evidence of Iraqi WMD after the CIA failed to provide the pretext for war that the administration was looking for.
2. In May 2003, she revealed in an e-mail exchange with Times Baghdad bureau chief John Burns that Ahmed Chalabi, head of the US-financed exile group Iraqi National Congress, had “provided most of the front page exclusives on WMD” that bore her byline. Chalabi was at that time an intimate of the Pentagon leadership, and his claims were roundly rejected as false and politically motivated by both the US State Department and the CIA. During the course of her reporting, she produced false stories based entirely on Pentagon assertions that American troops had found mobile biological weapons labs and that an Iraqi scientist had admitted to holding weapons materials until the eve of the invasion.
3. Miller has come under criticism for her reporting on whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD). On September 7, 2002, Miller and Times reporter Michael R. Gordon reported the interception of metal tubes bound for Iraq. Her front page story quoted unnamed "American officials" and "American intelligence experts" who said the tubes were intended to be used to enrich nuclear material, and cited unnamed "Bush administration officials" who claimed that in recent months, Iraq had "stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb."
4. Miller added that "Mr. Hussein's dogged insistence on pursuing his nuclear ambitions, along with what defectors described in interviews as Iraq's push to improve and expand Baghdad's chemical and biological arsenals, have brought Iraq and the United States to the brink of war." Although Miller conceded that some intelligence experts found the information on Iraq's weapons programs "spotty," she did not report specific and detailed objections, including a report filed with the US government more than a year before Miller's article appeared by retired Oak Ridge National Laboratory physicist, Houston G. Wood III, who concluded that the tubes were not meant for centrifuges.
5. Shortly after Miller's article was published, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld all appeared on television and pointed to Miller's story as a partial basis for going to war. Subsequent analyses by various agencies all concluded that there was no way the tubes could have been used for uranium-enrichment centrifuges.
6. Miller would later claim, based only on second-hand statements from the military unit she was embedded with, that WMDs had been found in Iraq. This again was widely repeated in the press. "Well, I think they found something more than a smoking gun," Miller said on The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. "What they've found is a silver bullet in the form of a person, an Iraqi individual, a scientist, as we've called him, who really worked on the programs, who knows them, firsthand, and who has led MET Alpha people to some pretty startling conclusions." This story also turned out to be false.
7. On May 26, 2004, a week after the U.S. government apparently severed ties with Ahmed Chalabi, a Times editorial acknowledged that some of that newspaper's coverage in the run-up to the war had relied too heavily on Chalabi and other Iraqi exiles bent on regime change. It also regretted that "information that was controversial [was] allowed to stand unchallenged." While the editorial rejected "blame on individual reporters," others noted that ten of the twelve flawed stories discussed had been written or co-written by Miller.
8. Miller has reacted angrily to criticism of her pre-war reporting. In a May 27, 2004 article in Salon, published the day after the Times mea culpa, James C. Moore quoted her: "You know what," she offered angrily. "I was proved fucking right. That's what happened. People who disagreed with me were saying, 'There she goes again.' But I was proved fucking right." This quotation was originally in relation to another Miller story, wherein she indicated that trailers found in Iraq had been proven to be mobile weapons labs. That too was later shown to be untrue.
Way to go, Judith Miller. The prize does, indeed, say more about the state of MSM. And, as you noted, it also speaks volumes about the Pulitzer jury. Rare is the journalist or entity who or that ventures off the left wing's narrative on police powers ranch.
Fifty-four years ago, I began my career as an international reporter with the AP in Germany. Given that the AP once taught me the highest standards of journalism, reading Judith Miller's fine column has reenforced my pessimism for democracy's chances of survival. If this once noble institution jettisons its principles by manufacturing news for ideological reasons, then it is evident that the free press, one of the most important pillars of democracy, is rapidly collapsing. Unfortunately it has been my experience that even potent conservative benefactors fail to see the urgency of investing in the creation of new, impartial media outlets of the highest quality covering not just America but the whole world responsibly. I fear this failure will contribute to our speedy descent into tyranny.
I wonder where these reporters were cowarding when those innocent people were jumping out the windows of the World Trade center. We, the real patriots,will go to the aid of anyone that is being harressed by any Agency(with only one exception) after the terrible attack on the City that caused death to over 3000 Women,children and other innocent persons,I would take any measures, NOT to allow a second one. GOD BLESS AMERICA.
When you ask a reporter or editor how they know their newspaper is any good, they frequently cite how many Pulitzer Prizes they have won. Yet, the Rocky Mountain News had won four Pulitzer Prizes from 2000-2006 before going out of business in 2009. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer featured a two-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize, editorial cartoonist David Horsey, before going out of print in 2009. The NY Times, which had won 106 Pulitzer Prizes including Walter Duranty's, lost 7.3% of its circulation in 2009. So, first, it appears that the award of Pulitzer Prizes is of more interest to reporters and editors than it is to readers. Second, the fact that these setbacks to the U.S. newspaper industry occured shortly after their Obama swoon in 2008 implies a special popular distrust of their coverage of political campaigns.
Maybe the Pulitzer Prize committee should be awarded the winner for fiction. Their rampage against the NYPD is nothing but a leftist fabrication.
I have nothing but contempt for the AP and the mainstream media. There is no longer any pretense of journalistic objecivity in these news organizations. Thay have become a wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Democratic Party.
Homegrown Muslims could blow up the AP, the ACLU, the DoJ, and Terry Gross and they would continue to condemn "massive police spying". Shades of Seymour Hersh.
The days when the Pulitzers meant something are over. More often than not, the award is a mark of shame.
The mainstream press is on the run. Have you noticed most leftist sites don't permit comments while right wing site do.
The winning political cartoon is more leftist tripe, as well. The mainstream press really is "all in" on the Obama campaign. They know they're losing influence and credibility and instead of trying for more objectivity have decided to double down on this sort of pandering and flattering of leftist readers.
But this manufactured news is then used as a foundation for "lawfare". What cannot be won on the battlefield, freedom from eyes prying into schemes that need NYPD neglect to ripen, can perhaps be won in the courts.
It is not to the advantage of your typical Muslim NYC civilian that these schemes prosper. They're at risk along with everyone else, and they're at the further risk, should too many plots succeed, of being lumped in with the plotters.
But what do the plotters care about that?
Haha. Glad we have one of the most reputable journalists of our time critiquing the Pulitzers.
Maybe next time get someone with a shred of credibility to weigh in.
Sorry, Judy! Don't mean to hurt your feelings. Just keep calling all the kettles out there black. I'm sure no one in the pot store in which you live will mention it.
Columbia Journalism Review, sponsor of the Pulitzer Prizes, for years built a reputation as protector of press freedom and champion of the public's right to know the truth. In recent years, the ruling elite's domination of CJR has been asserted. The result, as usual, is conduct viewed by the ruling elite as politically correct; i.e., helpful in advancing the elitist social agenda.