In a world now where the sound bite and headline are the driving force behind the media scoop. This morning headlines around the media read:



And I admit when I first read the headline I though they were just set free by their captors. But once I read the article, I had discovered they were actually rescued by British and US Forces, after questioning of an individual who told of their location.

Questions for debate..

1. Is the use of the word freed instead of rescued by many of the media outlets(including the AP) an attempt to keep from giving praise to US and British forces in Iraq.

2. Is the media being intellectually honest with its viewership when they use headlines such as this.

I think you're looking for something that isn't there. If we're going to have any sort of constructive debate on this I think you need to provide some evidence or reason you believe the AP is trying to downplay the efforts of the US and British forces.

Do a google search under news and type:

"Iraq freed hostages"

You will get over 1800 hits


Then Type:

"Iraq rescued hostages"

You get just under 800 hits


Since most people glance at headlines and hear sound bites the headline itself goes along way in telling a quick story.

1. Is the use of the word freed instead of rescued by many of the media outlets(including the AP) an attempt to keep from giving praise to US and British forces in Iraq.

Here is one of the first I saw,

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national...e7cfe1f&k=94133

So my question is why didn't you include the Canadians. Or is it just the US media trying to not give the Canadians credit?

Next on a Google news search here are some of the headlines:
(ABC News)

... Canada news

Here is one that is certainly showing where they come from....

Mens News Daily

My next question is who owns AP and similar reporting media? And who makes the headlines?


2. Is the media being intellectually honest with its viewership when they use headlines such as this.

I think the one about "Do Pacifist Hostages Appreciate The Violence That Freed Them?" is very intellectually challenged.... Also were these hostages there to shove their religion in the Islams face?

hostages



Were the others that were freed there to make a profit off the Iraqi resources? so with a headline like that where is the intellectual honesty?

Well, if they were 'freed' use the proper word. Call a spade a spade and let it be that. I do not think there is some huge media conspiracy (though I love a good conspiracy) trying to undermine the work our troops are doing.

If they were really not rescued, why would the press bother to report it as such unless it actually occurred that way?

I like the word 'freed' in place of 'rescued." It shows at least some reasonable and reliable reporting coming from Iraq.

Don't get me wrong: I love our troops and support this war, but at the same time I recognize there are more important things to do than rescue people who may should not have been there in the first place.

This seems like a non-issue to me. All the news I read about this rescue said things like "Troops free hostages" or some such. I saw nothing but praise for an effective, bloodless operation. A random example, from MSNBC:



If anything, this paragraph seems to be saying "Great job!"

Have we considered the fact that the word "freed" is shorter than the word "rescued," and therefore better for headlines?

1. Is the use of the word freed instead of rescued by many of the media outlets(including the AP) an attempt to keep from giving praise to US and British forces in Iraq.
Probably, but I doubt if it could be proven unless one could get the editors to fess up.

2. Is the media being intellectually honest with its viewership when they use headlines such as this.
They're either being intellectually dishonest, or incompetent. "Freed" is ambiguous as to the identity of the actor, whereas "rescued" leaves no doubt. One of the ethical requirements of journalism is to strive for clarity, the use of "freed" violates that requirement.

You know, this strikes me as one of those debates where people are going to read whatever they want into the issue, making a productive conversation well nigh impossible.

But since we're playing the game, I might as well jump in.

Freed quite literally means released from captivity. They were. So the use of the word is in no ways factually incorrect. So lets try and crack Sleeper's nut (ok, that sounded bad.) Why didn't they use rescued? There has already been a very plausible explanation offered: "freed" is shorter. Does space matter? Sure does. This one is hard to prove though, so lets look at other options.

We were provided with four headlines that contain the supposedly ambiguous wording. So lets look at some other variants. I've started with Canadian newspapers. Now here are the bylines from the Toronto Sun and Globe and Mail. Both are roughly considered "centrist" papers (although one is in fact not.) Note how neither is ambiguous? The Toronto Sun in particular has a long history of praising US action in Iraq and condemning Canadian foreign policy.

Soldiers Free Canadian and British Hostages in Iraq

Canadian hostages freed in covert raid in Iraq

The Toronto Star, the closest thing we have to a left-leaning daily, went with the headline provided by sleeper: Canadian Hostages Freed. What's interesting is the next paper, the National Post. This daily is transparently pro-American to the point that it is no longer even delivered in several provinces because it has alienated so many Canadian readers. What was their headline?

Hostages Freed!

Now, what is more likely in this scenario... that they were seeking to avoid praise for what is a univerally praised action, when in the past they have been almost eager to praise less well-received ones, or they simply watched their space?

What's being overlooked in this discussion is the actual reporting being done. Headlines grab attention, they are not meant to inform or educated. That is the purpose of the article. If you can find an actual piece of journalism that skirts around US involvement in this operation, you'd have a legitimate beef. You don't, because there are none. Instead you are projecting your own misgivings about journalists onto an issue which in fact doesn't concern journalism.

There is nothing intellectually dishonest or incompetent in the choice of words used by the Associated Press. What is intellectually dishonest (and more than a little silly) is when people ascribe sinister motives to a profession they know little to nothing about how it operates.

Go to Yahoo! and do a search on the phrase, "hostages rescued" and "hostages freed" and you'll get dozens of hits for both words.

http://www.southbendtribune.com/apps/pbcs....ews03/603240357

The difference "Rescued" or "Freed" is a case of sematics. Check a thesaurus and one of the synonyms for "rescue" is "free." The idea that the Associated Press is trying to dis the U.S. and British forces is media-bashing paranoia.

What the job of the media NOT to do is engage in cheerleading and flag-waving. I quote from the Society of Professional Journalists code of ethics:

Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.

Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.

http://spj.org/ethics_code.asp

Oh, and let's not forget to give some props to the Canadians forces, eh? Wave the flag all you want, but don't expect a credible news organization to do it first, because it isn't their job.

Is the use of the word freed instead of rescued by many of the media outlets (including the AP) an attempt to keep from giving praise to US and British forces in Iraq.
In the words of Goldfinger, "There is no pleezing you."

When I read the questions for debate my original reaction was the media has reported stories of captives being rescued but rescue operations haven't always ended successfully. Freed had a more definitive ring to it. As a definition, it's an appropriate term.


What's more than passing odd about using free? The root word was "American" enough to ridicule one laggard ally.

Is the media being intellectually honest with its viewership when they use headlines such as this.
The concept of the media practicing intellectual honesty and accountability with its viewership/readers is a bad joke everywhere you look. WaPo recently hired a serial plagiarist and all around demagogue idiot. Cries of foul play from Mid East clerics have worked well enough for them, enabling them to get away with behavior that shouldn't be tolerated, and ideas that should be countered. There's a similar goal at work here, and WaPo, instead of concerning itself with the truth and only the truth, letting the chips fall where they may, shoots for "moderation," losing sight of its purpose along with other outlets.

Oh yeah, job well done saving those men.

Sigh. 'Tis true, I let my bias get in the way, albeit not in the sense that Nighttimer concludes. First, nowadays I try to make a habit in my initial post of only responding to the opening questions. As part of this odd mechanism, I usually don't read any of the other posts until after I've posted my initials response. In all of the headlines posed in the opening question, the identity of the actors was not revealed...

Second, regarding the use of "freed" in headlines, there is one other legitimate reason for a headline that is clearly ambiguous such as "Hostages Freed!". Its to encourage the potential customer to say, "hmmm, freed by who? Reckon I better buy that rag and find out..." Of course (dig, dig, dig), such teasers are merely a tool of unrequitted capitalism, intended to move the merchandise, so I'm not sure if this is an acceptable explanation.

Third, before I encountered this thread, I had already run across this:

Statement by Christian Peacemaker Teams
Our hearts are filled with joy today as we heard that Harmeet Singh Sooden, Jim Loney and Norman Kember have been safely released in Baghdad. Christian Peacemaker Teams rejoices with their families and friends at the expectation of their return to their loved ones and community.
...
They knew that their only protection was in the power of the love of God and of their Iraqi and international co-workers.

We believe that the illegal occupation of Iraq by Multinational Forces is the root cause of the insecurity which led to this kidnapping and so much pain and suffering in Iraq. The occupation must end.

Nowhere in the CPT statement does it acknowledge that they were rescued by the troops, nowhere does it thank them, and rather, the statement attacks the very people who freed them.

So yeah, I got a bias...

In reading this statement, I'm reminded about the old joke about the guy, and the rising flood waters. He kept waiting, and waiting, and waiting for God to rescue him. Finally, the floodwaters overwhelmed him. At the Pearly Gates, he asked why God didn't rescue him. God patiently explained that He'd sent rescuers in trucks before the flood waters closed the roads, rescuers in boats before the floodwaters got too gnarly, and finally rescuers in a helicopter, all of which the guy refused because they didn't fit his vision of how God would rescue.

They knew that their only protection was in the power of the love of God and of their Iraqi and international co-workers. Since it wasn't their co-workers who freed them, musta been God's doing...

If the troops who rescued them were doing God's will, I wonder what else the troops are doing that may be God's will as well.... certainly a theological conundrum for the CPT, eh?

Just so we're clear... you're admitting that your resentment towards a party that had nothing to do with the writing of the headline, nor it's use is biasing your opinion, and that such bias is justified? What can you possibly contribute to this discussion under those circumstances?

No, I'm admitting that I had already encountered this story. I'm also admitting that my exposure to this story prior to posting was a) the CPT statement, and the headlines in the opening post. As you'll note, the headlines in the opening post at no time identify who freed the hostages, how they were freed, etc. Given that its considered good form to answer the question asked, I was answering the question asked given the material presented.

If using sources beyond the opening post constitutes "bias", then pretty much all the other posters who used more verbose headlines that identify the military involvement in the "freeing" as a defense of the media qualify as "biased" as well. And "good on" the other posters for making a spirited defense, even if in doing so their biases make it difficult for them to "contribute" to this discussion.

So, I stand by my initial assessment, narrowly construed to cover just the headlines in the opening post. Any headline that identifies the military involvement clearly resolves the ambiguity issue, and specifically refutes the notion that the media in question is deliberately failing to credit the military.

What of those that don't identify the military's involvement? Shall we take the charitable approaches, i.e. the teaser factor or space concerns? Or look for more nefarious motives? What are your biases? If you have any "What can you possibly contribute to this discussion ..."?

Do the clear headlines that you have posted automatically mean that the writers of the other headlines in the opening post get a pass? It would seem that you think so... perhaps a bit of bias there?

But hey, even with our obvious biases, you've managed to contribute the space factor as a possible consideration, and I've managed to contribute the teaser factor.

I wonder about that explanation. Seems to me that if the headline had said "rescued" instead, it would have caused more people to want to read the story, because it would have had an aura of adventure to it. Everybody loves a good drama, especially if it's a true story.

Plus, it truly would have given a more accurate impression of what happened.


Just what in tarnation are you talking about? Using "rescued" instead of "freed" isn't flag-waving. It's just accurate reporting, giving an accurate impression. And it's something that any credible news agency should be expected to do.

How is freed inaccurate reporting? If it isn't inaccurate you're expressing little more than a conspiracy conscript's preference.

1. Is the use of the word freed instead of rescued by many of the media outlets(including the AP) an attempt to keep from giving praise to US and British forces in Iraq.

No. If this story is remotely accurate, it's an attempt to describe what actually happened, rather than put a flag-waving spin on things. It's true, a joint special forces operation (which the British media has been saying was British-led, but then we would, wouldn't we?) went in intedning to use force to get the hostages back, but they didn't have to in the end.

Because their captors had left the hostages unguarded, had left the area themselves, and (according to some sources) had even been the ones who anonymously tipped off the authorities as to the location of the hostages.

This story basically says that the people holding the hostages got cold feet - or perhaps just an attack of conscience - after their superiors took out and murdered one of their number several days before.

That said, I still think it somewhat churlish of Norman Kember, at least, not to thank the people who brought him back from his place of detention. He may not like the war, but if they hadn't come he'd still be sat tied up in an empty house wondering where his captors had gone.

2. Is the media being intellectually honest with its viewership when they use headlines such as this.

In the light of this story, it seems so, yes. In this particular case, it looks like the papers and tv stations pretending outrage at the "liberal media's obvious anti-Americanism" or other such tosh are the ones being intellectually frugal with the truth. Not the ones using "freed" in their headlines.

It creates the misleading impression that the captors themselves decided to release them of their own goodwill. The 1980 hostages in Iran were "freed" (i.e., set free). These hostages were rescued.

Yes, I know that "freed" can encompass "rescued", but it also can encompass a lot more, and usually has a different connotation. I don't think it was too much to ask for the papers to make space for just two more letters that would have given a much more accurate impression of what happened.


The "conspiracy" strawman has gotten seriously overwrought lately. Time to get a new line.

"Freed" and "rescued" are both true. The fact is that the prisoners were abandoned by their captors, but they were abandoned because coalition forces were in the area.

I have no problem with saying that they were rescued. It was a shame, though, that it happened too late for American Quaker peace activist Tom Fox. May he rest in peace.

Whatever floats your boat, I guess. I never came across text wherein the North quibbled over the use of the word following the Civil War.


And I think reading too much into this is, er... reading too much into it. The only feeling I got when I found out about the story was gladness. I don't suppose there's anything anyone could say to discourage someone else from believing the media was trying to make the captives look like good or half-way decent. As if it could at this point. Although Julian's link does seem to pass your "captors themselves decided to release them" integrity test.


No, time to stop seeing an agenda, or apply asinine standards across the board.