Full Version: Smear Campaign?
One could consider this an offshoot of a previous thread in the "War on Terrorism" forum on the one article which raised doubts for me about The Guardian's war coverage. Let's start with the article...
I decided to include these statements as well in case we have another retraction...
Blix: I was smeared by the Pentagon
Now the "counter-quotes"...
Blix Says U.S. Didn't Pressure Inspectors
So once again, is this biased reporting by the Guardian? Dodgy answers by Blix?
QUOTE(Helena Smith @ The Guardian, Jun 11 2003)
Hans Blix, the UN chief weapons inspector, lashed out last night at the "bastards" who have tried to undermine him throughout the three years he has held his high-profile post.
In an extraordinary departure from the diplomatic language with which he has come to be associated, Mr Blix assailed his critics in both Washington and Iraq.
Speaking exclusively to the Guardian from his 31st floor office at the UN in New York, Mr Blix said: "I have my detractors in Washington. There are bastards who spread things around, of course, who planted nasty things in the media. Not that I cared very much...In a wide-ranging interview Mr Blix, who retires in three weeks' time, accused:
·The Bush administration of leaning on his inspectors to produce more damning language in their reports;
·"Some elements" of the Pentagon of being behind a smear campaign against him; and
·Washington of regarding the UN as an "alien power" which they hoped would sink into the East river.
Asked if he believed he had been the target of a deliberate smear campaign he said: "Yes, I probably was at a lower level."..."
But towards the end the [Bush] administration leaned on us,"
In an extraordinary departure from the diplomatic language with which he has come to be associated, Mr Blix assailed his critics in both Washington and Iraq.
Speaking exclusively to the Guardian from his 31st floor office at the UN in New York, Mr Blix said: "I have my detractors in Washington. There are bastards who spread things around, of course, who planted nasty things in the media. Not that I cared very much...In a wide-ranging interview Mr Blix, who retires in three weeks' time, accused:
·The Bush administration of leaning on his inspectors to produce more damning language in their reports;
·"Some elements" of the Pentagon of being behind a smear campaign against him; and
·Washington of regarding the UN as an "alien power" which they hoped would sink into the East river.
Asked if he believed he had been the target of a deliberate smear campaign he said: "Yes, I probably was at a lower level."..."
But towards the end the [Bush] administration leaned on us,"
I decided to include these statements as well in case we have another retraction...
QUOTE(Helena Smith @ The Guardian, Jun 11 2003)
It was just the beginning. By autumn, the happily married father of two was being branded in Baghdad as a "homosexual who went to Washington every two weeks to pick up [his] instructions".
"The Iraqis were spreading that rumour about me early in the autumn and then I heard the counter-rumour that I had told my wife, Eva, about this rumour and that she said she had never noticed it. My alleged comment to her," he said, breaking into laughter, "was that nor had I." But the criticism clearly hurt.
"The Iraqis were spreading that rumour about me early in the autumn and then I heard the counter-rumour that I had told my wife, Eva, about this rumour and that she said she had never noticed it. My alleged comment to her," he said, breaking into laughter, "was that nor had I." But the criticism clearly hurt.
Blix: I was smeared by the Pentagon
Now the "counter-quotes"...
QUOTE(AP @ Jun 11 2003)
Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said Wednesday the Bush administration criticized him but applied no pressure as his teams searched for banned weapons in Iraq.
He also denied a newspaper report that he called U.S. officials "bastards." ...
Blix, who oversaw a fruitless 3 1/2-month search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, was questioned about an interview published Wednesday in London's Guardian newspaper, under the banner headline: "I was smeared by the Pentagon."...
Asked Wednesday whether he used the word "bastards" to refer to the Bush administration, Blix replied: "No, no, absolutely not. I was talking about private individuals." ...
Assistant Editor Brian McDermott at The Guardian said in an interview late Wednesday, "Blix hasn't come back to us to contradict what we've published. We absolutely stand by what our reporter has written."
Blix, who is retiring on June 30, explained that some people have waged a campaign against him since before he became chief U.N. inspector three years ago. "There was a former Swedish prime minister who wrote about me a number of nasty articles," he said.
This was an apparent reference to former Swedish deputy prime minister Per Ahlmark who wrote in two U.S. newspapers in January that Blix, a fellow Swede, was soft on Iraq and was trying to appease Saddam Hussein. Blix said he hadn't seen Ahlmark since the 1970s.
"It's something he got from private sources - not from the Pentagon," Blix said of the information in the articles. "It's not anything I lose sleep on."
Asked whether there was a smear campaign against him, Blix again referred to the articles by Ahlmark.
He also denied a newspaper report that he called U.S. officials "bastards." ...
Blix, who oversaw a fruitless 3 1/2-month search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, was questioned about an interview published Wednesday in London's Guardian newspaper, under the banner headline: "I was smeared by the Pentagon."...
Asked Wednesday whether he used the word "bastards" to refer to the Bush administration, Blix replied: "No, no, absolutely not. I was talking about private individuals." ...
Assistant Editor Brian McDermott at The Guardian said in an interview late Wednesday, "Blix hasn't come back to us to contradict what we've published. We absolutely stand by what our reporter has written."
Blix, who is retiring on June 30, explained that some people have waged a campaign against him since before he became chief U.N. inspector three years ago. "There was a former Swedish prime minister who wrote about me a number of nasty articles," he said.
This was an apparent reference to former Swedish deputy prime minister Per Ahlmark who wrote in two U.S. newspapers in January that Blix, a fellow Swede, was soft on Iraq and was trying to appease Saddam Hussein. Blix said he hadn't seen Ahlmark since the 1970s.
"It's something he got from private sources - not from the Pentagon," Blix said of the information in the articles. "It's not anything I lose sleep on."
Asked whether there was a smear campaign against him, Blix again referred to the articles by Ahlmark.
Blix Says U.S. Didn't Pressure Inspectors
So once again, is this biased reporting by the Guardian? Dodgy answers by Blix?
In the second article, Blix doesn't deny having called some officials bastards. While he says he wasn't referring to the Bush administration, he was in fact talking about "private individuals." And while he says in the second article that the Bush administration didn't pressure him or his teams in the search for weapons, the first article only says that there were officials who leaned on his inspectors to include "more damning language" in their reports.
I don't think it's bias reporting by the Guardian or dodgy answers by Blix, either. I think when you take into consideration the things in which he was saying, he was being open and honest in each respect.
In neither article does Blix appear to deny the belief that there was a smear campaign applied to him and his work in Iraq. The difference in the second article seems only to be that he expresses this belief extends to before he even took the job as chief UN weapons inspector.
I don't think it's bias reporting by the Guardian or dodgy answers by Blix, either. I think when you take into consideration the things in which he was saying, he was being open and honest in each respect.
In neither article does Blix appear to deny the belief that there was a smear campaign applied to him and his work in Iraq. The difference in the second article seems only to be that he expresses this belief extends to before he even took the job as chief UN weapons inspector.
Perceptions of bias are just that - perceptions, based on an individuals own assumptions and standards. So all media sources are biased, because they are all written by individual journalists.
What interests me is why you find it so stunningly intertesting that the Guardian is somehow biased to make the Bush Administration look bad over Iraq, when practically every mainstream media source in the USA is biased into making them look good and you haven't started any threads quoting their coverage and implying that they are somehow unworthy of anyone's respect. What do you have against the Guardian?
Isn't it necessary for the overall health of the media to have different voices, rather than everyone saying the same thing?
What interests me is why you find it so stunningly intertesting that the Guardian is somehow biased to make the Bush Administration look bad over Iraq, when practically every mainstream media source in the USA is biased into making them look good and you haven't started any threads quoting their coverage and implying that they are somehow unworthy of anyone's respect. What do you have against the Guardian?
Isn't it necessary for the overall health of the media to have different voices, rather than everyone saying the same thing?
QUOTE(Julian @ Jun 13 2003, 11:12 AM)
What do you have against the Guardian?
You answered your own question, Julian. The problem with The Guardian is that it's not biased into making the the Bush administration look good. Intolerable!
QUOTE
Isn't it necessary for the overall health of the media to have different voices, rather than everyone saying the same thing?
Not in America, boy.
Actually, along the lines of Abs' posting, I could find neither biased reporting by The Guardian nor dodgy answers by Blix in these articles - though it does look as though that's how the Associated Press was trying to spin the story. I don't agree that all perceptions of bias are just perceptions - but I certainly think that's the case here.
QUOTE(Wertz @ Jun 13 2003, 05:22 PM)
QUOTE(Julian @ Jun 13 2003, 11:12 AM)
What do you have against the Guardian?
You answered your own question, Julian. The problem with The Guardian is that it's not biased into making the the Bush administration look good. Intolerable!
Why, yes of course.
I hate the Guardian's unbiased, unquestionable news-coverage because it makes my leader, role-model, and close personal-friend George W. Bush, look bad. Curse those lying liberal losers,why don't they join the ranks of us pro-Bush reactionaries.
(Where's a fireworks "smiley" when I need one 
)Right, that's me...
A similar (the exact same) question was posted in my first thread on a "Guardian" article (though there, at least, my fellow debaters did not take it upon themselves to answer for me) I will answer in the same way
QUOTE(turnea @ All about the Oil thread)
QUOTE(JonBon @ Jun 5 2003, 5:22 AM)
Why are you singling out the Guardian?
The Guardian is not the only source I've criticized for clearly biased coverage, check out the (closed) thread on our favorite "fair and balanced"network. All I'm saying is that this article is as bad if not worse the Fox. The way the author spun Wolfowitz quote is ridiculous, and the fact that it was found as the top article of one of my favorite news sites makes me wonder.This in reference to an article (now retracted) on The Guardian's website which, by their own admission, misinterpreted (read spun) a quote by Paul Wolfowitz. I simply say that given that clear example, such bias could be evident in other articles.
Is that not valid?
Note: I'm not actually angry about this, just trying to make a point
Oh, dear. 
I didn't really intend my post to be directed at you personally, turnea - and should, perhaps have qualified my reponse a bit. I was more commenting on the reactions of many Americans (for the benefit of Julian) when confronted with press that is more liberal than what we're accustomed to in this country. I did not, however, claim (as you seem to imply) that the The Guardian was unbiased - just that it wasn't biased toward making the Bush administration look good. I would be among the first to admit that this is a paper which, unlike the bulk of the American media, does have a clear editorial slant toward the left (of American politics, at least), though I don't think it much affects their reporting in general (apart from which aspects of which stories they highlight - similar to the way the conservative bias is exhibited by the overwhelming majority of the press in the US).
That said, I don't think you picked a particularly good example of "bias". As I posted above, I could find neither biased reporting by The Guardian nor dodgy answers by Blix in the articles you cited.
I didn't really intend my post to be directed at you personally, turnea - and should, perhaps have qualified my reponse a bit. I was more commenting on the reactions of many Americans (for the benefit of Julian) when confronted with press that is more liberal than what we're accustomed to in this country. I did not, however, claim (as you seem to imply) that the The Guardian was unbiased - just that it wasn't biased toward making the Bush administration look good. I would be among the first to admit that this is a paper which, unlike the bulk of the American media, does have a clear editorial slant toward the left (of American politics, at least), though I don't think it much affects their reporting in general (apart from which aspects of which stories they highlight - similar to the way the conservative bias is exhibited by the overwhelming majority of the press in the US).That said, I don't think you picked a particularly good example of "bias". As I posted above, I could find neither biased reporting by The Guardian nor dodgy answers by Blix in the articles you cited.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.