Favorite Journalists/Reporters?

[Formaldehyde]

I wouldn't call Robert Fisk 'a propagandist', but nor would I call him 'fair and even handed'. He's a brave, determined, and very knowledgeable journalist, who's quite open about the moral and political agenda behind his writing, and who doesn't try to sell himself as some kind of impartial observer. Trying to present him as someone who acts as a beacon of neutrality is not just wrong, it's actually insulting to him. We need more journalists like that, and fewer who allow readers the conceit of thinking that the stories they choose to believe are 'fair and even handed'.

I didn't call him a "beacon of neutrality" when obviously no good journalist in existence actually fits that description. What is actually "insulting" as well as "conceit" is even trying to insinuate that is what I meant. What utter nonsense.

But he is clearly a responsible journalist with impeccable credentials for being "fair and even handed" by not fitting the term "propagandist" in any regard whatsoever. He clearly blames both sides in this matter on a regular basis, as well as giving them credit when he thinks they deserve it.

Robert Fisk is an English writer and journalist from Maidstone, Kent. He has been Middle East correspondent of The Independent for more than thirty years, primarily based in Beirut.[1] Fisk holds more British and International Journalism awards than any other foreign correspondent. He has also been voted International Journalist of the Year seven times. He has published a number of books and reported on several wars and armed conflicts.

Fisk has received the British Press Awards' International Journalist of the Year seven times,[33] and twice won its "Reporter of the Year" award.[34] He also received Amnesty International UK Media Awards in 1992 for his report "The Other Side of the Hostage Saga",[citation needed] in 1998 for his reports from Algeria[35] and again in 2000 for his articles on the NATO air campaign against the FRY in 1999.[36]

1984 Lancaster University honorary degree [37]
1991 Jacob's Award for coverage of the Gulf War on RTÉ Radio[38]
1999 Orwell Prize for journalism [39]
2001 David Watt Prize for an investigation of the 1915 Armenian Genocide by the Ottoman Empire [40]
2002 Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism[citation needed]
2003 Open University honorary doctorate [41]
2004 University of St Andrews honorary degree[42]
2004 Carleton University honorary degree[43]
2005 Adelaide University Edward Said Memorial lecture[44]
2006 Ghent University honorary degree[citation needed]
2006 American University of Beirut honorary degree[45]
2006 Queen's University Belfast honorary degree [46]
2006 Lannan Cultural Freedom Prize worth $350,000.[47]
2008 University of Kent honorary degree [48]
2008 Trinity College Dublin honorary doctorate[49]
2009 College Historical Society's Gold Medal for Outstanding Contribution to Public Discourse.[50]
2009 Liverpool Hope University honorary degree[51][52]
2011 the International Prize at the Amalfi Coast Media Awards, Italy[53]

 

[Kyriakos]

@Owen: Not really I happen to find beauty of the somatic type something which is all-together a positive quality (by itself). Since antiquity people were being promoted for how they looked, although at healthy times this was - as was mentioned in some other thread - linked to how they were in their mental world as well.

Besides, my point was no revelation, it was just that today reporting has largely become something of low value. Most people do not trust reporters. On the contrary at least liking someone due to their physical form is honest, and most of the time beneficial as well

 

[Thedrin]

I love cinema. Mark Kermode is the reviewer I find most interesting.

Despite being fairly interested in world events, or claiming to be, I don't follow anyone. I come here for that stuff.

 

[peter grimes]

Do newscasters on TV write their own reports or do they just speak them?

I think that depends on the relationship between the producers, the news director, and the news caster in each studio.

From my very limited exposure at NBC it seemed that the content was generated by the producers and the newcaster was mostly just delivering it. But this was back when Katie Couric was a morning show host, Matt Lauer had hair, Al Roker was Rokerer, and Stone Phillips was their serious guy. This was all studio work, I'd expect remote location teams to work very differently.

But I really can't speak with any authority on this.

 

[Antilogic]

As I understand it (also, complete outsider), the newscaster has more of an editorial role rather than a research role, if that makes sense.

 

[Ajidica]

Formy, I'm a fan of Robert Fisk (I own his book on the Middle East and have been trying to track down his one on Lebanon) but he isn't particularly grand at the impartial, fact-based reporting. (Nor is he particularly good at history that he wasn't directly reporting on. His chapter on the overthrow of Mossadeq and the Shah is pretty iffy to say the least.)What Fisk is very good at is giving you a sense of how people respond to events and how they view the world. That is something often forgotten about and lost in news reporting.

 

[Cryptic_Snow]

 

[downtown]

Do newscasters on TV write their own reports or do they just speak them?

Typically they do at least some of the writing/reporting, although production may help re-write the script.

 

[Dachs]

Makes me think of the victim from this:


Link to video.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Formy, I'm a fan of Robert Fisk (I own his book on the Middle East and have been trying to track down his one on Lebanon) but he isn't particularly grand at the impartial, fact-based reporting. (Nor is he particularly good at history that he wasn't directly reporting on. His chapter on the overthrow of Mossadeq and the Shah is pretty iffy to say the least.)What Fisk is very good at is giving you a sense of how people respond to events and how they view the world. That is something often forgotten about and lost in news reporting.

Again, the issue isn't about impartiality. Everybody has a bias and Fisk's are quite obvious. It is about being an incredibly reputable journalist with impeccable credentials.

What did you find so "iffy" about his reporting of Mossadeq and the Shah?

 

[Perfection]

April O'Neil and Lois Lane, duh.

 

[Ajidica]

What did you find so "iffy" about his reporting of Mossadeq and the Shah?

His scholarship on the issue is out of date. He over-states the impact Operation Ajax had on the overthrow of Mossadeq while not giving sufficient attention to the reasons why Mossadeq was in such a poor position. Also, he often conflates the perception of what happened in Iran with what did happen.
With regards to the Shah, he spends a lot of time focusing on the brutality of the Savak and the repression without pointing out that the dissent was allowed because the Shah was allowing it to some extent. Also, he didn't really mention the Shah's modernizing efforts which initially were well-received by the urban Iranians.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Ah. You mean he doesn't share your own personal notion of what actually occurred, along with the usual excuses to openly support a brutal and sadistic puppet dictator instead of an actual democratically-elected government.

That his "scholarship" is lacking while yours based solely on your own personal opinions isn't.

I see...

 

[Ajidica]

I'm going more off of what I read in The Global Cold War by Odd Arne Westad (Dachs recommended it). The author has far better sourcing and analysis on this topic (for a historical overview) than Fisk has. I currently have the book loaned to a friend so I can't check right now, but in The Great War for Civilization in the chapter on Mossadeq/Shah he has barely any academic sources on the topic, mainly relying on a few interviews. As enlightening as the interviews are, they shed very little light on why Mossadeq was in such a poor position and what the Shah actually did during his rule of Iran.

 

[_random_]

April O'Neil and Lois Lane, duh.

I prefer scientist April to reporter April.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I'm going more off of what I read in The Global Cold War by Odd Arne Westad (Dachs recommended it). The author has far better sourcing and analysis on this topic (for a historical overview) than Fisk has. I currently have the book loaned to a friend so I can't check right now, but in The Great War for Civilization in the chapter on Mossadeq/Shah he has barely any academic sources on the topic, mainly relying on a few interviews. As enlightening as the interviews are, they shed very little light on why Mossadeq was in such a poor position and what the Shah actually did during his rule of Iran.

There are other works by historians instead of journalists who echo essentially the same perspective, replete with footnotes. You can't really expect the same sort of dry treatment from a book that was written for the mass market.

This is a highly contentious matter and it will likely remain so. To claim that one side is "scholarly" while the other isn't merely because it echoes your own personal opinions, or what you read in one history book, is simply absurd.

But if you are really interested in hearing both sides of the issues, it is quite easy to do. Here is one such source that the NY Times published in 2000 based on CIA documents.

NY Times: Secrets of History. The CIA In Iran

The Central Intelligence Agency's secret history of its covert operation to overthrow Iran's government in 1953 offers an inside look at how the agency stumbled into success, despite a series of mishaps that derailed its original plans.

Written in 1954 by one of the coup's chief planners, the history details how United States and British officials plotted the military coup that returned the shah of Iran to power and toppled Iran's elected prime minister, an ardent nationalist.

The document shows that:

Britain, fearful of Iran's plans to nationalize its oil industry, came up with the idea for the coup in 1952 and pressed the United States to mount a joint operation to remove the prime minister.

The C.I.A. and S.I.S., the British intelligence service, handpicked Gen. Fazlollah Zahedi to succeed Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and covertly funneled $5 million to General Zahedi's regime two days after the coup prevailed.

Iranians working for the C.I.A. and posing as Communists harassed religious leaders and staged the bombing of one cleric's home in a campaign to turn the country's Islamic religious community against Mossadegh's government.

The shah's cowardice nearly killed the C.I.A. operation. Fearful of risking his throne, the Shah repeatedly refused to sign C.I.A.-written royal decrees to change the government. The agency arranged for the shah's twin sister, Princess Ashraf Pahlevi, and Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf, the father of the Desert Storm commander, to act as intermediaries to try to keep him from wilting under pressure. He still fled the country just before the coup succeeded.

Not to mention this is just one example of the literally dozens of governments that the US government has covertly overthrown, or tried to overthrow, since the start of the so-called Cold War. And that includes Iran at least three times now.

2 During the Cold War

2.1 Communist states 1944–89
2.2 Syria 1949
2.3 Iran 1953
2.4 Guatemala 1954
2.5 Tibet 1955–current
2.6 Indonesia 1958-1966
2.7 Cuba 1959
2.8 Democratic Republic of the Congo 1960–65
2.9 Iraq 1960–63
2.10 Dominican Republic 1961
2.11 South Vietnam 1963
2.12 Brazil 1964
2.13 Ghana 1966
2.14 Chile 1970–73
2.15 Afghanistan 1979–89
2.16 Turkey 1980
2.17 Poland 1980–81
2.18 Nicaragua 1981–90
2.18.1 Destablization through CIA Assets
2.18.2 Arming the Contras
2.19 Cambodia 1980–95
2.20 Angola 1980s
2.21 Philippines 1986

3 Since the end of the Cold War

3.1 Iraq 1992–96
3.2 Afghanistan 2001
3.3 Iraq 2002–03
3.4 Venezuela 2002
3.5 Gaza Strip 2006–present
3.6 Somalia 2006–07
3.7 Iran 2005–present
3.8 Libya 2011
3.9 Syria 2012

You certainly can't even try to explain them all away.

 

[Ajidica]

To quote from your own report (Section 4):

Still, the C.I.A. took full credit inside the government. The following year it overthrew the government of Guatemala, and a myth developed that the agency could topple governments anywhere in the world.

Mossadeq had lost pretty much all of his support in Iran with the nationalization of the oil industry a last-ditch attempt to build up his nationalist cred. It was obvious to everyone that Mossadeq was on the way out and given the situation in Iran, Iran would probably collapse into anarchy or the government would be so weak it would be forced to turn to the USSR for aid. (Remember, during WWII the USSR had occupied the Iranian oil fields and maintained a presence until a couple of years after the war.) The nationalization was the last straw, prompting Anglo-American intervention.

It is also remember the context in which the intervention occurs. At this stage, America was still relatively popular in the Third World as a modernizing force. It was not uncommon for Third World leaders to support America and Western modernization. By ensuring the next leader of Iran was pro-West it was hoped that Iran would see the level of development and freedom seen in the West. Britain and America preferred a Western strongman who would hopefully turn Iran into a pretty nice place and win the 'hearts and minds' of Iran by showing off the benefits of Western Modernization. If a repressive traditionalist strongman took power it was feared Iran would fall into the Soviet camp as the Tudeh Communist party would be able to serve as the only viable opposition group.

As the CIA documents make clear, regardless of how well planned the coup attempt was, the CIA almost immediately lost control of the situation and things spiraled out of control. Due to a variety of factors, in which the CIA played only a small role, Mossadeq was ousted and the Shah came back into power. Furthermore, the popular impression of the Iranian coup was colored by the success of later American regime changes. Also, due to the chaotic situation inside Iran at the time and the secrecy surrounding the coup attempt, it appeared that the CIA had a far greater control over the situation than they did. The impression that Britain and America had been messing around in Iran soured much of the Third World to America, in much the same way the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan soured the Third World to the USSR. Plus, the infatuation with Western modernism was fading in the Third World as post-colonialism enthusiasm was not living up to expectations and the now frequently Soviet-leaning Third Would countries began playing up the power of the CIA to gain nationalist cred and Soviet support to cover their own shaky regimes.

 

[downtown]

This recent blog post from Taibii gets to what we've been talking about a little bit:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...is-advocacy-journalism-20130627?stop_mobi=yes

 

[Formaldehyde]

Mossadeq had lost pretty much all of his support in Iran with the nationalization of the oil industry a last-ditch attempt to build up his nationalist cred.

Based on what? Sheer speculation? One book which is contradicted by others?

Do you really think the people of Iran wanted to live under a brutal military dictator, who was too cowardly to even hang around during the US/UK coup, and forced to live that way for over 25 years instead of having a democratically elected government?

Do you really think they wanted the US to not only overthrow their sovereign democratically elected government once, but repeatedly tried to do so at least two more times, and may even still do so under the Obama administration?

How many of these other coups and covert acivities to topple governments were caused by the people supposedly being tired of their elected representatives, which they could simply not vote for during the next election? Why would they be opposed to no longer being the victims of imperialism and exploitation of their own natural resources by foreign companies?

 

[Ajidica]

Based on what? Sheer speculation? One book which is contradicted by others?

Okay, what other reasons can you think someone in a very shaky political position would want to start a conflict with a major power?

Do you really think the people of Iran wanted to live under a brutal military dictator who was too cowardly to even hang around during the US/UK coup ad forced to live that way for over 25 years, instead of having a democratically elected government?

As far as military leaders went, the Shah wasn't all that bad. Dachs made an excellent post about this and I can't remember all of the details but as far as I can remember, the Shah was put in a hard place where both he and the West wanted a more democratic system, but the fears of Soviet intervention and security concerns forced the Shah to take a more hardline position.
Anyhow, for a while the Shah was relatively popular. He oversaw land reform which was liked by the peasants, his pro-West policies endeared himself to the Middle Class, being the Shah earned him support from the traditionalists and at least apathy from the clergy. However, during the worldwide recession in the late seventies, Iran saw the value of their exports, essentially oil, fall which really trashed Iran's finances and saw massive economic disturbances which soured many people to the Shah. Furthermore, Islamism as a political ideology was gaining power in response to the failures of Western modernism and Soviet modernism in the Third World. That was especially strong in Iran as the modernizing aspects of the Shah's policies antagonized the clergy. The Shah's government may have been brutal, but most people in Iran were at least mildly in favor of it because the benefits the Shah brought were worth the limitations on liberty and the brutality the SAVAK showed to dissidents.

How many of these other coups and covert acivities to topple governments were caused by the people supposedly being tired of their elected representatives whom they could simply not vote for during the next election? Why would they possibly be opposed to no longer being the victims of imperialism and exploitation of their own natural resources by foreign companies?

Why are you talking about our other foreign adventures when the issue is the Iranian coup? I'm hardly a raging Imperialist and am plenty critical of our misguided policies in the Cold War, but criticism is always better when backed by facts.