Vehicle For Removal

(click image for larger view)

What does it take to for an embedded journalist to get the boot?

In this case, reporter Louis Hansen and photographer Hyunsoo Leo Kim of the Virginian-Pilot had their privileges pulled for photographing a damaged humvee at Camp Arifjan in Kuwait.

Officers of the organization Military Reporters and Editors have protested the action.  In an article in Thursday's Editor and Publisher, the organization's President and military writer for the San Antonio Express-News said: "I think the insurgents already know about the vulnerability of the vehicles."  The organization's Vice President added that damaged vehicles are depicted on official military websites all the time.

U.S. Central Command acknowledges that no restriction against photographing vehicles existed in the embed code of conduct established in 2003.  It asserts, however, that new rules have been added since then.  (The guidelines are posted by Reporters Without Borders and are believed by most journalists to be definitive.)

Ironically, the two journalists were given specific access to the location of the vehicle by military escorts.

Does this story represent a bureaucratic mix-up, somebody's power trip, an attempt to crack down on the media, a legitimate security concern, or something else?  Strictly as visual information, does this shot seem to significantly expose the general vulnerability of the humvee, or the specific way this one was undermined?

(Original December 10th Virginian-Pilot story with photograph here.)

(credit: prwatch.org Spin of the Day.)

(image: Hyunsoo Leo Kim/The Virginian-Pilot.December 10, 2005. Camp Arifjan, Kuwait)

Comments

[itwasntme]

Well, the whim of the President seems to be the rule of law now, so underlings are anticipating the Fuhrer's, er, President's wishes here..

[mary]

Thank you for providing the image, along with links to the original article and extensive photos. What a grotesque war.

[Rafael]

On the contrary, considering that this Humvee appears to have been peppered with small arms fire, at least one RPG round (notice the black circle impact on the rear door) and what appears to be multiple shrapnel hits, I would expect it to be well, in pieces. This one will probably be canabilzed for parts, too keep others going. My guess somebody got nervous when they saw this pic, even though images of burning Bradleys (with hearvier armor) have appeared on the news before.

Question is, what is the Pentagon brass afraid off?

[lytom]

Hi tech military junk, not yet "sanitized" - not fit for the domestic news' print!

[readytoblowagasket]

This isn't just any destroyed Humvee. According to the article in the Virginian-Pilot, five Americans died in it. Americans — whether the general public or the Navy audience of this Norfolk-based newspaper — are not allowed to see any evidence of dead American soldiers (or read the graphic details about their deaths), just like the public was not allowed to see pictures of dead bodies of fellow citizens floating in the floodwaters of New Orleans. That's why the reporter and photographer were yanked. One can't look at this picture and read that five people died in this car and remain neutral. It has nothing to do with the insurgents in Iraq. The govt doesn't want to provoke an insurgency here at home, which is what would happen if we saw and read vivid depictions of this war on a daily basis such as this: "Dried blood, bone, fluid, oil, shrapnel and spent munitions flush down long drains around the large concrete wash yard." What person in their right mind could support this senseless waste? When a sergeant sees this vehicle, in fact, he orders the men not to ship it back to the States, presumably so the men and women in uniform at home won't see it either. It just doesn't convey "Victory," does it?

[fotonique]

The BAG said:

What does it take to for an embedded journalist to get the boot?

Rafael said:

...what is the Pentagon brass afraid off?

A violation of ground rules that could get people killed or seriously wounded is a good place to start.

Considering that most reporters are civilians unfamiliar with military combat operations, they can present life-threatening risks to themselves, the troops they're with, and the people thay may be photographing. The ground rules are a tradeoff for news access to the "front", not to mention security, transportation, and food provided by the military.

According to a recent FindLaw article, the ground rules that the reporter and photographer signed—more extensive than those listed by Reporters Without Borders—included specific clauses about photographing military vehicles:

Reporter Lou Hansen and photographer Hyunsoo Leo Kim spent more than two weeks with the U.S. Navy in the Persian Gulf region, chronicling Navy and coalition units.

At a U.S. Army base in Kuwait, they were asked to sign a three-page list of ground rules, including 28 categories of information that could not be reported because doing so "could jeopardize operations and endanger lives."

An additional 12 items were prohibited from being photographed or filmed due to "operational security" requirements. The fifth item on that list specified, "No video/photography of battle-damaged vehicles."

Both men signed the agreement Dec. 6.

During the next two days, the pair visited Camp Arifjan in Kuwait with Navy public affairs officials. They were assigned military escorts who gave them a tour of several lots where battle-damaged vehicles were stored and showed them an area where vehicles from Iraq were cleaned, the newspaper said in a story published Friday.

The pair asked the escorts if they could take photos and were told yes, according to Hansen and Kim.

The newspaper published the story and photos Dec. 10, under the headline "Scouring the skeletons of war."

The reporter and photographer deliberately violated what they put their names to just two days before. Did they even read what they signed? Or did they sign knowing they were going to ignore the rules anyway?

Caught red-handed, excuses like "But everybody else is doing it..." and "But they said we could do it..." don't mean much if your signature is on the dotted line. It's also a matter of trust: what other ground rules might these guys choose to ignore in an actual combat situation? An attitude like this is definitely not a way to build confidence with the military...

Besides, news stories about battle-damaged Humvees have been done before and better: don't these journalists (and their editor) ever read the newspapers?

Those who make the rules in war (especially the people with big guns, aircraft carriers, and warplanes) get to change and enforce them, but apparently the military's final decision to pull a reporter remains a judgment call. A reporter's reputation and audience probably have a lot to do with it, as the Geraldo Incident shows. From the article Media on the battlefield: a non-lethal fire in the Spring 2004 issue of Army Communicator:

Geraldo Rivera is a prime example. He went live on air and basically violated everything you would normally protect; timing, intentions and things an adversary can use against you. He was embedded with the 101st while they were on the move toward Baghdad. He scratched out a sketch in the sand that showed their formation, where they were, how far and fast they had traveled and when they would be at their next location.

V Corps immediately notified CFLCC [Coalition Forces Land Component Command] and asked to pull him, which was CFLCC initiated. The 101st, who did not have the benefit of live television was upset because, "He was their man."

Say what you will about Geraldo, but he is great for morale. That was apparent even when he came to Kuwait for a meeting on Camp Doha pleading for a late embed slot. Even lieutenant colonels and colonels would light up at the site of him. He was a nice break from endless hours of nagging staff work and operation orders.

Not many reporters drew that sort of reaction. His incident with the 101st was an example of the difficulty in watching a reporter 24/7. He was eventually pulled, knowing he would go back because the division wanted him back, after a heartfelt apology, of course. Luckily, it did not appear his actions ever got anyone killed.

The pen is mightier than the sword, and it also cuts both ways. As the Army Communicator article points out, the media is another method used to complete the mission:

Former Chief of Staff of the Army, GEN Eric Shenseki, once said that "If we do not speak for the Army others will." This is a very true statement. The media should be considered as a component of non-lethal fires/non-kinetic targeting, another tool at our disposal to help accomplish the mission. The media will write their story, with or without our input. It only makes sense to engage the media to ensure the whole story is told. The media is a venue in which we can pass along our command messages, which contain truthful and factual information. The bottom-line is that we should always keep in mind what we are there to do.

The manipulation of the media's message is definitely something to keep in the mind's eye.

[readytoblowagasket]

fotonique, I find it IMPOSSIBLE to believe that embedded journalists get to write whatever they want about U.S. combat activity without the military's approval of the copy before it goes to press. Reporters don't get to say whatever the hell they want to in peacetime — believe it or not — editors read and approve or reject reporters' stories every day. Any fact-based story is supposed to get fact-checked as well. It's standard procedure to get original-source approval for direct quotes, photo captions, and any numbers quoted at the very least, and no one would balk at the military's request to review and OK an entire article, especially during wartime. So, if the officers featured in the article didn't ask to see this copy before it went to press, then someone other than the reporter or editor dropped the ball. But I seriously doubt the reporter and photographer were the runaway shopping carts you have described.

Much as I myself love to rip the press, comparing this article to the one from The Washington Post is a cheap shot. This article's audience is not the same as for The WP: it's much smaller and much less diverse. If you look again you can see the piece has a very narrow focus, intended to appeal to what happens to be a predominantly military readership. Norfolk is the largest Navy base on the East Coast, and the population in the area, and therefore the readers of the Virginian-Pilot, are predominantly active and retired military. How do I know? I used to live there. It is in the newspaper's best interest to get the facts right when it comes to the subject near and dear to its primary readers, and by the tone of the piece, I would say it was quite respectfully written. So for these particular embeds to be pulled is a really big deal, considering the Virginian-Pilot may be more sympathetic to the military than other papers (though for the life of me I can't think of any right now that aren't sympathetic).

I'm also certain that anyone who lives that close to even ONE of those nuclear-powered submarines is pretty conscious of national security issues.

[Rafael]

If five soldiers died in this vehicle, then the picture is miss leading. As for the legality of what the reporters signed, they chose to do so, they must live with the consequences. For once I would like someone on the news to admit that their footage is screened by the military (and censored) just as they did during the Gulf War. If nothing else, it puts the coverage from imbeded journalist in the proper contest.

[fotonique]

RTBAG,

It's not impossible that the U.S. military could review and censor war articles penned by civilian journalists before publication. That certainly happened widely in World War II, but I don't think such active censorship happens much (if at all) today. Examples?

For one thing, wouldn't we hear editors and journalists complaining—literally screaming—about it? If the military has the power to censor war stories, why didn't they simply block the Humvee picture and article in the Virginian Pilot? Or something far more damaging like Abu Ghraib? It's all right there for anyone to see.

Imagine the time and trouble it would take to review and approve all articles, photographs, and videotapes from embedded journalists. And the non-embedded journalists would definitely be a hole in the dike...

It's more to the military's advantage to be media-savvy enough to deal with the press benignly, as outlined by Captain David Connolly in the Army Communicator article. Better for the Army to take the time to present their side of things thoroughly than to try and put words in the press' mouth.

Until we hear their explanation, we can't really know why the VP reporter and photographer broke the ground rules they apparently agreed to. That's not to say that their Humvee story wasn't worthwhile—particularly to the relatives of the soldiers involved—but the problem is more that they appeared to openly ignore their agreement with the military at the first opportunity.

Based on this behavior, what might they do—and who might they endanger—in hotter situations? Kuwait (and war-torn Iraq) are a long way from Norfolk, Virginia.

It's not so much a matter of national security as it is a matter of protecting their own butts, too. Embedded reporters (as noted in the Washington Post story) also ride in Humvees that get shot at and blown up. True, you can find just about anything on the Web, but why go about giving the bad guys any more information to work with?

Pulling the VP people clearly sends a message to embedded journalists: don't sign on the bottom line if you can't respect the rules (and the military personnel that have to work with you.)

[readytoblowagasket]

fotonique, again, I'm POSITIVE that the military gets to approve copy written by civilians, especially embedded civilians. ("Approving copy" doesn't automatically = "censorship.") It would be completely reckless of the military not to review, and it would be reckless of this particular newspaper not to comply with the request for review. Depending on the circumstances, it's standard practice of responsible journalists even in peacetime.

Why? For one thing, like you, most people are extremely suspicious of journalists and won't go "on record" with some total stranger. Not surprisingly, people the world over pretty much **HATE** to be misquoted. If journalists didn't agree to meet their interview subjects halfway, they would have very short careers indeed because no one would ever talk to them. For another thing, journalists and newspapers can be SUED — for libel, slander, misrepresentation, etc. Only someone like Geraldo can generate enough money for his employer to risk a potential lawsuit. Money ultimately calls the shots, as it usually does.

Censorship is not the same as a respectful relationship between reporter and the interview subjects of an article. Both parties have a stake in the process and the outcome. I didn't ever say the military was given permission to censor. I do believe as many stories as possible get reviewed — for accuracy — and corrected, if necessary (through negotiation, by the way) before press time. In this particular case, it's even more likely than not.

No, we don't know exactly what happened in the case of the Virginian-Pilot piece. It's possible that the civilians misunderstood the OK to photograph the Humvee as an OK to print an image of it. If they really were in deep shit about breaking rules, however, they would be dismissed. But the V-P editor sounds pretty calm about the situation, which tells me that they acted in good faith and followed rules as they understood them.

The Abu Ghraib story is a bad example for you to cite: the military personnel involved were the ones who e-mailed their photographs into cyberspace or leaked to reporters to put a stop to the mahem. Sometimes, the press has its usefulness.

[Igor Grunschev]

RTBAG, when you say the article says five GIs were killed in this Humvee, I think you misread it. It's not necessarily the case that the article is describing the picture. In this case, the clue is where the article says "Heat melted four of its eight tires." The Humvee pictured doesn't have 8 tires. When the article says, "Hatch, then Blank, stuck their heads into the open rear door" you may want to note that the Humvee in the picture doesn't have a rear door. For all I know, five soldiers did die in the vehicle pictured, but it's obvious that the article is not describing this vehicle.

Igor

[readytoblowagasket]

Ha! Excellent catches, Igor! Yes, I think you have pinpointed the very problem with this image and the original text of the article. Lay people and civilians such as myself expect a lead photo to illustrate an article, which can cause a misread if the two are not in fact connected. Again, the main military audience for the original article would know that this Humvee and the one described in the text are two separate vehicles, but the smaller civilian audience would not detect the finer details of the missing four extra tires and back door on a bullet-riddled heap. No wonder the CFLCC FREAKED OUT *after* the piece was published. A civilian probably became upset upon reading the article and wrote to someone and opened everyone's eyes. I maintain my conviction that the reporter and photographer did not deliberately defy the rules and that their "pulling" is an after-the-fact censorship.

I see I also misspelled "mayhem." I stand corrected on both counts.

Thanks for your input, Igor.

[daniel]

Igor:

When you say there is no rear door on this humvee, I assume you mean no hatchback-style door at the very back of the thing. There IS, however, a rear door on each side of the vehicle, behind the front door! (The one with the dark blast mark on it!) Why couldn't that be the "rear door" the reporter refers to?

Also, are you so sure this humvee doesn't have eight tires? A lot of heavy vehicles like that have two tires at each contact point, like a semi tractor-trailer. In this case that would be two tires at four contact points for a total of eight tires. Obviously you can't tell from this photo, but it is certainly possible.

I agree that it's possible that the article refers to a different vehicle, but the "errors" you cite aren't conclusive at all.

So in response to RTBAG: One can't impute the gullibility or ignorance of others ("lay people" as you say) even as one is making the same mistakes. The savvy "military audience" you invoke may in this case be an invention, at least as a readership distinct in its ability to interpret this particular photo.

[readytoblowagasket]

daniel: OK, but I did misspell "mayhem" originally.

[ummabdulla]

Aren't there supposed to be photos and videos from Abu Ghraib that have been blocked from publication so far? That are supposed to be worse than what we've already seen?

[fotonique]

RTBAG said (once again):

I'm POSITIVE that the military gets to approve copy written by civilians, especially embedded civilians. ("Approving copy" doesn't automatically = "censorship.") It would be completely reckless of the military not to review, and it would be reckless of this particular newspaper not to comply with the request for review. Depending on the circumstances, it's standard practice of responsible journalists even in peacetime.

According to the Secretary of Defense's original rules and procedures for embedded journalists (PDF file here), media "products"—which presumably include written articles, photographs, audio/video recordings, etc.—are not reviewed or approved as a matter of course:

[I've broken up the following quoted text into shorter paragraphs for easier reading.]

6. Security

6.A. Media products will not be subject to security review or censorship except as indicated in para. 6.A.1. Security at the source will be the rule. U.S. Military personnel shall protect classified information from unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure.

Media provided access to sensitive information, information which is not classified but which may be of operational value to an adversary or when combined with other unclassified information may reveal classified information, will be informed in advance by the unit commander or his/her designated representative of the restrictions on the use or disclosure of such information. When in doubt, media will consult with the unit commander or his/her designated representative.

There are restricted circumstances in which news reports may be reviewed, but they are not seized or held:

6.A.1. The nature of the embedding process may involve observation of sensitive information, including troop movements, battle preparations, materiel capabilities and vulnerabilities and other information as listed in para. 4.G.

When a commander or his/her designated representative has reason to believe that a media member will have access to this type of sensitive information, prior to allowing such access, he/she will take prudent precautions to ensure the security of that information.

The primary safeguard will be to brief media in advance about what information is sensitive and what the parameters are for covering this type of information. If media are inadvertently exposed to sensitive information they should be briefed after exposure on what information they should avoid covering.

In instances where a unit commander or the designated representative determines that coverage of a story will involve exposure to sensitive information beyond the scope of what may be protected by prebriefing or debriefing, but coverage of which is in the best interests of the DOD, the commander may offer access if the reporter agrees to a security review of their coverage. Agreement to security review in exchange for this type of access must be strictly voluntary and if the reporter does not agree, then access may not be granted.

If a security review is agreed to, it will not involve any editorial changes; it will be conducted solely to ensure that no sensitive or classified information is included in the product. If such information is found, the media will be asked to remove that information from the product and/or embargo the product until such information is no longer classified or sensitive.

Reviews are to be done as soon as practical so as not to interrupt combat operations nor delay reporting. If there are disputes resulting from the security review process they may be appealed through the chain of command, or through PA channels to OASD/PA. This paragraph does not authorize commanders to allow media access to classified information.

6.A.2. Media products will not be confiscated or otherwise impounded. If it is believed that classified information has been compromised and the media representative refuses to remove that information notify the CPIC and/or OASD/PA as soon as possible so the issue may be addressed with the media organization's management.

Obviously, the military decides what's classified and what's not, and their rules are subject to change as the FindLaw article noted above explains. Better read that fine print before you sign it...

We can go 'round and 'round about what constitutes review and preapproval, but if the military is doing this on a blanket basis, American news outlets aren't complaining about it. A search for "embedded journalists" at journalism sites like Editor&Publisher, Poynter Online, and Military Reporters & Editors (note their front page protest about the Virginia Pilot journalists) turns up many articles about embedding policy (see typical articles at Salon and E&P). However, nobody is complaining that their stories must be submitted to military review before publication.

Instead, the military has a gatekeeper policy of "security at the source", otherwise expressed as "loose lips sink ships." Personnel of any rank who talk with the media should know enough not to reveal classified or critical operational information. Certainly there are other ways to exercise "censorship", however we want to define it. The military can hold back information, restrict access to sources and locations, or camouflage details in military jargon (corporations do this every day, so there are no surprises here).

Good reporters will always dig, but there's no real evidence to show that the military reviews all the news that's printed to fit. They just don't have the time. I'll also take issue with the idea that journalists generally let their subjects review articles before publication. Fact-checking, yes; overall content approval, nyet!

Lastly, Abu Ghraib is an excellent example of how seriously bad news—information that the military would rather not reveal—makes its way out of the military and into a free press. If true censorship was being enforced, and agreed to by the press, none of it would have seen the light of day.

[ummabdulla]

I'll take issue with the idea that fact-checking is always done. I frequently see factual errors in news articles in major newspapers - not in commentary (where it's expected) but in statements that are presented as facts, and which should be easy to check.

[readytoblowagasket]

ummabdulla said: "I'll take issue with the idea that fact-checking is always done."

Fact-checking is NOT always done. It's *supposed* to be done, but in this age of downsizing, the fact-checker's job is among the first to be eliminated (along with other staff support). So, the soundness of facts in any publication is only as good as a publication's willingness to pay for it (or a particular author's conscientiousness and vigilance). Readers rarely make a verbal (or finacial) fuss about inaccuracies, however, so publishers have no incentive to provide accuracy. Publishers care about making money, not about making facts.

[readytoblowagasket]

fotonique: You raise some interesting points that I'd like to address. If it's helpful to know, I speak from my own professional experience, not as a reporter on military issues, but as a former staff and current freelance nonfiction writer for a number of different publications. My experience is what it is — limited — and I do not intend to speak for every publication, every circumstance, and every writer. (If you read me more carefully, you may see I've made some qualified comments, possibly too subtly, all along.) I think people have several misconceptions about journalism and our "free" press — deriving mainly from Hollywood — which romantically cloak the writing/editing profession, and these misconceptions are definitely worth discussing on this site. HOWEVER, I currently live in New York City and am a bit distracted by the transit strike at the moment. When I get my travel arrangements made, I can try to clarify — but only if it's wanted!

[readytoblowagasket]

fotonique: The Virginian-Pilot provides its "Code of Ethics and Professionalism" online at http://welcome.hamptonroads.com/ethics.cfm. The issue that got the reporter and photographer yanked has to do with running the Humvee photo, not with writing the story. Below are some excerpts from the newspaper's own lengthy rules for maintaining visual accuracy and integrity. (For anyone who doesn't want to read the excerpts, skip to [END].)

Documentary photo

This is a candid or unposed photo that records news, features or sports. The spirit of the documentary photo is to be honest and above board with readers. Any appearance or suspicion of manipulation of documentary photos strikes against our core values. . . .

Posing or re-enacting a documentary photograph is unacceptable. Altering a documentary photo is also unacceptable. This includes eliminating or adding material to the photo. . . .

To use or not to use

When in doubt, use common sense. Know privacy rules and laws. Shooting the photo usually is not the problem. Publishing the photo may be. Using sound judgement, the photographer should almost always shoot the picture. The editing process will determine whether the photo will be used. The photo editor, page editor and news editor will also help determine publication. Some photos should be approved by a deputy managing editor, managing editor or the editor.

Some red flags:

· death

· nudity or sexual content

· exaggerated grief

· blood or other body fluids

· photo is too good to be true (it may be set up)

· vulgar words or gestures (these may be hidden in a photo)

· cheap shot (zipper open, food on the face)

· unflattering expression not related to the event or situation

· people performing dangerous acts

· violence

· racial stereotypes

· photos that may otherwise shock or appall readers

GUIDING QUESTIONS

* Is the photo appropriate to the story?
* Is the news value worth upsetting the reader?
* Is the photo from this community or from far away?
* What are the paper’s general standards of taste?
* Do you need to pass the photo through the top editor?
* Does it pass the "breakfast table" test? . . .

[END]

These are just a sampling. Not only do journalists have rules they too are required to follow ("Know privacy rules and laws. Shooting the photo usually is not the problem. Publishing the photo may be."), they also have a system of checks in place before an image is published ("The photo editor, page editor and news editor will also help determine publication. Some photos should be approved by a deputy managing editor, managing editor or the editor."). I think it's safe to assume Hansen and Kim can read, understand, agree to, and follow the military's rules in addition to the newspaper's.

A cursory check of Louis Hansen's archived articles reveals he has written at least 30 bylined Iraq War or other military-related pieces for The Virginian-Pilot. The photographer has apparently worked with Hansen on many of these articles.

The paper also ran a story called "Newspaper objects to Navy yanking credentials" (http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=96943&ran=140857). After presenting the basic timeline of events, the article states, "The pair asked the escorts if they could take photos. Each time, the Navy escorts, trained by public affairs officers, told them yes, according to Hansen and Kim." The Humvee story ran on Saturday; by Monday, Hansen and Kim were told they "had broken the rules and could not continue reporting in Kuwait."

Since the editor of the paper defends the reporter's and photographer's actions, it means they didn't pull any shit, as you are so quick to assume. The editor would have privately (and thoroughly) grilled these two before making a public statement on their behalf. Deliberately and knowingly breaking the military's rules would be grounds for dismissal.

The issue of "review" and "approval" is tricky and warrants a separate discussion at this point. The Virginian-Pilot's policy is to allow a reporter to read passages of an article over the phone to an interviewee, but not to show it. What we know from your research and mine is that both the paper and the military have written policies to create boundaries of access and to ensure independence. What I have seen with my own eyes is writers faxing an article to someone who demands to see it — or no story. Usually the fax is reassurance enough and the piece prints as is; at most someone may ask to tweak a word to give it a slightly different connotation. Sometimes someone is downright horrified to see something they have said in print (because it could unintentionally offend someone specific). After effusive and heartfelt begging, the offense is almost always rectified, softened, or simply deleted. Thus you have a trade definition of "approved."

[fotonique]

RTBAG,

Whew! Perhaps we've cited this subject to death, but in the end, I agree with your statement:

What we know ... is that both the paper and the military have written policies to create boundaries of access and to ensure independence.

I think we've also seen that both sets of rules, like all good ones, have some flexibility built into them. When things start to stiffen up is when we need to worry.

(BTW, hope you're getting around OK in NYC. Just saw Bloomberg on the news and he said the streets haven't been so bad in 25 years. Maybe the BAG will give us a striking image or two to discuss the situation.)

[readytoblowagasket]

Thanks, fotonique, for the good wishes and for the hilarious picture of Pataki (that schmuck). Despite *the* cold and *a* cold, I have it easy compared to many — at least I'm not losing two days' pay for each day of the strike, nor am I being threatened with million-dollar fines or having my actions smeared by the mayor in one-sided press conferences. In general, people seem to be coping amazingly well so far, considering the frigid temperatures and the sheer number of bundled bodies trundling and pedaling to and fro. New Yorkers are either good-natured or cranky about it, just like they are about everything. But it will be interesting to see what ramifications, if any, this event will have for the rest of the country. My hope, in any case, is that a calm and acceptable resolution comes soon.

[jt from BC]

To those two media savvy chaps in particular, fotonique & rtbag, you've probably read these two interesting articles. Seems to me, something needs sorting out here, especially for neophytes like me.
-----
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist December 15, 2005
"The results break new ground." ( Really ? )
http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664
-----
UCLA News: Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist (12/14/05
If the authors truly wanted to rank media outlets on the ADA scale, the simpler method would be to look at the ADA ratings of congress members quoted by those news outlets. One suspects that the authors avoided this obvious approach because the results would have been less to their liking: Studies in Extra! have repeatedly found various media outlets quote Republicans more often than Democrats, by ratios ranging from 3 to 2 on NPR (5–6/04) to 3 to 1 on nightly network news (5–6/02) to a startling 5 to 1 on Fox News’ Special Report (7–8/04). Fox News, according to Groseclose and Milyo’s method, is a “centrist” news outlet
http://www.fair.org/index.php