{"id":546,"date":"2004-03-10T20:30:43","date_gmt":"2004-03-11T03:30:43","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2004-03-10T20:30:43","modified_gmt":"2004-03-11T03:30:43","slug":"damned-liberal-media","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/2004\/03\/10\/damned-liberal-media\/","title":{"rendered":"Damned Liberal Media"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>From <a href=http:\/\/www.editorandpublisher.com\/eandp\/news\/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000456632><i>Editor &#038; Publisher<\/i><\/a>:<\/p>\n<p><i>A new study of how the media has covered the issue of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), released today, concludes, &#8220;Many stories stenographically reported the incumbent administration&#8217;s perspectives on WMD, giving too little critical examination of the way officials framed the events, issues, threats and policy options.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>The other three main conclusions of the study conducted by the Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM) and the University of Maryland: Too few stories offered alternative perspectives to the &#8220;official line&#8221; on WMD surrounding the Iraq conflict; most journalists accepted the Bush administration linking the &#8220;war on terror&#8221; inextricably to the issue of WMD; and most media outlets represented WMD as a &#8220;monolithic menace&#8221; without distinguishing between types of weapons and between possible weapons programs and the existence of actual weapons.<\/i><\/p>\n<p>Will the Bush-hating, Osama-loving press stop at nothing in its lust for appeasement?<\/p>\n<p>I&#8217;m skimming the <a href=http:\/\/www.cissm.umd.edu\/documents\/WMDstudy_full.pdf>report<\/a> [PDF], and it looks worth a read.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>From Editor &#038; Publisher: A new study of how the media has covered the issue of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), released today, concludes, &#8220;Many stories stenographically reported the incumbent administration&#8217;s perspectives on WMD, giving too little critical examination of the way officials framed the events, issues, threats and policy options.&#8221; The other three main [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":15,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[676],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-546","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","tag-antiwar-movement"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"meta_box":{"disable_donate_message":"","custom_donate_message":"","subtitle":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/546","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/15"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=546"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/546\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=546"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=546"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=546"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=546"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}