French Press Not Objective in US Iraq War

by ThiChi 29 Replies latest social current

  • ThiChi
    ThiChi
    Journalist Lambasts French War Coverage AP
    Tue Dec 30, 5:52 AM ET

    By ELAINE GANLEY, Associated Press Writer

    PARIS - Reporter Alain Hertoghe's book accused the French press of not being objective in its coverage of the U.S.-led war in Iraq ( news - web sites). His newspaper fired him.

    The book, "La Guerre a Outrances" (The War of Outrages), criticizes the French reporting for continually predicting the war would end badly for the U.S.-led coalition.

    "Readers can't understand why the Americans won the war," Hertoghe said in a telephone interview. "The French press wasn't neutral."

    The book, published Oct. 15, charges French reporters were more patriotic than journalistic and what was written amounted to disinformation.

    It examines daily coverage by five major French dailies, including Hertoghe's own La Croix, in the three weeks from the first strikes on Baghdad on March 20 to April 9 when Saddam Hussein ( news - web sites )'s regime fell.

    "As soon as there were a couple of wounded, of dead, they were talking about Vietnam, Stalingrad," Hertoghe said.

    In contrast, work by journalists traveling with U.S. troops indicated that "the war was advancing well," he said.

    Hertoghe, a 44-year-old Belgian, said reporters reflected the emotional high in France more than realities on the battlefield, becoming caught up in France's central role in leading the opposition to the war at the United Nations ( news - web sites ).

    "The French public was so carried away," he said. The journalists, he wrote in the book, "dreamed of an American defeat."

    Hertoghe, who covered the 1991 Gulf War ( news - web sites ) and the presidential campaign that put President Bush ( news - web sites) in the White House, was assistant editor-in-chief of La Croix's online version during the Iraq war.

    Besides war coverage in La Croix, the book examines that of the independent Le Monde, the conservative Le Figaro, the leftist Liberation and the regional daily Ouest-France, which has the largest circulation in France.

    Over three weeks, the five papers carried 29 headlines condemning Saddam's dictatorship and 135 blaming Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair ( news - web sites).

    Hertoghe was fired on Dec.15 for a "loss of confidence" following publication of the book. La Croix, in a letter, cited four points, including damaging the newspaper's reputation, Hertoghe said.

    La Croix refused to comment.

    Efforts for comment from Le Monde ? the paper Hertoghe targeted most severely ? also were unsuccessful, with the international editor away on vacation. A Paris-based reporter cited in the book did not answer his phone.

    Only a free newspaper handed out in the Metro, "20 Minutes," has so far reviewed Hertoghe's book.

    "The silence is deafening" in France, although there have been rave reviews in Belgium, said Ronald Blunden, editorial director at Hertoghe's publishing house, Calmann-Levy.

  • stillajwexelder
    stillajwexelder

    I you think the US is only interested in the US --they are amatuers compared to the French -- the French are only interested in the French - -so when they took an anti-war stance -- that was it -- anti-american in everything including the press afterwards

  • willy_think
    willy_think

    Maby my being only half White is what makes me so sensitive but when I see a whole people lumpped together as one and repeatedly bashed for being different, it makes me cringe.

  • ThiChi
    ThiChi

    Fine, but mis-reporting the facts? why?

  • Satanus
    Satanus

    We have gawd to thank that the american press is so objective and truthful, though i hear tell it's support of the war has slipped a bit.

    SS

  • imallgrowedup
    imallgrowedup

    SS -

    I could be wrong, but I suspect your comment about the American press was made tongue-in-cheek.

    IMHO - the American press is not truly balanced. The only dim hope we have of tipping the scales towards any illusion of balance is Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and assorted smaller newspapers. The American media is highly biased, and until recently, always has been. Personally, I think it sad that this guy was fired for speaking the truth. I hope the stir it is causing boosts his book sales, so more people can consider the truth of which he speaks.

    growedup

    *ducks as she hits the "submit" button*

  • Aztec
    Aztec
    "Readers can't understand why the Americans won the war," Hertoghe said in a telephone interview. "The French press wasn't neutral."

    And the US press isn't entirely neutral either. I wonder if Al-Jazeera is neutral? I distrust most news sources to be entirely neutral.

    the French are only interested in the French - -so when they took an anti-war stance -- that was it -- anti-american in everything including the press afterwards

    Go eat your freedom fries!

    ~Aztec

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    You don't say?

    Ain't we bad...

  • bisous
    bisous

    Allgrowed up:

    Can I make sure I am understanding your post correctly, please?

    Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and assorted smaller newspapers

    did I read correctly that you are presenting the above as the closest thing to balanced reporting in the US Press?

    thanks

  • imallgrowedup
    imallgrowedup

    Biscous -

    did I read correctly that you are presenting the above as the closest thing to balanced reporting in the US Press?

    Thanks for asking for clarification!

    What I meant by this comment is that I think the only sense of balance we have is due to the existence of the sources I mentioned, because prior to their arrival on the scene, our media was heavily biased towards liberalism. I do not feel that any one individual American media source is truly balanced. The only way we can say that our media has any semblence of balance is by looking at all our media sources as a whole, rather than at it's each individual part. Even so, I still believe that America media on a percentage basis is still highly biased towards the left because even with the arrival of more conservative news sources, most of them are not mainstream. I mentioned the two most notable sources (Fox and Rush), but other conservative sources such as The Weekly Standard and the World-Net Daily do not have the audiences that NBC, CBS or ABC, which are traditionally liberal, command. Of course, this is all opinion on my part. However, if I wanted to do a statistical analysis (which I simply do not have the energy to do right now), I could research audience shares and circulations of the top twenty American news sources and could mathematically prove that if we were to take all the versions reported by different journalists on just one specific incident, and sort them by whether the story is told through a liberal or a conservative filter, there would be at least twice as many liberal viewpoints - and because of market shares, those viewpoints would be read/heard by at least 50% more people. So when I say that our media is no longer biased because of Fox, Rush and a handful of smaller newspapers, I mean that without them adding their two cents to the available media sources, we would have no such thing as balance in American media.

    Does that make better sense?!

    growedup

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit