The Laughing Wolf: Wag The Lynch? Give Me A Break!

May 16, 2003

Wag The Lynch? Give Me A Break!

On awaking this morning, I was treated to a story that caused me to rise on up out of bed and do some digging. The morning commentators were talking about a story supposedly being circulated by the BBC and Toronto Star stating that the rescue of Pvt. Lynch was nothing more than a wag-the-dog movie set-up. A fake, designed to boost American morale and nothing more.

Give me a frelling break. I have gone and read the original story by Mitch Potter at the Star, and taken a few minutes to peruse the online Star. I have also taken the time to search the BBC site as well, and so far find no mention of the story online. If it is there, it is very well hidden.

Writing a good story is never easy. You have to interview people, get their cooperation, and lay down some laws when and if they demand to read or approve text. The latter is something NOT done by real journalists, and can and will get you fired at responsible journalism outlets. You may choose to ask someone to review technical accuracy, say in a science story, but you do not let them have any say so on the wording, content, etc. Even when you do this, it is best to get someone who is not involved in the story to provide that service.

When a story is sensitive, and involves high-profile people or situations, you are often asked to withhold names. This is a sticky situation, since identifying the people is essential to establishing the credibility of the information provided. People need to know if the person truly is an innocent bystander or if they have an axe to grind. Anonymous sources are not supposed to be used on a regular basis, and when used you are to clearly identify the position that gave them access, such as “senior administration official” or “member of local law enforcement” or “a neighbor.”

If the story is truly a major expose, it is a lot more than one story. You know that your witnesses and every fact presented will be challenged. So, you have the main story that should be well written, riveting, and presents the main case. You then have sidebars or separate stories that document certain things. If you have named sources, you provide information on them, their background, etc. If any of them have skeletons in their closets, you bring them out so that you can control how and when it is presented. You provide the documentation needed to back up key points.

Even when you are doing an “ambush” piece designed to rip the lid off someone or something, you also are required to go to them and get comment. Fair and balanced means just that, though it is quite often the most abused portion of journalism. It is easy to pick bad quotes, take them out of context, or destroy them by placement within the story. It is not right, but it happens on a regular basis. You still, however, have to go and at least make a token effort to get the other side of the story.

Where to start with Mr. Potter’s interesting story. It is, after all, a major expose that could well be on par with the coverage of the Watergate break-in. After all, the U.S. Government has been caught in a lie, a very large lie. This was no small deception, but rather something costing at least in the hundreds of thousands and designed to have a significant influence world wide.

Well, let’s first take a look at the sources. He lists early on that he talked with six members of the medical staff at the hospital from where she is rescued, and with an unspecified number of “local residents.”

In the story, only four of hospital staff are identified, and that is poorly done. No attribution as to who was the attending, the specialties involved, or other relevant information is provided. So, no background on them and no way to assess their participation or qualifications to make any of the comments attributed to them. The closest this comes is with the nurse who allegedly took Pvt. Lynch in as “one of her own.” Yet, even there the only citation is that she is “…the hospital’s most nurturing nurse…”

The only other named source in the story is a waitron who lived nearby. The story he provides is lacking in certain crucial details, such as when things happened and how long between his being asked questions by U.S. Forces and the assault on the hospital took place. In reading the story, I was left with the impression that it was a significant period of time, but there is no way to deal with an implication in the absence of facts.

Out of the seven alleged sources, we have five on record. Of the others allegedly interviewed, there is not one quote or citation given, by name, by background, or any other identification used to protect sources. Of the ones cited, no background information is provided, and this is crucial. Were they members of the party or of the regime? Were they required to be? What are their specialties and medical background? What was there documented background with Pvt. Lynch? This is a hospital after all, and even in the heat of battle there are such things as charts. Patient care demands it, and it is a quick and easy way to verify information.

Other easily verifiable things are brought up and left hanging. The people interviewed at the hospital cite damage done to the hospital in the rescue. One specific incident is the special bed allegedly given to Pvt. Lynch that was again allegedly damaged in the rescue. The only one of its kind in the hospital.

Curiously, the reporter makes no mention of this other than to apparently take the statements made at face value. Surely if this was indeed the stage play alleged, it would have been easy to walk in and look at the bed, to examine some of the other great damaged claimed by the medical staff. Reporters are as bad or worse than professional spooks. You put your foot on it, you touch it, you verify it with your own two eyes. For a reporter writing an expose of this magnitude to fail to do so and to record for posterity (and to cover his own posterior) the charges made is unthinkable. You want the proof to smash the people you think are lying.
There is also a section that claims that a U.S. military doctor came to the hospital to thank the staff for the treatment and surgeries provided to Pvt. Lynch. A general physical description is given, but nothing else. Excuse me? I can guarantee that if any such visit took place, the doctor would have identified himself, and that there would have been some discussion other than a general thanks. Doctors do that, and almost invariably look in to see if there are any needs with which they can help. No citation, no identification, and a description so vague that no other reporter will be able to track down said American doctor.

Another assertion made that should be fairly easy to confirm is the story given that they had put her in an ambulance and tried to take her to the nearby lines. They allegedly were shot at and forced back. Such checkpoints on roads are known and documented, and incidents such as an ambulance approaching would have been documented, as not even war stops paperwork. Something that can be checked but, again, no apparent effort was made to do so. Indeed, the only such incident reported this morning was one in which an ambulance allegedly approached a checkpoint and offered information on Pvt. Lynch in exchange for a large sum of money. Said request was allegedly denied.

And while I am at it, why in the name of all that is good would we have brought lawyer Mohammed to the U.S. if the story were not true? Why put him where every media outlet in the world not only knows where he is, but can easily get to him? Why is there no mention of him or his story at all in this article? Here were at least seven, if not many more, people who could confirm or rebut the story he provided. Why wasn’t this opportunity taken?

There is a great deal of trial-by-implication in the story. Frankly, I question the context and placement of certain quotes regarding the injuries to Pvt. Lynch. To say that I find them misleading is an understatement.

The same goes for the lack of responsive quotes. The closest this comes is the nurse allegedly saying that Pvt. Lynch can vouch for her story. The story ends with a canned quote from a briefing from Lt. Col. Yantis at Walter Reed citing that the media would just have to wait to talk with her. This little bit is entirely disingenuous and misleading, in that it is done in a way to strongly imply that the media was being kept away from her to prevent the truth from coming out.

So, no quotes and no apparent effort to get comment from anyone in Coalition Forces in response to the story. Not even a “No Comment.” That in and of itself is one of the most telling things here. If there were proof and solid evidence, I can’t think of a single writer, much less a reporter, who wouldn’t be in the face of General Franks on this. This is, after all, a major story. It is guaranteed stardom and also guaranteed to create catastrophic political storms. This is what The Media thrives on. So, where is it?

I won’t even go into the writing of the piece, other than to say that if a student turned it into me I would be headed down a couple of grades from the start. It is poorly written, and even though this a feature/expose the reporter shows few signs of understanding journalistic writing. The only “odour” I find coming from the fog of war is the stench of this piece of drek.

Fair and balanced? Not hardly.
Well written and presented. No.
Meeting of basic journalistic criteria? No.

This story fails in every respect from the point of view of real journalism. It is at best a hatchet job, and how anyone could take it seriously as presented is a mystery to me. Every story you get should be taken with a grain of salt, but this one needs an entire box.

I will take a moment to address some things I heard on the news this morning, even though I have not been able to verify them through the net.

First, the idea that the special operations forces may have been shooting blanks is ludicrous. They don’t even do that in training, which is a verifiable fact. Equally verifiable is the fact that members of the teams are killed or injured in such training. To suggest that they would go into an area that was not secure and subject to the wonderful fedayeen is laughable.

As for camera crews being there with full gear, not even the pile of “odour” that started this mess makes that claim. That drek cites two cameramen and a still photographer in uniform; no inbeds, no movie crews, etc. For those who are not aware, there is a heck of a difference between what it takes to do a television show or movie and what the military typically carries. Again, an easily verifiable fact that is not pursued.

Unless and until someone can come up with verifiable information to substantiate the claims made, it should not be taken seriously. This is not a journalistic story, but a story by and for The Media. Deal with it accordingly.

-30-

Posted by wolf1 at May 16, 2003 03:11 PM

Comments

Some of the video clips released to the media which I saw on Fox showed:

1) infrared imaging of an MH-47E taken from above by an orbiting FLIR equipped helicopter

2) infrared FLIR video from beneath the nose of a helicopter (most likely another MH-47E from the 160th SOAR Nightstalkers) which was scanning back and forth.

All of the Special Operations aircraft are equipped with video recording capability. This is part of normal operations and in no way signifies a contrived video event.

Posted by: jake at May 17, 2003 12:43 AM

Come on. An anti American hit piece. Canada, Europe, and England are full of them. A waste of time to read them and a bigger waste of time to "analyze" them.

We just have to move on and keep our eye on the objective and not be diverted. Period.

Posted by: Howard Veit at May 18, 2003 11:51 PM

To suggest that they would go into an area that was not secure and subject to the wonderful fedayeen is laughable.

In your opinion, perhaps. However, the motto of the military is to leave no one behind. In my opinion, it is entirely plausible special forces would have risked this mission. What is pertinent is not absolute security, which is unattainable, but adequate security, "good enough" security.

Posted by: Samuel Tai at May 19, 2003 02:05 AM

Mr. Tai,

You miss the entire point, re-read and re-think. What I said was that it was laughable to think they would go in with blanks. Some of the coin tossers I know would not go to the privy unarmed, so I know they would not go in this situation with blanks.

You do not leave people behind. You take care of your own. Period.

Laughing Wolf

Posted by: Laughing Wolf at May 19, 2003 02:58 AM

Mr Wolf, your overall intent is clear, but a quick edit of the sentence that Mr Tai highlights wouldn't hurt. Quoted out of context it looks rather odd.

Something like "To suggest that, thus equipped, they would go..."

Posted by: Pixy Misa at May 19, 2003 07:09 AM

This is bigger than the Blair story. The BBC's already tarnished credibility is on the line BIG-TIME. If they allow this to go unpunished, their reputation is shot. Sure, we may be use to this type of Anti-American propaganda, but this reaches a new level of brazen disregard for the consequences which will surely result.

I believe the purpose of this story is simply to put the lie out there. Once it's out there, it will exist long after the BBC renders its mea culpa. American haters will still be repeating this lie at cocktail parties well into 2020. That is the point. Just like the "stolen Gore election". Jessica's suffering and heroic rescue has been forever tainted to serve a propagandist's cause.

And if "getting the lie out there" was indeed the point of releasing such an explosive piece of journalistic trash, then we can only assume that the BBC is willingly allowing itself to be used as a propaganda machine. Not that we don't know that already, but they have dropped the pretense.

There is a fine line between People Magazine and the Enquirer, and you can bet that People Magazine works hard to protect it. And there is a similar line between reporting and propaganda. If BBC doesn't at least pretend to be SHOCKED, SHOCKED, and fire the guy, then they are willing to ACKNOWLEDGE that they have crossed that line.

It's not so much that they are acting as a propagandist that is the story here, but their willingness to allow this very public story to clearly expose that fact. Now THAT is HUGE!

Posted by: becky at May 19, 2003 02:06 PM

Howard,

You're right that in general it's a waste of time to respond to the barrage of anti-american conspiracy theories that swish across the ether every day. But it's a different story when the lie is originated by the BBC, which is a govt-owned monopoly news service that reaches 250 million people around the globe.

This lie must be exposed and put to rest quickly. Our military is in danger of suffering the Israeli fate of having to deal constantly with big lies spread by mainstream western news media organizations and believed by a global audience

Posted by: tombo at May 19, 2003 05:32 PM

I don't understand your critique of the BBC piece on the grounds of implausibility. Perhaps the rescue was staged, perhaps it wasn't. However, the point of war is not to protect your guys -- it is to win. Staging a morale boosting rescue on a week when doubt was starting to accumulate in the polls would be a legitimate military goal, especially given a film of POWs that was broadcast in the first days of the war. So the argument that Special Forces would never come in with blanks isn't plausible in itself. Special Forces would presumably do what they were ordered to do.

The BBC report gives us a plausible scenario. The scenario would start with the firing on the ambulance. If this occured, which indicated an eagerness on the other side to return J. Lynch; and if this eagerness was confirmed by reports from the field implying that there was minimum danger in staging a rescue, what would be the down side?

A. the only people who could immediately discredit your story would be the enemy. As you point out, Iraqi doctors are going to be under suspicion of having their own agenda. This sets up a perfect deniability scenario.

B. if you set this up, and if it were discredited, it would probably not happen all at once. The timeline of revelations concerning Lynches wounds would tip us to thinking that media manipulation was taking place, at least initially.

C. So the question isn't whether it is plausible if the Special forces unit used modified guns in order to fire harmless shots, but whether they did or not.

There's a tendency among pro-War people not only to think that the war was justified, but to think that it had to be fought strictly according to the boy scout rulebook; and every time this happy illusion is punctured, they get extremely irate. But the truth is, if they improvised a fake rescue, it worked. So what is your problem with that?

Posted by: roger at May 19, 2003 06:55 PM

roger...it's not that your point is not well taken, it's just that your point is mute. There is no more reason to believe this piece than there is to believe a piece in the Enquirer discussing an alien abduction.

What DOES matter is that the BBC is producing, at taxpayer expense, an article so unsubstantiated, and so juvenile, that even the Enquirer would probably find it beneath it's journalistic standards.

Posted by: becky at May 19, 2003 08:48 PM

Becky,it is probably futile to argue with folks like Roger since so many people in and especially out of country believe the US will fake or stage anything, including the whole 9/11/01 story. Remember that French bestseller claiming we attacked ourselves and no plane hit the Pentagon? Yes, the truth must be gotten out and lies/slander refuted, but don't expect people like Roger to believe it. The game is cut down the US anyway possible. And lots of folks want to see that happen. The jealousy, hatred, or whatever it is, toward the US, has reached the level of hysteria.

Posted by: Rifle308 at May 19, 2003 09:48 PM

Rifle, agreed. But I've stopped giving them them a pass. Their willingness to overlook mass murder, torture and to re-victimize Jessica Lynch and every other woman in Iraq disgusts me.

Posted by: Becky at May 19, 2003 11:44 PM

Wow, Becky has stopped giving me a pass! I guess that means I'm not coming over for dinner tonight. Darn, I was just gonna give her that veil I picked up at the bazaar, the really cute one, too.

Hmm, media manipulation and the military. To believe an event has been manipulated is not to believe that all media events have been manipulated. You can believe that the 19 hijackers rammed into the wtc and pentagon AND believe that Jayson Blair's stories were fabricated. You can believe that Gorbachev really withdrew troops from East Germany and that he concealed the truth about Chernobyl.
However, I happen not to believe that you can trust people in power to tell unpleasant truths unless they are forced to, since it isn't in their self interest. That force can be moral -- there's such a thing as a sense of honor. Do I think that is common in the Rumsfeld's Pentagon? No, I don't.

The BBC story doesn't, contra much of the blogsphere, claim US soldiers fired blanks. An Iraqi doctor claims this. It does make a claim that the military has an uncut version of the rescue. If it does, eventually they will have to release it, and we won't have to go on internal clues to whether the story is true or not. But we should be clear about what is being claimed, here. The claim is that the rescue was staged. What does this mean? To me, it simply means that the shots that were fired in the film weren't fired at an enemy, but for effect. It means that Lynch was not injured in the ways that were first reported, and that those reporting the injuries knew that. What I think it probably also means -- a strong version of the story -- is that the army had intelligence that Lynch was not under any sort of guard. A weak version of the story -- which would count as a simulation in my mind -- would be if the discovery that Lynch was unguarded led to a "show" for the cameras. I have a gut feeling the last option is closer to the truth.
As for how this reflects badly on Lynch -- that is a puzzle.

Posted by: roger at May 20, 2003 12:10 AM

"To me, it simply means that the shots that were fired in the film weren't fired at an enemy, but for effect."

Here's a tip, Roger: Nobody cares what speculative insight you believe you possess to concoct your lame conclusion. Certainly there is nothing in this this no-brainer piece of propaganda trash that would inspire a thinking person to give it ANY credibility.

If we were at a party right now, I'd just walk away, leaving you to deal with the fact that you are:
1. Stupid to have sucked into this piece of propaganda trash;
2. A disgusting human being who eagerly jumped at the opportunity to revictimize a young girl severely brutalized by a barbaric regime. That you do so to desperately justify your impotent stance on the validity of Iraqi war, makes you downright slimy.

Posted by: Becky at May 20, 2003 01:47 PM

Ah, Becky, you don't know the half of it. Sliminess is one of my few VIRTUES! I have that distressing habit of cannibalism, you know -- can't seem to break it. Of course, for years I've been on Saddam's payroll, but he took me off because I was just a dunderhead! I thought WMD was that grease aerosol that you spray on bicycle chains.

And as for falling for propaganda -- I'm always doing that! I must get a self help book on the subject. For as we know, Jesus Christ himself would never forgive me for preferring the BBC to Fox News! As it says in Corinthians

"Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God, or Fox News, his wholly owned subsidiary."

Posted by: roger at May 20, 2003 05:51 PM

Roger, You are trolling at this point and I am asking you to leave. You offer not one shred of proof, but are engaging in fantasy. Do it on your own site. If you are not willing to acknowledge or take part in the Doctrine of Pursuasibility, don't play.

Posted by: Laughing Wolf at May 20, 2003 06:13 PM

LW, how nice to see you call him on his attempt to wave shiny objects and distract from the topic at hand. I guess it made sense in his mind, ....a few bizzaro, way off-topic Jesus/Bible comments is the ultimate one-up to any argument, Right? Always send us right-wing conspiracy instigators away in tears.

I apologize for re-engaging a compulsive troll. Promise I won't do it again.

Posted by: Becky at May 20, 2003 07:17 PM

Not a problem Becky, glad you brought it to my attention, as it were. Thanks for reading and for posting.

Posted by: Laughing Wolf at May 20, 2003 07:40 PM

The off-topic Jesus comments and insincere Bible quotes are but one way of baiting one's opponents and drawing them off topic.

Another way is publishing an improbable and paper thin fable based on vague testimony given by untraceable sources. It is best if it demands your that opponent prove a negative, as that is time consuming and nearly impossible, and shifts them to the defensive.

In this way one can avoid talking about the wildly, awe-inspiringly inaccurate predictions that one made two months ago.

If one can have one's government sign ones paycheck whilst one runs down one's own country and its allies, one is engaged in the Big Ballsy Con game, or BBC.
Dennymack

Posted by: dennymack at May 21, 2003 12:02 AM

But dang it, the baiting tactic works. I'm like a crackhead- I just can't leave the bad stuff alone.
Some things to consider:
1. Who made this Iraqi doctor an expert on what sort of tactics Special Ops should use? When has any Iraqi correctly assessed a military situation? (Okay, a lot of them did surrender.)
2. How did the raid go? Did we get her? Any losses?
3. If a SEAL or Delta told the reporter that they use a few Hollywood guns with blanks to get the innocent on the ground bloodlessly, what would the reporter say was wrong with that? Drop them for real next time?
4. If blanks were indeed a tactical tool, might the presumption of lethality be part of their utility? Would the commandos then admit: "Why, yes, if one of us screams 'Get Down!' and fires in your direction, don't worry, we use blanks."
5. If you were a POW, would you want your captors to be watching video of a very scary bunch of guys sweeping in like demons to rescue other POW's while dealing death to the jailors?
Yes. Watching and rewinding, then watching again, until they decide to arrange a peaceful release to avoid those nightmarish death dealers.
Dennymack

Posted by: dennymack at May 21, 2003 12:26 AM

The Jessica Lynch rescue was valid and a fine example of patriotism.

Then I have but one question: Why doesn't the Pentagon release the complete, unedited, four-hour video tape to the media for scrutiny.

Surely, with the rescue being valid, we have nothing to hide.

Surely, our beloved United States of America, the finest nation in the world, has nothing to hide.

Just release the unedited video tapes and scuttle such a story once and for all.

Posted by: William Rubin at May 25, 2003 12:48 PM

Comments are Closed.