Bush, Cheney Convicted of War Crimes (By Misleading Bloggers) - By Matty Jacobson

Matty Jacobson actually
cares about his journalistic
integrity. As owner,
operator, editor and
contributor of The Skewed
Review, he will always
fact-check before
proceeding with any
material that could
be misconstrued as fact if
it's fiction and fiction if it's
fact. Disagree? Please
Email Matty here.
Emails without "The
Skewed Review" in the
subject box will be deleted.

THE SKEWED REVIEW | NEWS & POLITICS |
COLLEGE LIFE & TIMES

The focus of "The Skewed Review" has been, and will most likely always be, making digs at people and incidents in as poignantly and/or funny a way possible.

However, one thing I do is check my facts before I go railing on some entity for something I don't agree with.

As I was scavenging the Internet for news yesterday, I came upon a March 15, 2012, article on AddictingInfo.org titled "George W. Bush, Dick Cheney Convicted of War Crimes," by Justin Rosario.

The reason I even clicked on this story was because it was linked from another website where it was touted as an article that "the American media isn't reporting on." The headline itself was something I've seen many times, but this one piqued my curiosity because it also gave a specific place and group of people as the enforcers: a tribunal orchestrated by former Malaysian Premier Mahthir Mohamad.

So I read the article.

AddictingInfo.org is not unlike TheSkewedReview.com. Rosario has obviously taken a news story and put his own personal spin on it. But there was one huge problem. He failed to inform the readers that the tribunal in question was actually a mock tribunal with no legal enforcement. The whole pageant was presented more as a message to the world about Bush and Cheney's war crimes.

Of course, I'm not saying charges wouldn't be unfounded. What I am saying is this blogger, and the source he cited in his article, is purposefully misleading the public into thinking some action of legal levity actually occurred in a court outside that of the public opinion.

Could Rosario be writing just to create a viral article? It's happened before. I can't accuse Rosario of being so vane that he merely wrote an article in hopes that it would be spread around the Internet like wildfire. I can, however, accuse him of some impressive photoshopping.

That's the happiest face I've seen on one of the most hated men in the world. AddictingInfo.org

The worst part about this article was that at face value it seems legitimate. Rosario provided excerpts from the tribunal's hearing where it recommended to other courts that they also hold the Bush Administration accountable for its crimes.

But as I read, one teeny, tiny little thing kept bugging me. If the former most powerful man in the world had indeed been found guilty of war crimes, even if by a small tribunal in an area that wields little global power, wouldn't it still make a headline on, I don't know, any other website?


So like a good journalist, I started doing a little homework. I checked out Rosario's source, ForeignPolicyJournal.com. The article there, published on May 12, 2012, was written by Yvonne Ridley and titled, "Bush Convicted of War Crimes in Absentia."

Wow. Two misleading headlines? What are the odds?

Ridley's article was slightly less fibbish, although it took her 32 paragraphs to actually point out it was a mock tribunal. Consequentially, the article was 33 paragraphs long.

Pictured left: This is what readers see when they click on Ridley's article at ForeignPolicyJournal.com. Donald Rumsfeld, pictured left, is probably saying something to the effect of: "Hey, George! You know all that stuff we did in the Middle East? I'll bet you ten bucks and a box of donuts that the worst thing to happen to us because of it will be a high school mock trial!" George probably replied: "Or at worst, some country might hold a mock trial!" And then the three of them laughed, ate a box of donuts, and then went their separate ways to bathe in hottubs full of $100 bills.






Pictured right: This is what readers see when they click on Rosario's article on AddictingInfo.org. I think "Filthy Liberal Scum" doesn't accurately portray the author. I would say "Purposefully Misleading Blogger" would have fit the bill.



Both of these articles made it sound as though there were actual consequences to follow this tribunal. In fact, Rosario's article states: "While Bush won't be arrested on American soil, he'll have a very difficult time leaving the country. Already he's canceled a trip to Switzerland, due to possible charges of war crimes."

Wow. My communication adviser would have given me an F and probably would have taken away my journalism scholarship if I would have printed that.

The sadness doesn't stop at these two articles, though. Each article buries the the point that there was no actual legal tribunal in obscure areas where readers are more likely to skim rather than full-on read. Each article presents it as fact that these men are now wanted in countries outside of the United States in the first few paragraphs, which are usually the only paragraphs readers pay attention to. Did the authors intend for readers to think these charges held legal sway? Who knows.

But if they did hope to convince the less-inclined-to-read-whole-articles that Bush is just an airplane ride away from indefinite detention, then Rosario and Ridley succeeded. One only needs to look at the comments below each article to see that the readers fully believe Bush had been found guilty of war crimes in Malaysia, and it was only a matter of time before other countries followed suit.

Well, if people are so gullible as to believe everything they see on the Internet, then please, take a look at this:

Descendent of Norwegian Royalty Inherits Billions, Needs Third Party Cash to Claim Money

 

This man needs your help to claim the billions owed to him from his Norwegian estate. He only needs $1,000 to pay the transaction fees in order to transfer the funds into his American bank account. Any person who can help this man claim his inheritance will receive 200 percent of the money he or she lends as thanks.

I won't go so far as to say the two authors in question lied; they didn't. They only obscured the truth. So this article is less of a response to the two liars bloggers whose columns were written to sway opinions, and more of call to action to those of us who are inclined to believe headlines, ledes and nutgrafs. Don't assume the author of the story you're about to read has integrity enough to tell you the truth. Stay conscious of vanity writers (which even I'm often guilty of), and if you ever read a headline that seems like it would be worldwide news, but somehow isn't, then copy and paste said headline into Google and see what pops up. 

Now if you'll be so kind as to recommend this article to all your friends, family, coworkers, enemies, strangers, pets and Farmville buddies, I would much appreciate it.