Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Same reason local news covers house fires and not saved kittens.

If you’ve ever met Europeans visiting the US for the first time, you already know how the media shapes perception. Many seem to think that we’re all carrying guns, that our schools are all like Columbine, that our teenagers are living in a permanent Brittney Spears video and we all work 60 hour weeks. The same thing is going on in coverage of Iraq. If you take the time to look behind the headlines, you can see a different picture of Iraq. Unfortunately, our debate tends to be driven by the headlines alone.

I think you’re right Martin. It’s an editorial position on behalf of most of the news media. They want American body counts.

I get the feeling that editors give orders to pass on information about the latest killing of American soldiers by insurgents aka ‘freedomfighters’. And that reporters probably don’t venture outside of their hotels to get this information.

reporters probably don’t venture outside of their hotels to get this information

That’d apparently be a wise move on their part, Eric… considering Reuters staff were detained and beaten by some US troops. When reporters are beaten by the “good guys”, it probably becomes more difficult to move around freely.

As for editors wanting death counts, I tend to doubt that. Giving orders to pass on information about those deaths, though? Um, isn’t that what they’re there to do?

Would you prefer the American people be kept in the dark about the human cost of war?

Would you prefer the American people be kept in the dark about the human cost of war?

No. But I also don’t think that the American people should not be kept in the dark about positive things which happen in Iraq.

The template, it seems, has been selected: “Vietnam II, the Iraqi Quagmire.”

As for Reuters staff, I haven’t read anything about that yet. They were probably Iraqis hired to go where the brave American reporters refuse to. Have you seen some of these Al Jazeera footage? They’re ‘embedded’ reporters for the terrorists.

How can they ‘get the story’ if they’re in hotel room in Bagdhad?

I find it ironic that under Saddam CNN had no problem accentuating positive stories and not publishing negative stories so that they could preserve their place in Iraq (and not endanger CNN personel) but now since there is no dictator to be afraid of they can give free reign to their ‘journalistic integrity’ by refusing to report anything positive about the US occupation.

Ceejayoz, they’ve already done a pretty good job of keeping the American public in the dark about the human cost of not going to war. Every new polaroid showing Private England making an ass of herself in Abu Ghraib is instant front-page news, while the photos of the chopped limbs, the piles of corpses, the acid-scarred and otherwise mutilated bodies that the same prison produced under Saddam are kept under tight wraps because they’re somehow “not relevant” to the editorial policies of our major news organizations.

But what about Marine Capt. Brian R. Chontosh? Is he not the cat’s meow? I mean c’mon! He kicked ass AND took names.

Are you not impressed? Maybe, I should have titled this one “A real American Hero” instead of Sgt York 2004. Does anyone even know who Sgt. York is these days?

Born Alvin Cullium York, December 13, 1887, in Pall Mall, Tennessee.

His life was turned around by a woman, Gracie Williams, who convinced him to give up his worldly ways and go to church. Formed long held and firm religious beliefs as a result.

Drafted in 1917.
Impressed the regular army officers with his ability to use a gun. Shot accurately at ranges of 200, 300 and 500 yards. Struggled with the moral issue of killing human beings, and refused to shoot at human silhouettes (targets).

At the battle of the Argonne Forest in the fall of 1918, as a member of the 82nd division, he killed 25 Germans, knocked out 35 machine guns, and captured 132 prisoners almost single-handed.
Recieved the French Medaille Militaire and Croix de Guerre, the Italian Groce de Guerra and the American Medal of Honor.

Came home to the adulation of the American people, married Gracie Williams, and died in Nashville, Tenn. on September 2, 1964 after having a cerebral hemorrage. -sgtyork

ceejay:

You ask: “As for editors wanting death counts, I tend to doubt that. Giving orders to pass on information about those deaths, though? Um, isn’t that what they’re there to do?”

Editors SHOULD be there to tell the stories of what is going on. This includes both good and bad stories. But look at the focus…..and you see mostly negative stories.

It appears the media has decided what the stories should entail before they write them, and then the news is presented through a lens.

Have you ever noticed how some sports announcers talk at the beginning of a game about a certain player—lets say for instance Warren Sapp—-and the incredible impact that player will have. And then—-voila—-!! Regardless of whether Sapp is having a monster day, or a horrible day, they continue with their “story”. If the numbers dont bear out their premise, they simply massage it to say that he does so many things that dont show up in the stats…..etc.

This is what editors are doing now. Potentially the biggest story out there now is the possibility of UN bribery, yet it barely even makes the news. Were it a US scandal a la Abu Ghraib, it would be front page above the cover. How about the possibility of the French and German govts getting bribes from Iraq—-nothing…

I am NOT saying the UN story is true—only that it has incredible importance to the entire Iraq issue. Yet it does not fit the pre-planned emphasis that many newspapers have decided upon, so it gets backwatered into the back pages.

That’s a great story Eric. The Clinton military really knew how to train some great troopers didn’t they?

As for Sgt. York, I loved the movie. Gary Cooper kickin some Hun butt. Great stuff. It’s good to see American’s can still do that despite growing up wearing bullet-proof vests to school and living in a permanent Britney Spears video.

I saw the story in the local paper a couple weeks ago, but that’s pretty close to Camp Pendleton, so maybe it only got reported there. Hmm… Nope. Here it is in the San Jose Mercury News. I admit I didn’t see the story on TV. No embedded reporter, I guess. Maybe Hollywood will make the movie.

The news coverage today that is working against the conservative position is from the same root problem that caused them to be so happy about the possiblity of war in the first place. Just as they hurt the conservative cause now, they destroyed any possibility of the anti-war cause before this debacle started.

Once again, it’s the profit motive. Back in the day, news branches of some corporations didn’t have to make a profit. Now, everyone competes for advertisers/viewers, and that heavily biases what they’re able to report. Is there a better alternative to the current system?

Eric, if things were getting better, and the Administration had found all it was looking for, then this story would not be buried so deep.

Let me ask you: What have we gained? Where have we regained control? Tell me of those things. Tell me of the cities that are back in our hands. Tell me of insurgencies no longer active. Tell me how Iraq’s infrastructure is better now, than it was a year ago.

If there is progress to be claimed, this administration would be well advised to cite specific, well documented, unambiguous evidence of the positive impact of the occupation. Why? Because otherwise this administration is asking people who feel that it has badly misinformed them to take their word for it. Now, Bush’s political compatriots might be willing to do so, but what about people like me? What about people who are worried that this administration might be dealing with the problems of Iraq with the immature ten year old boy’s technique of simply not telling people what’s going wrong?

If you want stories like this to gain more press, then resolve the bigger, broader issues of the war first, because those are the things distracting people from individual heroism.

Chontosh deserves a medal by any military standard. We should not be in Iraq by any legal or moral standard.

Lest anyone forget….Sgt. York was a pacifist. He was willing to fight against an invading imperialistic (facist) regime that invaded other countries to plunder their resources. I wonder which side he’d be on here?

This is what editors are doing now. Potentially the biggest story out there now is the possibility of UN bribery, yet it barely even makes the news. Were it a US scandal a la Abu Ghraib, it would be front page above the cover. How about the possibility of the French and German govts getting bribes from Iraq—-nothing…

“possibility of”, “potentially”, etc.

versus.

“proven with photographs, videos, and testimony by the Secretary of Defense”

Which should the media cover, and which should they continue investigating before covering it? You decide.

There are many things which are not covered by the press. Savings & Loan & BCCI bankruptcies and ties to the Bush Family, Iran-Contra, California Energy crisis…. Jailing Keating and Stewart never fixed the underlying problems.

ceejay:

You’ll of course notice that there is rampant speculation of how far the Abu Ghraib prison abuse goes. While there is no evidence at this point focusing on higher administration officials, the media is certainly open to speculating that it goes all the way to Rumsfeld and Bush. You see, NO evidence at this point, yet rampant speculation.

Now turn the page……to the UN scandal. Again, no concrete evidence yet, and none of the rampant speculation. Why?? Because it would be against the grain of what the media has already decided.

I’m not against the coverage of Abu Ghraib, though the release of the actual pictures is unnecessary, and merely puts our soldiers at increased risk. And especially the on going release of pictures, since the first pictures have already shown anything that might need to have been publicized.

But I’m surprised that you cant see the obvious hypocrisy of how the media speculates randomly on one issue, and leaves another equally powerful and important story to languish on the back pages.

Joe, I guess You and I don’t read the same papers. I know of no major papers ignoring the UN scandal or speculating who is involved.

No evidence that the pentagon isn’t involved? Wasn’t there something called the Taguba report? Sure, the military types say it doesn’t show involvement which is certainly believable if your a dupe or moron….

As to the picture publication not being necessary, Where were the courts martial, the congressional investigations before they were? Where will the investigations go if they aren’t kept in front of the public? Yes, by all means sweep it under the rug. That’s certainly the responsible thing to do.

But I’m surprised that you cant see the obvious hypocrisy of how the media speculates randomly on one issue, and leaves another equally powerful and important story to languish on the back pages.

Haha! That’s exactly what I was saying from June 1992 to January 2001.

Eight years of random speculation on land deals, secret murders, hookers, revenge lists, fake harassment suits, wagging the dog, travelgate, for Christs sake! End result: “there is no evidence of any wrongdoing.”

It sucks being president, don’t it. :)

“One of the rules of war is that you try to decrease the morale of your enemy while increasing your own.” That’s the opening sentence of your post.

Guess what, I don’t want our media
being the “you” in your statement, I’d like them to report the war as it is. You want army propaganda, go ask the army, and stay away from
news that depresses you.

[Comment deleted for Critiquing the Messenger - WatchBlog Manager] Was the argument for the US “liberation” stated as, “we will be brutal - but not as brutal as Saddam?” Of course not. The US rode the white horse; the splattered mud and blood are quite a bit more of a contrast as a result.

Don’t get backstrain moving those goalposts, guys.

You all think UN Bribery is the biggest story out there! Check this link on World Net Daily.

www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38581

Every person who has crucified Bush because he has yet to find WMD’s, get out your bibs. Once this information is verified, and not just intel, prepare to see Kerry’s campaign spiral down the political toilet. I already bought popcorn.

As far as the debate on this string, the problem is obvious to everyone. Drum roll please…

It’s not the paper’s/(alphabet channel’s) fault.

Yes, they have their agendas and their political slants… but it is “we…” the subscribers to those papers, wherein lies the problem. I am as conservative as they come, but I am sick to death of my fellow conservatives bellyaching about the TV/paper not showing both sides of the story. You watch that news program, or you go out and buy the damn thing to wave around saying “see what they did!” or “see what they’re not doing!” and they laugh all the way to the bank. They think you are a fool! I worked for 6 months for the biggest paper in Alaska. 200,000 Daily papers statewide. I asked the editor one day, why we always printed liberal garbage, and never the other side of the story and I’ll never forget what he said:

“Jake, people don’t want to feel good. People want to worry, people like to mad, and no one buys a paper with good news on the cover. If it bleeds, it leads.”

You want to make a difference… call every friend you know, and tell them to cancel their paper subscription if their local paper reports in such a biased manner.

The only power we have in society is our wallets. That’s the bottom line, and whether you like it or not, that’s the only voice anyone wants to hear.

P.S.

Vic,

You’re incorrect if you say you don’t want propaganda. You are drooling for your own propaganda, anything that supports your position against this war and Bush. You made that apparent when you implied all news of the war will be depressing, when nothing could be further from the truth. You’re just spouting anti-war propaganda. Tit for tat. Of course there’s bad news, but there’s a crapload of good news that no one gets to hear and you know it.

Re yukon jake, I doubt it quite sincerely that a “crapload” of good news is coming out of Iraq. (A story about a soldier mowing down a bunch of fighters? Is that the best you guys can do?? I already knew we were killing lots of people, that must be the good news). As I said, keep moving those goalposts - you know, from “we have to attack now because Iraq is an imminent threat” to “it was still a good idea because we’re liberating Iraq” to “you should compare Saddam’s prison abuse to ours,” - and soon, no doubt, to “those people are incapable of appreciating us so we’re out of here but we’re still right.”

And your theory on the news doesn’t explain all the upbeat media accounts of the “fun” part of the war either, or their own drooling, utterly misleading presentation of the infamous “giant crowd toppling Saddam’s statue” picture, or puff pieces like how we’re sending teddy bears to the little children of Iraq (remember that one?) or our genuine dripping concern about that little boy who had his arm blown off (what a little publicity can do, at least once). Nor does it explain all the genuinely appalling news of all sorts that is either left out of or softpedaled by the mainstream media - I could direct you to the radio program Democracy Now but you’d just call that propaganda. Relentless bad news does not really sell papers, bad news that makes Americans feel bad about America REALLY doesn’t keep selling papers, and it sure as heck does not inspire the corporate sponsors that really keep the papers - and the television news media - going.

Yukon: Followed your link. I guess we get to invade Syria now? Then they can move the magic holly grail weapons to Iran and we can invade them. Boy aren’t we lucky, as long as we keep not finding anything we can conquer the whole freaking world.

By the way I have some swampland you may be interested in.

Vic Perry, you’re right that none of that sells papers—which is why subscriptions to Democratic party organs like the LA and NY Times are in freefall and people are increasingly turning to more diverse outlets on the internet. And thank god! The days when the major media could choose their own storyline (and attempt, as they are now, to pull stunts like eking three weeks of headlines out the events that apparently took place in Abu Ghraib on a single day) are over.

Well fellas, I respectfully disagree. If you don’t think bad news sells papers, then you have blinders on. 9-11 was the worst news for decades and the three days after 9-11 sold more newspapers and requested reprints than the best month in the history of print media. How can you honestly say bad news doesn’t sell papers?? Call your local publisher and ask them, but then… you probably know their business better than they do considering the confidence of your denials.

Whether you like it or not people in this country thrive on bad news. If good news was in any demand, then there would be some kind of profit in it and some inspired venture capitalist would have found a way to turn good news into money. But alas, that hasn’t and probably won’t ever, happen.

Regarding the imminent threat thing, Bush never said that. He said Saddam was a gathering threat, which he was. I’ll give you the point of changing the tune from WMD’s to “well, we still did a great thing.” And don’t think that I support Bush just because I’m a conservative.

What I do think is that America hasn’t had another 9-11 or anything even close because of his actions. I think the war is being handled terribly, but nonetheless, Iraqis have more now than they did before. Girls are in schools now, and not getting their clitorises burned off with acid. The fact that more schools are open now than before the war is a great thing. Businesses are trying to get going in some form or another amid the (admittedly) chaos.

I don’t envy the president his position one bit. But I know for a fact that laudling his successes in Iraq won’t get the same readership or ratings as beating his failures to death will.

To Bob,
I guess you ass-u-me that because I will enjoy watching the purple hearted war criminal’s campaign burn in flames, that I am all for conquering the whole world. I don’t get the connection, but hey, I rarely understand liberals. When we find WMD’s, I’ll rejoice. But I’m pretty sure we already got Saddam, and the last thing anyone would try to do is convince this polarized country to invade someone else simply on the faith we might justify the first invasion.

Admittedly, either way, I’d rather have my tax dollars spent on anything that might even remotely help prevent terrorism, than on ANY SOCIAL PROGRAM, like the one sending my Russian neighbors, who don’t speak English, wellfare checks so they can have a TV 3 times bigger than mine.

Yukon, they never said Imminent threat, but they certainly didn’t skimp on trying to make that threat seem like it was about to become imminent. When you say that the next smoking gun may be a mushroom cloud over one of our cities, when you cite a (discredited) report that Iraq could initiate a chemical attack in 45 minutes, and say all the alarmist things they did, you aren’t giving the impression to people that they can wait.

The Administration knowingly made Saddam more fearsome than the evidence supported. They sent the evidence for Saddam’s violations to two experienced former prosecutors within the administration, Vice presidential chief of staff “Scooter” Libby, and Deputy National Security Adviser Steve Hadley, who then proceeded to directly request intelligence items from the CIA in writing.

The Case they assembled was not exactly analytically filtered. It was so full of exaggerations and discredited information that Powell and his deputy Richard Armitage felt it necessary to “field-strip” the information. Literally, that term applies to tearing up cigarette butts to make it hard for the enemy to trail you by them. Figuratively, it was Powell and Armitage going through the information to sort out all the B.S. they could.

The administration wanted its war, and soon enough, waiting for it was no longer an option.

Regarding the imminent threat thing, Bush never said that. He said Saddam was a gathering threat, which he was.

Man, wasn’t that the best semantic gymnastics we’ve seen since Clinton? All that rhetoric about mushroom clouds within months and biological weapons ready to give to terrorists in a week. Then he has the gall to pull that little “technicality” when it doesn’t pan out. And that whole weapons of mass destruction program activities thing. “What’s the difference?”

I think Clinton needs to shut up and take a lesson from the master, GW!