NationStates Jolt Archive

These are the photos which will *not* be on the front page of any newsapers today:

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20050130/i/r1573180446.jpg
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20050130/capt.lon15701301642.iraq_elections_lon157.jpg
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20050130/capt.lon16001301650.iraq_lon160.jpg
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/nm/20050130/mdf841575.jpg
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20050130/capt.lon12801301347.iraq_elections_lon128.jpg
http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20050130/i/r1834726751.jpg
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/cpress/20050130/capt.w013027a.jpg
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20050131/capt.bag10701311119.iraq_elections_bag107.jpg

(in some of these you can see 1,000-3,000 people at a single polling station. the first one is from Al-Anbar province, by the way)


Everyone who voted is a hero, but doubly so the election workers, soldiers and police who made it possible... this is the face of the new Iraq:

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20050128/i/r521376923.jpg
http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20050131/i/r1782709168.jpg
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20050130/capt.sge.gej15.300105200743.photo02.photo.default-380x294.jpg
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20050131/capt.sge.gfd82.310105030403.photo00.photo.default-380x294.jpg
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20050131/capt.sge.ghx23.310105112055.photo00.photo.default-384x269.jpg
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20050131/capt.mac10601311223.iraq_mosul_mac106.jpg
http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20050131/i/r479794367.jpg


Meanwhile, bizzare anti-democracy protests in Spain and the UK:

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20050130/i/r651941756.jpg
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20050130/capt.xag10101301309.britain_iraq_elections_xag101.jpg


Comments?

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1107126609395&call_pageid=970599119419

'We had to take this risk'

AMEER MOHSEN
SPECIAL TO THE STAR

BAGHDAD - I cannot describe the feeling in our house today. We just returned from the first real election any of us can remember. The whole family is here. It is a party. It is a like a dream.

Two days ago, I made a very difficult decision. I told my wife and children, "No, we cannot vote. It is too dangerous." But my daughters insisted, "Papa, you must. We beg you."

They were right. Looking into the faces of my children, I knew we had to take this risk.

But this morning, my doubts returned. There were bombs at 8 (a.m.) and more bombs around 9 (a.m.). Then, mortar attacks. The whole neighbourhood (as-Saidiya, in southwest Baghdad) felt it. Our windows were shaking. We were shaking.

We all sat in the house, maybe one hour, just looking at each other, wondering what we should do. And then finally, I said to everyone, "I'm going outside to take a look."

When I reached the corner, I could not believe my eyes. There were hundreds of people, everyone moving toward the voting centre.

Waves and waves of people. Old men, old women, handicapped people. People dressed in their most elegant clothes. They were Shia and Kurdi and yes, some Sunnis as well. All together, moving together. They were happy.

I ran back to the house and told everyone, "We can do it. Everyone is going."

We gathered our friends and neighbours and moved as one, five or six families walking together.

The distance to the school was about one kilometre. Nobody was allowed to drive. Everyone was on foot. We were still very nervous. But then we saw the Iraqi National Guard soldiers everywhere along the route.

The Iraqi soldiers were using loudspeakers. They said, "The voting centres are safe. Everything is secure. Have no fear. We will protect you."

I remember in the time of Saddam, we were also expected to vote. And we were always afraid of these men, the Iraqi police, on such days. But today, they were a part of us.

At one point, we saw the Iraqi guards drive by with an old man in the car. He was too frail to walk, so they were carrying him to the poll.

My wife brought an Iraqi flag for the walk. She carried it on her shoulders and the soldiers cheered and saluted. Then we put it on our 4-year-old son. He was so proud. People pointed, and said, "He is our future. He is the new Iraq."

When we got to the voting centre, everything was open. It all happened very quickly. I voted. My family voted.

I think the truth is many Iraqis are ignorant of the rules. There are so many candidates, so many lists. People only recognize maybe the first 10 of these lists.

But they came anyway. I think Iraqis came to affirm their rights, even if they don't have all the information they need. They want to show each other, they want to show the Arab world, they want to show the outside world, that we are not an ignorant people. That we are ready to rise from this disaster.

I am still afraid those devils in the Arab world outside Iraq, they will want to doubt the legitimacy. I don't know how many people voted in the places with the most troubles, in Falluja, or Ramadi or Samara.

But when we walked home, we began to see something very unexpected.

Saidiya is a mixed neighbourhood, one of the places of the insurgents in Baghdad. But we could see that many of the Sunni Arabs on our streets started to change their minds this afternoon.

More and more of the Sunni people in Saidiya started coming out of their houses. They decided to vote, to be a part of this day.

We returned to the house. We switched on the television to see how many people died today. So far, the reports are of eight or nine suicide bombs, maybe 17 people killed.

It is a horrible thing to say, but we looked at each other and we were relieved. This number makes this just a normal day. Every day, we have this many bombs. Even my children expected worse. But we have not seen it. Not today. Not yet.

They we went to my father-in-law. We spent the whole night before trying to convince him to vote, but he said "No." He was against everything after the war. He was against the Americans, against the interim government, against these elections.

But when he saw our faces and listened to our stories, even he changed his mind.

"I am going to vote," he announced. In our family, he was the last one. In our family, I am proud to say, the turnout was 100 per cent.

These are the photos which will *not* be on the front page of any newsapers today:
What do you mean by that?
Most of my local news outlets are busy pushing that the Iraqi elections were a great success.

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2005/01/people-have-won.html


The people have won.

We would love to share what we did this morning with the whole world, we can't describe the feelings we've been through but we'll try to share as much as we can with you.
We woke up this morning one hour before the alarm clock was supposed to ring. As a matter of fact, we barely slept at all last night out of excitement and anxiety.

The first thing we saw this morning on our way to the voting center was a convoy of the Iraqi army vehicles patrolling the street, the soldiers were cheering the people marching towards their voting centers then one of the soldiers chanted "vote for Allawi" less than a hundred meters, the convoy stopped and the captain in charge yelled at the soldier who did that and said:
"You're a member of the military institution and you have absolutely no right to support any political entity or interfere with the people's choice. This is Iraq's army, not Allawi's".
This was a good sign indeed and the young officer's statement was met by applause from the people on the street.
The streets were completely empty except for the Iraqi and the coalition forces ' patrols, and of course kids seizing the chance to play soccer!

We had all kinds of feelings in our minds while we were on our way to the ballot box except one feeling that never came to us, that was fear.
We could smell pride in the atmosphere this morning; everyone we saw was holding up his blue tipped finger with broad smiles on the faces while walking out of the center.

I couldn't think of a scene more beautiful than that.
From the early hours of the morning, People filled the street to the voting center in my neighborhood; youths, elders, women and men. Women's turn out was higher by the way. And by 11 am the boxes where I live were almost full!
Anyone watching that scene cannot but have tears of happiness, hope, pride and triumph.

The sounds of explosions and gunfire were clearly heard, some were far away but some were close enough to make the windows of the center shake but no one seemed to care about them as if the people weren't hearing these sounds at all.
I saw an old woman that I thought would get startled by the loud sound of a close explosion but she didn't seem to care, instead she was busy verifying her voting station's location as she found out that her name wasn't listed in this center.

How can I describe it!? Take my eyes and look through them my friends, you have supported the day of Iraq's freedom and today, Iraqis have proven that they're not going to disappoint their country or their friends.

Is there a bigger victory than this? I believe not.

I still recall the first group of comments that came to this blog 14 months ago when many of the readers asked "The Model?"… "Model for what?"
Take a look today to meet the model of courage and human desire to achieve freedom; people walking across the fire to cast their votes.

Could any model match this one!? Could any bravery match the Iraqis'!?
Let the remaining tyrants of the world learn the lesson from this day.

The media is reporting only explosions and suicide attacks that killed and injured many Iraqis s far but this hasn't stopped the Iraqis from marching towards their voting stations with more determination. Iraqis have truly raced the sun.

I walked forward to my station, cast my vote and then headed to the box, where I wanted to stand as long as I could, then I moved to mark my finger with ink, I dipped it deep as if I was poking the eyes of all the world's tyrants.
I put the paper in the box and with it, there were tears that I couldn't hold; I was trembling with joy and I felt like I wanted to hug the box but the supervisor smiled at me and said "brother, would you please move ahead, the people are waiting for their turn".

Yes brothers, proceed and fill the box!
These are stories that will be written on the brightest pages of history.

It was hard for us to leave the center but we were happy because we were sure that we will stand here in front of the box again and again and again.
Today, there's no voice louder than that of freedom.

No more confusion about what the people want, they have said their word and they said it loud and the world has got to respct and support the people's will.

God bless your brave steps sons of Iraq and God bless the defenders of freedom.

Aasha Al-Iraq….Aasha Al-Iraq….Aasha Al-Iraq.

Mohammed and Omar.

bless them, really.
and to think their turnout was higher then Britain's in 2001........ :rolleyes:

What do you mean by that?
Most of my local news outlets are busy pushing that the Iraqi elections were a great success.

I was looking at the websites of the major papers and cable networks yesterday, none of them had any photos of large crowds like this, except Fox - even though these photos were already available then.

You may be right, WaPo's site has a pretty good one today. Not the LA Times or NY Times though.

Paper here pushed the sucess.
But 60% turnout? Thats twice Canada's turnout for the last election.

I was looking at the websites of the major papers and cable networks yesterday, none of them had any photos of large crowds like this, except Fox - even though these photos were already available then.

You may be right, WaPo's site has a pretty good one today. Not the LA Times or NY Times though.

That's because the liberal media doesn't want you to know it was a success.

So, your point with all the photos was that there was a line to vote, and that there was security at the polling stations?

I was looking at the websites of the major papers and cable networks yesterday, none of them had any photos of large crowds like this, except Fox - even though these photos were already available then.

You may be right, WaPo's site has a pretty good one today. Not the LA Times or NY Times though.

*shrug* CNN (aka Communist Network News) had images like that all day, mixed with images of the areas where very few voted.

NPR reported that some areas had very few voters while others were packed all day.

I think you're a bit paranoid with the whole "liberal news" thing.

That's because the liberal media doesn't want you to know it was a success.
Oh noes, the evil liberals!
Here's something for you: I live in Vermont, in an ultra-liberal neighborhood. We have our own paper, and they supported the Iraqi elections. Our local news station tends to have a liberal bent, and they were going on at great length about how great a success this was compared to what they had expected.

Not all liberals are the same...

bless them, really.
and to think their turnout was higher then Britain's in 2001........ :rolleyes:
And same for the US... it's definitely a shame... the risk is nil here, and yet less people vote!

WaPo "Bombing Doesn't Deter These Voters" - indeed, nor doom-and-gloom media coverage

NY Times "For a Battered Populace, a Day of Civic Passion" - read "they had their day in the sun, now back to the regular schedule of stories about bombings"

LA Times "Millions of Iraqis Vote Despite Deadly Threats" - read "idiots should have known better, why won't they listen to us?"

Well SOMEONE's reaching for evidence of bias.

:p

I think it's amusing that the election was a success despite that there are 25 dead and another 75 injured - though that is better than the expected thousands dead and even more injured. :D sounds successful to me ;) *Snicker*

deja vu...

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nytimes/82602711.html?did=82602711&FMT=ABS&FMTS=AI&date=Sep+4%2C+1967&author=By+PETER+GROSE+Special+to+The+New+York+Times&desc=U.S.+ENCOURAGED+BY+VIETNAM+VOTE
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nytimes/results.html?st=advanced&datetype=0&sortby=RELEVANCE&restrict=articles&QryTxt=Officials%20Cite%2083%%20Turnout%20Despite%20Vietcong%20Terror

"No fear..."

http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD/MGArticle/RTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031780546530

"We have no fear," three women wearing all-encompassing abaya cloaks said in unison, heading toward a polling center as a huge explosion shook the ground, one of several that rocked the capital on voting day.


They wait to vote, even though the gutters run with blood ...

(moderately graphic photo warning)
http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2005/01/30/image670300.jpg

Iraqis gather outside a Sadr City, Baghdad, polling station following a mortar attack that killed three and injured seven.(Photo: AP)

Well SOMEONE's reaching for evidence of bias.

:p

If you want to hear bias today, you have to watch Ted Kennedy speak about it, or John Kerry. To hear them, you would think that Iraq is worse off for having held elections.

Oddly, every network news channel sounds EXACTLY like what I'm hearing on Fox.

Is Fox really that biased about this story in particular, or did they actually get it right today? Or are all the print and broadcast media actually acknowledging that something good happened?

I think it's amusing that the election was a success despite that there are 25 dead and another 75 injured - though that is better than the expected thousands dead and even more injured. :D sounds successful to me ;) *Snicker*

I should point out that considerably more people died in car accidents on election day in the US than due to violence in Iraq.

If you want to hear bias today, you have to watch Ted Kennedy speak about it, or John Kerry. To hear them, you would think that Iraq is worse off for having held elections.

Oddly, every network news channel sounds EXACTLY like what I'm hearing on Fox.

Is Fox really that biased about this story in particular, or did they actually get it right today? Or are all the print and broadcast media actually acknowledging that something good happened?

The socialist EU (ARRRR! PREPARE TO BE PLUNDERED!) certainly has a majority going Yay elections.

I should point out that considerably more people died in car accidents on election day in the US than due to violence in Iraq.
:D
That's pretty funny.

deja vu...

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nytimes/82602711.html?did=82602711&FMT=ABS&FMTS=AI&date=Sep+4%2C+1967&author=By+PETER+GROSE+Special+to+The+New+York+Times&desc=U.S.+ENCOURAGED+BY+VIETNAM+VOTE
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nytimes/results.html?st=advanced&datetype=0&sortby=RELEVANCE&restrict=articles&QryTxt=Officials%20Cite%2083%%20Turnout%20Despite%20Vietcong%20Terror
(links to an old article about elections in Vietnam).


That's very good, Democraticland, you've just confirmed my opinion that we should have fought through to a win in Vietnam. We were on the side of the good guys and we were winning, except in the battle of public opinion at home.

http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004/05/news-coverage-as-weapon-historian-john.html

It was during the Vietnam War that the Left first discovered the potential war-winning ability of media coverage. The concept itself is merely an extension of the blitzkrieg notion that the enemy command structure, not his troop masses, are the true center of gravity on the battlefield. ... It was General Giap during the Vietnam War who first planned a military operation entirely around its possible media effect. The Tet offensive was a last desperate attempt to gain the upper hand in a war he was losing.

The Communist forces had taken a series of military defeats. the US/ARVN forces had pacified much of the south by the end of 1967 (222 out of 242 provinces). Operation Junction City (February-March 1967) and other sweeps had seriously disrupted NLF activity in the south and forced the COSVN into Cambodia.

At a July 1967 meeting the Communist Party leadership recognized their failures and decided to re-orientate their operations to target two key political weaknesses. Firstly, the deep gulf between the US public and the US government over support for the war and its actual progress. Secondly, the tensions existing between the US military and their Vietnamese allies.

The leadership decided to concentrate on a few high profile operations, that would take place in the public (and the US media) eye rather than fighting the conflict away from major urban centres. This would bolster Northern morale, possibly inspire uprisings in the South and provide the impression, and hopefully the reality, that the US/ARVN were not winning the war and it was likely to be a long time before they did. The new policy also marked a victory for the 'hawks' over the 'doves' in the Communist Party leadership, in late 1967 around 200 senior officials were purged.

Although Giap failed in every military respect, he succeeded in providing the press with the raw material necessary to alter the dynamics of American domestic politics. While he could not alter reality, the Giap could alter the perception of reality enough to give anti-war politicians a winning hand which they played it to the hilt.

The NLF and the NVA lost around 35,000 men killed, 60,000 wounded and 6,000 POWs for no military success. The US and ARVN dead totalled around 3,900 (1,100 US). But this was not the conflict as the US public saw it. Without there being an active conspiracy the US media reports were extremely damaging and shocked the American public and politicians. Apparently the depth of the US reaction even surprised the North Vietnamese leadership, as well as delighting them.
...
A war in which the watchers vastly outnumbered the fighters was bound to be different from when the reverse was true. A reality experienced by the few could be overridden by a fantasy sold to the many. This exchange of proportions ensured that the political and media dimensions of the late twentieth century American wars dwarfed their military aspects.

If you want to hear bias today, you have to watch Ted Kennedy speak about it, or John Kerry. To hear them, you would think that Iraq is worse off for having held elections.

Iraq isn't, but *they* certainly are ;)

Oddly, every network news channel sounds EXACTLY like what I'm hearing on Fox.

Is Fox really that biased about this story in particular, or did they actually get it right today? Or are all the print and broadcast media actually acknowledging that something good happened?

I think it is the latter. Or, more accurately, while they may be uncomfortable cheering for the Iraqis (and therefore helping Bush who is worse than Osama, gotta keep priorities straight), but I think they realize there is no way to downplay this, and that any attempt to do so now will directly result in loss of market-share down the road.

Don't worry, they'll start nibbling shortly.

Watch for the "damning but". As in: "Elections went well, BUT Sunnis were under-represented" or "Elections went well, BUT now the new government has to deal with the security situation".

Oh noes, the evil liberals!
Here's something for you: I live in Vermont, in an ultra-liberal neighborhood. We have our own paper, and they supported the Iraqi elections. Our local news station tends to have a liberal bent, and they were going on at great length about how great a success this was compared to what they had expected.

Not all liberals are the same...

Very true, my friend. You may not believe this, based on many of my posts, but the US needs every "liberal" it can get, just like we need every "conservative" we can get. The truth probably lies somewhere between the two and it's up to all of us to make certain we find it. :)

Very true, my friend. You may not believe this, based on many of my posts, but the US needs every "liberal" it can get, just like we need every "conservative" we can get. The truth probably lies somewhere between the two and it's up to all of us to make certain we find it. :)

Eutrusca, I don't disagree, and I don't think you've heard me engage in liberal bashing, but there is a certain shall we say tunnel vision which is fairly common in US media, especially at the national level. Most newsrooms pretty much see things the same way, and there is a disturbing tendency to make facts fit their preconceived notions and sweep inconvenient facts under the rug. It doesn't change until something big happens, like Rathergate, and maybe not even then.

It works somewhat like this:

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20050128-083216-1353r.htm
If a battle ends with Americans killing 100 guerrillas and terrorists, while sustaining 10 fatalities, that is an American victory. But not in the mainstream media. The headline is more likely to read: "Ten more Americans killed in Iraq today."
This kind of journalism can turn victory into defeat in print or on TV. Kept up long enough, it can even end up in real defeat, when support for the war collapses at home and abroad.
One of the biggest American victories during the World War II was called "the great Marianas turkey shoot" because American fighter pilots shot down more than 340 Japanese planes over the Marianas Islands while losing only 30 American planes. But what if current reporting practices had been used back then?
The story, as printed and broadcast, could have been: "Today 18 American pilots were killed and five more severely wounded, as the Japanese blasted more than two-dozen American planes out of the sky." A steady diet of such one-sided reporting and our whole war effort against Japan might have collapsed.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1107126609395&call_pageid=970599119419

"None of us who have always been free can understand the terrible
fascinating power of the hope of freedom to those who are not free." - Pearl S. Buck

Eutrusca, I don't disagree, and I don't think you've heard me engage in liberal bashing, but there is a certain shall we say tunnel vision which is fairly common in US media, especially at the national level. Most newsrooms pretty much see things the same way, and there is a disturbing tendency to make facts fit their preconceived notions and sweep inconvenient facts under the rug. It doesn't change until something big happens, like Rathergate, and maybe not even then.

It works somewhat like this:

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20050128-083216-1353r.htm

"That awful power, the public opinion of a nation, is created in America by a horde of ignorant, self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditching and shoemaking and fetched up in journalism on their way to the poorhouse." - Mark Twain :D

What do you mean "they don't want you to see"? Pro-occupation, pro-American, pro-election coverage was plastered all over CNN and all the major networks for hours last night.

Watch for the "damning but". As in: "Elections went well, BUT Sunnis were under-represented" or "Elections went well, BUT now the new government has to deal with the security situation".


Are you suggesting that the Media should ignore the "buts"?

Or that the new government will not have to deal with the security situation?

What exactly is your complaint on that Cassisni? It makes little sense to me.


I dunno Cassini, but the fact that the news doesn't always paint a rosy picture is sometimes because there ARE still issues to be dealt with.

A media that just puts out the good news is no more useful than one that just puts out the bad.

Are you suggesting that the Media should ignore the "buts"?

Or that the new government will not have to deal with the security situation?

What exactly is your complaint on that Cassisni? It makes little sense to me.

I dunno Cassini, but the fact that the news doesn't always paint a rosy picture is sometimes because there ARE still issues to be dealt with.

A media that just puts out the good news is no more useful than one that just puts out the bad.

I think his objection is more that he feels the media tends to paint a more negative picture of Iraq than is warranted by the facts.

What do you mean "they don't want you to see"? Pro-occupation, pro-American, pro-election coverage was plastered all over CNN and all the major networks for hours last night.

And you find something wrong with pro-liberation, pro-American, pro-election coverage?

(I think it is only "pro-occupation" in your imagination - I don't believe *anyone* would say that we should keep troops in Iraq as a goal in itself).

I found the major networks and newspapers reticent about showing the kind of images I selected, even though they had plenty of them. Instead they focus either on individual Iraqi voters or on US troops. They are picking up a little now, but I have only seen that type of image prominently featured on Fox and WaPo, out of the majors.

Eutrusca, I don't disagree, and I don't think you've heard me engage in liberal bashing, but there is a certain shall we say tunnel vision which is fairly common in US media, especially at the national level. Most newsrooms pretty much see things the same way, and there is a disturbing tendency to make facts fit their preconceived notions and sweep inconvenient facts under the rug. It doesn't change until something big happens, like Rathergate, and maybe not even then.

It works somewhat like this:

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20050128-083216-1353r.htm


And sometimes it gets skewed the other way Cassini. I posted this in another thread, but to point it out in the favour of hyping for the good,we get BS articles like this as well: (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050131/wl_mideast_afp/iraqvoteforeigniom&cid=1514&ncid=1480)

It starts off with a big bold title:

Nearly 94 percent of registered expats voted in Iraq election: IOM

Wow! Impressive! Iraqi expatriots really cared!

you read the first few paragraphs to get the details and you get:

Nearly 94 percent of Iraqi expatriates registered to vote outside Iraq (news - web sites) took part in elections for the country's new transitional assembly, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) said.

Some 265,148 Iraqis living abroad, representing 93.6 percent of registered voters in 14 countries, cast their ballots in the election for Iraq's Transitional National Assembly Election over the past three days, the IOM said in a statement.

The Geneva-based IOM was appointed by Iraq's electoral commission to organise out-of-country voting.

Counting of the votes cast abroad was underway in many of the countries and the final results would be sent to Iraq's national electoral commission in Baghdad by February 5, the agency said.


The IOM said it was up to the commission to announce the certified result.


Way to go ex-pats!!!! Woohoo! a rallying force for freedom!

Then comes the one qualifying line in the middle:

The turnout of voters abroad is equivalent to about one quarter of the one million Iraqis living abroad and estimated by the IOM to be eligible

What the hell? how is 25% something to trumpet as a huge turnout? Hell - they only registered last week so the fact that those who went to the effort to register acually voted a few days later is hardly suprising is it? FAct is that the turnout for ex-patriots was dismal!

But then the report ends on that up-beat feeling again:

We are delighted that the three days of polling went smoothly and that so many expatriate Iraqis took this historic opportunity to vote," said Peter Erben, Director of IOM's Iraqi voting programme.


"I have worked on many post-conflict out-of-country elections but this is honestly the first time I have seen this level of emotion and excitement among voters."


"We have had people turning up to the polls in traditional dress, people dancing in the street afterwards, and many, many people proudly holding up their inked finger as a sign of their freedom to choose their future leaders," Erben added.



Yep, the 25% of ex-patriots who cared enough to vote were passionate about it. I'm happy for them.

But still this seems a way to spin a good news story out of the fact that 3/4's of the exile population didn't care enough to bother voting, and that should have been the more prominent aspect of the story about their behavious regarding the election.

1. I find it interesting that anything bad is reported in the media about Iraq shows how incompetent Bush is, yet anything good is obviously propoganda.
(and vice versa, for that matter)

2. I really, really hope the election is indeed a solid step in getting Iraq stable so we can be out of there by 2010. That said, I doubt I'll be vacationing there any time soon.

-Markreich

Do you know who Queensryche is? Vote here!! : http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=389278

What exactly is your complaint on that Cassisni? It makes little sense to me.

I dunno Cassini, but the fact that the news doesn't always paint a rosy picture is sometimes because there ARE still issues to be dealt with.

A media that just puts out the good news is no more useful than one that just puts out the bad.

A quick summary:
"biased" - has an agenda or point of view (used pejoratively esp when someone claims to be neutral but is not)
"neutral" - not biased, without an agenda, impartial to different points of view
"objective" - accurately and farily representing all relevant facts, without omitting any

In short: everyone is biased. Not a problem, although it is nice if they tell us what their bias is explicitly.

My complaint is that we have a mass media which is largely non-objective. Facts are *not* accurately represented, and *many* relevant facts are omitted.

A quick summary:
"biased" - has an agenda or point of view (used pejoratively esp when someone claims to be neutral but is not)
"neutral" - not biased, without an agenda, impartial to different points of view
"objective" - accurately and farily representing all relevant facts, without omitting any

In short: everyone is biased. Not a problem, although it is nice if they tell us what their bias is explicitly.

My complaint is that we have a mass media which is largely non-objective. Facts are *not* accurately represented, and *many* relevant facts are omitted.

Zepp may be confused because he believes that objective news sources exist. To him, sources like the New York Times and NPR are probably sacrosanct and unbelievably unbiased and truthful.

Zepp may be confused because he believes that objective news sources exist. To him, sources like the New York Times and NPR are probably sacrosanct and unbelievably unbiased and truthful.

I don't claim to know anything about the NY Times, as I don't read it. However, my experience with NPR has been that they report the news in a very objective manner.

WaPo "Bombing Doesn't Deter These Voters" - indeed, nor doom-and-gloom media coverage

NY Times "For a Battered Populace, a Day of Civic Passion" - read "they had their day in the sun, now back to the regular schedule of stories about bombings"

LA Times "Millions of Iraqis Vote Despite Deadly Threats" - read "idiots should have known better, why won't they listen to us?"
Wow, looks like you're desperate to prove that the media is anti-elections. Those NY and LA headlines sound congratulatory to the Iraqis. You think that, as in you "translation" that the LA Times was making threats to the Iraqis?

deja vu...

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nytimes/82602711.html?did=82602711&FMT=ABS&FMTS=AI&date=Sep+4%2C+1967&author=By+PETER+GROSE+Special+to+The+New+York+Times&desc=U.S.+ENCOURAGED+BY+VIETNAM+VOTE
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nytimes/results.html?st=advanced&datetype=0&sortby=RELEVANCE&restrict=articles&QryTxt=Officials%20Cite%2083%%20Turnout%20Despite%20Vietcong%20Terror

Top 5 Reasons why this Iraq War is not like Viet Nam:

1) The French are not invovled. Victory is almost assured.
2) The British ARE involved. Victory is almost assured.
3) Ho was the George Washington of his people. Iraq has no such person at this time. And certainly not one against the Coalition.
4) The USSR, China and 11 other like minded nations are not backing the enemy. In fact, the terrorists aren't even a country.

and... (drumroll)
5) The terrorists keep killing Iraqis. The VC did not do this.

-Markreich

Do you know who Queensryche is? Vote here!! : http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=389278

Yep, the 25% of ex-patriots who cared enough to vote were passionate about it. I'm happy for them.

But still this seems a way to spin a good news story out of the fact that 3/4's of the exile population didn't care enough to bother voting, and that should have been the more prominent aspect of the story about their behavious regarding the election.

Zep: there is a very large Iraqi community in the USA, some say 1.5-2 million. However there were very very few voting centers, and I think that is somewhat deliberate. It would have looked bad if a large percentage of the people who voted were out-of-country, and especially if most had voted from the USA, and I think that is why. Btw there was only one center west of the Rockies which was supposed to service ~100,000 people, and it was *not* in the city which has the largest population (San Diego).

So, yeah, the story tries to spin it. Here is what an objective story would say:

"In Western USA, approximately 5% of the estimated population 70-100,000 of eligible Iraqi immigrants participated in the elections at the single polling center in Irvine which serviced the area. Those who did had to travel an average of 500 miles twice, first to register in person and then to vote. The turnout was disappointing but not unexpected considering the difficulty of participating."

I think it's great that the Iraqis are having their first real election. Granted, the Islamic fundamentalists won't be too happy about it, but if the security stays the way it is, it should turn out fine.

I don't claim to know anything about the NY Times, as I don't read it. However, my experience with NPR has been that they report the news in a very objective manner.

NPR leans left. By that, I mean 2 on a scale going from zero (objective) to 10 in either direction (10 liberal 0 10 conservative).

I listen to it as it balances out MSNBC.

-Markreich

Do you know who Queensryche is? Vote here!! : http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=389278

Top 5 Reasons why this Iraq War is not like Viet Nam:

1) The French are not invovled. Victory is almost assured.
2) The British ARE involved. Victory is almost assured.
3) Ho was the George Washington of his people. Iraq has no such person at this time. And certainly not one against the Coalition.
4) The USSR, China and 11 other like minded nations are not backing the enemy. In fact, the terrorists aren't even a country.

and... (drumroll)
5) The terrorists keep killing Iraqis. The VC did not do this.

Unfortunately:

1) The French *are* involved (in the UN, oil contracts, and possibly more)
4) Russia, China *may* be backing the enemy. Many other like-minded nations certainly are (Iran, Syria)
5) Yep, the VC kept killing Vietnamese people. I don't know if they ever did anything as egregious as the car-bomb attacks against the Shia religious festival last year, but still...

I've a different list...

1) Vietnam was not ruled by Saddam before we came
2) There weren't two religious groups in Vietnam who really don't like each other, and one of them didn't rule over the other one
3) Al-Sistani is the Islamic version of Martin Luther
4) Iraq is a desert, not a jungle
5) All-volunteer military
6) We've seen the media coverage of Vietnam already, re-runs are booooring
7) The Internet will get the *real* news out

Very true, my friend. You may not believe this, based on many of my posts, but the US needs every "liberal" it can get, just like we need every "conservative" we can get. The truth probably lies somewhere between the two and it's up to all of us to make certain we find it. :)
What? I remember you during the 2004 election campaign calling for the death of liberalism in America on a near-daily basis!

I don't claim to know anything about the NY Times, as I don't read it. However, my experience with NPR has been that they report the news in a very objective manner.

NPR varies between pretty good and abysmal. They rarely if ever say anything which is flat out *wrong*, but they often omit things which should not be omitted, and their selection of guest speakers or quotable people leaves something to be desired.

NPR varies between pretty good and abysmal. They rarely if ever say anything which is flat out *wrong*, but they often omit things which should not be omitted, and their selection of guest speakers or quotable people leaves something to be desired.

I was speaking specifically of news coverage - not so much of their talk shows, etc. - although I rather enjoy several of them.

Zep: there is a very large Iraqi community in the USA, some say 1.5-2 million. However there were very very few voting centers, and I think that is somewhat deliberate. It would have looked bad if a large percentage of the people who voted were out-of-country, and especially if most had voted from the USA, and I think that is why. Btw there was only one center west of the Rockies which was supposed to service ~100,000 people, and it was *not* in the city which has the largest population (San Diego).

So, yeah, the story tries to spin it. Here is what an objective story would say:

"In Western USA, approximately 5% of the estimated population 70-100,000 of eligible Iraqi immigrants participated in the elections at the single polling center in Irvine which serviced the area. Those who did had to travel an average of 500 miles twice, first to register in person and then to vote. The turnout was disappointing but not unexpected considering the difficulty of participating."


Well frankly I think you are spinning it fairly hard in teh other direction Cassini.

My only point was that you were seeming to assert at first that thjee news was always, as an entity, spinning things in one direction and I thought that to be an unfair generalization and so I responded with an opposite example.

I've said it once, I'll say it again: This election means very little. It is a beginning, yes, but it is not going to stop the bloodshed. Everyone keeps calling this a victory over the "Islamic Fundamentalists", but it isn't. Why? Here's why:

1] I am an "Islamic Fundamentalist". I believe in the fundamental core of Islam and I strive to live my life based on it every day. The election in Iraq will not change my life at all. Trust me.

[However, maybe they mean the "insurgents", and in that case ...]

2] The insurgents are not fighting to stop the elections. The insurgents are fighting to end the occupation of their homeland and the only reason they have any opposition to the election is because they do not trust the US Government to carry out a fair and impartial election. Can you blame them?

[Okay, so maybe it's because Muslims hate freedom and democracy ...]

3] Islam teaches Democracy. Islam taught that government must be established by the voice of the people 1300 years before Thomas Jefferson said the same thing.

[Fine then, those silly cave dwellers want their mullahs in power ...]

4] I'm sure you're all hearing on the news every day about "Sunni this" and "Shi'ite that". Probably in the capacity of the "downtrodden Shi'ite minority" and the "Sunni terrorist insurgents". Newsflash: The Shi'ites are, basically, the Orthodox of the Muslims. Wherever they are in power, a Muslim theocracy is the rule. Sunni's tend to be more liberal and secular. In the world, Sunnis outnumber Shi'ites by 11-1. What will you flag-waving Americans be thinking when a Mullah is in power in Iraq after all is said and done? Your puppet regime will be nothing more than a new Iran, building nukes secretly, and calling you the "Great Satan". I will be proud.

[Great ... so we don't know anything about Islam or Muslim politics ... now what?]

Get out! Get out of Iraq! Let the UN Peacekeepers come back in and do their job and recall every single US troop back home. After all ... don't you have to plan for Syria or Iran or N. Korea or something?

Elections or not, 95% turn-out or 10% turn-out doesn't matter. The violence and fighting will continue. I, for one, will be watching, just as I watched the thousands killed after "Mission Accomplished".

I don't claim to know anything about the NY Times, as I don't read it. However, my experience with NPR has been that they report the news in a very objective manner.

I have never, ever heard objective reporting about firearms on NPR. It has all been universally negative. Statistics and researchers (including those of the Justice Department) are never mentioned if they show the slightest indication that liberalization of gun ownership lowers crime. They are quite ready to skew statistics by (in an unspoken manner) including 21 year olds as "children".

The local NPR outlet here went all out to have speakers on the air against the concealed carry law that went into effect. Their voice fell on deaf ears - the law passed. Then they warned of dire effects - gunplay in the streets - which never materialized. They warned of more crime - the crime rate in the state plummeted while the crime in the adjacent areas with more gun laws went up. They even went to bat for the assault weapons ban - which expired. Of course, they couldn't bring up any statistics to show that the ban had had any effect whatsoever - but that didn't prevent them from interviewing only their own side of things.

Not one - not one pro-gun person was interviewed. There are plenty of scholars today who have done the research on their own and for the Federal government - but you won't see any of them on NPR.

Zepp may be confused because he believes that objective news sources exist. To him, sources like the New York Times and NPR are probably sacrosanct and unbelievably unbiased and truthful.


Thak you for giving my opinion for me. Can I expect you to do so all the time? Or should I still give them anyway?

Oh look - here's a nice nugget from that sacrosanct and unbelievably unbiased and truthful paper - the New York times.

Gosh yeah! Those guys sure know what they are talking about.....

U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote :
Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror

by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times (9/4/1967: p. 2)

WASHINGTON, Sept. 3-- United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.

According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong.

The size of the popular vote and the inability of the Vietcong to destroy the election machinery were the two salient facts in a preliminary assessment of the nation election based on the incomplete returns reaching here.



:D

The fact that you don't agre with me, Whisper, is a pretty poor reason to diminish yourself with such childishness as that comment. But hey - it's a free internet so knock yourself out.

I have never, ever heard objective reporting about firearms on NPR. It has all been universally negative. Statistics and researchers (including those of the Justice Department) are never mentioned if they show the slightest indication that liberalization of gun ownership lowers crime. They are quite ready to skew statistics by (in an unspoken manner) including 21 year olds as "children".

I've never heard any reporting at all about firearms on NPR.

Not one - not one pro-gun person was interviewed. There are plenty of scholars today who have done the research on their own and for the Federal government - but you won't see any of them on NPR.

I have yet to hear a news-related program on NPR where at least two viewpoints weren't raised. Perhaps this is an anomoly related to your particular area?

The last wave of national reporting on firearms on NPR was right before the sunset of the assault weapons ban (not really an assault weapons ban, but a ban on cosmetic features that make a gun "look" like it belongs in a movie).

The other reporting is from WAMU. Before and after the little diatribes on the evil of guns (prior to the concealed carry law was a complete storm of editorials), we hear that we're listening to NPR.

I just listened to a news broadcast by the "evil" NPR. They talked about and praised the people for voting......

I just listened to a news broadcast by the "evil" NPR. They talked about and praised the people for voting......

Ah, so now they're saying the same stuff Fox says.

Does that make them biased now?

Unfortunately:

1) The French *are* involved (in the UN, oil contracts, and possibly more)
4) Russia, China *may* be backing the enemy. Many other like-minded nations certainly are (Iran, Syria)
5) Yep, the VC kept killing Vietnamese people. I don't know if they ever did anything as egregious as the car-bomb attacks against the Shia religious festival last year, but still...

1) The French are not involved on the side of the Coalition. :)
4) No way Russia/China. They have ZERO to gain by arming the terrorists. Esp. Russia, what with Chechnya and all. The Iranians and Syrians? Maybe. But that's not gonna come close to US aid to the rebels in Afghanistan in the 80s.
5) The VC's SOP was to not kill Vietnamese unless they aided the US or French, and not even then unless it was VERY necessary.


I've a different list...

1) Vietnam was not ruled by Saddam before we came
2) There weren't two religious groups in Vietnam who really don't like each other, and one of them didn't rule over the other one
3) Al-Sistani is the Islamic version of Martin Luther
4) Iraq is a desert, not a jungle
5) All-volunteer military
6) We've seen the media coverage of Vietnam already, re-runs are booooring
7) The Internet will get the *real* news out

1) Exactly! The French can't drag us in! :D
Seriously: You can't compare Ho to Saddam and come up with a good picture of Saddam. Had Kennedy not backed France early in Viet Nam, the whole thing never would have happened. By way of comparison, the US practically INSTALLED Saddam to counter Iran. We're cleaning up the mess we made.

2) No, but how about the Montargnards?
3) *Maybe*.
4) True. But I don't think terrain of either kind helps nor hurts the Coalition much. The US, UK and Italy have each fought no less than 4 desert wars since 1940.
5) That is true. Jury is out if it can sustain itself, tho.
6) So is seeing the same story on CNN every 20 minutes, but some people do it...
7) *Maybe*. And yes, that cuts both ways.

-Markreich

Do you know who Queensryche is? Vote here!! : http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=389278

Ah, so now they're saying the same stuff Fox says.

Does that make them biased now?

No actually they talk about the people rather then propaganda.

They talked about the one suicide bomber that killed 3 people and shutdown the polling station. But people refused to go home so they re-opened it.

They talked about the security and what they were doing.

One guy talked about the your neighbor blessing the voting which he said people would see their neighbors walking towards the voting stations and so they said "hey if he is so will I"

There was no slant that I could perceive. They were just trying to give the impression of what was going on there and the people there would answer questions from those that called in.

The "evil" comment was because quite a few conservatives try to label them as an extreame left radio.....

I've said it once, I'll say it again: This election means very little. It is a beginning, yes, but it is not going to stop the bloodshed. Everyone keeps calling this a victory over the "Islamic Fundamentalists", but it isn't. Why? Here's why:

[QUOTE=Keruvalia]1] I am an "Islamic Fundamentalist". I believe in the fundamental core of Islam and I strive to live my life based on it every day. The election in Iraq will not change my life at all. Trust me.

We are fighting Islamists (defined as people who believe government by councils of clerics and in violent seizure of power, basically Islam-as-political-ideology). I trust you do not believe the US government should be overthrown because it consists of infidels?

2] The insurgents are not fighting to stop the elections. The insurgents are fighting to end the occupation of their homeland and the only reason they have any opposition to the election is because they do not trust the US Government to carry out a fair and impartial election. Can you blame them?

They are fighting to "end the occupation"? Really...

Zarqawi: "We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology".

By the way the US would like absolutely nothing better than to *end the occupation*, but not if it means that another tyrant will rise to power.

By the way, the Iraqis themselves are carrying out the election. None of the election workers are American, in most places poll security is entirely Iraqi with Americans some distance away for backup. There are at least 18,000 Iraqi election monitors. They are doing the counting too. All we are doing is making sure nobody blows them up.

Fair and impartial? It is *not* fair, because people in some areas were prevented from voting, *but not by us*. Blame the terrorists.

3] Islam teaches Democracy. Islam taught that government must be established by the voice of the people 1300 years before Thomas Jefferson said the same thing.

That is true, but it is not what you guys practice now. Is Iran the government established by the voice of the people? Is Syria? Was the Afghanistan?

Face it, the only more-or-less democratic governments in the Middle East are also secular. Islam may have taught democracy once, but not for the past 1300 years.

4] I'm sure you're all hearing on the news every day about "Sunni this" and "Shi'ite that". Probably in the capacity of the "downtrodden Shi'ite minority" and the "Sunni terrorist insurgents".

It's the Shiite *majority* actually (60-65%). Kurds who also rather like democracy are another 20%. And yes, most insurgents are Sunni (<15%). Look at a map of the attacks, they happen mostly in Sunni areas: http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/attacks2.JPG

Newsflash: The Shi'ites are, basically, the Orthodox of the Muslims. Wherever they are in power, a Muslim theocracy is the rule. Sunni's tend to be more liberal and secular. In the world, Sunnis outnumber Shi'ites by 11-1. What will you flag-waving Americans be thinking when a Mullah is in power in Iraq after all is said and done? Your puppet regime will be nothing more than a new Iran, building nukes secretly, and calling you the "Great Satan". I will be proud.

We'll see.

Get out! Get out of Iraq! Let the UN Peacekeepers come back in and do their job and recall every single US troop back home.

Oh, you want your darling Baathists to set up another Saddam, maybe? Or Zarqawi to set up the "Iraqi Taliban" government? Or Al-Sadr to set up another Iran? No thanks.

Frankly I don't think any of them will succeed, but they will try, and many people (hundreds of thousands) will die before they are put down.

And get this, there are *no* UN Peacekeepers coming.

Keruvalia, I've just one more message for you: you've obviously been brainwashed by your religion, you believe all the terrorist propaganda. Just try listening to the Iraqi people for once. They spoke loud and clear yesterday.

Oh noes, the evil liberals!
Here's something for you: I live in Vermont, in an ultra-liberal neighborhood. We have our own paper, and they supported the Iraqi elections. Our local news station tends to have a liberal bent, and they were going on at great length about how great a success this was compared to what they had expected.

Not all liberals are the same...
And I live in Southern Maine (Cape Porpoise, which is a village of Bush's summerhouse town, Kennebunkport), 20 miles from Portland and 70 from Boston, and those two cities are about as liberal as you can get, so all I hear is about how the elections are going to fail, how Iraq is a huge mess, how Bush is a war criminal, how awesome France and the UN are, your local news might have a left leaning, mine has almost an ultra-left leaning, not to mention the fact that my school paper, which is written by the students, spouts off nothing but Bush bashing rhetoric, it's no wonder I have such a deep hatred for liberals right now.