NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: Well, here we go again. The troops vs. the media. Shades of Vietnam! :(


How Troops see Iraq (http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,81390,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl)


Christian Science Monitor | November 28, 2005
BROOK PARK, OHIO - Cpl. Stan Mayer has seen the worst of war. In the leaves of his photo album, there are casual memorials to the cost of the Iraq conflict - candid portraits of friends who never came home and graphic pictures of how insurgent bombs have shredded steel and bone.

Yet the Iraq of Corporal Mayer's memory is not solely a place of death and loss. It is also a place of hope. It is the hope of the town of Hit, which he saw transform from an insurgent stronghold to a place where kids played on Marine trucks. It is the hope of villagers who whispered where roadside bombs were hidden. But most of all, it is the hope he saw in a young Iraqi girl who loved pens and Oreo cookies.

Like many Soldiers and Marines returning from Iraq, Mayer looks at the bleak portrayal of the war at home with perplexity - if not annoyance. It is a perception gap that has put the military and media at odds, as troops complain that the media care only about death tolls, while the media counter that their Job is to look at the broader picture, not through the soda straw of troops' individual experiences.

Yet as perceptions about Iraq have neared a tipping point in Congress, some Soldiers and Marines worry that their own stories are being lost in the cacophony of terror and fear. They acknowledge that their experience is just that - one person's experience in one corner of a war-torn country. Yet amid the terrible scenes of reckless hate and lives lost, many members of one of the hardest-hit units insist that they saw at least the spark of progress.

"We know we made a positive difference," says Cpl. Jeff Schuller of the 3rd Battalion, 25th Marines, who spent all but one week of his eight-month tour with Mayer. "I can't say at what level, but I know that where we were, we made it better than it was when we got there."

It is the simplest measure of success, but for the Marine, Soldier, or Sailor, it may be the only measure of success. In a business where life and death rest on instinctive adherence to thoroughly ingrained lessons, accomplishment is ticked off in a list of orders followed and tasks completed. And by virtually any measure, America's servicemen and women are accomplishing the day-to-day tasks set before them.

Yet for the most part, America is less interested in the success of Operation Iron Fist, for instance, than the course of the entire Iraq enterprise. "What the national news media try to do is figure out: What's the overall verdict?" says Brig. Gen. Volney Warner, deputy commandant of the Army Command and General Staff College. "Soldiers don't do overall verdicts."

Yet Soldiers clearly feel that important elements are being left out of the media's overall verdict. On this day, a group of Navy medics gather around a table in the Cleveland-area headquarters of the 3/25 - a Marine reserve unit that has converted a low-slung school of pale brick and linoleum tile into its spectacularly red-and-gold offices.

Their conversation could be a road map of the kind of stories that military folks say the mainstream media are missing. One colleague made prosthetics for an Iraqi whose hand and foot had been cut off by insurgents. When other members of the unit were sweeping areas for bombs, the medics made a practice of holding impromptu infant clinics on the side of the road.

They remember one Iraqi man who could not hide his joy at the marvel of an electric razor. And at the end of the 3/25's tour, a member of the Iraqi Army said: "Marines are not friends; Marines are brothers," says Lt. Richard Malmstrom, the battalion's chaplain.

"It comes down to the familiar debate about whether reporters are ignoring the good news," says Peter Hart, an analyst at Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting, a usually left-leaning media watchdog in New York.

In Hit, where Marines stayed in force to keep the peace, the progress was obvious, say members of the 3/25. The residents started burning trash and fixing roads - a sign that the city was returning to a sense of normalcy. Several times, "people came up to us [and said]: 'There's a bomb on the side of the road. Don't go there,' " says Pfc. Andrew Howland.

Part of the reason that such stories usually aren't told is simply the nature of the war. Kidnappings and unclear battle lines have made war correspondents' Jobs almost impossible. Travel around the country is dangerous, and some reporters never venture far from their hotels. "It has to have some effect on what we see: You end up with reporting that waits for the biggest explosion of the day," says Mr. Hart.

To the Marines of the 3/25, the explosions clearly do not tell the whole story. Across America, many readers know the 3/25 only as the unit that lost 15 Marines in less than a week - nine of them in the deadliest roadside bombing against U.S. forces during the war. When the count of Americans killed in Iraq reached 2,000, this unit again found itself in the stage lights of national notice as one of the hardest hit.

But that is not the story they tell. It is more than just the dire tone of coverage - though that is part of it. It is that Iraq has touched some of these men in ways that even they have trouble explaining. This, after all, has not been a normal war. Corporals Mayer and Schuller went over not to conquer a country, but to help win its hearts and minds. In some cases, though, it won theirs.

Schuller, a heavyweight college wrestler with a thatch of blond hair and engine blocks for arms, cannot help smiling when he speaks of giving an old man a lighter: "He thought it was the coolest thing." Yet both he and the blue-eyed, square-jawed Mayer pause for a moment before they talk about the two 9-year-old Iraqis whom members of their battalion dubbed their "girlfriends."

The first time he saw them, Mayer admits that he was making the calculations of a man in the midst of a war. He was tired, he was battered, and he was back at a Hit street corner that he had patrolled many times before. In Iraq, repetition of any sort could be an invitation of the wrong sort - an event for which insurgents could plan. So Mayer and Schuller took out some of the candy they carried, thinking that if children were around, perhaps the terrorists wouldn't attack.

It was a while before the children realized that these two Marines, laden with arms to the limit of physical endurance, were not going to hurt them. But among the children who eventually came, climbing on the pair's truck and somersaulting in the street, there were always the same two girls. When they went back to base, they began to hoard Oreos and other candy in a box.

"They became our one little recess from the war," says Mayer. "You're seeing some pretty ridiculous tragedies way too frequently, and you start to get jaded. The kids on that street - I got to realize I was still a human being to them."

It happened one day when he was on patrol. Out of nowhere, a car turned the corner and headed down the alley at full speed. "A car coming at you real fast and not stopping in Iraq is not what you want to see," says Mayer. Yet instead of jumping in his truck, he stood in the middle of the street and pushed the kids behind him.

The car turned. Now, Mayer and Schuller can finish each other's sentences when they think about the experience. "You really start to believe that you protect the innocent," says Schuller. "It sounds like a stupid cliché...."

"But it's not," adds Mayer. "You are in the service of others."

For Mayer, who joined the reserves because he wanted to do something bigger than himself, and for Schuller, a third-generation Marine, Iraq has given them a sense of achievement. Now when they look at the black-and-white pictures of Marines past in the battalion headquarters, "We're adding to that legacy," says Schuller.

This is what they wish to share with the American people - and is also the source of their frustration. Their eight months in Iraq changed their lives, and they believe it has changed the lives of the Iraqis they met as well. On the day he left, Mayer gave his "girlfriend" a bunch of pens - her favorite gift - wrapped in a paper that had a picture of the American flag, the Iraqi flag, and a smiley face. The man with the lighter asked Schuller if he was coming back. He will if called upon, he says.

Whether or not these notes of grace and kindness are as influential as the dirge of war is open to question. But many in the military feel that they should at least be a part of the conversation.

Says Warner of reaching an overall verdict: "I'm not sure that reporting on terrorist bombings with disproportionate ink is adequately answering that question."

COMMENTARY: Well, here we go again. The troops vs. the media. Shades of Vietnam! :(


Thing is, there is always one more side, no less important but certainly less appreciated.

Someday, maybe, the children, or the driver of that car will tell their stories. Those may be just as moving and christmassy.

Many returning service men and women I have spoken to said the media portrayal of the Iraq occupation is completely off base, and many many good things are being accomplished. But, god news does not sell, "if it bleeds, it leads."

So what does this show?

That some tiny shreds of good are being done in an illegal, unprovoked, and unwanted war?

This is nice to hear, dont get me wrong, but does anyone think that Iraq is now, or ever will be, a land of rainbows and duckies?

In fact, I'll go so far as to say that I expect to hear this kind of thing from time to time. I would be ashamed to call myself an American, if I didnt.
However, this does not exscuse, nor make me forget about the sheer evil-ness of the basis behind this tyrranical display of money-mongering.

Aw, not this again. We get it!

Bad media... baaaad media *slaps snout with a rolled up newspaper*

Down boy.

Many returning service men and women I have spoken to said the media portrayal of the Iraq occupation is completely off base, and many many good things are being accomplished. But, god news does not sell, "if it bleeds, it leads."
I agree. I too have talked with quite a number of returning soldiers and Marines who ask, "Is this the same war we're reading about?" We asked much the same thing coming back from Vietnam. Some things never seem to change. :(

So what does this show?

That some tiny shreds of good are being done in an illegal, unprovoked, and unwanted war?

This is nice to hear, dont get me wrong, but does anyone think that Iraq is now, or ever will be, a land of rainbows and duckies?

In fact, I'll go so far as to say that I expect to hear this kind of thing from time to time. I would be ashamed to call myself an American, if I didnt.
However, this does not exscuse, nor make me forget about the sheer evil-ness of the basis behind this tyrranical display of money-mongering.
Nice rant. :rolleyes:

Aw, not this again. We get it!

Bad media... baaaad media *slaps snout with a rolled up newspaper*

Down boy.
Heh! ( shrug ) They're just being what and who they are: "Compound Commandos," reporting the "news" from behind the safety of a wall of American soldiers. :(

1) The news relies on short sharp pieces. Explosions are good for this.
2) Everybody thinks the media is biased towards the other side.

It's the nature of the beast, and I doubt it's going to change.



I guess we can still all sit around and bitch about it *shrug*

Well, whaddya expect?! Its the media- bad news sells more than good. Hardly the fault of soldiers, pro- or anti- war people.

Personlly, I prefer Reuters, AP, AFP or Journalistes san Frontiers for actual news rather then slanted reports.
*shrug*

I'm not sure what the problem is. One would hope that the USian media and the USian soldiers are telling different stories. This way you have a dialectic. More than one viewpoint, andby looking at allofthem, you are forced to look at the contradictions, and the biases ofeach party become more visible. This leads you closer to the truth.

Wouldn't you be scared if the media and the military trumpeted the exact same slogans?

I mean, that's how China supposedly operates...

I agree. I too have talked with quite a number of returning soldiers and Marines who ask, "Is this the same war we're reading about?" We asked much the same thing coming back from Vietnam. Some things never seem to change. :(
The difference is one of perspective, and I imagine you know that, because you're not stupid, Eutrusca. Willfully blind, perhaps, but not stupid. Because we're not in the thick of it, we see the war from a wider point of view--including the chaos brought upon the area because of poor planning. We hear things like the former Prime Minister--our handpicked guy, remember--saying that the situation now is worse than it was under Saddam. Do you think any of these soldiers hear that? Probably not, because they're too busy dealing with the everyday job of trying to keep from getting their asses shot off. Is their perspective any less valid? Of course not. But it's as limited as ours is--just in a different way. They can't see the big picture, just as we can't see the small one.

.....But, god news does not sell, "if it bleeds, it leads."

Imagine the headlines; "Child meets Nice Stranger, Escapes unMolested"

Imagine the headlines; "Child meets Nice Stranger, Escapes unMolested"

How terrible!

How terrible!

Unthinkable, really. At least Unheard of.

The difference is one of perspective, and I imagine you know that, because you're not stupid, Eutrusca. Willfully blind, perhaps, but not stupid. Because we're not in the thick of it, we see the war from a wider point of view--including the chaos brought upon the area because of poor planning. We hear things like the former Prime Minister--our handpicked guy, remember--saying that the situation now is worse than it was under Saddam. Do you think any of these soldiers hear that? Probably not, because they're too busy dealing with the everyday job of trying to keep from getting their asses shot off. Is their perspective any less valid? Of course not. But it's as limited as ours is--just in a different way. They can't see the big picture, just as we can't see the small one.

And the news organizations are never going to show anything that works. I have many friends over there who have been told by photographers - "We're not taking pictures or videos unless shells are flying or people are being killed or people are fleeing in terror or rioting in the streets - anything else won't make it past the editor".

So they won't report on anything good being done. Won't report any comment by any Iraqi that life is better (the ones who complain it is worse get a shot at air time). Won't report any successes by soldiers. Won't report any happy event. And express incredulity at anything that is successful that happens to go off - like the elections. Doomsaying and dead people sells copy - anything else isn't the news.

Imagine the headlines; "Child meets Nice Stranger, Escapes unMolested"

Local areas should have a newspaper, or at least a section, with news like this. :P It would help to unbias the news in a positive way. I hate only hearing about tragic and horrible things. Good things and mundane things might make people realize the world isn't as dangerous as the media makes it out to be. :)

Nice rant. :rolleyes:

Yet he was right.

COMMENTARY: Well, here we go again. The troops vs. the media. Shades of Vietnam! :(
And nobody to blame but George W. Bush and his hawkish band of elite.

There are as many different opinions about the Iraq war among troops as there are among civilians. Is that a surprise? why should it be?

There are as many different opinions about the Iraq war among troops as there are among civilians. Is that a surprise? why should it be?

The surprise is that the media pretty much shows only one opinion (unless you're watching Fox - and even then, it's only explosions and death).

The surprise is that the media pretty much shows only one opinion (unless you're watching Fox - and even then, it's only explosions and death).

Funny, whenever I watch or listen to the news, I hear both sides.

Funny, whenever I watch or listen to the news, I hear both sides.
Funny, it's doomsaying, explosions, death, etc. In the past year, if I wanted to hear any good stories about any progress, I had to read emails from friends who were there.

Even the coverage of the Iraqi elections and Constitution are cloaked in doomsaying and second guessing - amongst pundits who don't even know when their own clothes are due at the cleaners.

Funny, it's doomsaying, explosions, death, etc. In the past year, if I wanted to hear any good stories about any progress, I had to read emails from friends who were there.

Even the coverage of the Iraqi elections and Constitution are cloaked in doomsaying and second guessing - amongst pundits who don't even know when their own clothes are due at the cleaners.

This is a prime example of selective filtering. You see what you want to see. If you looked at it without any filters you would notice that they almost always give the other side too.

This is a prime example of selective filtering. You see what you want to see. If you looked at it without any filters you would notice that they almost always give the other side too.
Thank you. I've been trying to say the same thing for what feels like months now.

Thank you. I've been trying to say the same thing for what feels like months now.
It's not selective filtering if that's what the photographers are telling the soldiers in Iraq. No, can't take pictures of the new school, because they won't get past the editor. Need an explosion, gunfire, or a complaining Iraqi.

It's not selective filtering if that's what the photographers are telling the soldiers in Iraq. No, can't take pictures of the new school, because they won't get past the editor. Need an explosion, gunfire, or a complaining Iraqi.
Bullshit. You and many others have had no problems providing to links to stories that talk about the "good news" coming out of Iraq. There have been entire threads devoted to the topic, posting nothing but links to good news coming out of Iraq. The stories come out--you just prefer to act as though they don't so you can rail about the liberal media rather than deal with the fact that your President took a pretty fucked-up situation in Iraq and made it completely fucked-up.

Okay. Some soldiers think we're doing a lot of good in Iraq. Other soldiers disagree. This isn't exactly a revelation.

I was there, and I can tell you first hand that the news is very heavily slanted, but it is very subtle.

When ever and Iraqi is quoted, its a Sunni. Sunnis are less than 20% of the population, but account for more than 90% of the insurgency. Western Baghdad is in worse shape than before the war, but thats becuase the utilites substations are located on the outer edge of the city, making it an easy target for insurgents. Of course, the media rarely says that the insurgency is responsible for bombing a sub station.

The farther out of Baghdad and the central part of the country that you get, the better things are. This doesn't make for good news, and doesn't show Bush in a bad light, so I won't make it on the air.

Bullshit. You and many others have had no problems providing to links to stories that talk about the "good news" coming out of Iraq. There have been entire threads devoted to the topic, posting nothing but links to good news coming out of Iraq. The stories come out--you just prefer to act as though they don't so you can rail about the liberal media rather than deal with the fact that your President took a pretty fucked-up situation in Iraq and made it completely fucked-up.

Then you shouldn't have a problem providing a link.

In fact, you should provide at least as many good links as there are stories coming out of Iraq today.

When ever and Iraqi is quoted, its a Sunni. Sunnis are less than 20% of the population, but account for more than 90% of the insurgency.
Well, don't you think thats WHY Sunni's would be quoted? Because they are the minority and are the cause of so much of the destruction?

Its no good interviewing the peaceful majority now is it?

"So, whats going on and more importantly ..why?"
"..gee, i dunno. Why don't you ask a Sunni, they're causing everything. They'll probably be able to answer more of those type of questions."

Bullshit. You and many others have had no problems providing to links to stories that talk about the "good news" coming out of Iraq. There have been entire threads devoted to the topic, posting nothing but links to good news coming out of Iraq. The stories come out--you just prefer to act as though they don't so you can rail about the liberal media rather than deal with the fact that your President took a pretty fucked-up situation in Iraq and made it completely fucked-up.

How many of these stories are leading ones? Any story that I've found that has good news about Iraq is buried at the back of the paper and have never seen one on TV other than on Fox. That doesn't happen on accident.

Presumably the Christian Science Monitor gave permission for this blatant ripping of their article? THESE EVIL PIRATES MUST BE CRUSHED :sniper: :sniper: :gundge: :gundge: :mp5: :mp5:

How many of these stories are leading ones? Any story that I've found that has good news about Iraq is buried at the back of the paper and have never seen one on TV other than on Fox. That doesn't happen on accident.
How many Iraq stories at all are leading ones these days? Let's do a rundown--MSNBC.com? Not a single Iraq story, unless you count a headline about the restarting of Saddam's trial. New York Times? Same story. Same with the Washington Post, the LA Times, and CNN.com. The big stories today seem to be about the weather and Christmas shopping. Why? Because the news media today--all of it--is primarily concerned with profit, not with getting news out there. Bitch them out if you want more news out of Iraq--just stop blaming the lack of news, good or otherwise, on some bullshit liberal bias.

How many Iraq stories at all are leading ones these days? Let's do a rundown--MSNBC.com? Not a single Iraq story, unless you count a headline about the restarting of Saddam's trial. New York Times? Same story. Same with the Washington Post, the LA Times, and CNN.com. The big stories today seem to be about the weather and Christmas shopping. Why? Because the news media today--all of it--is primarily concerned with profit, not with getting news out there. Bitch them out if you want more news out of Iraq--just stop blaming the lack of news, good or otherwise, on some bullshit liberal bias.
The liberal bias is not BS.
http://www.thetruthaboutiraq.org/media.htm

How many Iraq stories at all are leading ones these days? Let's do a rundown--MSNBC.com? Not a single Iraq story, unless you count a headline about the restarting of Saddam's trial. New York Times? Same story. Same with the Washington Post, the LA Times, and CNN.com. The big stories today seem to be about the weather and Christmas shopping. Why? Because the news media today--all of it--is primarily concerned with profit, not with getting news out there. Bitch them out if you want more news out of Iraq--just stop blaming the lack of news, good or otherwise, on some bullshit liberal bias.

I'll agree with you that the news is a pre packaged product, up for sale. But the bias is there. I would love to find a news outlet that didn't editorialize during news stories, or manufacture stories to hold up thier own view points. Fox and talk radio at least come out and tell you that the news is from a particular view point up front. I don't nessisarly like it, but I think that its at least more honest.

If you know of place that delivers just the news with no spin, please let me know becuase I haven't been able to find one.

The liberal bias is not BS.
http://www.thetruthaboutiraq.org/media.htm
Because a guy who worked for Paul Bremer in Iraq says so? Please, spare me from any more of your devastating argumentation. :rolleyes:

Because a guy who worked for Paul Bremer in Iraq says so? Please, spare me from any more of your devastating argumentation. :rolleyes:

I've spoken to a lot of soldiers who have been there or are there now - and not one has seen anything but bias in the news against US efforts there. And when the reporters tell these soldiers to their face that they won't cover a story that has a good side, if that isn't bias, then you don't know what bias is.

You're probably really happy that it's all bad news. In fact, you probably couldn't slant it any harder if you wanted to.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1840

Here's a classic example:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-6_7_04_MK.html
When Allawi says something good, it's not news.

When Allawi says that something is bad, it's news.

I've spoken to a lot of soldiers who have been there or are there now - and not one has seen anything but bias in the news against US efforts there. And when the reporters tell these soldiers to their face that they won't cover a story that has a good side, if that isn't bias, then you don't know what bias is.

You're probably really happy that it's all bad news. In fact, you probably couldn't slant it any harder if you wanted to.

I've had it said to me when I was there. One reporter for CNN I met was fired because he told his editors that he hadn't seen any "atrocites" committed by american soldiers, but had good footage of an insurgent strike that killed some kids. Showed some marines risking thier lives to get the kids out of the line of fire. He told me that his editors told him that if that was the best he couldn't get anything usable, then he was no longer needed. I can't remember his name for the life of me right now, but this converstion happened around july 20th at BIAP.

BTW, how many major media outlets decry the attrocities committed by the insurgents? You know, the beheadings, the mutilations, burning people alive, ect. None outiside of FOX and talk radio here in the States that I can find.

How many Iraq stories at all are leading ones these days? Let's do a rundown--MSNBC.com? Not a single Iraq story, unless you count a headline about the restarting of Saddam's trial. New York Times? Same story. Same with the Washington Post, the LA Times, and CNN.com. The big stories today seem to be about the weather and Christmas shopping. Why? Because the news media today--all of it--is primarily concerned with profit, not with getting news out there. Bitch them out if you want more news out of Iraq--just stop blaming the lack of news, good or otherwise, on some bullshit liberal bias.

War is all hell. There may be individual glimmers of humanity that individuals perform while condemned to the commission of the obscenity-- but war is all hell. We may be able to rationalize our involvement so we can sleep at night and look at ourselves in the mirror. We can convince ourselves that we did the right thing so the sacrifices of those that came back in body bags or suffered life-changing injuries did not do so in vain. But war, war is all hell.

From what I know; and granted my knowledge comes only from the information to which I have been exposed through the filter of media, and government, and society; the great majority of the people that make up the population of Iraq are damn happy that Saddam got the boot; is facing the music for his autrocities; and will pay the ultimate price for his crimes against his own people. It seems they could not have done this on their own despite the efforts of those who had committed themselves to deposing Hussain for years.

The rub, as always, is what's next?

There seemed to be some highly delusional thinking going on in Washington DC circles (real or faked for the cameras) that some well-spring of democracy was going to erupt and sweep modern thinking into Bagdad and create a land of freedom and opportunity for all. Except, they forgot to ask the Iraqis what they had in mind. When this pipe dream vanished we were left with the unpleasantness of policing the birthing of an Islamic republic led by a recently-freed disposessed majority and a seperate suppressed cultural minority looking to settle old scores with the former authoritarian minority. Throw in Allah; tons of guns and munitions; and an occupying alien military force and its just a God-awful mess that no amount of spin is going to make look good.

The liberal bias is not BS.
http://www.thetruthaboutiraq.org/media.htm
This just about says it all, doesn't it: "Another woman at that same party, a freelancer for several major magazines, said 'The entire goal of my reporting here is to make sure George W. Bush is not re-elected.'"

You're probably really happy that it's all bad news. In fact, you probably couldn't slant it any harder if you wanted to.
If you said that to my face, you'd be swallowing your teeth right now.

If you said that to my face, you'd be swallowing your teeth right now.
I believe you wanted evidence of liberal bias in the media.

Well, rather than go out and catalog it myself, I found that more than a few people do it on a regular basis.
http://www.thatliberalmedia.com/

Even a Democrat says the media has a liberal bias against our troops:
http://instapundit.com/archives/011631.php

If you said that to my face, you'd be swallowing your teeth right now.
I believe you wanted evidence of liberal bias in the media.

Well, rather than go out and catalog it myself, I found that more than a few people do it on a regular basis.
http://www.thatliberalmedia.com/

Even a Democrat says the media has a liberal bias against our troops:
http://instapundit.com/archives/011631.php

http://newsbusters.org/

Or maybe you should just read the study
http://www.mrc.org/specialreports/2005/pdf/TVs_Depressing_Iraq_News.pdf

Here's the summary:

■ Network coverage has been overwhelmingly pessimistic. More than half of all stories (848, or 61%) focused on negative topics or presented a pessimistic analysis of the situation, four times as many as featured U.S. or Iraqi achievements or offered an optimistic assessment (just 211 stories, or 15%).

■ News about the war has grown increasingly negative. In January and February, about a fifth of all network stories (21%) struck a hopeful note, while just over half presented a negative slant on the situation. By August and September, positive stories had fallen to a measly seven percent and the percentage of bad news stories swelled to 73 percent of all Iraq news, a ten-to-one disparity.

■ Terrorist attacks are the centerpiece of TV’s war news. Two out of every five network evening news stories (564) featured car bombings, assassinations, kidnappings or other attacks launched by the terrorists against the Iraqi people or coalition forces, more than any other topic.

■ Even coverage of the Iraqi political process has been negative. More stories (124) focused on shortcomings in Iraq’s political process — the danger of bloodshed during the January elections, political infighting among politicians, and fears that the new Iraqi constitution might spur more civil strife — than found optimism in the Iraqi people’s historic march to democracy (92 stories). One-third of those optimistic stories (32) appeared on just two nights — January 30 and 31, just after Iraq’s first successful elections.

■ Few stories focused on the heroism or generous actions of American soldiers. Just eight stories were devoted to recounting episodes of heroism or valor by U.S. troops, and another nine stories featured instances when soldiers reached out to help the Iraqi people. In contrast, 79 stories focused on allegations of combat mistakes or outright misconduct on the part of U.S. military personnel.

■ It’s not as if there was no “good news” to report. NBC’s cameras found a bullish stock market and a hiring boom in Baghdad’s business district, ABC showcased the coalition’s successful effort to bring peace to a Baghdad thoroughfare once branded “Death Street,” and CBS documented how the one-time battleground of Sadr City is now quiet and citizens are beginning to benefit from improved public services. Stories describing U.S. and Iraqi achievements provided essential context to the discouraging drumbeat of daily news, but were unfortunately just a small sliver of TV’s Iraq news.

If you said that to my face, you'd be swallowing your teeth right now.
Now, now. Play nice, children! Tsk! :p

an illegal, unprovoked, and unwanted war?
Nice way of ignoring facts in favor of political bias...

--snipNo--fuck you, Deep Kimchi. You've basically accused me of hoping that US soldiers die so that my political beliefs will be justified. You don't get anymore discussion out of me until you apologize for that. Even at my most heated, I would never accuse someone I merely disagree with of wanting bad things to happen to someone else merely so they could get a partisan advantage out of it. That's stepping over the line, and you goddamn well know it.

Nice rant. :rolleyes:
Same to your old song and dance.

Now, now. Play nice, children! Tsk! :p
If someone accused you of that, you'd not only threaten them personally, you'd take them to the mods--I've seen you do it--so spare me, please.

Or maybe you should just read the study
http://www.mrc.org/specialreports/2005/pdf/TVs_Depressing_Iraq_News.pdf

Here's the summary:

■ Network coverage has been overwhelmingly pessimistic. More than half of all stories (848, or 61%) focused on negative topics or presented a pessimistic analysis of the situation, four times as many as featured U.S. or Iraqi achievements or offered an optimistic assessment (just 211 stories, or 15%).

■ News about the war has grown increasingly negative. In January and February, about a fifth of all network stories (21%) struck a hopeful note, while just over half presented a negative slant on the situation. By August and September, positive stories had fallen to a measly seven percent and the percentage of bad news stories swelled to 73 percent of all Iraq news, a ten-to-one disparity.

■ Terrorist attacks are the centerpiece of TV’s war news. Two out of every five network evening news stories (564) featured car bombings, assassinations, kidnappings or other attacks launched by the terrorists against the Iraqi people or coalition forces, more than any other topic.

■ Even coverage of the Iraqi political process has been negative. More stories (124) focused on shortcomings in Iraq’s political process — the danger of bloodshed during the January elections, political infighting among politicians, and fears that the new Iraqi constitution might spur more civil strife — than found optimism in the Iraqi people’s historic march to democracy (92 stories). One-third of those optimistic stories (32) appeared on just two nights — January 30 and 31, just after Iraq’s first successful elections.

■ Few stories focused on the heroism or generous actions of American soldiers. Just eight stories were devoted to recounting episodes of heroism or valor by U.S. troops, and another nine stories featured instances when soldiers reached out to help the Iraqi people. In contrast, 79 stories focused on allegations of combat mistakes or outright misconduct on the part of U.S. military personnel.

■ It’s not as if there was no “good news” to report. NBC’s cameras found a bullish stock market and a hiring boom in Baghdad’s business district, ABC showcased the coalition’s successful effort to bring peace to a Baghdad thoroughfare once branded “Death Street,” and CBS documented how the one-time battleground of Sadr City is now quiet and citizens are beginning to benefit from improved public services. Stories describing U.S. and Iraqi achievements provided essential context to the discouraging drumbeat of daily news, but were unfortunately just a small sliver of TV’s Iraq news.
This comes from the "Now say something nice" school of measuring bias in news. It is a faulty and misleading gauge. This list could be nothing more than a list of things that happened, at which point you'd then be in the corner of saying "Events have a liberal bias." If this is the kind of thing that you've been accepting as media criticism, it explains a lot.

No--fuck you, Deep Kimchi. You've basically accused me of hoping that US soldiers die so that my political beliefs will be justified. You don't get anymore discussion out of me until you apologize for that. Even at my most heated, I would never accuse someone I merely disagree with of wanting bad things to happen to someone else merely so they could get a partisan advantage out of it. That's stepping over the line, and you goddamn well know it.

You may not want US soldiers dead, but there are a lot sick bastards out there who want every one of us who wears a uniform to die. Take that college professor who said "freedom will only come to Iraq when the soldiers turn thier guns on thier superiors." A couple of these bastards have been brave enough to tell me to my face that they hope that I get killed.

I don't think that is what Kimchi meant, but I can see how you would take it that way.

This comes from the "Now say something nice" school of measuring bias in news. It is a faulty and misleading gauge. This list could be nothing more than a list of things that happened, at which point you'd then be in the corner of saying "Events have a liberal bias." If this is the kind of thing that you've been accepting as media criticism, it explains a lot.
Thinking the same thing

Its like pointing out bias because the news only reports negitive things about a mom killing 7 of her kids (obviously not identical)

Some situations there is just more negitive to report
And as far as I can tell the "study" does not take into account a non normal distrobution like that

And the news organizations are never going to show anything that works. I have many friends over there who have been told by photographers - "We're not taking pictures or videos unless shells are flying or people are being killed or people are fleeing in terror or rioting in the streets - anything else won't make it past the editor".

I agree. It's an utterly ridiculous state of affairs, but short of government propaganda and censorship I can't think of what to do.

But it's not all bad. Where, if not from the media, does Eutrusca get these articles?

Wow... bad news makes the headlines.

Why is anyone STILL surprised at this? Its not like it suddenly cropped up when Iraq happened now is it?

I suppose this 'liberal bias' you so often refer to could in fact stem back to Vietnam, and a distrust built in to whatever the govt told you. The govt says "We're winning", yet the reports on the ground differ. Of course people are going to be suspicious.

Nowadays, people inherently go a step beyond mere suspicion of news outlets and reporting how 'good' things are.

Yeah, schools are being built, water services resumed and hospitals running properly. How does that affect the ordinary US citizen? It doesn't.

"13 Marines die in roadside explosion", "4 US soldiers die in Helicopter crash", "47 US Marines die in suidice truck bomb"

What do you think has more of an effect on those families at home? Those stories about schools getting their books, or whether their son or daughter has been killed in an explosion?

Of course the reporting is going to be about the explosions! Thats what would more likely affect the average American!

Even a Democrat says the media has a liberal bias against our troops:
http://instapundit.com/archives/011631.php
There's nothing liberal about being against the troops.

I've spoken to a lot of soldiers who have been there or are there now - and not one has seen anything but bias in the news against US efforts there. And when the reporters tell these soldiers to their face that they won't cover a story that has a good side, if that isn't bias, then you don't know what bias is.
From a rational perspective, there is no basis for the "liberal bias". The media's only goal is to make as much cash as possible, which means they want viewers/readers. Shocking stories attract them. It's got nothing to do with an anti-war bias.

No--fuck you, Deep Kimchi. You've basically accused me of hoping that US soldiers die so that my political beliefs will be justified. You don't get anymore discussion out of me until you apologize for that....That's stepping over the line, and you goddamn well know it.
You're right. Deep Kimchi should apologise. I am by no means against the war or soldiers, but such a charge is henious and untrue.

I've had it said to me when I was there. One reporter for CNN I met was fired because he told his editors that he hadn't seen any "atrocites" committed by american soldiers, but had good footage of an insurgent strike that killed some kids. Showed some marines risking thier lives to get the kids out of the line of fire. He told me that his editors told him that if that was the best he couldn't get anything usable, then he was no longer needed. I can't remember his name for the life of me right now, but this converstion happened around july 20th at BIAP.
Typical media, they always go after the most shocking story they can find no matter how unrepresentative of the big picture it is.

BTW, how many major media outlets decry the attrocities committed by the insurgents? You know, the beheadings, the mutilations, burning people alive, ect. None outiside of FOX and talk radio here in the States that I can find.
I'm not very familiar with the US media but even here in Europe where like 90% of people oppose the war, the media always decries insurgent atrocities, especially the beheadings.

And nobody to blame but George W. Bush and his hawkish band of elite.

Why don't you blame those who came before Bush and could have solved the problem long ago?

This comes from the "Now say something nice" school of measuring bias in news. It is a faulty and misleading gauge. This list could be nothing more than a list of things that happened, at which point you'd then be in the corner of saying "Events have a liberal bias." If this is the kind of thing that you've been accepting as media criticism, it explains a lot.
I think it's as simple as 'If it blleds, it leads".
Otherwise, it's pretty clear to a non-winger that almost all news here in America is filtered through a biased perspective. Almost without exception, when you know what to look for. And so, you should probably keep that in mind when viewing or reading the news.

And nobody to blame but George W. Bush and his hawkish band of elite.
Yeah. I saw W give those kids candy and then blow up that roadside bomb and then tell the soldiers what to say about it and then write the AP story of it contradicting what the soldiers said.

:rolleyes:

Olara']Yeah. I saw W give those kids candy and then blow up that roadside bomb and then tell the soldiers what to say about it and then write the AP story of it contradicting what the soldiers said.

:rolleyes:

Really?! What a bastard.

Another article from a few days ago: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/monacharen/2005/11/25/176731.html

Excerpt:
Fallujah, of course, was different, as the city was a hotbed of terrorism, and the battle of Fallujah was one of the fiercest engagements of the war. During the battle, Bowers found himself sharing a ride with an embedded reporter for the AP. He was asked what he thought of the destruction. Bowers responded that it was "Incredible, overwhelming. But it definitely had to be done." He also stressed that because the enemy had fought so dirty, tough calls had to be made. Later, he saw himself quoted in newspapers around the country to the effect that the destruction was "overwhelming" as if he could not cope. He had also made some anodyne remarks about rebuilding the damaged areas of the city, and responded "Where to begin?" when asked about the plans. He was speaking of the water treatment plants, medical facilities, and schools American forces were about to help build, but his comments were offered as evidence of the futility of the situation -- the very opposite of this eager Marine's intent.

Why don't you blame those who came before Bush and could have solved the problem long ago?You mean Reagan? From what I remember, he was the one before the Bush that started the problem.

Really?! What a bastard.
Precisely. Which is why there's nobody to blame but him.

.... So Mayer and Schuller took out some of the candy they carried, thinking that if children were around, perhaps the terrorists wouldn't attack.

Perhaps some of the Grizzled Veterans would tell me, is this common practise?

Attracting children to shield oneself? Pray tell.

The liberal bias is not BS.It is nothing compared to what we get from the media here in Europe, the only medium, that makes a bit of sense to me is a single newspaper, "Die Welt", luckily I discovered Rush Limbaugh on the internet a few years ago. It's so great to be on the cutting edge of societal evolution ^_^

^ OMG, Rush Limbaugh? The drug addicted hypocrite with a mouth bigger than Jesse fucking Jackson? You can do better. Try Neal Boortz or Larry Elders instead.

Why don't you blame those who came before Bush and could have solved the problem long ago?
How could the others before Bush have solved the problem?

Iraq was never a threat to the US, and before Iraq invaded Kuwait (over a hazy agreement between the US Ambassador and Saddam), the US and Iraq were buddy buddy.

And when it comes to finger pointing, Bush is surrounded by "fall guys".

Perhaps some of the Grizzled Veterans would tell me, is this common practise?

Attracting children to shield oneself? Pray tell.
Those who are determined to find evil where only good exists are the essence of evil themselves.

Those who are determined to find evil where only good exists are the essence of evil themselves.
So...what, is that a yes, then?

So basically Iraq making progress is excusing Bush and Cheney's overall incompetence. Wow, such brilliant conclusions Forrest.

:rolleyes:

So basically Iraq making progress is excusing Bush and Cheney's overall incompetence. Wow, such brilliant conclusions Forrest.

:rolleyes:

I actually think that people like you don't want to see an Iraqi democracy for some strange fucked-up reason. Care to explain why you don't?

I actually think that people like you don't want to see an Iraqi democracy for some strange fucked-up reason. Care to explain why you don't?
It's generally considered impolite, if not assholish, to put words in another's mouth. You might want to remember that.

It's generally considered impolite, if not assholish, to put words in another's mouth. You might want to remember that.

I'm not putting word's in his mouth, he said there wasn't much progress in Iraq in contradiction to what soldiers who are there say. It would seem that he doesn't want Iraq to succeed, I merely asked for his reasoning.

I'm not putting word's in his mouth, he said there wasn't much progress in Iraq in contradiction to what soldiers who are there say. It would seem that he doesn't want Iraq to succeed, I merely asked for his reasoning.
No--there's a big fucking chasm between "there's not much progress going on" and "I don't want it to succeed." If you don't understand that, then you've got a hard life ahead of you, because when you pull that kind of shit on someone in person, some people tend to get violently offended, with the emphasis on violently.

I have heard from two soldiers back from the East, one back from Iraq and one from Afghanistan.

The one who was in Iraq said that things were bad, really messed up, and that he didn't think Iraq's culture was compatible with democracy. He also said that there's alot of good that goes unreported but that it still is bad, not safe at all, and keep in mind he's an officer who mostly works at a desk(although he did go on patrols at night sometimes and traveled in a few convoys that got hit).

The other one was in Afghanistan and is my second cousin I think. My uncle had sent him a better scope than the one he'd had and was trying to get him a silencer. He's a ranger and he said that the Taliban(Taliban not Al-Quaeda, not terrorists, but the old Taliban regime) own the countryside. He sent pictures of his squad, two of whom were seriously wounded. He also said that there were many Chechens in Afghanistan(from the Caucases in Russia) and that they'd shot down several Chinook helicopters(big ones with two rotors) and wiped out two Navy Seals teams. That probably surprised me the most, I would think the Chechens would be busy killing Russians back home.

Afghanistan is probably worse than Iraq, we don't even have control over there, not beyond the cities and bases anyway, and the democracy over there is a complete joke, local warlords competing at the ballet box while competing with guns against each other. Iraq isn't a safe nation, it's still unstable. I really like to hear straight from the soldiers because it doesn't get distorted by the media and politics and the like. The soldiers are committed to winning, and feel strongly about what they're doing, but that doesn't mean that it's necessarily right, or that others agree with them.

I'm not putting word's in his mouth, he said there wasn't much progress in Iraq in contradiction to what soldiers who are there say. It would seem that he doesn't want Iraq to succeed, I merely asked for his reasoning.
You are in fact putting words in the posters mouth as this is neither the text nor implication of what the person you quoted said.

His reference to progress, for instance, did not indicate an amount or pace, rather-
So basically Iraq making progress
So this, said by you-
he said there wasn't much progress in Iraq
is in fact placing words in a very direct way. Has almost nothing to do with what was said.

And this-
in contradiction to what soldiers who are there say.
does not resemble this remark at all-
is excusing Bush and Cheney's overall incompetence.
Now you just seem to be making shit up.

Now, this sentiment in the original post seems to be that soldiers doing good, as we know and expect that our soldiers do, does not excuse or cover for the mistakes made by the president and his 'people.'

But you get this, somehow-

It would seem that he doesn't want Iraq to succeed,
Now, even if the text was what you imagined it was, this conclusion does not follow. So you are in fact putting words in someones mouth. Not only that, but you are reducing the argument with a ridiculous accusation-'If you don't follow blindly wanting us to fail...' Which is total and utter bullshit, an attempt to belittle rather than engage in a debate. One would hope it would be beneath you.

There is always hope.

well, i dont see how there is any sort of debate between a soldiers portrayal of iraq vs. the news...

1)all of the news broadcasts are sensationalized from start to end. you cant turn off the tv without seeing news about 1 american soldier dying in iraq in some random region. not to put the fighting down, but admit it - we even were drawn in by the news about the west nile virus, and that kills less people in the u.s. than influenza.

2)we have done many good things in iraq that have been overlooked. we have toppled an oppressive and religiously-based dictator in iraq. and hell, just to put things in perspective, the terrorist attacks in those american hotels have shown so many people, including many middle easterners, how terrible these attacks can be.

3)this is not 'nam, people... for one, weve lost about 2100 good men overseas in two years and some odd weeks. compare that to the men who died just in the tet offensive in nam and you could see how fouled up that statement is. better yet, look at the number of people who died in that same period of time in california ALONE and see how similar those numbers are.

4)why are people calling bush a liar? kerry and edwards voted to go to war, along with many other democrats, stating that it was a good move to go into iraq... and now they are backing away, criticizing the administration for the same "lack of evidence" that they saw and agreed to be conclusive. and finally

5)if any one of these reasons isnt good enough for you, hear me out - we should not pull out of iraq. pulling out of iraq would be the most disastrous thing we could do. not only would americans be lauded as cowards, our troops would be killed on the way out, iraq would have itself another power vacuum (more like vortex), and there would be many more times more terrorist actions against us than before.

3)this is not 'nam, people... for one, weve lost about 2100 good men overseas in two years and some odd weeks. compare that to the men who died just in the tet offensive in nam and you could see how fouled up that statement is. better yet, look at the number of people who died in that same period of time in california ALONE and see how similar those numbers are.
Comments like these are mind boggling to say the least.

It is a huge success in Iraq because only 2000+ US soldiers have died?

What about the 30,000 to 100,000 Iraqis who have died? By those figures, the US has killed more Iraqis in 2 years than Saddam has killed in the last 14 years. That is success?

4)why are people calling bush a liar? kerry and edwards voted to go to war, along with many other democrats, stating that it was a good move to go into iraq... and now they are backing away, criticizing the administration for the same "lack of evidence" that they saw and agreed to be conclusive. \
I think you are trying to compromise Kerry's official position on this matter:

Kerry cited the "threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction" as his principal reason for supporting the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq with assurances from Bush that all diplomatic efforts would be exhausted before using such force.

Also:

Kerry did however warn the administration should exhaust its diplomatic avenues before launching war: "Mr. President, do not rush to war, take the time to build the coalition, because it's not winning the war that's hard, it's winning the peace that's hard."

I have heard from two soldiers back from the East, one back from Iraq and one from Afghanistan.

The one who was in Iraq said that things were bad, really messed up, and that he didn't think Iraq's culture was compatible with democracy. He also said that there's alot of good that goes unreported but that it still is bad, not safe at all, and keep in mind he's an officer who mostly works at a desk(although he did go on patrols at night sometimes and traveled in a few convoys that got hit).

The other one was in Afghanistan and is my second cousin I think. My uncle had sent him a better scope than the one he'd had and was trying to get him a silencer. He's a ranger and he said that the Taliban(Taliban not Al-Quaeda, not terrorists, but the old Taliban regime) own the countryside. He sent pictures of his squad, two of whom were seriously wounded. He also said that there were many Chechens in Afghanistan(from the Caucases in Russia) and that they'd shot down several Chinook helicopters(big ones with two rotors) and wiped out two Navy Seals teams. That probably surprised me the most, I would think the Chechens would be busy killing Russians back home.

Afghanistan is probably worse than Iraq, we don't even have control over there, not beyond the cities and bases anyway, and the democracy over there is a complete joke, local warlords competing at the ballet box while competing with guns against each other. Iraq isn't a safe nation, it's still unstable. I really like to hear straight from the soldiers because it doesn't get distorted by the media and politics and the like. The soldiers are committed to winning, and feel strongly about what they're doing, but that doesn't mean that it's necessarily right, or that others agree with them.
From all I have read, I believe that these two accounts are far more plausible than those from the propaganda machine.

Not taking a side in any of the arguments here, just pointing one thing out.

Soldiers luring children around them in hopes of not getting shot? Endangering them just for the hope of not getting killed themselves? That's pretty fucked up if you ask me.

Now IF the story is even true, I'm glad that nothing happened to the children nor the soldiers. It's nice that the soldiers brought some happiness to the lives of the children, too. But I can't ignore the fact that this little story could have ended up with an explosion too. Explosion with unnecessary child casualties.

...
Soldiers luring children around them in hopes of not getting shot? Endangering them just for the hope of not getting killed themselves? That's pretty fucked up if you ask me.
....
Not exactly heroic. Then again, poor sods 1st af all want to survive.
Now, why hasn't this been picked up by some biased evil leftie partisan reporter?

Or maybe you should just read the study
http://www.mrc.org/specialreports/2005/pdf/TVs_Depressing_Iraq_News.pdf

Here's the summary:

■ Network coverage has been overwhelmingly pessimistic. More than half of all stories (848, or 61%) focused on negative topics or presented a pessimistic analysis of the situation, four times as many as featured U.S. or Iraqi achievements or offered an optimistic assessment (just 211 stories, or 15%).

■ News about the war has grown increasingly negative. In January and February, about a fifth of all network stories (21%) struck a hopeful note, while just over half presented a negative slant on the situation. By August and September, positive stories had fallen to a measly seven percent and the percentage of bad news stories swelled to 73 percent of all Iraq news, a ten-to-one disparity.

■ Terrorist attacks are the centerpiece of TV’s war news. Two out of every five network evening news stories (564) featured car bombings, assassinations, kidnappings or other attacks launched by the terrorists against the Iraqi people or coalition forces, more than any other topic.

■ Even coverage of the Iraqi political process has been negative. More stories (124) focused on shortcomings in Iraq’s political process — the danger of bloodshed during the January elections, political infighting among politicians, and fears that the new Iraqi constitution might spur more civil strife — than found optimism in the Iraqi people’s historic march to democracy (92 stories). One-third of those optimistic stories (32) appeared on just two nights — January 30 and 31, just after Iraq’s first successful elections.

■ Few stories focused on the heroism or generous actions of American soldiers. Just eight stories were devoted to recounting episodes of heroism or valor by U.S. troops, and another nine stories featured instances when soldiers reached out to help the Iraqi people. In contrast, 79 stories focused on allegations of combat mistakes or outright misconduct on the part of U.S. military personnel.

■ It’s not as if there was no “good news” to report. NBC’s cameras found a bullish stock market and a hiring boom in Baghdad’s business district, ABC showcased the coalition’s successful effort to bring peace to a Baghdad thoroughfare once branded “Death Street,” and CBS documented how the one-time battleground of Sadr City is now quiet and citizens are beginning to benefit from improved public services. Stories describing U.S. and Iraqi achievements provided essential context to the discouraging drumbeat of daily news, but were unfortunately just a small sliver of TV’s Iraq news.
You are as obvious as a toothache. You have used a "biased" conservative web site (http://www.mrc.org/) to report about alledged liberal bias. Well duh!!

Rush Limbaugh

"I don’t think there’s anybody, other than Brent Bozell, who spends more time giving examples of press bias than I do…"

"Brent Bozell and the MRC provide a most precious commodity - a quest for the truth. I can't possibly expose every example of bias and error that emanates from the national mainstream media, but Bozell and his group come as close as anyone can. MRC is a vital national interest."

You are as obvious as a toothache. You have used a "biased" conservative web site (http://www.mrc.org/) to report about alledged liberal bias. Well duh!!


When they are using things like polls from the Pew Research Center, it's not biased. Maybe you should read the site, rather than assuming that they are making things up.

2)we have done many good things in iraq that have been overlooked. we have toppled an oppressive and religiously-based dictator in iraq.
Wrong.

Wrong.

Indeed. One of the reasons why the whole 'Saddam and Osama worked together' thing falls flat on it's face.

Yet he was right.


Word up, Homie.

Funny, whenever I watch or listen to the news, I hear both sides.
You rarely hear my side.

Nice rant. :rolleyes:


I thought so too.

If you believe that there really are two wars going on, meaning that everything the media reports is false, and our soldiers are benevolent angels spreading gumdrops and cottonballs, you arent really paying attention, Eut.

You and I both know not every soldier is an asswipe, who indescriminately kills anything that moves....but you are clearly forgetting the troubling number of innocent civillian deaths with the military is accredited with.

So, if 100 soldiers do something nice, and actually act like the liberators you think they are, it still does not not exscuse the 100,000 civillian deaths they may have caused, does it?

No, it just means that some tiny shreds of good are being done, in an outright criminal war, brought on by acts of greed and despotism.

When they are using things like polls from the Pew Research Center, it's not biased. Maybe you should read the site, rather than assuming that they are making things up.
I did look at the site and it is has a conservative bias.

Actually, I think this whole topic is bogus in that censure (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/77862_courtop.shtml) is the prevailing situation in Iraq, for sadly obvious reasons IMHO.

The United States imposes its own blackouts, during the war with Iraq and in the war in Afghanistan. That which we do not know about these actions far exceeds that which we do. Consequently, the only people who are privy to what takes place are those who plan, carry out or are brutalized by it.

The first group rarely speaks out. If word from the third manages to reach the ears of the international community, it is quickly labeled by the first as biased, propaganda, slander, lies, distortions and so on. The second group could fill in the details, but at what cost? Testifying in their own nation's (or military's) courts is likely to leave them with the blame.

Without an international tribunal to adjudicate the veracity of people's testimonies, no one ever knows what really happened.

Could that be the goal of those who oppose the ICC? The guilty have nothing to fear when there is no officially recognized procedure for getting at the truth. "What they don't know won't hurt us" is their creed. Lack of accountability gives war criminals impunity.


The Media Research Center would certainly some credibility if it were totally independent, but it is plain to see that it is not.

Haven't you figured it out yet, CanuckHeaven? The only reliable sources on media bias come from conservative sources because everyone else is too liberal to be trusted.

I thought so too.

If you believe that there really are two wars going on, meaning that everything the media reports is false, and our soldiers are benevolent angels spreading gumdrops and cottonballs, you arent really paying attention, Eut.

You and I both know not every soldier is an asswipe, who indescriminately kills anything that moves....but you are clearly forgetting the troubling number of innocent civillian deaths with the military is accredited with.

So, if 100 soldiers do something nice, and actually act like the liberators you think they are, it still does not not exscuse the 100,000 civillian deaths they may have caused, does it?

No, it just means that some tiny shreds of good are being done, in an outright criminal war, brought on by acts of greed and despotism.
I think you have hit all the nails squarely on the head, driving home the points.

I think you have hit all the nails squarely on the head, driving home the points.


Well thanks.

I like your tie.

Haven't you figured it out yet, CanuckHeaven? The only reliable sources on media bias come from conservative sources because everyone else is too liberal to be trusted.
How silly of me. I should have figured that out a long time ago.

All hail the conservative media....the beacon of truth and the upholders of justice for all. :rolleyes:

I thought so too.

If you believe that there really are two wars going on, meaning that everything the media reports is false, and our soldiers are benevolent angels spreading gumdrops and cottonballs, you arent really paying attention, Eut.

You and I both know not every soldier is an asswipe, who indescriminately kills anything that moves....but you are clearly forgetting the troubling number of innocent civillian deaths with the military is accredited with.

So, if 100 soldiers do something nice, and actually act like the liberators you think they are, it still does not not exscuse the 100,000 civillian deaths they may have caused, does it?

No, it just means that some tiny shreds of good are being done, in an outright criminal war, brought on by acts of greed and despotism.
Nice rant... any facts to support any of your assertions?

I fail to see how this is an example of liberal bias in the news, and not just an example of the nature of the newsmedia.
They say that the media paints a bleak portrayal of the war, yet they also say the following:
"They became our one little recess from the war," says Mayer. "You're seeing some pretty ridiculous tragedies way too frequently, and you start to get jaded. The kids on that street - I got to realize I was still a human being to them."

So is it strange that these "pretty ridiculous tragedies" get more attention than a girl getting cookies and pens? I am not surprised that the soldiers will have positive personal experiences of this kind. Even in war, beautiful acts of humanity will occur.

Is it possible that there are more cases of bad news than good news, that the bad news are more immediate and more urgent to broadcast?

Of course, the news could be presented like this
The News:
*24,999,995 Iraqis had a relatively good day.
some getting married, some starting new jobs, some traveling to visit relatives outside their hometown for the first time
*5 died as a result of terrorist acts
*For the 16th day running, american troops are still helping to rebuild a school
etc.

Which story do you think would be most read?


By the way:
So Mayer and Schuller took out some of the candy they carried, thinking that if children were around, perhaps the terrorists wouldn't attack.

What the deuce? Because, as we all know, terrorists are careful not to kill innocent people?

Haven't read the whole thread but just a few ideas.

An individual soldier is a poor source of information. An individual only sees what's in a small view. A better view is to have many individuals on the ground, sending in reports. Compile the reports to see what is going on. Two groups do this. The government, which will report the best. And the media, which will report the worst. That's why we need to look at many sources.

Second, a soldier is part of a team that has been conditioned to believe they are doing good. From basic training, a type of brain washing takes place. It isn't hard because humans are naturally "pack" animals not unlike wolves. It's like cheering for the local football team. We naturally pick out a group and defend the actions of that group against all outside forces. This especially develops in times when the actions of the pack are a matter of life or death. Even if the actions are not necessarily good.

You might look at the "Stockholm Syndrome" where people are put under extreme stress by criminals. At the end of the ordeal, they defend the actions of the criminals.

The stress of getting shot at and killing others changes one's perspective. The mind has to build ways to deal with the insane situation at present and try to return to a future sane situation sane. That's hard to do if you don't believe in your actions. In Nam, (and probably in every war), those that couldn't make that connection are dead or still at war with themselves.