NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: We have talked and talked on here about perceptions of media bias where the military is concerned. Apparently the Pentagon is sufficiently concerned about the negative impact all the "gloom and doom" reporting is having on the morale of military personnel. Sad. Very sad.


Pentagon uses PR muscle
to boost groups aiding GIs


By E.A. Torriero
Tribune staff reporter
Published December 23, 2005

HARRISBURG, Ill. -- Patriotic housewife Amy Oxford is sending personal holiday packages of goodies and sundries to hundreds of U.S. soldiers serving in Iraq.

And the Pentagon is using its mighty public-relations muscle to make sure Americans know about such efforts.

Oxford's work in southern Illinois is one of nearly 200 mom-and-pop volunteer initiatives across the country being promoted by the Department of Defense through a blitzkrieg informational and Internet campaign it calls "America Supports You."

A Chicago woman sends thousands of hand-stitched pillows to injured soldiers in hospitals. A suburban Chicago man donates desktop computers to soldiers' families. A California teenager has funneled more than a million "thank-you" cards to soldiers. And dozens of other Americans give such gifts as air miles and phone cards to troops and their dependents.

All are featured on a Pentagon Web site that has received more than 1.5 million hits since it was created a year ago.

Pentagon officials say they are simply helping Americans support soldiers serving overseas. But military scholars say the effort is not merely altruistic, and taxpayers are footing the bill.

Coming as the Bush administration is losing broad-based support for its Iraq decisions, and with reports of low morale among soldiers, the Pentagon says it is looking for ways around negative publicity.

Its domestic pro-troop campaign also comes amid criticism and investigations in Washington, D.C., over the planting of stories in the Iraqi press and paying Iraqi journalists to write American-pitched stories.

"The Pentagon has a real problem fighting the anti-war message and will do everything it can to get its side out," said David Segal, a professor of military sociology at the University of Maryland.

The Pentagon did not respond to requests from the Tribune to detail the budget of "America Supports You." The campaign is mostly part of the Pentagon's daily press operations and overall public-relations efforts, said Gregory Hicks, its chief spokesman.

The Pentagon does not contribute money to the charities, Hicks and officials of several charities said. Still, just a mere mention by a high government official can change the fortunes of a struggling volunteer effort.

In his 4th of July speech, President Bush mentioned Dan Shannon of Chicago and his Operation Homelink, which provides computers for soldiers' families to stay in touch during their deployment. Within seconds of the speech, Shannon's Web site was inundated. In the next few hours, it received more than 11,000 hits, and Shannon was sent $3,000 in unsolicited donations in just two days, including $2,000 from one man. That's 10 times the amount of private donations Shannon had previously received.

"I couldn't buy that kind of publicity," said Shannon, who is unabashed in his gratitude to the Pentagon.

The publicity comes mostly from workers on the government clock.

The military press organ "American Forces Information Service" has written articles about the charities that are distributed to military personnel. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld touts them on the conservative talk-show circuit.

"Having the Pentagon behind you is like a golden seal of approval," said Oxford, whose package-sending campaign since the Iraq intervention began in 2003 has been written about at least three times by the Pentagon staffers.

Several dozen of the troop support groups paid their own way to Washington, D.C., in early December to gather at a government-sponsored brainstorming session to talk about how to get their message out. They dined at a buffet lunch at the White House and were briefed by top military brass, including Rumsfeld.

They teleconference regularly with Pentagon spokespeople about how to increase their visibility. And the Pentagon recently published a handy booklet listing all their organizations by service provided, under the title of "How You Can Help."

Military analysts say the Pentagon strategy dovetails with efforts by the Bush administration to highlight what it sees as positive aspects of the Iraq intervention.

"What's the big surprise?" asked Charles Moskos, a military sociologist at Northwestern University. "The Pentagon created the war and is for it. Why shouldn't it do everything it can to back the soldiers they are sending over there?" [ "The Pentagon created the war?" This guy is a nutcase! ]

Just another example of the totally screwed up media in the US... Yuck :mad:

I guess I'm just too cynical... I shouldn't reply to this.

I guess I'm just too cynical... I shouldn't reply to this.
I'll save you the trouble: yes, the Pentagon is making this part of its recruiting efforts. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.

As far as I'm concerned, everyone wins ... the Pentagon because it helps recruiting; the "mom and pop organizations" because they get some free publicity and thus a bit of help; the military personnel because the groups actually do help them and because it boosts their morale; and the public because we hear positive things about support for the military personnel.

I suppose the only ones who don't win are so-called "mainstream media" because it shows rather starkly how lopsided is their constant drumbeat of negative stories about the military.

I'll save you the trouble: yes, the Pentagon is making this part of its recruiting efforts. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.

As far as I'm concerned, everyone wins ... the Pentagon because it helps recruiting; the "mom and pop organizations" because they get some free publicity and thus a bit of help; the military personnel because the groups actually do help them and because it boosts their morale; and the public because we hear positive things about support for the military personnel.

I suppose the only ones who don't win are so-called "mainstream media" because it shows rather starkly how lopsided is their constant drumbeat of negative stories about the military.


Yeah.... that, too. :rolleyes:

My comment would have been more on the lines of how this is an effort to make positive propaganda for a nation's killing machinery, while groups of the population who would need and appreciate public support find themselves without lobby and overfinanced PR-department.

But sure, what you said.

I suppose the only ones who don't win are so-called "mainstream media" because it shows rather starkly how lopsided is their constant drumbeat of negative stories about the military.
And there was me thinking that the negative stories were about Bush's war in Iraq rather than the military itself.

Someone explain to me why does the Pentagon, a military institution, feel the need to fight a political movement of anti-war? Is the pentagon pro-war? But that is a political decision, and the military must be apolitical. Or is it just like that in the US?

Soldiers exist to fight wars, not to agree with them.

I'll save you the trouble: yes, the Pentagon is making this part of its recruiting efforts. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.

As far as I'm concerned, everyone wins ... the Pentagon because it helps recruiting; the "mom and pop organizations" because they get some free publicity and thus a bit of help; the military personnel because the groups actually do help them and because it boosts their morale; and the public because we hear positive things about support for the military personnel.

I suppose the only ones who don't win are so-called "mainstream media" because it shows rather starkly how lopsided is their constant drumbeat of negative stories about the military.

Nope, I still don't understand the point you are trying to make.

How would this be different if the media, as you say, "was doing it's job"?

The trouble with war is most of the news is bad news anyway.
The military would like to do away with all the bad news which helps cover up their mistakes publicly.

Someone explain to me why does the Pentagon, a military institution, feel the need to fight a political movement of anti-war? Is the pentagon pro-war? But that is a political decision, and the military must be apolitical. Or is it just like that in the US?

Soldiers exist to fight wars, not to agree with them.

I think that if you actually read the article you would understand better that the Pentagon is trying to help people who are helping the soldiers. It had nothing to do with being pro- or anti-war. This is a war that is not going to end soon, so help out the troops that are there rather than complain about it. The troops had nothing to do with why they were sent they are doing their jobs. These people are supporting the people in the army not necessarily the war.

As far as I'm concerned, everyone wins ... the Pentagon because it helps recruitingYeah, woo. Let's raise a toast to the continuation of deceptive recruiting.
... and the public because we hear positive things about support for the military personnel. Thing is, there's lot's of positive things in the media about military personnel. You can't shake a stick when it comes to feel good pieces about Johnny going off to serve his country and protect our freedom. It's the administration's conduct of the war that takes the hits. Maybe the Pentagon's PR machine should be more clear with the enlisted about what's being criticized by those horrible people in the media.
I suppose the only ones who don't win are so-called "mainstream media" because it shows rather starkly how lopsided is their constant drumbeat of negative stories about the military.Two words for you: Jessica Lynch.

Okay a few more words. The media was pre- and early-stage during the Iraq war (and let's just point out that media and public support of the all-but-abandoned work in Afghanistan has always been 100%) quite gung-ho and swallowed the Pentagon's PR hook line and sinker. Burn the dog too often and the dog starts biting back.

I think that if you actually read the article you would understand better that the Pentagon is trying to help people who are helping the soldiers. Okay. From the article itself...

[The Pentagon's] ...domestic pro-troop campaign also comes amid criticism and investigations in Washington, D.C., over the planting of stories in the Iraqi press and paying Iraqi journalists to write American-pitched stories.

The Pentagon has never been above helping itself first. Controlling the media is only one of the tools that the Pentagon uses. "The pen's mightier than the sword," no?

And as Eutrusca implies above, military recruiting is a tad difficult lately (a misguided war tends to do that), and keeping Joe and Suzy Homemaker feeling good about Son (who's having a bit of trouble finding a job) going off to dodge car bombs is high priority these days.

It's called freedom of the press. Frankly, when the Pentagon is so screwed up, these little things really don't matter.

And as Eutrusca implies above, military recruiting is a tad difficult lately (a misguided war tends to do that), and keeping Joe and Suzy Homemaker feeling good about Son (who's having a bit of trouble finding a job) going off to dodge car bombs is high priority these days.
So the main function of the media is to spread mushy feelgood vibes and reassure America that all is for the best in this best of all possible worlds?

So the main function of the media is to spread mushy feelgood vibes and reassure America that all is for the best in this best of all possible worlds?

More like hear both sides of the story instead of trying to make huge sales.

Why is that when I read soldier blogs, I get a very different story than the media "everybody is DYING" type of deal. I mean, fuck, Iraq just gone through a pretty good election and the media is more focused on global warming dooming us all or Bono being a savior.

Canada City']More like hear both sides of the story instead of trying to make huge sales.

Why is that when I read soldier blogs, I get a very different story than the media "everybody is DYING" type of deal. I mean, fuck, Iraq just gone through a pretty good election and the media is more focused on global warming dooming us all or Bono being a savior.

First rule of capitalism: Make money.

First rule of Journalism: Bad news sell, good news don't

Combine the two and you have the answer.

First rule of capitalism: Make money.

First rule of Journalism: Bad news sell, good news don't

Combine the two and you have the answer.

And this is why the Pentagon are doing this and people consider the media to be liberal.

Next.

COMMENTARY: We have talked and talked on here about perceptions of media bias where the military is concerned. Apparently the Pentagon is sufficiently concerned about the negative impact all the "gloom and doom" reporting is having on the morale of military personnel. Sad. Very sad.
COMMENTARY: According to the following article, troop morale has actually improved over last year, although it is still low:

U.S. soldiers in Iraq report low morale (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/07/21/us_soldiers_in_iraq_report_low_morale/)

WASHINGTON --A majority of U.S. soldiers in Iraq say morale is low, according to an Army report that finds psychological stress is weighing particularly heavily on National Guard and Reserve troops.

Still, soldiers' mental health has improved from the early months of the insurgency, and suicides have declined sharply, the report said. Also, substantially fewer soldiers had to be evacuated from Iraq for mental health problems last year.

The Army sent a team of mental health specialists to Iraq and Kuwait late last summer to assess conditions and measure progress in implementing programs designed to fix mental health problems discovered during a similar survey of troops a year earlier. Its report, dated Jan. 30, 2005, was released Wednesday.

The initial inquiry was triggered in part by an unusual surge in suicides among soldiers in Iraq in July 2003. Wednesday's report said the number of suicides in Iraq and Kuwait declined from 24 in 2003 to nine last year.

A suicide prevention program was begun for soldiers in Iraq at the recommendation of the 2003 assessment team.

The overall assessment said 13 percent of soldiers in the most recent study screened positive for a mental health problem, compared with 18 percent a year earlier. Symptoms of acute or post-traumatic stress remained the top mental health problem, affecting at least 10 percent of all soldiers checked in the latest survey.

In the anonymous survey, 17 percent of soldiers said they had experienced moderate or severe stress or problems with alcohol, emotions or their families. That compares with 23 percent a year earlier.

The report said reasons for the improvement in mental health are not clear. Among possible explanations: less frequent and less intense combat, more comforts like air conditioning, wider access to mental health services and improved training in handling the stresses associated with deployments and combat.

National Guard and Reserve soldiers who serve in transportation and support units suffered more than others from depression, anxiety and other indications of acute psychological stress, the report said. These soldiers have often been targets of the insurgents' lethal ambushes and roadside bombs, although the report said they had significantly fewer actual combat experiences than soldiers assigned to combat units.

The report recommended that the Army reconsider whether National Guard and Reserve support troops are getting adequate training in combat skills. Even though they do less fighting than combat troops, they might be better suited to cope with wartime stress if they had more confidence in their combat skills, it said.

Only 55 percent of National Guard support soldiers said they have "real confidence" in their unit's ability to perform its mission, compared with 63 percent of active-duty Army support soldiers. And only 28 percent of the Guard troops rated their level of training as high, compared with 50 percent of their active-duty counterparts.

Small focus groups were held to ascertain troop morale.

The report said 54 percent of soldiers rated their units' morale as low or very low. The comparable figure in a year-earlier Army survey was 72 percent. Although respondents said "combat stressors" like mortar attacks were higher in the most recent survey, "noncombat stressors" like uncertain tour lengths were much lower, the report said.

The thing that bothered soldiers the most, the latest assessment said, was the length of their required stay in Iraq. At the start of the war, most were deployed for six months, but now they go for 12 months.

Asked about this, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told a Pentagon news conference that the Army's 12-month requirement is linked in part to its effort to complete a fundamental reorganization of fighting units.

"I've tried to get the Army to look at the length of tours and I think at some point down the road they will," he said.

Closing COMMENTARY: Despite the article posted by Eut about negative press, despite the Cindy Sheehan campaign, and despite the negative commentary, it appears that morale has actually improved, and that the number one reason for low troop morale is due to the increased length of deployment.

Toss in the fact that "only 28 percent of the Guard troops rated their level of training as high, compared with 50 percent of their active-duty counterparts." and I see that the biggest part of the morale problem is rooted in Pentagon decisions.

So the main function of the media is to spread mushy feelgood vibes and reassure America that all is for the best in this best of all possible worlds?I'm betting the PR folks at the Pentagon think so. The Busheviks certainly do. I'm of the opinion that the media's core reason for existence is to serve as a watchdog on the government and to keep the populace informed. The media itself seems to think that "if we do not find anything pleasant, at least we shall find something new." Hooray for news cycles. [/cynicism]

Canada City']And this is why the Pentagon are doing this and people consider the media to be liberal.

Next.

Huh? The media are considered 'liberal' because they produce a product that people actually want and then sell it to them whilst making a profit themselves. And this has what exactly to do with being 'liberal'? Looks like classic capitalist practice to me.

Canada City']More like hear both sides of the story instead of trying to make huge sales.

Why is that when I read soldier blogs, I get a very different story than the media "everybody is DYING" type of deal. I mean, fuck, Iraq just gone through a pretty good election and the media is more focused on global warming dooming us all or Bono being a savior.


I don't know where you find your news, but I see continued coverage of Iraq both in the papers I read and on the news I see on television.

For example, I haven't read anything about global warming in todays news, but I have read about the thousands of Iraqis who demonstrates on the streets of Baghdad against what they feel is a rigged election. Something you would find details about in a soldiers blog? I doubt it. Good news? No, but it's not all bad.

I'd still like to see Eut, or any like minded person admit, that while the media is certainly reporting little in the way of good news, that it does not mean that nothing horrible is happening over there.

We arent being lied to about a place that is actually full unicorns and rainbows.
We just arent being told the whole story.

The U.S military is responsible for some horrible shit over there, and the media has never reported the full scale of it.

However, they do little, if any actual honest journalism in the fact that report nothing of the handful of good things that are being done.

Someone explain to me why does the Pentagon, a military institution, feel the need to fight a political movement of anti-war? Is the pentagon pro-war? But that is a political decision, and the military must be apolitical. Or is it just like that in the US?

Soldiers exist to fight wars, not to agree with them.
It's not a political decision. It's an attempt to meet the recruiting goals set because they have been sent to war, and an effort to let military personnel know that their stories are being heard. I've posted several news items on here about how the soldiers feel as though the media focuses on only the bad things that happen regarding them, not the good.

The trouble with war is most of the news is bad news anyway.
The military would like to do away with all the bad news which helps cover up their mistakes publicly.
I disagee. Some proof of this would be nice.

It's called freedom of the press. Frankly, when the Pentagon is so screwed up, these little things really don't matter.
Nice unsupported allegation. Your proof? Oh ... I'm sorry ... your "proof" is all the negative media stories. Hmmm.

So the main function of the media is to spread mushy feelgood vibes and reassure America that all is for the best in this best of all possible worlds?
Heh! If that's true, they're failing miserably!

Canada City']More like hear both sides of the story instead of trying to make huge sales.

Why is that when I read soldier blogs, I get a very different story than the media "everybody is DYING" type of deal. I mean, fuck, Iraq just gone through a pretty good election and the media is more focused on global warming dooming us all or Bono being a savior.
"Gloom and doom" stories sell better, apparently. Simple. :(

"Gloom and doom" stories sell better, apparently. Simple. :(

Which is news?

a.) man killed in car crash.
b.) man arrives safely at destination.

its not the medias "job" to be boosters for the military.

all of these charities are LOCAL and should be reported by local media. the albuquerque journal shouldnt do a story on how some people in connecticut are sending cards to the troops.

NM is a fairly pro-military state but still...

the local tv station put holiday greetings from soldiers stationed overseas to their families .

the local radio station got a bunch of people together after a college football game to make a huge card (one a them flipcard things) for the troops where each participant put a message on their own piece and it was sent out

a local soldier who came home last year started a xmas drive to send new mexico music to the NM soldiers stationed overseas.

a local chile canner ships cases of chiles to NM soldiers in iraq

i know of these things, not because i participated in them but because they were mentioned in the newspaper, on tv or radio.

maybe its different in other parts of the country but here we get plenty of coverage of good stuff that is being done to support our soldiers.

Which is news?

a.) man killed in car crash.
b.) man arrives safely at destination.

recently the milwaukee news interupted a show i was watching for some "breaking news live coverage" of b. goddamn was that annoying. they were hoping for a plane crash that didn't happen, so instead they just bantered about it for 10 minutes as the plane landed safely and dropped people off at the terminal.

Oh, that's a relief. I saw a post by Eutrusca complaining of the media not doing its job and I thought to myself, "two blue moons in a year? Has Eut finally had something sensible to say about politics and the war?" For a moment I thought the he actually understood how the media wasn't doing its job. And then I get some idiotic drivel about how the media has some sort of anti-military bias and that that's why the Bush administration endorses a propaganda campaign.

The US media is a propaganda campaign. This propaganda isn't compensation, it's redundancy. Rather like how FOX news isn't compensation for some percieved liberal bias in the news elsewhere. It's fraud that happens to be pro-conservative. The only balance it provides is pro-conservative fiction to compensate for all the pro-conservative truth and half-truth that's in the media elsewhere.

Seeing as how the public opinon of the war continues to decline and troop enlistments are still at low levels, I'd say this program is a failure...and the only reason I don't rate it as a total failure is that it has at least channeled some money to groups supporting soldiers.

Okay a few more words. The media was pre- and early-stage during the Iraq war (and let's just point out that media and public support of the all-but-abandoned work in Afghanistan has always been 100%) quite gung-ho and swallowed the Pentagon's PR hook line and sinker. Burn the dog too often and the dog starts biting back.
The media is not biased politically. They are biased in favour of making money. They were gung-ho at the start because most Americans were. They just told most Americans what they wanted to hear. Now, if it bleeds, it leads is the rule. The media wants ever more shocking stories in order to sell newspapers or gain viewers.

Canada City']More like hear both sides of the story instead of trying to make huge sales.
Thta's capitalism for you.

Canada City']And this is why the Pentagon are doing this and people consider the media to be liberal.

What? The media is neither liberal or conservative. The media is just plain rational.

The media is not biased politically. They are biased in favour of making money. I'd be tempted to agree with you except there are plenty of examples of editorial policy impacting the stories that get told and how those stories are told. Granted the plural of anecdote isn't data, so we'll just have to depend on the studies that have been conducted that show a cumulative tendency towards conservative bias in print, radio and local broadcast news that logically follows from the money angle. $Corporation owns the paper, $corporation will protect itself, therefore, the paper will paint $corporation (and its friends) with a rosy glow. I'm giving national broadcast a pass on this, since lately they seem to be following a "let's take a poll and see what the mood is" policy.
They were gung-ho at the start because most Americans were. They just told most Americans what they wanted to hear. Yeah. Except for that whole "leak stories to reporters and let them influence the public about all those WMDs and yellow cake to build up support for the war" thing.
The media wants ever more shocking stories in order to sell newspapers or gain viewers.Indeed. It's one of the biggest failings of the press and has been for quite some time. We as readers/viewers/consumers certainly don't help with our miniscule attention spans.

Since the wall get's way too much abuse around here
http://cybergifs.com/computer/headbanger.gif

Since the wall get's way too much abuse around here
http://cybergifs.com/computer/headbanger.gif
Yeah, I saw this one and though it pretty much summed up the situation.


http://www.msnbc.com/comics/comics/nq051227.gif

Snip

And as Eutrusca implies above, military recruiting is a tad difficult lately (a misguided war tends to do that), and keeping Joe and Suzy Homemaker feeling good about Son (who's having a bit of trouble finding a job) going off to dodge car bombs is high priority these days.
While I dont agree with a lot of the reasons for going ... generaly thoes qualified for the military dont have that much of an issue finding other employment

If I remember right they all have to be at least highschool grads ... there are a lot of people that dont even make it that far

While I dont agree with a lot of the reasons for going ... generaly thoes qualified for the military dont have that much of an issue finding other employment

If I remember right they all have to be at least highschool grads ... there are a lot of people that dont even make it that farBeen quite awhile since a high school diploma qualified you for anything but the most menial jobs. In places where military recruitment is most successful (read rural and small-town America), jobs for recent grads with little to no experience (and that pay anywhere above minimum wage) are fairly hard to come by.

Until Iraq, the services did well recruiting by promising high-end job training and were able to be quite selective. (When jobs were easier to come by, they recruited with the "travel the world" line.) As the chances of dying go up and recruiting numbers go down, selectivity goes out the window. If a person is deemed "trainable" and is free of a criminal record, they're pretty much in.

Frankly, I'm not exactly sure what the media's "frakkin'" job is in the first place.

I'm thinking it's a toss up between faking a War on Christmas and showing Angelina Jolie's latest adopted baby.

Does anybody really listen to them anymore?

Frankly, I'm not exactly sure what the media's "frakkin'" job is in the first place.somebody has been watching too much battlestar galactica, it is having an effect on his vocabulary allready :-)

Yeah, I saw this one and though it pretty much summed up the situation.


http://www.msnbc.com/comics/comics/nq051227.gif


hehe nice one!

somebody has been watching too much battlestar galactica, it is having an effect on his vocabulary allready :-)

I always preferred "frelling" myself.

What exactly is the media's frakking job?

Providing war coverage like in 1944, or like in 2005?

I always preferred "frelling" myself.

You prefer frelling yourself? Did we really need to know that?

You prefer frelling yourself? Did we really need to know that?

You know you wanted to know.

COMMENTARY: Apparently the Pentagon is sufficiently concerned about the negative impact all the "gloom and doom" reporting is having on the morale of military personnel. Sad. Very sad.
I agree. Let's abolish it's sad ass out of existence.

You prefer frelling yourself? Did we really need to know that?At least it's indicative of a certain... well, talent. :D

I always preferred "frelling" myself.

Also known as fiddling (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=461216) - think you're in the wrong thread. :p

COMMENTARY: We have talked and talked on here about perceptions of media bias where the military is concerned. Apparently the Pentagon is sufficiently concerned about the negative impact all the "gloom and doom" reporting is having on the morale of military personnel. Sad. Very sad.


Such a pity that America doesn't have a system of capitalism whereby it would be possible for individuals to set up their own journals or newsletters containing the news which they believe to be important and then for those individuals to leave it up to the marketplace to decide what publications are actually desired by the populace as a whole...

Such a pity that America doesn't have a system of capitalism whereby it would be possible for individuals to set up their own journals or newsletters containing the news which they believe to be important and then for those individuals to leave it up to the marketplace to decide what publications are actually desired by the populace as a whole...

and I laugh!

Such a pity that America doesn't have a system of capitalism whereby it would be possible for individuals to set up their own journals or newsletters containing the news which they believe to be important and then for those individuals to leave it up to the marketplace to decide what publications are actually desired by the populace as a whole...

What a Brave New World....

Such a pity that America doesn't have a system of capitalism whereby it would be possible for individuals to set up their own journals or newsletters containing the news which they believe to be important and then for those individuals to leave it up to the marketplace to decide what publications are actually desired by the populace as a whole...
Garsh, if you could work in some kinda 'innernet' angle uh think you'd have it sewn up real good!

COMMENTARY: We have talked and talked on here about perceptions of media bias where the military is concerned. Apparently the Pentagon is sufficiently concerned about the negative impact all the "gloom and doom" reporting is having on the morale of military personnel. Sad. Very sad.

*snip*

[ "The Pentagon created the war?" This guy is a nutcase! ]

1. Nothing in the article you posted proves anything about media bias.

2. Nothing in the article you posted said anything about "gloom and doom" reporting having a negative impact on the morale of military personnel.

3. All the article describes is a bunch of Pentagon PR efforts. Big suprise.

4. Um. They guy is right. All he said is that was that the Pentagon obviously supports the war -- otherwise we would be having one.

Someone explain to me why does the Pentagon, a military institution, feel the need to fight a political movement of anti-war? Is the pentagon pro-war? But that is a political decision, and the military must be apolitical. Or is it just like that in the US?

Soldiers exist to fight wars, not to agree with them.

You have a good point.

One could well argue that a professional military complex should not necessarily be engaged in domestic politicking and propaganda. That should be left to politicians.

You have a good point.

One could well argue that a professional military complex should not necessarily be engaged in domestic politicking and propaganda. That should be left to politicians.
You would think so
At least I would think so ...

COMMENTARY: According to the following article, troop morale has actually improved over last year, although it is still low:
*snip*

A majority of U.S. soldiers in Iraq say morale is low, according to an Army report that finds psychological stress is weighing particularly heavily on National Guard and Reserve troops.

Still, soldiers' mental health has improved from the early months of the insurgency, and suicides have declined sharply, the report said. Also, substantially fewer soldiers had to be evacuated from Iraq for mental health problems last year.

*snip*

The report said reasons for the improvement in mental health are not clear. Among possible explanations: less frequent and less intense combat, more comforts like air conditioning, wider access to mental health services and improved training in handling the stresses associated with deployments and combat.

*snip*

The report recommended that the Army reconsider whether National Guard and Reserve support troops are getting adequate training in combat skills. Even though they do less fighting than combat troops, they might be better suited to cope with wartime stress if they had more confidence in their combat skills, it said.

*snip*

The report said 54 percent of soldiers rated their units' morale as low or very low. The comparable figure in a year-earlier Army survey was 72 percent. Although respondents said "combat stressors" like mortar attacks were higher in the most recent survey, "noncombat stressors" like uncertain tour lengths were much lower, the report said.

The thing that bothered soldiers the most, the latest assessment said, was the length of their required stay in Iraq. At the start of the war, most were deployed for six months, but now they go for 12 months.

*snip*

Closing COMMENTARY: Despite the article posted by Eut about negative press, despite the Cindy Sheehan campaign, and despite the negative commentary, it appears that morale has actually improved, and that the number one reason for low troop morale is due to the increased length of deployment.

Toss in the fact that "only 28 percent of the Guard troops rated their level of training as high, compared with 50 percent of their active-duty counterparts." and I see that the biggest part of the morale problem is rooted in Pentagon decisions.

Excellent article and excellent analysis.

Low morale is not due to "doom and gloom" media as Eut asserts, but rather to the way the Pentagon trains and is treating our troops.

What does Eutrusca believe the media's job to be? Because in the current system, the media's job is to make money. Does he support government censorship, or should more funds be sent to government-owned media (in the style of say, the BBC)?

What does Eutrusca believe the media's job to be? Because in the current system, the media's job is to make money. Does he support government censorship, or should more funds be sent to but rush limbaugh does make money while reporting favourably. or do you think he isnt making enogh money?

Garsh, if you could work in some kinda 'innernet' angle uh think you'd have it sewn up real good!

How about having files of text (we could call them 'pages') where people are able to put up their own content and an indexing system whereby automated programmes search out content and sort it according to keywords, so that readers are able to find the kind of news sources they want? Nah, that's just crazy talk, I guess.

but rush limbaugh does make money while reporting favourably. or do you think he isnt making enogh money?
Yeah so? that was exactly the point

but rush limbaugh does make money while reporting favourably. or do you think he isnt making enogh money?
That's because he appeals to a niche audience, rather than a very wide one. He tells his audience what they want to hear.

That's because he appeals to a niche audience, rather than a very wide one. He tells his audience what they want to hear.
Lol your answer sounds just like mine before I trimmed it lol
Even used niche too lol