# Iraq news coverage **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 7, 2005, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-news-coverage/316014 "2005-08-07T18:58:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![hazel-rah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/73ab20/32.png) [@hazel-rah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hazel-rah)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-news-coverage/316014/41 "2005-08-10T07:13:26Z")
> [@](#): > > I suggest that motivation for the mass media is to sap the President of power and support through, and in spite of the war effort. Do you not think that is true? Yes, perfectly true. And since it was the weatherman who told me it rained ten inches last night, it’s his goddamn fault my house got flooded. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-news-coverage/316014/42 "2005-08-10T12:03:46Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I’ll restate slightly: I suggest that motivation for the mass media is to sap the President of power and support _through, and in spite of_ the war effort. Do you not think that is true? No. You really are showing tremendous ability to withstand cognitive dissonance here. You’ve already admitted that US deaths are newsworthy and therefore going to be reported regardless of any political motivation, but you’re sticking to your guns and insisting they’re doing it due to political motivation anyway. > [@](#): > > They are certainly newsworthy, as other other occurences in war. But there is a matter of degree. For instance, Abu Ghraib, as horrible and inexcusable as it was, it certailnly didn’t merit the attention it did. Here’s an exchange I had with **ascenray** , who I thought put things well. Ultimately it is possible that the degree of news coverage of negative aspects of the war is exaggerated. It is also possible that the opposite is true. It is a matter of judgment since there is no objectively right or wrong measure of how much coverage of any given subject is appropriate. However, given that the dangerous situation for journalists in Iraq means that the US military is to a significant extent able to control what journalists can see, and given that the US military’s priority is to project as positive an image as possible, I suspect that if there is a bias at all it is towards a downplaying of how bad things are. As far as your judgment on the matter is concerned, you made it very clear from the outset that your position was extreme. You only backed away from the idea that reporting casualties was (without qualification) necessarily politically motivated when the hoots of derision became too much to bear. > [@](#): > > I agree. But that is behind us. Especially now. Unless you are part of a very small minority that think that we should just up and leave Iraq tomorrow, we are there and have to make the best of a bad situation. No the question is not behind us because the decision about when to leave remains to be made. And the price that the US and Australia and others are paying feeds into that decision. The success (or lack thereof) of efforts to bring peace and restore Iraq also feed into that decision. You want to shut down that feed of information, because it’s bad news all the way and that means the US population may want to get out earlier than you’d like. You want to keep them in the dark. > [@](#): > > I think that means that our own media should report the facts in a manner that–at the least–does not put us in the “worst” light. Report, Abu Ghraib, report the soldiers who gave their lives, but don’t use it as a club to beat the President over the head with. He is the leader of the war effort, and that which weakens him, weakens it. And that hurts us all. Yes, yes. Heard it all before. Don’t say we shouldn’t fight the war, don’t you know there’s a war on? > [@](#): > > There is plenty of good going on that goes unreported, or underreported, by the mass media. **Furt** provided a link that provides much of it. If that’s all there is, no wonder I’m pessimistic about the war. Furt’s cite is to a right wing blogger who’s put together a mass of Pollyanna stories all designed to sound like Iraq’s a bed of roses but all paper thin when you look at them. Stories of optimism which, when you read them are stories of optimism in the face of disaster, stories of efforts, stories of money being spent, stories of feelgood crap like “sister cities” (what the hell does that actually mean besides a plaque on a wall?). Virtually no stories about anything of substance actually being achieved. The reason the mass media doesn’t report this stuff is because it’s window dressing crap. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-news-coverage/316014/43 "2005-08-10T12:59:25Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I think that means that our own media should report the facts in a manner that–at the least–does not put us in the “worst” light. Report, Abu Ghraib, report the soldiers who gave their lives, but don’t use it as a club to beat the President over the head with. He is the leader of the war effort, and that which weakens him, weakens it. And that hurts us all. There is plenty of good going on that goes unreported, or underreported, by the mass media. **Furt** provided a link that provides much of it. I think we have a fundamental disagreement over what the news media is for and what a national political dialogue should be like. The media have no responsibility to report anything in a “good” light. The media have a responsibility to report facts and reality. And the public has the responsibility to continuously evaluate its elected officials, _especially_ when there’s something as serious as a war going on. Every bit of information should be taken in to decide one thing – do I want this guy to stay in office or not? If the facts make him look bad, then they make him look bad. If something really bad happens, then it should be reported. The press has no responsibility to “help” an adminstration prosecute its policies; indeed, doing so would run counter to its actual responsibility, to give information to the public to determine whether those policies are any good or whether they are being pursued effectively. Events should be reported in proportion. Abu Ghraib is a big fucking deal, possibly the biggest crime against humanity perpetrated by representatives of the United States government in decades. In comparison, the stuff posted in the link ranges from being of little consequence to fluff, deserving of little or no coverage. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-news-coverage/316014/44 "2005-08-10T13:18:27Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > If that’s all there is, no wonder I’m pessimistic about the war. Furt’s cite is to a right wing blogger who’s put together a mass of Pollyanna stories all designed to sound like Iraq’s a bed of roses but all paper thin when you look at them. Stories of optimism which, when you read them are stories of optimism in the face of disaster, stories of efforts, stories of money being spent, stories of feelgood crap like “sister cities” (what the hell does that actually mean besides a plaque on a wall?). Virtually no stories about anything of substance actually being achieved. > > The reason the mass media doesn’t report this stuff is because it’s window dressing crap. And at least in the UK a lot of the stuff mentioned was and is reported. It just pales into insignificance against the endless car bombs, the deaths of soldiers, the killing of civilians by all sides, the fact that no major road is secure, that there is no law and order, that the police forces are totally penetrated by insurgents, that insurgents attack and kill ministers, that US troops shoot up govt officials, that things are quiet in the south because the british have effectively handed security over to religious militias and that women are going to end up under sharia law, that westerners of any stripe cannot safely set foot outside the Green Zone or heavily guarded hotels etc etc etc etc. This rightwing bloggery ‘good news’ is just pissing in a very strong wind. And while we are citing blogs. > [@](#): > > Bush said: > “Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war. … The commander in charge of coalition operations in Iraq, who is also senior commander at this base, General John Vines, put it well the other day. He said, “We either deal with terrorism and this extremism abroad, or we deal with it when it comes to us.” > > He speaks of ‘abroad’ as if it is a vague desert-land filled with heavily-bearded men and possibly camels. ‘Abroad’ in his speech seems to indicate a land of inferior people- less deserving of peace, prosperity and even life. > > Don’t Americans know that this vast wasteland of terror and terrorists otherwise known as ‘Abroad’ was home to the first civilizations and is home now to some of the most sophisticated, educated people in the region? > > Don’t Americans realize that ‘abroad’ is a country full of people- men, women and children who are dying hourly? ‘Abroad’ is home for millions of us. It’s the place we were raised and the place we hope to raise our children- your field of war and terror. > > The war was brought to us here, and now we have to watch the country disintegrate before our very eyes. We watch as towns are bombed and gunned down and evacuated of their people. We watch as friends and loved ones are detained, or killed or pressured out of the country with fear and intimidation. > > Bush said: > “We see the nature of the enemy in terrorists who exploded car bombs along a busy shopping street in Baghdad, including one outside a mosque. We see the nature of the enemy in terrorists who sent a suicide bomber to a teaching hospital in Mosul…” > > Yes. And Bush is extremely concerned with the mosques. He might ask the occupation forces in Iraq to quit attacking mosques and detaining the worshipers inside- to stop raiding them and bombing them and using them as shelters for American snipers in places like Falluja and Samarra. And the terrorists who sent a suicide bomber to a teaching hospital in Mosul? Maybe they got their cue from the American troops who attacked the only functioning hospital in Falluja. > > “We continued our efforts to help them rebuild their country. Rebuilding a country after three decades of tyranny is hard and rebuilding while a country is at war is even harder." > > Three decades of tyranny isn’t what bombed and burned buildings to the ground. It isn’t three decades of tyranny that destroyed the infrastructure with such things as “Shock and Awe” and various other tactics. Though he fails to mention it, prior to the war, we didn’t have sewage overflowing in the streets like we do now, and water cut off for days and days at a time. We certainly had more than the 8 hours of electricity daily. In several areas they aren’t even getting that much. > > “They are doing that by building the institutions of a free society, a society based on freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion and equal justice under law.” > > We’re so free, we often find ourselves prisoners of our homes, with roads cut off indefinitely and complete areas made inaccessible. We are so free to assemble that people now fear having gatherings because a large number of friends or family members may attract too much attention and provoke a raid by American or Iraqi forces. > > As to Iraqi forces…There was too much to quote on the new Iraqi forces. He failed to mention that many of their members were formerly part of militias, and that many of them contributed to the looting and burning that swept over Iraq after the war and continued for weeks. > > “The new Iraqi security forces are proving their courage every day.” > > Indeed they are. The forte of the new Iraqi National Guard? Raids and mass detentions. They have been learning well from the coalition. They sweep into areas, kick down doors, steal money, valuables, harass the females in the household and detain the men. The Iraqi security forces are so effective that a few weeks ago, they managed to kill a high-ranking police major in Falluja when he ran a red light, shooting him in the head as his car drove away. [Baghdad Burning](http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/) ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-news-coverage/316014/45 "2005-08-10T13:27:39Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Admittedly, this is something of a pet cause of mine. I got so fed up with the media ignoring genuine war heroes in Afghanistan and Iraq that I started a thread series about some of them. They all have something in common, though - they’re all brave beyond belief, and they all have been ignored in a rather shocking way by network and print media. > > There are a lot of things we disagree on, but I think many of us might be able to get behind the notion that if you earn a Navy Cross, Distinguished Service Cross, or Air Force Cross, the New York Times should print a story about you. Then, shouldn’t it also print the story about Iraki heroes, who fought to the death in face of overwhelming odds, for instance? They too are brave beyond belief, and certainly have been ignored even more. If you really want it to give the complete picture, you need that too. Your posts always irritated me. Each time I read them, I can’t help but think about the guys this hero of yours killed. And about the guys who dared fighting face to face (in the stories you recount, it’s generally a regular engagement) a vastly superior ennemy and who aren’t mentionned anywhere by anybody. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-news-coverage/316014/46 "2005-08-10T14:00:07Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > Your posts always irritated me. Each time I read them, I can’t help but think about the guys this hero of yours killed. And about the guys who dared fighting face to face (in the stories you recount, it’s generally a regular engagement) a vastly superior ennemy and who aren’t mentionned anywhere by anybody. I can’t help the fact that these stories exist, and I’m certainly not going to apologize for retelling them in the way that I did. Nor am I going to apologize for being biased in favor of American servicemen and women, especially in situations where they are being shot at. That does not mean I don’t respect the service of other people who fight, even if they happen to be my enemy. I do, especially if they fight well and honorably. That doesn’t change the fact that sometimes lines are drawn and sides are formed. As an American, I’m on one of those sides. Even if I were to oppose the war politically, (which I’m not inclined to do), I would be prevented by law and by good common sense from interfering with what the soldiers of my country were ordered to do by duly elected authority. Conversely, I would be enjoined to support the war effort materially, through taxation, and to serve in the military if required to and if found eligible for service. Now, I extend to you an invitation I’ve extended in the past. If you have a story of an Iraqi who has fought honorably against our soldiers, go ahead and post it. I’ll give it a read with an open mind. Otherwise, quit griping about my posts about military heroes. Your problem, after all, doesn’t seem to be with me, but with a system that produces military heroism in the first place. That’s certainly a fair criticism, and borne out of a long tradition of honorable pacifism. It is, however, a bit misplaced for you to worry about me, who’s just a cog in the big rotten machine. ---
**Author:** ![Rashak\_Mani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@Rashak\_Mani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rashak_Mani)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-news-coverage/316014/47 "2005-08-10T14:41:24Z")
Well each side will comemorate their “heroes” no matter what. In a maybe not too distant future the current insurgents will make themselves into the “continental” army of Iraq vs the evil ™ western occupiers ? Even if one does think the US is doing the wrong thing its hard not to admire US soldiers courage and work in a messed up situation… but then the same should be valid to insurgents fighting the supposedely best equipped and trained army on earth. Pity for the lousy reasons on both sides for fighting. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-news-coverage/316014/48 "2005-08-10T15:29:37Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Even if I were to oppose the war politically, (which I’m not inclined to do), I would be prevented by law and by good common sense from interfering with what the soldiers of my country were ordered to do by duly elected authority. Would you kindly explain what this sentence is getting at? If you wanted to, how could you interfere with what the US soldiers are doing? Or are others, in your opinion, interfering with the soldiers and if so, who and how? I don’t think the media are being dishonest. If anything, at the start of the war they were all too willing cheerleaders. Even CBS, long the whipping boy of the right, has each night presented a “Fallen Heroes” segment giving us a personal glimpse of some of those killed. But news is news. They report car bombings because they happen. They report death and destruction because it happens. If, as Bush had thought, the teeming millions of Iraqis had strewn roses in the paths of their conquering heros, it would have made the news. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-news-coverage/316014/49 "2005-08-10T16:04:29Z")
[QUOTE=Princhester] No. Okay, let’s back up. Would you agree that the majority of the mass media is opposed to the President? > [@](#): > > You really are showing tremendous ability to withstand cognitive dissonance here. You’ve already admitted that US deaths are newsworthy and therefore going to be reported regardless of any political motivation, but you’re sticking to your guns and insisting they’re doing it due to political motivation anyway. First you state the above… implying that my position is somehow unreasonable… …then, thankfully, the concept of “degree” dawns upon you (below), as well as the fact that much of this might be subjective. > [@](#): > > Ultimately it is possible that the degree of news coverage of negative aspects of the war is exaggerated. It is also possible that the opposite is true. It is a matter of judgment since there is no objectively right or wrong measure of how much coverage of any given subject is appropriate. > [@](#): > > …You only backed away from the idea that reporting casualties was (without qualification) necessarily politically motivated when the hoots of derision became too much to bear. Actually, I expected much more derision. And I don’t see as what I did as you do. I clarified my position in the hopes that you might better understand it. It changes little my original contention (opinion) that much of the mass media uses the U.S. death toll to sap support from the war effort. I simply offered what I think to be a more primary motivation: their desire to sap the President of support and power. For future reference, this is a good way for a debate to operate. When to sides seem to be completely at odds, each side try to explain their opinion better, or come at it from a slightly different angle. Because only if you truly understand what someone’s opinion is, can you effectively marshall your derision against it. Or have a more in-depth debate. Whichever suits you. > [@](#): > > …You want to shut down that feed of information, because it’s bad news all the way and that means the US population may want to get out earlier than you’d like. You want to keep them in the dark. No, I want them out as soon as possible. Probably as soon as you do. (Unless you are part of the friinge that wants them to leave tomorrow.) But I don’t want them out any sooner than their mission necessitates. Again we are talking about balance. Abu Ghraib was a conspiracy of crimes and an important, newsworthy story, but did it merit the degree of coverage it did. My opinion is no. Did the desecration of the U.S. Marines by a bunch of animals at the bridge in Fallujah receive the attention it warranted. I think not. Do many of the good things happening go under-reported. I think so. > [@](#): > > Yes, yes. Heard it all before. Don’t say we shouldn’t fight the war, don’t you know there’s a war on? I’m not sure that many people are even saying that. I know I’m not. In By the way, what is your opinion of what we should do right now? > [@](#): > > If that’s all there is, no wonder I’m pessimistic about the war. Furt’s cite is to a right wing blogger who’s put together a mass of Pollyanna stories all designed to sound like Iraq’s a bed of roses but all paper thin when you look at them. Stories of optimism which, when you read them are stories of optimism in the face of disaster, stories of efforts, stories of money being spent, stories of feelgood crap like “sister cities” (what the hell does that actually mean besides a plaque on a wall?). Virtually no stories about anything of substance actually being achieved. Oh, the evil right-wing blog. Well, if papers like the NY Tiimes did thier job properly, you wouldn’t need right-wing blogs. And, seriously, is that all you got out of his link? I suggest you read it again. Seriously. No snarkiness intended. I won’t bother to copy and pasrte here, butI would point out that the torture chambers that are now closed, where children would be tortured in order to get their fathers to talk; a maniacal dictator who killed hundreds of thousands of his own people is now being brought to justice; an election has taken place, in which millions, including women, risked their lives in order to steer their country–there voter turn-out was almost as high as ours, and we don’t risk being beheaded! “Window dressing crap?” This may just be a list of things on a piece of paper to us, but to the people in Iraq, its importance cannot be overstated. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-news-coverage/316014/50 "2005-08-10T17:27:14Z")
Here’s an interesting story **magellan01** : [Mayor of Baghdad Is Deposed](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/10/international/10cnd-iraq.html?hp&ex=1123732800&en=3485dfe6406d9dd8&ei=5094&partner=homepage) > [@](#): > > Aug. 10 - Armed men entered Baghdad’s municipal building during a blinding dust storm on Monday, deposed the city’s mayor and installed a member of Iraq’s most powerful Shiite militia. Does this story detract from our war effort? Does it weaken the president? Should it have been published? ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-news-coverage/316014/51 "2005-08-10T17:44:27Z")
While we’re at it, best **magellan01** , order that well-known peacenik, Rusmfeld, to quit undermining the war effort: [Insurgency could get worse: Rumsfeld](http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16211928%255E1702,00.html) ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-news-coverage/316014/52 "2005-08-10T19:34:27Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > I think we have a fundamental disagreement over what the news media is for and what a national political dialogue should be like. The media have no responsibility to report anything in a “good” light. The media have a responsibility to report facts and reality. Would you agree that a set of facts could be presented in several ways, giving more import to some than others? And while I agree with most of this, I’d add that the media also have the responsibility to not report something in a “bad” light. Good news should not be blown out of proportion, but neither should bad. Do you agree? > [@](#): > > And the public has the responsibility to continuously evaluate its elected officials, _especially_ when there’s something as serious as a war going on. Every bit of information should be taken in to decide one thing – do I want this guy to stay in office or not? I’d be all for that! My point is that I don’t think that “every bit of information” _is_ being taken into account. > [@](#): > > If the facts make him look bad, then they make him look bad. If something really bad happens, then it should be reported. Yes, but I don’t think they should harp on it. Report it. Give it full air, and move on. > [@](#): > > The press has no responsibility to “help” an adminstration prosecute its policies; indeed, doing so would run counter to its actual responsibility, to give information to the public to determine whether those policies are any good or whether they are being pursued effectively. Again, it should neither hurt nor help the administration. I’d be _thrilled_ with that. > [@](#): > > Events should be reported in proportion. Abu Ghraib is a big fucking deal, possibly the biggest crime against humanity perpetrated by representatives of the United States government in decades. Abu Ghraib was a big deal. Absolutely. And I condemn anyone and everyone who is responsible for those ugly, mindless crimes. Not only were they offensive to a sense of decency, they were counter-productive in every way, not the least of which is guaranteeing maximum hell for our soldiers that might be captured… But I believe that the coverage it got is unjustifiable on purely reportage grounds. It was simply over the top. And the fact that you can say–accurately, I think–that this is the “…biggest crime against humanity perpetrated by representatives of the United States government in decades.” I think speaks as well of our governement as it does ill. Abu Ghraib aside, or even if taken into account, on whole, this war waged by the coalition (I’m just trying to give credit where it is due) is probably the most huanely waged war in the history of the world. Should we aim higher? Yes. Should we endeavor to stay out of war altogether. Yes. > [@](#): > > In comparison, the stuff posted in the link ranges from being of little consequence to fluff, deserving of little or no coverage. I strongly disagree. Do you think the people in Iraq would agree with that? The people who no longer have to watch their children being tortured? The people who feared that they’d be next to be thrown into the mass graves on the whim of a maniacal despot? The people who risked their lives, possibly through beheadings, to go vote. The women who now have a glimmer of hope for an education and fuller lives? And what about your idea that: “Every bit of information should be taken in to decide one thing – do I want this guy to stay in office or not?” [Emphasis mine] How does that align with you statement just above? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-news-coverage/316014/53 "2005-08-10T19:51:47Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Would you kindly explain what this sentence is getting at? If you wanted to, how could you interfere with what the US soldiers are doing? Or are others, in your opinion, interfering with the soldiers and if so, who and how? I don’t know that they are. I was merely making the point that, whether we support or oppose the war as a political matter, we all support it as a practical material matter now that the issue has been decided through the political process. We pay taxes toward the war effort, and pay soldiers their pay and benefits. We provide for their care when they get hurt, and for their families when they are killed. We do this as a society, now that we’re all in this war. When those medals are issued, they are the thanks of a grateful nation. Now, if someone has it in his head that he cannot abide this, he really has only two options available. One is civil disobedience, with the possibility of prison. Another is emigration. I don’t demand people love it or leave it, rhetorically, but it should be noted that many people have over the years availed themselves of this option after deciding that the United States wasn’t a good moral fit. So yes, if you’re American, pay taxes, and haven’t been hauled off to jail yet, you’ve chosen a side, same as that Marine in Baghdad. And, since we’re all on the same side here, shouldn’t he get a nice heroes welcome when he comes home? Shouldn’t he, if he earns a Navy Cross through a spectacularly heroic act, get some recognition in the news, and serve as an example to others? ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-news-coverage/316014/54 "2005-08-10T20:02:34Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Likewise, stories of soldiers doing their jobs, even heroically, doesn’t get this kind of copy because it simply doesn’t make for as exciting a story. Never mind that the good soldiers far outnumber the bad, nor that genuine heroism will far exceed the brutality shown in that prison in sheer magnitude. This fact will be lost on the casual viewer whose only impression of our men and women in uniform might well end up being Lynndie England and Charles Graner. Really? Jessica Lynch must have been nothing but my imagination, then. -Joe ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-news-coverage/316014/55 "2005-08-10T20:10:39Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > …Do you think the people in Iraq would agree with that? The people who no longer have to watch their children being tortured? The people who feared that they’d be next to be thrown into the mass graves on the whim of a maniacal despot? The people who risked their lives, possibly through beheadings, to go vote. The women who now have a glimmer of hope for an education and fuller lives?.. Haven’t the foggiest about what the people of Iraq think. Neither, I daresay, have you. Where are the “Gosh, We Sure Love President Bush!” rallies? If, as you seem to suggest, the Iraqi people must simply be bubbling over with gratitude, and bravely face beheadings (!) to vote, mightn’t they brave the same dire threats in order to express this fulsome gratitude? It would appear not. Dare I suggest that such extravagant gratitude does not exist? I do, indeed. You might ask yourself why. As to the hopes for Iraqi women for a fuller enfranchisement, “glimmer” may be too strong a word. The notion that freely disseminated information might be regarded as undermining a war effort, and hence tainted, is a kind of blasphemy, a secular apostasy. “We, the people” hold the power, what is being done is being done in our name, by our own. We have the right, indeed, we have the _burden_ to demand to be fully informed. A democratic people who accept the demands of that governance ought not be treated as children, to be shielded from the unpleasant facts. Truth is truth: if it hurts you, its because you’re wrong. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-news-coverage/316014/56 "2005-08-10T20:16:58Z")
**Mr. Moto** , where in that patriotic sermon do you discuss “interference”? I missed it. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-news-coverage/316014/57 "2005-08-10T20:23:28Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Abu Ghraib aside, or even if taken into account, on whole, this war waged by the coalition (I’m just trying to give credit where it is due) is probably the most huanely waged war in the history of the world. Should we aim higher? Yes. Should we endeavor to stay out of war altogether. Yes. Cite? Besides the glaringly obvious fact that if you “should endeavor to stay out of war altogther,” backing an aggressive war of choice, based on outright lies and deceptions, is rather incongruent. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-news-coverage/316014/58 "2005-08-10T20:44:07Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] > [@](#): > > Where are the “Gosh, We Sure Love President Bush!” rallies? If, as you seem to suggest, the Iraqi people must simply be bubbling over with gratitude, and bravely face beheadings (!) to vote, mightn’t they brave the same dire threats in order to express this fulsome gratitude? It would appear not. Dare I suggest that such extravagant gratitude does not exist? I do, indeed. So, according to you, if you are wiling to risk your life to vote and create a better future for yourself and your children, you MUST be willing to risk your life to show thanks be holding a parade or other similar display of “fulsome gratitude”. “Interesting” conclusion. > [@](#): > > As to the hopes for Iraqi women for a fuller enfranchisement, “glimmer” may be too strong a word. Whatever degree of hope they have now, it’s more they had under Saddam. Or would you like to debate that, too? > [@](#): > > The notion that freely disseminated information might be regarded as undermining a war effort, and hence tainted, is a kind of blasphemy, a secular apostasy. “We, the people” hold the power, what is being done is being done in our name, by our own. We have the right, indeed, we have the _burden_ to demand to be fully informed. A democratic people who accept the demands of that governance ought not be treated as children, to be shielded from the unpleasant facts. I assume you read my last post to **ascenray** and were able to read the whole thing, so why do you grasp on to some bits and ignore others. I suggest you reread it if you want a response to the above. > [@](#): > > Truth is truth: if it hurts you, its because you’re wrong. Ha! I’m the one who is trrying to get in MORE information. I have not said news shouldn’t be reported. I have said that it should be balanced. The the _amount_ of coverage regarding AG was excessive and that we should here more about the positive things—which, as much as you might wish otherwise—are also part of reality. My guess is that the problem you have is that the more good news that might find it’s way into the NY Times, the less bad news there will be. Or iverall, the war won’t seem as bad as they, and others portray it now. Boo-effin-hoo. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-news-coverage/316014/59 "2005-08-10T20:56:49Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > Cite? Besides the glaringly obvious fact that if you “should endeavor to stay out of war altogther,” backing an aggressive war of choice, based on outright lies and deceptions, is rather incongruent. What? What kind of cite are you looking for? A cite for why I think this is probably the case? Huh? Do you want me to cite all the artrocities of all wars ever waged and then cite all atrocities commited in this war? An article that might exist on some right wing blog, which you will discount any way? Try not to be ridiculous. If you don’t agree with my assessment, why don’t you refute it? Tell me why you think it is wrong. I know it’s easier to just write “cite” and run away, but you gotta at least try. As far as “outright lies and deceptions”, my advice is to lay off the Michael Moore for a while. Show me where the President has lied to get us into war. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-news-coverage/316014/60 "2005-08-10T21:33:54Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > If you do, pass the bong back to rjung. NOT appropriate in **GD** , thank you. Insisting that a poster is incorrect because they are drug-addled is no more acceptable than saying they are simply stupid. Keep that sort of rhetoric for the **Pit**. [/Moderator Mode] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-news-coverage/316014.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-news-coverage/316014.md?page=4)