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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, yes. Heard it all before. Don’t say we shouldn’t fight the war, don’t you know there’s a war on?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[QUOTE=Princhester]
No.
Okay, let’s back up. Would you agree that the majority of the mass media is opposed to the President?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Here’s an interesting story magellan01:
Mayor of Baghdad Is Deposed
Does this story detract from our war effort?
Does it weaken the president?
Should it have been published?
While we’re at it, best magellan01, order that well-known peacenik, Rusmfeld, to quit undermining the war effort:
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?
I’d be all for that! My point is that I don’t think that “every bit of information” is being taken into account.
Yes, but I don’t think they should harp on it. Report it. Give it full air, and move on.
Again, it should neither hurt nor help the administration. I’d be thrilled with that.
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.
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?
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?
Really? Jessica Lynch must have been nothing but my imagination, then.
-Joe
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.
Mr. Moto, where in that patriotic sermon do you discuss “interference”? I missed it.
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.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
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.
Whatever degree of hope they have now, it’s more they had under Saddam. Or would you like to debate that, too?
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.
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.
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.
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 ]