stratocaster, if you can offer a different motivation for the essentially-content-free OP other than simple liberal-media-bashing, let’s have it. The OP poster himself has offered only that it could be a sign of media incompetence or laziness, not bias. You both need to read more from people who actually travel outside the Green Zone.
I agree that the cites provided did not necessarily amount to a consensus endorsement of U.S. policy.
But what I understood you to say was that Sam implied a liberal bias by virtue of asserting that the story was ignored because it involved “a march against Terrorism and in support of Reconstruction and the United States.” In fact, using that quote, you rhetorically asked if there was any other reasonable inference one could draw.
So, if those words imply a liberal bias, mustn’t we likewise assume that liberals support terrorism and that they oppose a successful reconstruction effort and the U.S. in general? If that’s not a given, then those words don’t imply a liberal bias. That’s a logical syllogism, ain’t it? BTW, none of my liberal friends hold those beliefs, and I think they’d be offended that those specific words = liberal bias.
Or did I misunderstand what you intended to convey?
Sincerely,
Still Bob (but now with a cool new user name).
Sorry Elvis, but unlike you, I generally try not to assign any sort of motive to someone making an argument; that would be called a logical fallacy. I believe their assertions stand or fall on the merit of how they are argued (and you’ll note I did not offer an opinion on the specific argument, but only on the conclusion that Sam must have been implying a liberal bias).
You, on the other hand, can’t seem to avoid it. In this very post you seem quite certain what my political position is and how that position forces my conclusions. For what it’s worth, I have no fucking idea what the “Green Zone” is. You may infer whatever malicious motive you’d like from this confession.
“Not neccesarily”. Well, I think you’re on pretty safe ground there. Hard to fault. Indeed, it may be worthy of nomination for the SDMB 2003 Thundering Understatement Award.
I regret that I cannot comment with any insight on the rest of your post, as I’m not at all sure what it is you are saying.
I suggested that Sam was returning to a major theme of his ilk (got ilk?), to the effect that there was simply tons and tons of good news pouring out of Iraq on a daily basis, but that the liberal media was witholding such in service to thier defeatist agenda. To my mind, given the quotes provided, a glaringly obvious interpretation.
Steady up, there. It is entirely respectable to assign motive to an argument, the motive is to win the argument. And if the poster has an unblemished record as a palladin of the Bushivik cause, it is equally reasonable to presume that he percieves his argument as furtherance of a larger goal. All well and good. After all, that’s why we’re here.
The OP posits a familiar theme: a pro-American demonstration is another example of Simply Splendid News that goes unnoticed by the press. If he is not intent on alerting us to the calumny of the liberal media, what is he suggesting? An alarming and sudden rise in drug use at the editorial boards?
**Please be fair. Neither did Sam’s cite amount to an unequivocal Iraqi denouncement of U.S. policy.
Hmm. I don’t know how else to explain it. You used this quote from Sam…
**…as support that clearly he implied a liberal media filter that prevented the reporting of such items. If the tons and tons of good news being withheld by that lousy liberal press were all related to Iraqi anti-terrorism, support of a successful reconstruction and establishing a viable democracy, then those liberal louses have a very specific agenda.
If the liberal filter opposes any story that shows Iraqi opposition to terrorism and support of a successful reconstruction, then it’s logical to assume that liberals must be pro-terrorism, pro-insurgents and against a successful reconstruction (which, of course, I do NOT believe). If liberals are NOT of those beliefs, then the quote from Sam does not imply a liberal bias, not without any further qualification.
If this still doesn’t make sense, I’m not sure how else to say it. Sorry.
**It may be practical to assign a motive in real life. I don’t assume a salesman has my welfare as his sole concern, and I behave appropriately. But in a forum called “Great Debates,” it’s still accurate to point out that this is, indeed, a logical fallacy.
elucidator, again I’ll point out that I, for one, do not for a moment equate ignoring a “pro-American demonstration” story as a liberal tendency. I believe that most liberals, like most conservatives, are pro-American themselves. Don’t you? 
So if Sam asserts that pro-American stories are being ignored, why would that imply a liberal bias?
So Sam were there any pro-US or anti-terror demonstrations today? What with the capture of Saddam and all, I’d expect a huge upsurge in this sort of activity. As a nattering nabob of negativity, I find it a little disturbing that we didn’t see pictures of a million Baghdadis converging on the site of last week’s demonstration. Prudence, as usual, demands that we give the story a little more time to unfold. Perhaps they’ll be there tomorrow, or perhaps the whole anti-terror rally thing is a flash in the pan.
The debate, as I understand is two-fold: does the media fail to cover certain developments in Iraq? and if so, is it because the media is politically biased? My take: it does fail, but mostly not from political reasons.
I take it you never turned on a TV today?
Sure did, and I we didn’t see pictures of a million Baghdadis converging on the site of last week’s demonstration.
They kept running that little demo in front of the communist party headquarters over and over. Sometime during the afternoon they came out with a version where the hammer and sickle on the commie flags had been edited out. I was inspired by this journalistic integrity, but never saw anything approaching the size of the antiwar demonstrations in NY or London last winter. Are you claiming there was such an event?
I’m claiming there was an event that was very significant. The numbers bandied about for the size of it range from somewhere in the vicinity of 10,000 people to 1 million. I don’t for a second believe the larger number. I believe 10,000 might be a reasonable figure. I believe that was significant and newsworthy.
Why haven’t you seen it on TV? Well, that’s the whole point of this thread, isn’t it? To answer that question?
But it’s kind of a moot point. Today, everything changed. Let’s wait and see what the reaction is in the next few months.
Time will be the telling factor here.
Now hold that thought, I can also report that I saw this article in the New York Times.
Change the text in the photograph from “people celebrating in front of (and implied that they were members of) Iraq’s communist party HQ” to the, less puzzling to American citizens, text in the current one.
I found a different article that showed I was not imagining things:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/iraq/14iraq_celebrate.html
Well, I do remember that historically the Communist party in Japan was allowed to develop after WW2, (it remains a force in Japanese politics). Seems that a similar model is being allowed in Iraq, of course for the tender ears of the right in America, historical precedents will not do, I assume they would have looked at that and said, WTF! We sacrificed for the freedom of those people also?!?
The alteration of those images is somehow worrisome, you will be the judge, if it was a liberal or conservative move for the mainstream media to do.
Given that the “argument” totally fails on a logical basis, and given the poster’s strong predilection toward a particular side of any argument, there isn’t much left, is there? Perhaps you ought to read some back issues of this board.
There’s not necessarily malice in simple broad ignorance, such as you have admitted here. It’s a very familiar term and concept to anyone who is seriously interested in finding the facts about what’s happening on the ground, and how it’s being reported. You have now shown yourself not to be such, and the factual basis of your arguments can fairly be assessed on that basis, don’tcha think?
Well, we’ve waited a few months, and this is what we see:
10 U.S. Troops Killed in Iraqi Violence
Shias ‘kill US troops in Baghdad’
December’s demonstrations against Terrorism and in support of reconstruction and the United States now look quite insignificant.
To begin with, from The Guardian:
In other words, a propaganda unit dedicated to spreading disinformation about the true state of affairs in Iraq. We can see the results of their work in the way the CPA selects the information it publishes, and the context (or, more correctly, lack of context) with which it frames that information. Consider, for example, one of the CPA’s (and Sam’s) favorite examples: painting schools. As Mark Levin notes:
And while touting this wonderful social project, the CPA studiously avoid publishing health statistics – even though “hospital officials continue to collect data that reveal woeful rates of mortality and sickness, as well as acute shortages of drugs and equipment.” In the words of Juan Cole:
Let’s compare Sam’s criticism of the media and their coverage of events in Iraq, found in post # 111, above, with the observations of free-lance journalist Nir Rosen. In ”It’s all bad news: Chaos in liberated Iraq,” Rosen relates how he was witness to an execution one evening on a Baghdad street. Returning to his hotel,
Enough. To those who supported the war: best of luck with your plans for the “democratization of Iraq.”
You’re going to need it.
sings God Bless America
I think that was right. We didn’t win the Cold War. We just didn’t lose it as quickly.
Well, as long as this stupid thread popped back up, I will ignore the usual garbage in favor of this.
Since this is the first time I posted in this thread, allow me to request that if you are going to make up shit and attribute it to others, at least try to keep it straight who you are lying about.
Sam Stone started the thread. Since no one had any easy way to respond to it, they chose the path of putting words in his mouth, and then dismissing them. Intellectually dishonest, but nothing new.
But at least make the minimal effort of remembering who you are smearing. I suppose I should be honored by being lumped together with a respected poster like Sam, but as Abraham Lincoln (another Republican) once said about being tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail:
Back to your regularly scheduled circle jerk.
Regards,
Shodan
I believe the conclusion that was reached by all parties was, as Sam put it, “let’s see how it turns out in a few months.”
I don’t see 10,000 people marching to support the American puppet government O_o
You really think that the Republican Party of 1860 is the same Republican Party of 2004? Quaint.