I’m astonished by this comment. Where have you been the past century? William Randolph Hearst cheerled a war to sell papers. Local news didn’t get that way by accident - in each market, the show that had the most trauma won in the ratings. Yes, people appear to love to read depressing stories - as long as they happen to other people. Look at the Scott Peterson circus for Og’s sake.
A Ryan style radio broadcast: Honolulu, Hawaii, December 7, 1941. The surfing here today was excellent, with lots of happy people enjoying the sun and waves this Sunday morning, their concentration only slightly disturbed by the sound of explosions and smoke coming from the harbor…
R*i-i-i-i-*ght. Tell me more about this “corner”. Seems to me the bedlam is spreading when it’s not even safe to go from the airport to the “Green Zone”, which is itself the target of mortar fire and bombs.
Right. No cite? You made specific claims, and don’t seem to be able to back them up. Simple logic would tell you that you are wrong; Your noble freedom-fighters are targetting Iraqi police forces, which are all over the country. Not to mention, I am unaware of any parts of Iraq that we have literally ‘abandonded’.
So put up. Where is Iraq ‘more peaceful’ and under the control of the ‘insurgents’?
Please try to figure out what your question is clearly enough to state it coherently. If your understanding of the situation on the ground is on this level, though:
Firstly just let me remind people that the US military have used the news sources in order to manipulate events in Iraq. Fallujah being the latest… where false news of an impending invasion of the city were used to determine how the insurgents acted. So even if the media is being used to “make” the US look bad… its obvious that both sides are doing it.
Now… we should go to the core of what the OP is saying… and its not only the lack of positive news. (Bad News does sell more btw) But the idea that if the news weren’t so bad… that things would be different on the ground. He isn’t complaining about unfair treatment by the media… he is defending the idea that the media are helping give impulse to the insurgency. That’s worse than censorship… its blame game. The same thing we sometimes hear about Vietnam… the protestors broke the will to fight, etc…
So Mr. Uncommon Sense... if the media just backed off for lets say a year or two... would this change things in Iraq ? Do you really think that the only reason for the insurgency is a need to get headlines in the morning papers ? Naturally these affect political willingness... but its hardly a primary target. If they reported much more good news... would this help "sucess" in Iraq ? Would Iraqis be more submissive if they don't see bad news ?
In the article the guy is complaining that reporters are only viewing a small portion of the whole picture and they don’t have knowledge of nation building (he also goes off on a reading list—if figure war correspondents can probably read). So if he only commanding a small portion of the total campaign and if he doesn’t have experience in nation building, then it would seem that he is just as uninformed as those he is criticizing.
Willful blindness is another animal all together. Many Bushitas are not ignorant of the facts-- they chose to ignore them, excuse them, or downplay their significance. The media certainly made it painfully obvious what kind of man they were re-electing-- unless you were on the moon under a rock, everyone knew the dastardly deeds of Bush & Co.They just didn’t care.
I see this thread has degenerated from what could have been an interesting discussion to “Liberal retards!”/“Bush is a ca-ca head!” Par for the course.
What fascinates me about the topic is what it says about the role of media. Ethically speaking, I believe the media does have an obligation to report on the positive things that are being done in Iraq as well as the negative things. “If it bleeds, it leads” is not the motto of the Fourth Estate, people. It is a cynical, shameful piece of shorthand originally meant to shame the media, and it runs counter to what should be the ethical code of every worthwhile journalist. Just because it seems to be “the way it is” is no excuse.
Like Jon Stewart famously said on Crossfire, “Stop hurting America.” Seriously. We desperately need honestly fair, unbiased reporting. Hell yes, I want to hear about the buildings that didn’t burn in Iraq. Why is that more important in Iraq than in LA or New York? Because it’s an extraordinary circumstance. We’re at war. Everything that happens over there has a resounding impact on this country on a national scale. I want to hear everything, good and bad, and the western media has seriously dropped the ball on it.
“Liberal retards!”/“Bush is a ca-ca head!” is an interesting discussion, Ogre. Always. Why else would there always be so much interest in it in this forum?
No, but, “If a man bites a dog, it’s news; if a dog bites a man, it’s not news” is a motto of the Fourth Estate. It’s not news when things are ticking along just as they should.
But see, that’s what I’m saying. Everything is not ticking along as it should. We’re at war in Iraq, which is itself an extraordinary situation. Everything that happens there is news. Hell yes I’d like to hear about school openings and new sewer lines and power restoration…just as I’d need to hear about roadside bombs and kidnappings.
