Humorous, with a point:
We seem to have discovered a new stage in the traditional Kübler-Ross process:
1. Denial: “The media doesn’t show the good news in Iraq.”
2. Anger: “The treasonous far-left-liberals and their media lapdogs are making us lose in Iraq.”
3. Bargaining: “If we send x-thousand more troops to Iraq, victory will be ours.”
4. Depression: “Did you catch 300 yet? [munch-munch-burp] God, it made me hate liberals even more. [channels flipping] They wouldn’t last a day in ancient Sparta.”
5. Advanced Literary Theory: “The hegemonic binary of ’success’ and ‘failure’ traumatizes the (re)interpretive possibilities of an ethos of jouissance regarding the War in Iraq.”
on point 1, which has been in the comments, I still have trouble with the "unreported Good News" thesis for the following reasons:
"embedded reporters", the practice of putting reporters in with combat units, and having them report from there for months at a time was the Bush Administration's way of getting in front of the news and getting a pro-Administration message out. This has worked very, very well, to the point that the journalists themselves identify more with the troops than with their audience at home. Much of the news, good and bad, is being viewed through this, the Administration’s hand crafted lens. If I were to have to do a bias correction on a piece of news, it would have to be the "other" way. Regardless of bias correction though, I think the administration has a fairly straight channel to the airwaves.
Pat Tillman, Jessica Lynch, and the latest kerfuffle with John McCain's stroll through Baghdad are all telling examples of the Administrations willingness to lie, bold-faced lie, to the American people when they think no one can check on them. Add to this any number of credibility ruining press-releases from the AG, NASA, and the Department of Labor, and I find I simply have to be extremely skeptical of any news from the administration, good or bad. I'm not even suggesting this is a quality solely of the current administration (see my description at the right for my stance on this).
Finally, while it's assumed there is a left-bias in the news, studies generally show this is untrue for news and true in the other direction for analysis and opinion.
I think there are spots of good news, yes. I think we win battles, I think the troops are brave and I think some the Iraqis genuinely want a western style democracy. But I think these are bright stars in a dark sky, and the long term, structural changes required to turn this around are missing. Why is the place still such a shithole after 4 years? This is the question the american people are asking now. If, as they say, it isn't, then I will be happily wrong, I will apologize and I'll even start watching Fox (as they will have been the only news organization to get it right).
But until the country has nationwide power, water and economic niceties like a central bank again, I will continue to be skeptical of "unreported good news" there.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Mark, my position is not as far from yours as you might think in regard to the government. I have a distrust of the government myself, regardless of what party is in power. However I do trust what my fellow soldiers tell me. It's a bit ironic that we have been engaged in conversation on this topic the past few days as I just received a call from one of my dearest friends this morning. He just returned from his 5th tour in Iraq a few days ago. He is with the 5th Special Forces Group. May I be so bold as to suggest that you might be interested in hearing a brief summation of what he had to say? He told me that they have finally begun to get a handle on securing the Syrian border which is where so much of the strife crosses into Iraq. He continues to state that the majority of the country is pacified. He agrees that at some point we will need to hand the "batton" off to the Iraqi's themselves but that we have not quite reached that point yet. That is a very brief summary. I would also suggest to you that we are there to maintain a strong and viable position in the region and to contain the bigger threat that is Iran. I will also agree with you and say that you made a great point about the administration doing a very poor job of explaining this.
Reports from soldiers always have high credibility in my view, especially as relates to the operational conditions.
And, btw, I do have some persepctive here. This has been a very, very gentile war (at least on our side), especially when compared to Vietnam. I fully recognize the good we're doing and am actually eager to hear good news.
Real good news. Not pleasent lies, not spin, not fake heroes and staged scenes, but actual, factual good news. I beleive I am a member of a not so small group of folks who a) want us to win but b) are tired of being fed lies instead of leadership. The lies undermine the american public's confidence, not the news media.
I'll vote for the first presidential candiate of either party who is a) square with me and b) recognizes we need a 10 year plan here, not a quick surge to get us to the next election. You want to see all the talk of troop withdrawl go away? Find the person who will do those 2 things, elect them and the public will support the effort.
And, anonymous, please spare me anymore of your "americans dont run away" rhetoric. You're right, we dont. We lead. and it's time we started doing so.
Touche` Mark,
I did a quick search on Your source and the first listing on lycos.com shows this group to be not exactly unbiased . I could come up with many sources that say just the opposite but since 43% of statistics are made up on the spot.(or something like that) i will defer to just what I see on my own. I listen to both sides. I listen to conservative talk shows. And I listen to NPR. BOTH sides are biased. The difference is that Rush and Sean don't try to hide their bias. I have heard numerous people call in to Diane Rehm to confront her obvious bias and she always denies it. I don't have cable, so I don't watch FOX but since practically every fast food place with a tv shows CNN I do see more of them than I should. I do occasinally see a story that is favorable to the administration, but I am surprised when I do. I would be even MORE surprised to see a hit piece on Barak Obama. Other than on the Glenn Beck Program. Matt Drudge is constantly disparaged in the MSM but his website is basically just links to other news articles that would otherwise go ignored. It's not like he is making this stuff up.
When was the last time you heard a story about William Jefferson D. La. The man took a $100,000 bribe from an undercover FBI agent on film, and they found the money stashed in his freezer. How is that investigation going? Meanwhile Bush is blamed for Mayor Nagin's ineptitude in New Orleans. And yet Mark Foley sends out a few racy emails to an underage page and it's all you hear about for two weeks. I am sure the fact that it was right before an election is irrelevant. I wonder how long Nancy Pelosi knew about it?
Val Plame's name is "leaked" to the press and for two years all we hear about is Karl Rove's impending indictment. Even though Fitz knew two weeks into the investigation who the real leaker was. And Scooter Libby had not yet committed a crime. Can you tell me who really leaked Plame's name? Hint: It wasn't Libby.
Do you remember when four of our soldiers' naked bodies were dragged through the streets of Fallujah by "men" on horseback? No. That's because The story of abu Graib "broke" the next day. Even though they had known about it for months.
It's not reporters. they only report what they see. And believe me, Photographers that go into a war zone and take pictures of heroic soldiers will have starving kids back home. Oh but get a sniper's eye view of a soldier being shot and you have something you can sell. It's editors,most of whom describe themselves as LIBERAL. Libs have a definate agenda that they cannot get elected by votes so they have to use the back doors of media and the courts. Was Roe v. Wade ever voted on? Ask some young people that Q, I'll bet you get some surprising answers.
You should read "BIAS" by Bernard Goldberg. He has written a couple of more books since then also. This guy is an unrepentant liberal who was being groomed to take Dan Rathers place. Another fine example of media bias. Do you think that Rush would have gotten away with faking documents on John F Kerry the way Dan Rather did? I rather think not.
I could go on like this all day but I guess I should probably get my own blog. When I do I will let you know. I think you will be quite surprised when you find out who I am.
Or you could just ignore this post.
addendum: I just did a search on the story I ref'd above and apparently it wasn't soldiers, it was contactor's but this was all I could find.
And you should look up the word "rhetoric".
anonymous,
You really should get your own blog. It takes less time to set up than it does to write a post. Frankly, it's a little annoying that you're using my name while hiding your own identity. As far as who you are, you'll find I am excedingly hard to surprise.
Also, while your point about bias is well taken, you're still missing my central thesis here: it's the lies about the war that have undermined credibility, not the media. Most adults can subtract media bias on their own and make relatively fair judgements about the state of play.
I use your name because we know each other, and I consider you a friend. I did not find this blog by accident. If it offends you,I will stop. I have remained anon because I wanted to see if you had any curiosity about my ID. If you knew how poorly I type you would know why I have'nt started my own blog yet. Soon.
As to your charge of lies. I again fall back to bias. I, like jims, agree with you on not believing much that the Gov't says. Regardless of who is saying it. But the media is the conduit through which most people hear about these lies...or not. The bias is not so much in what they report,but in how it is reported and in what is not reported. If a conservative is caught in a lie, it is splashed all over the media. If a lib is caught in a lie, it is largely ignored.
Did Pres Bush Lie to get into war? If he did then Clnton did too, and her husband. So did the UN.So did Al Gore. So Did John F Kerry. Etc, etc, etc. But these points go unnoticed. (the answer btw is no).
This aguement reminds me alot of the Roe v Wade issue. It used to be "it's not a real person, it's just a blob of tissue." When science proved emphatically that it IS a person. The arguement morphed into "womens' rights".
You started out saying that there is no bias. Then when I showed you that there is much bias, You changed your tune to "it's lies about the war". We are doing better in Iraq than is being reported. THAT is the main issue here. And the dems don't like that. I don't mean Individuals. I mean Leadership.
I think you're making a series of Category Errors wrt the dems and the war. Yes big D Democrats are against the president. That's their job. I think you're worng in that little d democrats, the majority of the party and the majority of independents, are against the war. They are not, in general. Nor are they unpatriotic, nor are they uncivil. I stand by my assertion that the majority of folks against the war are at that place because they see no alternatives and that the administration has lied so frequently, they see withdrawal as the only viable alternative. As I said to Jim, I'd be a fervent war supporter if we had a plan and real leadership.
As for being a friend, that's great.
Ever the stoic.
My errors are in what I write but not in what I say. What you call "big D" and "little d" dems. I called leadership and individuals. Same thing.
I never said anything about Patriotism or civility. Although I do see people that throw rocks at Roves' car or egg the Presidents limo and kick police and just make a general niusance of themselves as uncivil. I also see politicians who disparage Americans for showing patriotism after we were attacked by muslim extemist terrorists as unpatriotic.
But once again I must focus back on the main subject and say that these people get their points of view mostly from the media.
The little d dems vote in the big D Dems, who hate on the Prez to get more votes and encourage terrorists to continue what they do because they think it is working. When Dick Derbin stands before congress and compares our troops to Pol pot and Hitler or JFK says that the troops are uneducated, Is that patriotic?(it's not even true) what message does he send to the terrorists? and how do you think they use that message to recruit more suicide bombers? Will they be voted out for these comments?
Mark, I hope you realize that I wasn't trying to be a smart ass when I stated that you might be interested in hearing what my friend had to say. I figured you would. But I also try not to be to pushy and remain civil. I do think you have many valid points. But I also wanted to give you some perspective from someone who has been over there before {myself} and from folks who have been there now {my friends}. I might have to take issue with you on the adminstration lying. I do not think it is so much lying as it is a very poor presentation of our goals, situation, plans etc... You are also correct about this being a very gentile war on our part. I have a big issue with that. It is noble and good to be gentile to a point. But, not at the cost of failing to reach the objective. The man who has recently been put in charge over there, Lt. General Petraeus, was my commander many years ago when I was in the 187th Infantry. He is one of the finest ground commanders I have ever known. He is also extremely intelligent & well versed in foreign relations. He is an officer that can get the job done over their, IF he is allowed to. I only hope that he is allowed to.
Anonymous: Once again, very good points. Well said!
Jims, I thank you for your comments and your closer eyewitness account of what is really going on in Iraq. I served as a Marine 25 years ago, and Thank GOD I did not have to go into combat. Especially after seeing the first 20 mins of "Saving Private Ryan"!
And Mark, I tell you it gives me no pleasure at all to debate you in this way. And even less pleasure to be right on these issues but I must say that you are not completely wrong. You are wrong when you say "it's their job" to oppose the President. Even though it seems like I am, I am not defending Bush's leadership. He is a good leader but not what I would call a GREAT leader. Because a Great leader knows how to deal with dissent. (He has been showing some promise lately though and I would not want to see him backed against the wall).Even though Bush knows that we cannot reason with terrorists, he seems to think that he can reason with dogmatic liberals. He puts out his hand to a bunch of pitbulls that are just waiting to tear it off. He doesn't seem to understand that Nancy Pelosi wants his destruction as much as OBL does. And she doesn't care if she takes the entire country down in the process. In fact Liberalism is pretty much based on the destruction of the American system. They hate capitalism. They want govt handouts to replace honest work. they want open borders. and criminality without restrictive accountablity as long as the ends justify the means. Most little l libs would deny this just as most little m mormons would deny that their religion is based on the fact that jesus and satan are brothers from another planet. But truth is truth whether we like it or not. It was reported on 60 MINUTES during Nancy Pelosi's pre-election softball interview with Leslie Stahl;
Well, she’s certainly brought order to the Democrats. She has insisted on no more bickering in public and just saying "no" to nearly everything that comes out of the Bush White House. In other words, party discipline: kind of like the Republicans do it. As a result, Democrats now vote together more often than they have since Eisenhower was president. How has someone so clearly not one of the boys managed to keep them in line? Well, one way is money.
....which she dispenses generously to her colleagues. Another way she rules is through good old fashioned hardball.
[Girlish banter deleted]
One thing she does is threaten to deny plum assignments to members who vote with the Republicans. But by keeping her troops in lockstep, her critics say she has worsened the gridlock and partisan bitterness in Congress.
Did you notice Nancy P's version of "Just say NO"?
Most folks on the Right think we should just let her keep doing what she's doing. She is the best thing that could happen to the Republican party in '08. I was going to say more but I think that quote fom the SeeBS NEWS website pretty much says it all. Even a Marine Corps Drill Instructor could not lead a bunch of ingrates who refuse to follow. He would just throw all of their asses in the brig and start over. I'm all for that.
One more thing,
Wm. Jefferson, the Congressman accused of taking a bribe was re-elected in '06.
This link is the lastest story I can find on the subject, almost a year old. Nana Pelosi asked for his resignation after the story broke, he said no, she said OK. She was going to give him the Chair of a Committee. But decided not to after some bad press.
Post a Comment