This from Linda Foley, the national president of the Newspaper Guild.

“Journalists are not just being targeted verbally or politically. They are also being targeted for real in places like Iraq. And what outrages me as a representative of journalists is that there's not more outrage about the number and the brutality, and the cavalier nature of the U.S. military toward the killing of journalists in Iraq. I think it's just a scandal."

Never interrupt an idiot when they’re talking. The more they show their idiocy, the less anyone else will listen.

Oh, and about that media bias, there ain’t nothin’ like this coming from the Right wing. Unless of course one went to the Eason Jordan school of reality (he’s the CNN honcho who was fired for saying the same thing at that convention in Davos). Then you would believe this tripe.

quote:

Originally posted by nvr-btdt:
I disagree.Do you believe that most people think for themselves,read between the lines,THINK about what the media is forcing down their throats?They don't!They eat dinner,watch the news,then tune in American Idol.No thinking involved.
May I remind you about the media and Viet Nam?
Night after night,saying the war is wrong,the sheeple begin to believe it!
I'm sure you've read the book "1984".Orwell tells how the media controls what people think.
Repeat it over and over and people believe.
If you don't THINK about what ANY media outlet is putting out you do a disservice to yourself.

Just wondering how old you wee when Nam happened. Did you experience any of the dynamics are or you just going by ancedotal accounts?

What strikes me is that when wars go good, the media is never the culprit or the hero. It's considered irrelevant. But when things begin to pickle the media is always one of the victims in "The Great Scakpegoat Hunt".

You seem to buy into the fiction that the media can win or lose a war for you. They can't. Wars are won by Soldiers. You will note that Soldiers rarely start wars. Wars are lost by politicians. Politicians not only start wars but more recently, tend to micromanage them until those same managers are proven to be way out of their comfort zone.

Wars have proven to have certain benchmarks which will determine the popularity of that war among the domestic population:

a. The war lasts much longer than projected

b. The war consumes more resources than projected

c. The war produces more casualties than projected

d. The reasons for participation in the war fail to bear scrutiny.

f. There appears to be no overall benefiet to the domestic agenda

Of course, if one can blame the media for decrasing the popularity of the war, then one can avoid blaming the politicians.

On the other hand the media does decrease the popularity of the war, simply by reporting it through an unvarnished lens. Most sane people who are allowed to see exactly what war is and what war produces will tend to seek other options. You can witness the absence of volunteers in states red and blue.

Politicians will never have to partake of what they create and IMO, sheeple are the ones who will give them a free and uncritical reign.

Damn, Thud!

Ladies, that Eagles still screaming!

In the final analysis, journalists (reporters), are just about like everyone else... they want to "get ahead".

They know that if they get into print or in front of the the camera... they get promoted.

Editors (Producers) choose stories (pictures) that they think will "sell".

They get beat up, sometimes... in the rush to "scoop" the competition and sometimes it is very embarrassing... the Dan Rather issue for example... and now the flushing the Koran issue.

(Imagine "flushing" the King James Bible down a toilet... that should have given someone a hint)

President Bush got us into Iraq and we can all debate why... WMD/Oil... there is nothing new about that... what was "new", was a policy of pre-emptive strike on a sovereign nation.

Americans... like journalists... want to get ahead in life... they can buy little ribbons and put them on their bumper by the millions, but this thing better pay off somehow... especially if their kids school just cancelled the wrestling team.

In order to Win the War, we had to say that we are instituting Democracy to "free the people".

Unfortunately, the insurgents or terrorists or gangs or thugs or freedom fighters or patriots, don't agree with our philosophy... and they don't think the War is over...

Our military is an occupational force at this point... keeping the Peace... winning hearts and minds... and they must kill or be killed.

If they kill the wrong way... at the wrong time... they are criminals... if they don't kill effectively, they die!

It is an untenable situation to be in and every single day... produces ample opportunity to screw it up... on both decisions.

Meanwhile, President Bush was just filmed saying that these people are backwards and barbarians... <grin>

Now the political analysts are concerned more than ever... that the moderate Muslims will think America hates all Muslims (some do!).

The extreme Right will try to use it... it may or may not have legs.

The extreme Left will try to use it... if it is available to use.

What is the impact to the guy on the ground...

...as one General remarked... it just puts another rock in their rucksack... they will do their job... regardless!

Which brings us to Morale!

The big difference I see, between Nam (we had suicide bombers too, they were called sapper teams <grin> and Iraq... is communications.

I did not know the public turned, until I came home (67-68-69)... today, they know stuff NOW!

We ask them to "stay"... we extend their tour... we can't keep up recruitment... we don't want to pay them any more...

(I just heard a new plan to offer a 1.25 year enlistment...??? Anyone aware of that...)

This will take its toll on the ground-grunt... just as the Nam cycled into issues in 70-71-72.

A lot of those folks got off the plane with a mindset... not to get killed for nothing!

Once that takes hold in Iraq... it is a quick down hill slide... the rest is rhetoric.

By the way... before I get too far away... I would really like to know how is it, that we have a "thinking paratrooper"!

"Stand Up, Hook Up, Shuffle to the Door!"

I thought the reason we taught that to begin with... is that the Airborne don't "think"!<grin>

Or were you struck by lightening on the golf course one day... and suddenly "got it"!

And I am not even going to ask about a "Gunny" getting it... not here... not now...

One day, maybe... at a bar... preferably a padded bar... with enough peanut shells on the floor to bounce once or twice... <grin>

quote:

Originally posted by Thud357l:
Just wondering how old you wee when Nam happened. Did you experience any of the dynamics are or you just going by ancedotal accounts?

What strikes me is that when wars go good, the media is never the culprit or the hero. It's considered irrelevant. But when things begin to pickle the media is always one of the victims in "The Great Scakpegoat Hunt".

You seem to buy into the fiction that the media can win or lose a war for you. They can't. Wars are won by Soldiers. You will note that Soldiers rarely start wars. Wars are lost by politicians. Politicians not only start wars but more recently, tend to micromanage them until those same managers are proven to be way out of their comfort zone.

Wars have proven to have certain benchmarks which will determine the popularity of that war among the domestic population:

a. The war lasts much longer than projected

b. The war consumes more resources than projected

c. The war produces more casualties than projected

d. The reasons for participation in the war fail to bear scrutiny.

f. There appears to be no overall benefiet to the domestic agenda

Of course, if one can blame the media for decrasing the popularity of the war, then one can avoid blaming the politicians.

On the other hand the media does decrease the popularity of the war, simply by reporting it through an unvarnished lens. Most sane people who are allowed to see exactly what war is and what war produces will tend to seek other options.

Some good points Thud.
I was eligible for the last year of the draft,so I was old enough to have some thoughts on the Viet Nam war.
You are correct of course in stating that politicians start wars.Wars are political,one way or the other.But doesn't the media carry a lot (not all) of responsibility when it comes to fighting a war?Don't reporters ,many who never leave the safety of a plush hotel "in the war zone",write and televise daily on how that war is being fought?Doesn't that affect how many people,or should I say sheeple,think about war?They RELY on main stream media(MSM)for the skinny,and that is a mistake.
In this time of blogs and imbedded reporters,the
truth does get out.But not via the NY Times,CBS,etc.People have to Search for the truth.Look at MSM,look at blogs and try to read between the lines.Don't just find something that conforms to a single point of view,that conforms to each individuals pre-concieved notions.Read/watch all points of view and decide the truth of reporting the war for yourself.
Most folks,don't,won't,or can't.They recite the MSM party line.Liberal,usually anti military,without a clue how much of the world operates in REAL LIFE,not some university dream world.
I 've rambled some but yes,I do believe that the media does shape how wars are started,fought and ended.They wield tremendous power and are not accountable to anyone when they get it wrong.And they get it wrong a lot!

What strikes me is that when wars go good, the media is never the culprit or the hero. It's considered irrelevant. But when things begin to pickle the media is always one of the victims in "The Great Scakpegoat Hunt".

Or more accurately put, when we win, we tend to forget about the nay-sayers but when we lose, it remains part of the distasteful memory of the loss. Human nature dictates this; unless it was particularly distressful, we tend to remember the good times over the bad.

On the other hand the media does decrease the popularity of the war, simply by reporting it through an unvarnished lens.

If it were merely reporting through an unvarnished lens, that wouldn’t be a problem.

But, as this thread has already laid out in succinct fashion, the MSM is making concerted efforts to misreport the war.

Whether through these inane attempts at painting this Jihadist terror war as a “resistance” movement or a homegrown “insurgency” or Newsweek’s egregious Gitmo story; the MSM lens is beyond varnished. It is opaque with an anti-American, anti-military ideology that is twisting, warping the public discourse.

Airwinger:

I have been responding to your posts and have not been “getting off topic.” That tactic really does not work on me in a discussion.

If you do not think that the conservative media makes mistakes, as does the liberal and moderate media, than what is the point of the discussion? We should include all media because it is all a business and they are all trying to push a political agenda of one kind or another. The Robin Hood approach to morality still involves stealing.

nvr-btdt: Yes, the media does get it wrong a lot. I don't think they have that much to do with the way wars are started - that priveledge is almost entirely in the hands of politicians - but they can and do influence how wars are finished. It's pretty much the classic cause and effect puzzle.

We lost Nam because it was badly mismanaged from start to finish. Did the media cause the mismanagement? Hardly. but the media did convince the country that we were losing. Tet was not a victory but it was percieved as such. Part of this perception was colored by the admin's claim that such an offensive could never happen. It did. So in effect it was a victory.

I think the media's main objective is to make a buck. Bad news sells much better than good news so any newscast will have more tragedy than triumph because that's how the business works.

However, as you already realize, the truth is out there. You just can't find it all in one place.