Reply
Mon 22 Sep, 2003 07:02 pm
[ The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: 9/22/03 ]
INTERNATIONAL ATLANTA
Media's dark cloud a danger
Falsely bleak reports reduce our chances of success in Iraq
By JIM MARSHALL, U.S. Rep. (D-Ga.) of Macon, a Vietnam combat veteran, is a member of the House Armed Services Committee.
On Sept. 14, I flew from Baghdad to Kuwait with Sgt. Trevor A. Blumberg from Dearborn, Mich. He was in a body bag. He'd been ambushed and killed that afternoon. Sitting in the cargo bay of a C 130E, I found myself wondering whether the news media were somehow complicit in his death.
News media reports about our progress in Iraq have been bleak since shortly after the president's premature declaration of victory. These reports contrast sharply with reports of hope and progress presented to Congress by Department of Defense representatives -- a real disconnect, Vietnam déja vu. So I went to Iraq with six other members of Congress to see for myself.
The Iraq war has predictably evolved into a guerrilla conflict similar to Vietnam. Our currently stated objectives are to establish reasonable security and foster the creation of a secular, representative government with a stable market economy that provides broad opportunity throughout Iraqi society. Attaining these objectives in Iraq would inevitably transform the Arab world and immeasurably increase our future national security.
These are goals worthy of a fight, of sacrifice, of more lives lost now to save thousands, perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands in the future. In Mosul last Monday, a colonel in the 101st Airborne put it to me quite simply: "Sir, this is worth doing." No one I spoke with said anything different. And I spoke with all ranks.
But there will be more Blumbergs killed in action, many more. So it is worth doing only if we have a reasonable chance of success. And we do, but I'm afraid the news media are hurting our chances. They are dwelling upon the mistakes, the ambushes, the soldiers killed, the wounded, the Blumbergs. Fair enough. But it is not balancing this bad news with "the rest of the story," the progress made daily, the good news. The falsely bleak picture weakens our national resolve, discourages Iraqi cooperation and emboldens our enemy.
During the conventional part of this conflict, embedded journalists reported the good, the bad and the ugly. Where are the embeds now that we are in the difficult part of the war, now that fair and balanced reporting is critically important to our chances of success? At the height of the conventional conflict, Fox News alone had 27 journalists embedded with U.S. troops (out of a total of 774 from all Western media). Today there are only 27 embedded journalists from all media combined.
Throughout Iraq, American soldiers with their typical "can do" attitude and ingenuity are engaging in thousands upon thousands of small reconstruction projects, working with Iraqi contractors and citizens. Through decentralized decision-making by unit commanders, the 101st Airborne Division alone has spent nearly $23 million in just the past few months. This sum goes a very long way in Iraq. Hundreds upon hundreds of schools are being renovated, repainted, replumbed and reroofed. Imagine the effect that has on children and their parents.
Zogby International recently released the results of an August poll showing hope and progress. My own unscientific surveys told me the same thing. With virtually no exceptions, hundreds of Iraqis enthusiastically waved back at me as I sat in the open door of a helicopter traveling between Babylon and Baghdad. And I received a similar reception as I worked my way alone, shaking hands through a large crowd of refinery workers just to see their reaction.
We may need a few credible Baghdad Bobs to undo the harm done by our media. I'm afraid it is killing our troops.
This is, like, new information?
What's to like? We're in this war on false informatoin, and our people are still getting killed almost daily. It's costing Americans billions every month. What's so positive about that? The question is how long and at what cost? Give us the good news, but that pales to the lost lives and the billons being spent. We could be spending that same money at home to make our schools safer for our own children, pay our teachers better salaries, provide health care for our citizens, and not lose any American lives. That sounds like a much more sane way to live our lvies.
Too tru. Lets only have the media tell about fluffy bunnies and kittens from now on!
The suggestion was that we see all sides of the events. I thought you knew that.
Which "all sides?" the chaos that is Iraq, which we are seeing, or the five people who think the US should kill more Iraqis and destroy more stuff?
In Viet Nam, I was on the non-seen side, the media didn't see us nor did the pentagon.
The bad news isn't killing our troops. It's the Arabs that hate our guts for occupying one of their country, and trying to force a democracy.
I think you are presenting us with a false dilemma, hobitbob. The loaded options you give us are not the only choices. To bad that one didn't make it into
Logical Fallicies.
Oh, credit the link to Blatham.
roger, it's a loaded question, it's on the list as a complex question.
If in the end if it works out and by our action we are able to stabilize the region would it not have been worth it? But I digress.It would seem that along with the guerilla action and the casualties there is progress. However one would never know it based upon reporting by the media. No surprise since good news is not sensational enough to report. When reading your daily rag what does one find? All the sensationalism and bad news that is hardly fit to print. Good news does not sell
Thanks. I was wondering how they missed that one.
Ah, hobitbob and I were just ragging on each other last night. I't's a carry over from msolga's thread.
Poll: Baghdad residents glad Saddam gone
Wednesday, September 24, 2003 Posted: 5:06 AM EDT (0906 GMT)
Most Baghdad residents who answered the poll say that ousting Saddam was worth the hardships endured.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- While most residents of Baghdad say that ousting Saddam Hussein was worth the hardships they've endured since then, they are divided on whether the country is worse off or better off than before the U.S. invasion, according to a Gallup poll.
Two-thirds, 67 percent, say they think that Iraq will be in better condition five years from now than it was before the U.S.-led invasion. Only 8 percent say they think it will be worse off.
But they're not convinced that Iraq is better off now -- 47 percent said the country is worse off than before the invasion and 33 percent said it is better off.
The Gallup poll of 1,178 adults was conducted face to face in the respondents' household from August 28 through September 4 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. Gallup plans to poll extensively in the coming months and years in Iraq and has established a center in Baghdad to coordinate the polling effort.
The survey found that 62 percent think ousting Saddam was worth the hardships they have endured since the invasion. In the five months since coalition forces defeated Saddam and his armies, Iraq has faced continuing violence, electrical outages, job shortages and civil unrest.
Six in 10 said they have a favorable view of the new Iraqi Governing Council, but most see its priorities as set by coalition authorities. Half said the coalition authorities are doing a better job now than two months ago, while 14 percent said they were doing a worse job.
Richard Burkholder, head of the Gallup team in Baghdad, said residents of the city of more than 6 million were eager to talk with his researchers and most who were contacted agreed to be interviewed in their own homes. Gallup drew its sample from different neighborhoods throughout the capital.
Quote:Six in 10 said they have a favorable view of the new Iraqi Governing Council, but most see its priorities as set by coalition authorities.
Which pretty much says it all.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace