Media taking sides - with our enemy

This is what I've been saying all along. If America is behind the leadership and our troops, we can't lose and will bring this thing to a relatively speedy, effective, decisive, and moral conclusion. But if America loses its will to do what it should, we will lose and again tuck our tail between our legs and skulk away feeling at the same time sanctimonious and ashamed. And the terrorists will be even more emboldened to do their worst and it will be Americans and the innocents of Iraq and elsewhere who will suffer.

And it will be the media who will largely decide which way it will go.

0 Replies

Stop whining.

We live in a Democracy with a free press. If we were in a dictatorship with a controlled media, perhaps this war would be easier to conduct. I doubt it, but it is possible we may be able to win this war without a free press peering over the militaries shoulder.

I happen to think the free press is a good thing. But, the fact is, it exists. It is a fact of life. Foxfyre's assertion that getting rid of the press will lead to a "moral" conclusion seems ludicrous.

The real point is that we have lost Iraq. The reasons don't much matter now. It is time for us to leave. Ending the free press, or any other part of our democracy will not help.

I also object to being called an enemy. There is a growing number of Americans (including the media) who are realizing what a mess Iraq is. We are not your enemy.

0 Replies

Um where can you find in my post on this thread or anywhere something that even suggests that I think there should not be a free press?

Do I think the press should do their homework and be responsible? Absolutely. Do I think the media has the power to shape public opinion? Yes I do. Do I think much of the media has been irresponsible at times? Yes it has.

And do I believe the war against terrorism is winnable? Absolutely if the American people believe that it is.

Do I believe tucking our tail and slinking out of Iraq will embolden the terrorists? I most certainly do.

0 Replies

The press gave G W Bush a free pass from the beginning of his governorship until just recently. They glossed over his lack of brilliance and bad policies endlessly, touting him as a folk hero type of morally good guy. They have only recently begun to allow a bit of negative coverage to creep in. In short, I am often unhappy with the press for opposite reasons than foxfire, but they should never be censored, just watched closely and taken with a grain of salt.

0 Replies

Good grief. I'm going to have to agree with egdar. I would never agree for the press to be censored except where national security is at stake--loose lips sink ships etc.--but I do believe the media should be watched closely and taken with a CLUMP of salt.

0 Replies

With the possible exception of a few of Fedral's offerings, I'd have to say that this is the most disingenuous, hap-hazard article I've seen posted here. Seriously. The author leaps from al-jazeera to domestic media, lumping them both together, then blames them for incidents as far flung as our premature withdrawal in 1992 and cease fires in Fallujah. His solution, naturally: fight more recklessly to achieve faster victory. The best part is how he claims that accurate reporting of casualties is wrong because it can sway politicians and the public, and that this is somehow the fault of the media, not the people who allow their opinions to be swayed by, uh, reality.

0 Replies

You no doubt have scholarly skills, ILZ, but do you have superior credentials to a Lt. Colonel army intelligence (retired) or superior experience to question his integrity in reporting? Disagree with him if you must but your observations just don't seem to hold up when I read this man's article. He may be a wuss or an incompetent--Lord knows I take issue with comments from several military types--but in this case, he hasn't said anything of substance that can't be checked.

0 Replies

IronLionZion wrote:

The author leaps from al-jazeera to domestic media, lumping them both together...

No he didn't.

Ralph Peters wrote:

During the initial fighting in Fallujah, I tuned in al-Jazeera and the BBC.

He didn't "leap" from one to the other. He said that he was watching both of them at once. Next time please try to pay closer attention.

0 Replies

Tarantulas wrote:

He didn't "leap" from one to the other. He said that he was watching both of them at once. Next time please try to pay closer attention.

Yes, he did. He lumps them all together under the banner of "the media", and proceeds to blame this vague entity for all kinds of poor policy decisions, including the debacle in Fallujah and Bush's refusal to march on Baghdad in the first Gulf War.

Watch, as he starts by bizarrely blaming Al-Jazeera for the fiasco in Fallujah:

Quote:

The Marines in Fallujah weren't beaten by the terrorists and insurgents, who were being eliminated effectively and accurately. They were beaten by al-Jazeera. By lies.

He then starts referring to "the media" throughout much of the article without distinguishing which media he is referring to - domestic, European, Iraqi, Arabic - no, just "the media." See:

Quote:

When our forces engage in tactical combat, dishonest media reporting immediately creates drag on the chain of command all the way up to the president.

Also:

Quote:

The media is often referred to off-handedly as a strategic factor. But we still don't fully appreciate its fatal power. Conditioned by the relative objectivity and ultimate respect for facts of the U.S. media, we fail to understand that, even in Europe, the media has become little more than a tool of propaganda.

Again, he sweeps the entire concept of media under the rug, blaming them for poor military decisions:

Quote:

The theme throughout out the article is that media - not Arab media, not European media, not domestic media - just the media in general, is responsible for policy decisions made by people as high as the president.

He even goes so far as to claim that accurate reporting of casualties is wrong because it can sway politicians and the public, and that this is somehow the fault of the media, not the people who allow their opinions to be swayed by reality.

One of the things that pisses me off so much about this type of article, and the type of mindset that informs it, is the utter inability to see things from other perspectives - closemindedness. This is evident in some of the comments Peters makes about al-jazeera and his downplaying of civilian casualties, among other things.

Example: He complains about the reporting of innocent casualties, and says that terrorists and insurgents "were being eliminated accurately and effectively." Well, our "accurate..effective" warfare managed to kill 15,000 innocent civilians, and the fact that Peters fails to appreciate the magnitude of this is revelatory. The media is not wrong to report on this reality; Peters is wrong to believe that people should be shielded from reality to facilitate the military victory of his country.

Although I can appreciate why a former member of the military would want to blame the media for military failures - after all, it would be so much easier if CNN could be turned into the television equivalent of recruiting poster - but that doesn't give his opinion any more credence, and it doesn't make this article anything more than the vague testament to abhorrant reasoning that is.

0 Replies

Quote:

Maybe the judicious use of jamming technology during battle would solve at least part of the problem

You really lost me there....

1. Embedded media only pass on 'news' when it has been OK'ed by the military - and only then away from the battle. Anything that might reveal troop strengths or positions is prohibted.

2. 'Jamming' would stop the transpoders that Coalition troops use to identify themselves to other troops. It would also stop them from listening into the 'enemy' broadcasts. Not a popular idea with the grunts.

0 Replies

And the author of this rubbish is really.... like.... impartial..

[size=7]We have to speed the kill.[/size]

We have to speed the kill.

We have to speed the kill.

We have to speed the kill.

We have to speed the kill.

We have to speed the kill.

0 Replies

IronLionZion wrote:

One of the things that pisses me off so much about this type of article, and the type of mindset that informs it, is the utter inability to see things from other perspectives - closemindedness.

Speaking of closedmindedness, you're doing a pretty good job of that yourself in this thread.

0 Replies

I think Mr Stillwater sums it up nicely.

0 Replies

Tarantulas wrote:

IronLionZion wrote:
One of the things that pisses me off so much about this type of article, and the type of mindset that informs it, is the utter inability to see things from other perspectives - closemindedness.

Speaking of closedmindedness, you're doing a pretty good job of that yourself in this thread.

Hint: It doesn't really help your case when you deploy not-so-deft non-sequitors to avoid adressing the substantive posts aimed at you. Although, I do appreciate your wanting to bow out gracefully in light of the ridiculous article you just posted, before you start trying to defend it with some equally ridiculous arguments and have to pretend you were drunk.

Toodles.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Stop whining.

We live in a Democracy with a free press. If we were in a dictatorship with a controlled media, perhaps this war would be easier to conduct.

That's exactly what the conservatives want. They don't want anyone reporting the truth that doesn't fit their view of the world.

0 Replies

IronLionZion wrote:

Tarantulas wrote:
IronLionZion wrote:
One of the things that pisses me off so much about this type of article, and the type of mindset that informs it, is the utter inability to see things from other perspectives - closemindedness.

Speaking of closedmindedness, you're doing a pretty good job of that yourself in this thread.

Hint: It doesn't really help your case when you deploy not-so-deft non-sequitors to avoid adressing the substantive posts aimed at you. Although, I do appreciate your wanting to bow out gracefully in light of the ridiculous article you just posted, before you start trying to defend it with some equally ridiculous arguments and have to pretend you were drunk.

Toodles.

Okay, then don't bother addressing the subject, just attack the poster on an unrelated issue. It's not really what anyone would call intelligent discourse, but if that's the game you want to play then you can play it on your own.

0 Replies

Tarantulas wrote:

IronLionZion wrote:
Tarantulas wrote:
IronLionZion wrote:
One of the things that pisses me off so much about this type of article, and the type of mindset that informs it, is the utter inability to see things from other perspectives - closemindedness.

Speaking of closedmindedness, you're doing a pretty good job of that yourself in this thread.

Hint: It doesn't really help your case when you deploy not-so-deft non-sequitors to avoid adressing the substantive posts aimed at you. Although, I do appreciate your wanting to bow out gracefully in light of the ridiculous article you just posted, before you start trying to defend it with some equally ridiculous arguments and have to pretend you were drunk.

Toodles.

Okay, then don't bother addressing the subject, just attack the poster on an unrelated issue. It's not really what anyone would call intelligent discourse, but if that's the game you want to play then you can play it on your own.

I did address the subject.

0 Replies

Media taking sides - with our enemy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know