He often talks as if he is stoned.
July 28, 2003, 9:30 a.m.
Bad-News Networks
A little reporting from TV news would be a welcome change.
By Angela J. Phelps
It's 7:05 P.M. on Wednesday, July 23, and I'm channel surfing the networks to hear the latest on the war. On Tuesday, unconfirmed reports that Saddam Hussein's sons, Uday and Qusay, had been killed were floating the airwaves. So, naturally, I'm eager to hear what had transpired throughout the day.
NBC confirms the report, but immediately bashes the U.S. military for using "such heavy firepower to take down a few lightly armed men." Interesting. Quickly fed up, I flip over to ABC where reporters insist that the operation was a failure because the military didn't take the diplomatic route and bring them out alive. Rolling my eyes and looking for another angle, I switch to CBS where I'm excited to see one of their reporters LIVE from Baghdad. Now, we're getting somewhere — some local perspective. The journalist reports on the gunfire in Baghdad following the raid, and wonders if it was a result of anger or jublilation. He decides that "some of it was most certainly" in "anger."
Really? Did he take a poll? As I recall, gunfire (obviously when not aimed at another person) in Mideast culture is normally a sign of celebration. As odd as that may sound to us Americans, Middle Easterners even tend to shoot off a few rounds at weddings. Or, maybe, that too is a sign of anger. But I digress.
So, I sit back and think: Are we forgetting about the big picture? This a very pivotal moment in history for the Iraqi people. Since their liberation day on April 9th, this is the greatest triumph we've seen in the last four months. Shouldn't someone be saying that?
Shouldn't someone, other than our military leaders, be praising the men of the 101st airborne who risked their lives carrying out this mission? I admit that I am not old enough to remember the anti-military days of Vietnam, but this is coming too close to the scenarios I remember from Forrest Gump. And I don't like it.
And with so much negativity being placed on U.S. intelligence these days, shouldn't someone be praising them for getting this one right?
I know I'm not alone when I say that I'm fed up with negative news coverage from the elite media. And when you consider the fact that millions of Americans are turning the channel and exercising their freedom to choose cable news over network news, you would think that the chiefs that adorn the offices of the Manhattan skyline would get the hint. Yet, the Big Three networks continue to mislead us and abuse our trust by feeding us continual pessimistic commentary instead of the facts.
Here's the real story about this week's events: Two of the most vicious members of the former Iraqi regime are now dead. Brave and heroic Americans risked their lives carrying out this mission. Our military is doing the best job it can, and at the very least, our soldiers deserve our respect and our gratitude. While not perfect, Iraqis are sleeping better tonight, and they will for years to come.
— Angela J. Phelps is an Assyrian American whose mother is a native of Baghdad, Iraq.
Well, I'm glad Ms. Phelps has now explained it all. And told me what to think about the event, too. How helpful of her!
au1929 wrote: "our soldiers deserve our respect and our gratitude"
I cannot imagine any American feeling otherwise. I do not believe, however, that respect and gratitude for our courageous soldiers make our objections to this war any less valid.
There are many brutal and corrupt regimes in the world today. It may be argued that the world community has the right, even the obligation, to remove such regimes, but certainly it is not the right of one single nation to make this determination, and it is even more strongly not the right of that one single nation to implement its will via invasion.
a significant force in the ending of the Vietnam debacale was from the Vietnam Veterans Against the War......
angie
You seem to have gone off on a tangent. The article is about the negativity of the news media and as she sees it the dissing of our service people. It does not get into the reasons, as far as I can see for our being, in Iraq.
au:
I'm not sure what I wrote constitutes a tangent. I thought the article was suggesting we ought to support our troops by not focusing on other issues.
Many who objected to the war, including myself, are grateful for conscientous investigative reporting. The true intentions of our elected leaders need to be revealed, as well as the lies they told, if any.
angie
I don't see it that way. It seems to me that she is was annoyed at the negativity of the media. They seem to see and report everything in a negative light including the actions of our troops. Basically she said things are nowhere as bad as the picture they constantly paint. That is all I gleaned from the article.
I think Angie wins that round, really. I really don't think the media are there to make us feel comfortable about ourselves and/or those who act on our behalf.
Angie
Quote:There are many brutal and corrupt regimes in the world today. It may be argued that the world community has the right, even the obligation, to remove such regimes, but certainly it is not the right of one single nation to make this determination, and it is even more strongly not the right of that one single nation to implement its will via invasion.
When I said you went off on a tangent I was referring to the above. That had nothing as far as I can see to do with the article. I t was about as the author sees it the negativity of the press and respect for our troops.
Tartarin
I didn't know we were in a boxing match. Do I get any points on my scorecard for my response?
au
We're definitely not in a boxing match - way too violent for me. We're having a reasonable, polite, perhaps even somewhat passionate discussion, not always possible at chat sites, which is why I love A2K.
I still think my comments (including the ones you referenced) were not entirely tangential. People who objected to the war objected for reasons, and I believe those reasons are not only legitimate but important in fueling investigatiions. We need to know what happened behind the scenes and why, in order, perhaps, to avoid such precipitous and unwise (IMO) actions in the future.
I'm with Phelps and AU. Reporting has morphed into editorializing. There are OpEd pages and commentators APLENTY for that.
I'm eager to hear what had transpired throughout the day.
NBC confirms the report, but immediately bashes the U.S. military for using "such heavy firepower to take down a few lightly armed men." Interesting. Quickly fed up, I flip over to ABC where reporters insist that the operation was a failure because the military didn't take the diplomatic route and bring them out alive. Rolling my eyes and looking for another angle, I switch to CBS where I'm excited to see one of their reporters LIVE from Baghdad. Now, we're getting somewhere — some local perspective. The journalist reports on the gunfire in Baghdad following the raid, and wonders if it was a result of anger or jublilation. He decides that "some of it was most certainly" in "anger."
They should supply facts, and leave the bashing, decision-making and wondering to the viewer.
True, and only good news!
Walter-- How about JUST THE FACTS. They should tell me what they saw, and what they heard. That is the news. Anything beyond that is opinion. I don't care about some reporter's opinion.
Well, Sofia, what facts?
Any different ancle of a camera view is a kind of opinion, any selection of photos/videos, yes, even the language (=use of words) is an opinion.
There are no JUST THE FACTS I was taught in the Department of Communications :wink:
Good Lord, Sofia, are you asking reporters to actually do their job?
That's been one of the problems for years. Maybe if the reporting were de-personalized - that is, by-lines were used only by those who had earned them; on-screen reporting done by people with no names (except, again, for those who had earned them).
While I think there is no such thing as an objective opinion (semantics: an opinion rendered by an individual has to carry some of that individual) I do think that if editors in all the media were to go back to the old standards, we'd all be better off.
Meanwhile - to me CNN is a prime offender. They are on all the time, constantly repeating, and after a while no matter what it is, it looks like propaganda. And if Wolf Blitzer would get off once in a while and get some sleep, maybe there'd be another slant.
ARG! Yes! I don't want to know who the reporter is! I don't care!!! They are a mouthpiece, relating what they witnessed to me. Not my political advisor.
Walter-- I want them to tell me what they saw AND SHUT IT!
Look at the excerpt from the article.
NBC confirms the report, but immediately bashes the U.S. military for using "such heavy firepower to take down a few lightly armed men."
The facts: There were 200 US forces. Reports are there were four men in the house. Period.
Interesting. Quickly fed up, I flip over to ABC where reporters insist that the operation was a failure because the military didn't take the diplomatic route and bring them out alive. The facts: None. This is opinion.
Rolling my eyes and looking for another angle, I switch to CBS where I'm excited to see one of their reporters LIVE from Baghdad. Now, we're getting somewhere — some local perspective. The journalist reports on the gunfire in Baghdad following the raid, and wonders if it was a result of anger or jublilation. He decides that "some of it was most certainly" in "anger." The facts: Shots were fired by locals following the deaths of Oday and Qusay Hussien. Here is a man, who fired some shots. Let's ask him why he did so....
<growl>
The Hussein brothers certainly were notorious for their brutality, and the world is definitely better off without them.
I am not so sure, however, that the way they died lends itself to heroism on the part of the United States. These brothers were murdered; there's no other word for it.
We have international courts of law for war criminals such as the Husseins. Throughout this entire Iraq War, our country has chosen to ignore what was heretofore international protocol.
Dangerous precedents are being set here. We let our troops be judge, jury and executioner in their slaughter of the brothers Hussein. We are supposed to be be a nation of civility, respected by nations around the world.
That notion of civility died with the Hussein brothers, and we may never get it back. Too bad that our own acts of terrorism probably will come back to haunt us.
