Nice picture

[FishForLunch]

Marines eat a meal given to them by an Iraqi family during a lull in fighting Friday in Parwana, near Haditha, Iraq

[Mavdog]

I'm sure that everyone who reads this MB agrees with you. may there be more and more of these type moments.

[Drbio]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
I'm sure that everyone who reads this MB agrees with you. may there be more and more of these type moments.

Of course there is more. By most accounts (outside of the sickening liberally biased media) this is the norm, not the exception. It's just that libidiot editors won't carry the story.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Drbio

Of course there is more. By most accounts (outside of the sickening liberally biased media) this is the norm, not the exception. It's just that libidiot editors won't carry the story.

yeah, there's much, much morte. there is the daily loss of life, the urgent need for infrastructure repairs to baic needs like sewage and water, there is the constant fear of another bomb.

way to direct a thread on a positive into a thread on partisan whining.

of course the media could just ignore these realities and stick their head in the ground and report only a sweetened, "everything is great" propaganda machine mantra.

but that would be "sickening" and frankly just not good journalism.

[kg_veteran]

Mavdog - Do you think the reporting is balanced to reflect both the positive and negative stories in Iraq, or does it lean more in one direction or another?

[kg_veteran]

This excellent column pretty much sums up my opinion:


August 9, 2005
Trashing Our History: Troops in Iraq
By Thomas Sowell

link

Back in June, this column pointed out that it is impossible to fight a war without heroism -- but that you would never know that from the mainstream media. Nothing heroic done by American troops in Iraq is likely to make headlines in the New York Times or be featured on the big three broadcast network news programs.

That fact has now been belatedly recognized in a New York Times opinion piece, but with a strange twist.

After briefly mentioning a few acts of bravery in Iraq -- including a Marine who smothered an enemy grenade with his own body, saving the lives of his fellow Marines at the cost of his own -- the Times' writer said, "the military, the White House and the culture at large have not publicized their actions with the zeal that was lavished on the heroes of World War I and World War II."

Think about that spin: The reason we don't hear about such things is because of the Pentagon, Bush and "the culture at large."

Neither the Pentagon, the White House or "the culture at large" can stop the newspapers or the televisions networks from publicizing whatever they want to publicize. They all have reporters on the scene but what they choose to feature in their reports are all the negative things they can find.

The very issue of the New York Times in which this essay appeared -- August 7th -- featured a front-page picture of a funeral for a Marine killed in Iraq. If you judged by the front page of this and many other newspapers, our troops in Iraq don't do anything except get killed.

The plain fact is that the mainstream media have been too busy depicting our troops as victims to have much time left to tell about the heroic things they have done, the far greater casualties which they have inflicted on their enemies, or their attempts to restore some basic services and basic decencies to this country that has been torn apart for years by internal and external wars -- even before the first American troops arrived on the scene.

The unrelenting quest for stories depicting American troops as victims -- including even front-page stories about the financial problems of some National Guardsmen called to active duty -- has created a virtual reality in the media that has no place for heroes.

Senator John Kerry has called the activation of reservists and National Guardsmen "a backdoor draft," as if joining the reserves or the National Guard is supposed to mean an exemption from ever having to fight. The theme of troops as victims has been a steady drumbeat in the media, because of the way the media have chosen to filter the news, filtering out heroes, among other things.

This virtual reality can become more important than any facts. Even a young lady interviewer on Fox News Channel -- of all places -- recently asked a guest how long the American people will be able to continue supporting the war in Iraq with all the casualties.

All the American deaths in Iraq since the war began are not even half of the deaths of U.S. Marines taking the one island of Iwo Jima in a couple of months of fighting. And Iwo Jima was just one battle in a war that was raging on other fronts around the world simultaneously and continuing for nearly four long years.

It is not the casualties which are unprecedented but the media filtering and the gullibility of those who accept the virtual reality created by the media.

This is a re-creation of the media's role in the Vietnam war, where American victories on the battlefield were turned into defeat on the home front by the filtering and spin of the media.

Even the current Communist rulers of Vietnam have admitted that they lost militarily in Vietnam but hung on because they expected to win politically in the United States -- as they did, with the help of the Jane Fondas, the Walter Cronkhites and a cast of thousands in the streets and on campuses across the country.

The very people who have been anti-military for years, who filter out American heroes in battle, are now proclaiming that they are "honoring" our troops by publicizing every death by name, day in and day out.

Has the dumbed-down education in our schools left us so ill-equipped that we cannot see through even the most blatant hypocrisy?

[Drbio]

OMG...mavdookie accusing someone of derailing a thread? That is so pathetically ironic is just wreaks. How anyone could even insinuate that there are not more of these events and that the reporting is tragically skewed to the liberal view is so retarded that it isn't even worth talking about any further. What a tool.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
Mavdog - Do you think the reporting is balanced to reflect both the positive and negative stories in Iraq, or does it lean more in one direction or another?

This is of course the age old question of if there is a media bias.

I see the reporting out of most events as balanced due to the fact that we have freedom of press for all perspectives, therefore all perspectives get the opportunity to be heard. There are as many (if not more) reporters who work for news orgs on the right side of the aisle as on the left side of the aisle as there are as many orgs who are positioned on the right side as the left. So there is a viewpoint being expressed by the reporter that will bleed into their work, and typically the news org will hire those that reflect where the leadership of that news org sees their consumers.

The fundamental problem is that the everyday news doesn't sell well. How many times can a reporter file a story about Iraqis who don't object to the US troops? maybe a couple of times. OTOH a story about death and destruction will sell everyday, unfortunately it's blood and gore the consumer is most interested in seeing or hearing about. That is true of local reporting as well, the car crash or the shooting will lead the newscast.

That does not mandate that the reporting will be negative tho, and I do not see the reporting from Iraq as being biased against the campaign. They are reporting about war, and it's not very pretty. but it's reality.

[kg_veteran]

That was a very confusing non-answer. Or maybe you did answer my question. You sort of try to make an excuse for the media (death and destruction sells; positive stories don't), implying that you think the reporting has been more negative than positive. But then you say the reporting has not been "biased against the campaign", which leads me to believe you think that the reporting has been balanced.

So which is it? Has the reporting been balanced or not?

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
That was a very confusing non-answer. Or maybe you did answer my question. You sort of try to make an excuse for the media (death and destruction sells; positive stories don't), implying that you think the reporting has been more negative than positive. But then you say the reporting has not been "biased against the campaign", which leads me to believe you think that the reporting has been balanced.

So which is it? Has the reporting been balanced or not?

gee, and I thought it was an answer...you see that the media isn't reporting all the feel good stories that will portray a positive light, I respond that feel good stories don't sell, as well as that's not really news. The stories we read out of Iraq do dwell on the death, destruction and sufferring because HEY! it is war, and that is the reality for iraqis. should we not see the truth that is on the ground today? sure we should.

the consumer sees and finds what they want to see or find.

yes, there is a balance.

[kg_veteran]

You say that there is a balance but then admit that there isn't by saying that "the stories we read out of Iraq do dwell on the death, destruction and suffering..."

The feel good stories are "not really news"? How can I expect an objective answer out of someone who says something like that?

The consumer sees and finds what they want to see or find. So are you saying that it's the consumer's fault that the media is imbalanced in its reporting in Iraq, or are you saying that the positive stories are being reported but not "consumed"?

Balance doesn't mean that all of the reports from Iraq have to be positive. It doesn't even mean that reporters should go out of their way to find positive stories. But there is NO balance between positive and negative, and it is because of the viewpoint of the media. They are trying to paint the war as a completely negative thing with no positives so that public opinion will be swayed against it.

They've done a good job on you, apparently. You don't even think positive stories are valid news items.

[capitalcity]

Actually it's not a war. Combat for the most part is over because RECONSTRUCTION and SECURITY is the focus of America's Troops now. Yes there is anti-terrorist/ anti-baathist/ anti-sunni operations becaust the terrorists are subverting their work and commanding attention. But the WAR is over. The HARD WORK has begun. Winning the hearts and minds may take years... YEARS. What won't speed the process along is the consistently negative and pointedly anti-bush msm doing the work of the terrorists for them.

THE PROBLEM WITH THE MSM is they continue to treat our good works and progress in Iraq as human interest stories and not news stories.

When a fucking carbomb goes off the story shouldn't be "there was another car bomb in x today because we're occupying their country"
you don't hear the truth that "there was anti-coalition violence today aimed at soldier/workers because we built hospital in x"...

We are not just occupying Iraq for the sake of occupying Iraq. CNN would have you believe otherwise.

[Mavdog]

So you don't agree with my assertion that the news is balanced because they report the death and destruction over feel good stories?

Balance is NOT the equality of reporting good news and bad news, it is reporting the news in a balanced context. If you want to read "feel good stories" more power to you, but guess what? those are a dime a dozen and IMHO aren't news at all. Do I want to read about a family that hasn't been harmed by the war? yawn. Do I want to hear about a family that has suffered and has come out of it with the US help? sure, and those stories have been filed. I've read them, haven't you?

The consumer (you in this case) sees and finds what it (you) wants to find. You conclude that there is an inbalance in reporting and voila! there is (in your view) evidence of that lack of balance.

it is what you want to see.

[u2sarajevo]

I thought "balanced" reporting meant balance between left and right leaning issues. If that is the case, a balanced report on Iraq would mean reporting on both positive (which the right would find enlightening) and the negative (which, I guess, the left would like to hear to further their cause).

Is that the crux of this argument?

If so, I don't see how you can say the reporting has been balanced. Not even from Fox News, who proclaims themselves as balanced reporting.

[kg_veteran]

We are not just occupying Iraq for the sake of occupying Iraq. CNN would have you believe otherwise.

Great point.

[kg_veteran]

Mavdog - The media are concerned with shaping what Sowell referred to in the column above as a "virtual reality" regarding Iraq.

Rather than report on the progress that the United States is making in stabilizing the country and in restoring infrastructure to a populace that was lacking said infrastructure BEFORE the United States invaded (which IS newsworthy), they simply count the number of the dead and try their best to make American soldiers into victims.

[Murphy3]

Blood sells. Feel good happy stories don't.

[kg_veteran]

I understand that notion (and I don't necessarily disagree with it). Still, I think that's a different way of saying the reporting is imbalanced (toward negative stories which "sell better"), and I think it's inaccurate to suggest that the media's motivations for what they cover and report are entirely (or even primarily) financial.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
I understand that notion (and I don't necessarily disagree with it). Still, I think that's a different way of saying the reporting is imbalanced (toward negative stories which "sell better"), and I think it's inaccurate to suggest that the media's motivations for what they cover and report are entirely (or even primarily) financial.

I don't agree that the reporting of the conflict have been all negative. Yes, death is negative. yes, there has been a ton of death. However, the press has written about the new schools, the hospitals that now have medicine, the progress in providing electricity.

I do want to know, if in your mind the media is not motivated by financial goals just what does motivate them?

[capitalcity]

Originally posted by: Murphy3
Blood sells. Feel good happy stories don't.

It's fine and good for the general public to buy into this as reality, but when the media is resigned to the level of, "blood sells", then bias is inevitable.

[capitalcity]

Yes, death is negative. yes, there has been a ton of death.

There has not been a ton of death. Ask my grandfather about a ton of death. Monte Cassino was a ton of death. Guadalcanal was a ton of death. Normandy was a ton of death. The eastern front was a ton of death. Saddam's genocide of the Kurds was a ton of death.

Iraq has been a ton of coverage. NOT a ton of death.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: capitalcity

There has not been a ton of death. Ask my grandfather about a ton of death. Monte Cassino was a ton of death. Guadalcanal was a ton of death. Normandy was a ton of death. The eastern front was a ton of death. Saddam's genocide of the Kurds was a ton of death.

Iraq has been a ton of coverage. NOT a ton of death.

wow. you are trying to argue about the relative casualty rates of war, and because the number of civilian deaths in Iraq is about 25,000 it isn't a "ton of death" compared to what you reference above?

from that viewpoint Monte Cassino or Guadacanal aren't a "ton of death" when compared to Hiroshima...

ridiculous.

25,000 civilians (that we know of) is surely a "ton of death" in my view.

[#1MavsFan]

Iraq has been a ton of coverage. NOT a ton of death.

If you knew one of the 1800+ died you wouldn't dare to say that so really just shut up. You’re making it seem like its ok that all these Americans died, not to mention the thousands more that were injured, many of whom are paralyzed for life.

[capitalcity]

I'm not usually one to argue over semantics, but in this instance the words "Ton" and "Death" and "Iraq" don't belong in the same sentence.

...unless you are referencing the injustices leveled against the iraqi people by Mr. Saddam Hussein.

Were having a discussion over the skewed coverage of this conflict. And then you go and embellish your post for dramatic effect - that's fine, but don't think you're not gonna get called out on it. Try using the word "quagmire" and see what type of visceral reaction you get.

Oh and by the way - How many lives were saved by dropping the bomb? ....exactly, a ton.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: capitalcity
I'm not arguing over numbers I'm arguing over exposure.

??????

are you making the argument that there should be restrictions on the media such as was done in WW2? just what are you saying...........

[Drbio]

And mavdookie still hasn't gotten it. And still hasn't answered kg.

More bitchslap-backtrack.....more nonsense.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Drbio
And mavdookie still hasn't gotten it. And still hasn't answered kg.

More bitchslap-backtrack.....more nonsense.

I picture a childish giggle as he types "bitch"
what a bore.
yawn.

[Drbio]

The only yawn inducing thing here is the dedication that you have to being ignorant. You get intellectually undressed in this forum constantly and are too stupid to grasp it.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Drbio
The only yawn inducing thing here is the dedication that you have to being ignorant. You get intellectually undressed in this forum constantly and are too stupid to grasp it.

any institution that would give a degree to this trivial mind should have their accredidation lifted....

[kg_veteran]

Come on, if you're going to attack someone else's intelligence, at least use spell check. It's "accreditation".

Also, try to grasp the difference between "balance in reporting" and not every single story being negative.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
Come on, if you're going to attack someone else's intelligence, at least use spell check. It's "accreditation".

thanks for the spelling correction. however, the point remains valid....

.

[kg_veteran]

No, it doesn't. The fact that Doc is willing to trade cheapshots with you here in the Political Forum bears absolutely no reflection, one way or the other, on his intelligence.

[Mavdog]

we disagree.
a person can exhibit intelligence in the manner, as well as the content, of their flame.
a deft use of words. an irony.
I've read it here all over the site.
what I see from doc is a constant blather of nothing. a 1:10 ratio on contributing.
that kg is not intelligence.

[Mavdog]

we disagree.
a person can exhibit intelligence in the manner, as well as the content, of their flame.
a deft use of words. an irony.
I've read it here all over the site.
what I see from doc is a constant blather of nothing. a 1:10 ratio on contributing.
that kg is not intelligence.

[Mavdog]

we disagree.
a person can exhibit intelligence in the manner, as well as the content, of their flame.
a deft use of words. an irony.
I've read it here all over the site.
what I see from doc is a constant blather of nothing. a 1:10 ratio on contributing.
that kg is not intelligence.

[Drbio]

yawn....more drivel from the forum retard.

[Drbio]

yawn....more drivel from the forum retard.

[Drbio]

yawn....more drivel from the forum retard.

[terrorist_supporter]

that picture brings a tear to my eye, someone please call oprah

[terrorist_supporter]

that picture brings a tear to my eye, someone please call oprah