Media doesn't show any Iraq progress......hmmmmm.....wonder why?

[dude1394]

I think this author may have put his finger on the reason. Just check his last sentence.

shilling for kerry

Iraq missions that work out are missing from mainstream media

Did you see the big headline or watch the top-of-the-newscast story about the success of our sons and daughters in Samarra, Iraq?

Of course, you didn't.

I found mention deep in stories from The Christian Science Monitor and The Associated Press. But it took e-mails from Marine officers in Iraq to relay the importance of this positive news — so I could tell you.

It shouldn't be this way. Yet journalism in America is broken. It has no foundation of values by which many Americans can relate and depend. The moral of this column is not about one side prevailing in news coverage on the war on terror. It's simply about fairness — about Americans getting both sides with the same prominence.

They're not. And media emphasis on Iraq being in chaos has coincided with John Kerry making the same pitch to voters. It makes you wonder, just as we did on the authenticity of Dan Rather's reporting. And now America knows about Rather's ruse.

''Samarra is a beaming success story over here,'' writes Lt. Col Jim Rose, a Tennessee Marine whose parents live in Old Hickory. ''We were getting ready for a take-down there right after Najaf. We told the locals, 'Hey, see what happened in Najaf? Is that what you want? Cause we're coming.' It took the locals about two days to get the bad guys out.''

Rose is based in the Sunni Triangle. That's where most U.S. casualties occur, where the Sunnis are supportive of terrorists coming in. Fallujah is there, along with Samarra and Najaf, where Marines drove terrorists out of one of Islam's holiest shrines.

Rose verified a message I received from another Marine officer in Iraq. He provided perspective missing in the media: ''Those achievements, more than anything else … account for the surge in violence in recent days — especially the violence directed at Iraqis by the insurgents. Both in Najaf and Samarra, ordinary people stepped out and took sides with the Iraqi government against the insurgents, and the bad guys are hopping mad. They are trying to instill fear once again.''

Rose asked: ''Why isn't the media covering Samarra?''

Instead, we get what reader Jim League of Smyrna complains about. He cited a picture and story featured at the top of Page 13A in Saturday's Tennessean:

''The perhaps 100 protesters get front-and-center billing, and the impression is that all of Iraq is unhappy. What is missing is perspective. Imagine a foreigner perusing the front page of The Tennessean. He reads about a 15-year-old-boy being chained to his bed for six weeks. Would he be justified in believing that all parents in America constrain their children? If he had no perspective and if his impression was selectively reinforced by subtle media or political pundits, this could be possible.''

Exactly. And what we get on TV is also just one side. Consider this story Rose saw reported: ''I was going through the battle damage assessment at my desk with NBC's Today on the TV. The attack occurred in the middle of the night. I had the footage of the attack on my computer, and here's Katie Couric (or whoever hosts it) showing the same bomb location.

''I had pictures of the bombed vehicles, which is how I knew she was talking about the same location. The next shot is kids being carried into a hospital. We had eyes on this for a long time. If there were kids in there, they were toting weapons or the terrorists used them as human shields. …

''I went to our Combat Operations Center and walked into them watching the same thing. I verified what I thought and spoke with our intelligence guys. They said the whole thing was staged and probably old footage. They track the footage and have seen repeat footage shown in the past. They also said to look at the footage and see if it makes sense. More often than not, it doesn't … pulling a child from rubble with relatively clean clothes. ''

Is NBC wrong and the Marines right? Americans deserve both sides to make up their minds.

''The Najaf shrine — HUNDREDS of dead women and children were brought out after Sadr left,'' Rose wrote. ''They (Sadr's supporters) rounded them up during the battle and brought them in to be executed. Why? Because they anticipated the Americans would eventually enter the shrine and walk into a media ambush. We never went in. The people of Najaf love us right now because of that. They hate Sadr and want him dead.

''Have you heard that one yet (in the media)?''

[Mavdog]

much to your apparent chagrin the "media" is merely reporting what is factually shown.
perhaps your anger is misdirected.

Military Fatalities: By Time Period News

Period US UK Other* Total Avg Days
3 200 8 12 220 2.34 94
2 715 27 58 800 1.89 424
1 139 33 0 172 4 43
Total 1054 68 70 1192 2.12 561

To View Period Details Click The Period Number
Time Periods Defined
Latest Fatality: Sep 30, 2004

Military Fatalities: By Month
Period US UK Other* Total Avg Days
9-2004 76 3 4 83 2.77 30
8-2004 66 4 5 75 2.42 31
7-2004 54 1 3 58 1.87 31
6-2004 42 1 7 50 1.67 30
5-2004 80 0 4 84 2.71 31
4-2004 135 0 5 140 4.67 30
3-2004 52 0 0 52 1.68 31
2-2004 20 1 2 23 0.79 29
1-2004 47 5 0 52 1.68 31
12-2003 40 0 8 48 1.55 31
11-2003 82 1 27 110 3.67 30
10-2003 43 1 2 46 1.48 31
9-2003 30 1 1 32 1.07 30
8-2003 35 6 2 43 1.39 31
7-2003 47 1 0 48 1.55 31
6-2003 30 6 0 36 1.2 30
5-2003 37 4 0 41 1.32 31
4-2003 73 6 0 79 2.63 30
3-2003 65 27 0 92 7.67 12
Total 1054 68 70 1192 2.12 561

link

[Drbio]

All that did was focus on the negative mavdog. Did you not read his post? It says that the positive news is not being equitably reported. Shocker.

[kg_veteran]

They AREN'T reporting what is factually happening over there. That's kind of the WHOLE point, Mavdog.

It must be a bummer to be so negative and bitter all the time, hoping for more bad news to confirm your jaded point of view.

[Mavdog]

The facts are that the situation is tenuous, that there has NOT been any measureable progress in reducing the violence.

One can put a good face on it, put out press that everything is getting better to be positive about the scene, but that is not journalism, it's spin.

Is that negative? No, it's realism.

Reality is that we did not prepare well for the post invasion situation, and our leadership seems to not have responded to the changed landscape or have a good grasp on what will bring better progress in stabilizing Iraq.

The criticism of our leadership's decisionmaking doesn't entail that we can't be successful. We can, and we will. It's the current strategy and the high costs of this administration's plan that is failing us and the Iraqis. We need a better plan.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
The facts are that the situation is tenuous, that there has NOT been any measureable progress in reducing the violence.

One can put a good face on it, put out press that everything is getting better to be positive about the scene, but that is not journalism, it's spin.

Is that negative? No, it's realism.

Listen. For once, just listen. All that we want is to hear BOTH SIDES of the story. Report the number of dead soldiers and the civilian casualties. That's all well and good, and it's part of the picture. It's just not the WHOLE picture.

Where are the reports about the SUCCESSES that we are having militarily? Where are the interviews with Iraqis who are HAPPY that we deposed Hussein? We ARE having military success and there ARE many Iraqis who are happy that Saddam is out of power, but we never hear from those people.

All we want is a fair and balanced account. Report ALL the facts, and let Americans make up their minds. Don't report those facts which you see fit to report.

That's all we ask.

Reality is that we did not prepare well for the post invasion situation, and our leadership seems to not have responded to the changed landscape or have a good grasp on what will bring better progress in stabilizing Iraq.

The criticism of our leadership's decisionmaking doesn't entail that we can't be successful. We can, and we will. It's the current strategy and the high costs of this administration's plan that is failing us and the Iraqis. We need a better plan.

It's all well and good to criticize the post-invasion handling of the war in Iraq. Let's just be honest about what's actually happening over there.

[Drbio]

How much is a liberal pair of blinders anyways?

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
The facts are that the situation is tenuous, that there has NOT been any measureable progress in reducing the violence.

One can put a good face on it, put out press that everything is getting better to be positive about the scene, but that is not journalism, it's spin.

Presumably this would be done by reporting only good news, using the most peaceful and joyful images possible.
If only bad news is reported, with only violent and terrible images, you'd have to say that's putting a negative face on the news.

[reeds]

Well, when news pours in like this- almost daily, what do you expect the media to do??

Baghdad Bombings Kill 35 Children

1 hour, 2 minutes ago Top Stories - AP


By ALEXANDRA ZAVIS, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A series of bombs killed 35 children and seven adults Thursday as U.S. troops handed out candy at a government ceremony to inaugurate a new sewage treatment plant. Hours earlier, a suicide blast killed a U.S. soldier and two Iraqis on the capital's outskirts.

The bombs in Baghdad's al-Amel neighborhood caused the largest death toll of children in any insurgent attack since the conflict in Iraq (news - web sites) began 17 months ago.

"The Americans called us, they told us, 'Come here, come here,' asking us if we wanted sweets. We went beside them, then a car exploded," said 12-year-old Abdel Rahman Dawoud, lying naked in a hospital bed with shrapnel embedded all over his body.

Two bombs went off in quick succession at the ceremony about 1 p.m., then were followed by a third explosion a short distance away, said Interior Ministry spokesman Col. Adnan Abdul-Rahman. He said there were two suicide car bombs and one roadside bomb; the Americans said all three were car bombs.

The explosions killed 42 people and wounded 141, including 10 U.S. soldiers. The wounded included 72 children under the age of 14, said Dr. Mohammed Salaheddin.

The day of violence across Iraq, including insurgent attacks and U.S. airstrikes in Fallujah, left a total of 46 people dead and 208 wounded.

In the northern city of Tal Afar, a car bomb targeting the police chief killed at least four people and wounded 16, Iraqi and U.S. officials said. The chief, whose name was only given as Col. Ismail, escaped the assassination attempt, police said.

Also Thursday, the Arab news network Al-Jazeera showed video of 10 new hostages seized in Iraq by militants. Al-Jazeera said the 10 — six Iraqis, two Lebanese and two Indonesian women — were taken by The Islamic Army in Iraq, a group that has claimed responsibility for seizing two French journalists.

A Lebanese official later said kidnappers had released one Lebanese captive, although it was not clear if he was among the 10.

In the al-Amel bombings, grief-stricken parents wailed over the bodies of their children at the Yarmouk Hospital morgue. One woman tore at her hair before pulling back the sheet covering her dead brother and kissing him.

One man carried his younger brother — both legs bandaged — to the hospital, where some children were put two to a bed because of the many wounded. Outside, women sat on the ground and wept as they awaited news about their children.

The hospital received 42 bodies — including those of 35 children — and 131 wounded, said Iyhsan Nasser, head of the facility's statistics department.

At the site of the blasts, body parts were strewn in the streets amid pools of blood. A U.S. helicopter evacuated some of the wounded while other aircraft circled overhead and soldiers sealed off the area.

Lt. Col. Jim Hutton, spokesman for the U.S. 1st Cavalry Division, said 10 American soldiers were among the wounded.

American troops were taking part in the ceremony to inaugurate the sewage plant, said Maj. Phil Smith, another division spokesman, calling the attacks "despicable." Officials earlier had said a U.S. convoy was passing through the area.

Smith said the first two explosions targeted the ceremony, while the third was aimed at a nearby Iraqi National Guard checkpoint.

The children were at the ceremony because the school year in Iraq has not yet begun.


"This attack was carried out by evil people who do not want the Iraqis to celebrate and don't want (reconstruction) projects in Iraq," said Iraqi National Guard Lt. Ahmad Saad.
Hours earlier, a suicide car bomber struck in the Abu Ghraib area outside of Baghdad, killing the American soldier and at least two Iraqis, and wounding 60, Iraqi and U.S. officials said.

That bomb targeted a compound housing the mayor's office, a police station and other buildings, police 1st Lt. Ahmed Jawad said. A U.S. Bradley fighting vehicle parked in front of the compound was hit, Hutton said.

Elsewhere, insurgents fired a rocket Thursday at a logistical support area for coalition forces on the outskirts of Baghdad, killing one soldier and wounding seven, the military said. No further details was disclosed — including whether or not it was a U.S. soldier.

Meanwhile, the United States targeted a suspected terrorist safehouse in Fallujah. The military said intelligence reports indicated the house was being used by followers of Jordanian terror mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to plan attacks against U.S.-led forces and Iraqi citizens.

At least four Iraqis were killed — including two women and one child — and eight were wounded, said Dr. Ahmed Khalil of the Fallujah General Hospital. Witnesses said two houses were flattened and four others damaged in the strike.

"Significant secondary explosions were observed during the impact, indicating a large cache of illegal ordinance was stored in the safehouse," the military statement said. Explosions continued for hours.

American jets, tanks and artillery units repeatedly have targeted al-Zarqawi's network in Fallujah recently as U.S.-led forces seek to assert control over insurgent enclaves ahead of elections slated for January. The military says the attacks have inflicted significant damage on the network, which has claimed responsibility for bombings, kidnappings and other attacks.

Doctors say scores of civilians have been killed and wounded in the strikes.

Al-Zarqawi's group, Tawhid and Jihad, has claimed responsibility for several beheadings and kidnappings.

Al-Jazeera's video of the latest hostages showed three captives, who were not identified, and two masked men pointing weapons at them. There was no mention of demands by the militants or when or where they were captured. The network said the 10 were employees of the Jib electricity company.

Gen. Hussein Ali Kamal, Iraq's deputy interior minister in charge of intelligence, later confirmed that two Lebanese had been kidnapped along with a group of others that included women.

More than 140 foreigners have been kidnapped in Iraq and at least 26 have been killed.

___

[kg_veteran]

The same thing we expected before -- to report on ALL of the news in Iraq, not just the doom and gloom.

[FishForLunch]

So who is to blame for the bombing?

[Epitome22]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
The same thing we expected before -- to report on ALL of the news in Iraq, not just the doom and gloom.

First of all 90% of the News, irrespective of Iraq is bad news. That doesen't mean that 'food news' doesen't occur, but the media figured out a long time ago that doom, goom and scandal sells much better. There's nothing partisan about that.

Secondly, the argument being made about lack of good news being reported from Iraq can only be based on direct suppression. Even for argument's sake, accepting the existence of the "liberal media", does not disclude the existence of quite prominent, if few, media sources. Why aren't they breaking this story? where are there inside journalists with stories about Iraqi utopia and marines giving candibars and lollipops to children? Conservatives fail to realize that news can be politicized through spin, but news itself does not fall along partisan lines.

The arguments proposed by thie writer of this article noting the allegedly suspicious coincidence between Kerry reporting bad news in Iraq and the news reporting bad news in Iraq (gee, you think it's possible he took a cue from the news rather than vice versa?) and comments from Conservatives here, notably yourself urging the media to tell 'both' sides of the story, are quite revealing. By saying 'both' as in good/bad, liberal side/conservative side, Republican side/Democrat side. To the conservative, reporting of 'bad' news from Iraq, somehow benefits the 'other' side, so it must be contrasted with some semblance of good, happy news, no matter how such news is proliferated or how authentic it is. It's damningly revealing of the partisanship of would be media detractors accusing the press of...well, partisanship. It's striking hypocrtical, if not ethically and intellectually dubious.

[razap]

My question to any conservative is what is a success in Iraq? For those who questioned the wisdon of going into Iraq when we did it is hard to overlook the fact that what we were told was wrong. As we are all aware of the pre-war assertaions of what Saddam's capabilities were and what he possessed we are left to continue to question the action taken. I was very skeptical at the begininning of the timing and need to do it as soon as possible but I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt. Since the invasion took place some of the information used to explain the reasoning to the American people was at best 'shaky'. I point to Dick Cheney clarifying that he misspoke when asked about pre-war information he gave out. on Meet the Press he was asked to respond to a soundbite of himself saying that Saddam had the capability to produce WMDs... to then Dick Saying he 'misspoke' and that he meant that Saddam had the 'intent' to produce WMDS.. The Vice Preseident of the United States says he misspoke when telling the country we had to go to war? Good God if Clinton had done the same thing we would have had impeachment hearings already. Secondly I am referring to various peices of evidence that the administration was told could not be verified bu it's own experts yet somehow found it's way into various reasons why we had to go in when we did. I find it hard to say kids getting schoolbooks a success becuase that is not why we were there in the first place. What do you want to the press to do? Go out of there to find a positive story? This is war and people are dying..I find it disengenous to say it is a concerted effort between Kerry's campaign and the press when if a Democrat were in office under the exact same circumstances you would have the talk radio circuit calling for impeachment and independent investigations..

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Epitome22
. . . and comments from Conservatives here, notably yourself urging the media to tell 'both' sides of the story, are quite revealing. By saying 'both' as in good/bad, liberal side/conservative side, Republican side/Democrat side. To the conservative, reporting of 'bad' news from Iraq, somehow benefits the 'other' side, so it must be contrasted with some semblance of good, happy news, no matter how such news is proliferated or how authentic it is.

Nice attempt to misstate the argument here. If there isn't good news, NO ONE has claimed that "inauthentic" good news should be created so that there is balance. Sure, CBS will try and create inauthentic news, but that's another issue.

This isn't an argument about balance. It's about giving us ALL of the information and letting us decide what's really happening over there. But we don't get all of the information. We get to hear what the MSM wants us to hear. Thankfully, as you pointed out, there are other media sources. Unfortunately, millions of Americans still rely upon the MSM as their primary (and often only) source of news. That's why the media should be taken to task. They're deceiving the American people if they don't give us a complete picture of what's really happening.

Originally posted by: razap
My question to any conservative is what is a success in Iraq?

A success in Iraq could be many things.

A success in Iraq is putting an end to the torture, rape, and mass murder of Iraqi citizens. Earlier this summer we heard nonstop coverage of Abu Ghraib and heard that referred to as the "humiliating torture" of Iraqis, but there was virtually no coverage of all of the torture, rape, and murder that we put an end to when we deposed Saddam Hussein.

A success in Iraq is all of those millions of Iraqis who are free now that were not before. Sure, we hear interviews from Iraqis who want the U.S. to leave Iraq, but we don't hear all of the interviews from Iraqi people who are so incredibly grateful that we have freed them from the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.

A success in Iraq is the victories we are achieving against the "insurgents." The article to begin this thread cites Samarra as an example. Have you heard a word about Samarra from the MSM? I haven't. All I've heard is about how the insurgents have control of Fallujah and how terrorists are pouring across the borders.

Those are just a few that come to mind off the top of my head.

[razap]

A success in Iraq could be many things.

A success in Iraq is putting an end to the torture, rape, and mass murder of Iraqi citizens. Earlier this summer we heard nonstop coverage of Abu Ghraib and heard that referred to as the "humiliating torture" of Iraqis, but there was virtually no coverage of all of the torture, rape, and murder that we put an end to when we deposed Saddam Hussein.

A success in Iraq is all of those millions of Iraqis who are free now that were not before. Sure, we hear interviews from Iraqis who want the U.S. to leave Iraq, but we don't hear all of the interviews from Iraqi people who are so incredibly grateful that we have freed them from the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.

A success in Iraq is the victories we are achieving against the "insurgents." The article to begin this thread cites Samarra as an example. Have you heard a word about Samarra from the MSM? I haven't. All I've heard is about how the insurgents have control of Fallujah and how terrorists are pouring across the borders.

Those are just a few that come to mind off the top of my head.


I think those are valid points but we did not go to Iraq to do those things. The President told us other reasons why we had to go when we did and now we have evolved to your points. I guess what I am trying to say is I am glad that these people are doing well but our stated reason for doing this was not to be humaniatrains or liberators. We went because Iraq was an imminent threat.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: razap
I think those are valid points but we did not go to Iraq to do those things. The President told us other reasons why we had to go when we did and now we have evolved to your points. I guess what I am trying to say is I am glad that these people are doing well but our stated reason for doing this was not to be humaniatrains or liberators. We went because Iraq was an imminent threat.

Fair enough, but now you're changing the subject. We were discussing media coverage of Iraq and how it is lacking, and you've changed the subject to what the pretext for going to Iraq was in the first place.

I acknowledge that the main reason Bush took us to war against Iraq was that he felt that they posed an imminent threat because they had or were about to have weapons of mass destruction. That doesn't mean, however, that the United States can only be successful in Iraq if weapons of mass destruction are found.

[dude1394]

Actually bush did NOT think iraq was an "imminent" threat. However he did feel that he could not wait until it was one. He certainly did think that they had wmds (like the world did) and since he was about to break out of his box it was time to take care of him as well as strike in the heart of the middle east. It is a long-term strategic goal of getting rid of terrorism.

[knowitall]

The world didn't think that. The world was deceived. A little accuracy would be prudent. Dude, if you're a playwright, keep it up! I love a good fiction.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: dude1394
Actually bush did NOT think iraq was an "imminent" threat. However he did feel that he could not wait until it was one. He certainly did think that they had wmds (like the world did) and since he was about to break out of his box it was time to take care of him as well as strike in the heart of the middle east. It is a long-term strategic goal of getting rid of terrorism.

no, Bush did not say the word "imminent", he said "growing". However, Rumsfield did say "imminent threat" in his testimony to Congress prior to the war, and Fleischer answered "yes" when asked if "Iraq posed an imminent threat".

Clearly it was the administration's position that Iraq was an "imminent threat" to the US.