Follow-up:

I would hasten to say that the media are putting their critical, "no news is good news" faces on now simply because they were such lapdogs in the run-up to war. Saving face and all that. I agree, there are good things happening over there, but at the same time you don't want to be Pollyannaish.

I don't know, guys, I just think that the MSM focusing on the bad and ignoring the good is detrimental to morale, both here and abroad. I'm not saying they should censor themselves, or be censored, I just feel that building schools and sewers, or what-have-you, are stories that should also be told.

I just feel that building schools and sewers, or what-have-you, are stories that should also be told.

I agree with you 100%, but

"Six Marines Killed in Mosul"

is always going to be page 1 over the fold, and

"Sewer Built in Medina"

is always going to be B17 stuck in between used car ads. That's just how it is.

don't want to be Pollyannaish.

I'm not being Pollyannaish, nor do I want to flame you guys. I'm just astounded on a regular basis by the tinfoil huts that many of you reside in.

I've been a naysayer when it comes to discussions of two Americas, but sometimes I wonder when I read comments on TF. I just can't believe the positions that some of you hold. It seems as if you are holding on to a world that no longer exists.

Chad, this thread isn't about any of the things you mention there. This thread started on the discrepancies in media coverage between two events, and at times morphed into discussions of whether or not the media focuses inordinately on negative news. If you want to stoke an argument about whether the war was justified or set up straw men who defend Saddam Hussein, start another thread.

Maybe I'll meet you over there. But don't count on it if you can't remain civil. This mouth-foaming "Nancy" bit is uncalled for, and none of your other comments in this thread have done anything but try to start some partisan bickering.

This all this boils down to the administration not giving us anything to look forward to as a definable endpoint. The closer we keep getting to the goal, like securing WMD, the farther the goal gets pushed back, such as capturing Saddam. Now the goal is security for the iraqi people and painting schools does not accomplish that, so even though it's nice it's irrevelant and the media reflects that. And once security is acheived, freedom will be the next measure and the hardest one to get to. The overwhelming success in Falluja was widely and rightly reported because it furthers our objectives. If GW told everyone the war will have been won when all schools are repainted you better believe it would be all over the media every time a new shipment of brushes arrives. All we need are concrete goals and a definable "something" to measure our progress by.

Fortune: You're right, those stories need to be told. And I don't prefer the focus on negative stories in most newscasts any more than you do. But until that method stops getting ratings, I believe that's all we're going to see.

nor do I want to flame you guys. I'm just astounded on a regular basis by the tinfoil huts that many of you reside in.

Even when he's trying not to flame, he's flaming. Maybe this "talking to other people" thing isn't for you, Chad.

HumbleGod:

But until that method stops getting ratings, I believe that's all we're going to see.


Unfortunately. One of the more lucid points Moore made in Bowling for Columbine was when he said that although the national murder rate had gone down by like 10%, media coverage of murders had gone up 600%. If that's true, I think that also speaks to the war coverage by the mainstream media. Maybe it's just a sign of the times...

Chad, this thread isn't about any of the things you mention there. This thread started on the discrepancies in media coverage between two events, and at times morphed into discussions of whether or not the media focuses inordinately on negative news. If you want to stoke an argument about whether the war was justified or set up straw men who defend Saddam Hussein, start another thread.

Maybe I'll meet you over there. But don't count on it if you can't remain civil. This mouth-foaming "Nancy" bit is uncalled for, and none of your other comments in this thread have done anything but try to start some partisan bickering.

I would disagree.

The media coverage is a result of the topics I've brought up. The media is a reflection of America (hopefully), and my comments were directed at the cause of the various portrails of what we evidently call news.

I think it's relevant.

You know it's going there anyway, so instead of discussing the nuances of how the war is "percieved", why not talk about what is really pissing you off.

GraphicAddiction: For the umpteen billionth time it's ALL ABOUT RATINGS

I can agree that the MSM's zest for sensationalism has been to our public detriment (see Peterson trial and crime reporting). And this may well be the primary motive for their constant focusing on the bad stuff that the US Military does. Perhaps I'm just holding on to an ideal of what I hope the media could be. That is, I wish it could be a trustworthy venue to counterbalance the jingoist rhetoric coming from Washington. Morale is good and all, but it shouldn't take so much work to establish.

Unfortunately. One of the more lucid points Moore made in Bowling for Columbine was when he said that although the national murder rate had gone down by like 10%, media coverage of murders had gone up 600%. If that's true, I think that also speaks to the war coverage by the mainstream media. Maybe it's just a sign of the times...

I don't know which is stranger--how much I'm agreeing with you, or that we're both accepting the possibility that Michael Moore may have been onto something in one of his films...

I'd like to add something else- we cleaned out Fallujah. That's good news, even if we didn't get anyone important.

I have too agree with both sides of the arguement on this issue. The media (no matter who it supports) is more about ratings and less about objective reporting. Thats why I love the intarweb, I can find my own news on my own time and make my own decisions about it. And then flame my fellow farkers whom I don't agree with.

What makes for better Ratings... That is all the Media is concerned about. They dont even care if what they report is correct.

Just don't show any burning oil pipelines. Pictures of that make me ill.

Fantastic_Dan: Why focus on everything I did right?

That would be a great analogy if you actually applied it correctly. Unfortunately you're skewing the story, so to speak.

You're writing the paper for an audience. They're reading it because they want to know about what you've written. You, the author and reviewer are interested in content and spelling/grammar. As long as you keep your mistakes as low as you can then your audience DOES NOT CARE because they are focusing on what your paper was about in the first place: the actual topic.

So, to put this in context:

Writer = US Armed Forces (they try to keep their mistakes to a minimum and get the content out)
Audience = The world, mainly us. We're interested in what the writers have to say.

UNFORTUNATELY we cant read the story ourselves. The media has stepped in and decided to read the story for you and to you. And, I might add this blog points out that most of what they are doing is pointing out the FEW errors they can find. The actual paper isn't being read to us. Its being blocked by sensationalism.

The media IS READING the story to you, and the good things, which is what the ENTIRE PAPER IS FOR are being GROSSLY understated and the errors are being GROSSLY overstated.

ChadManMn,

Does anyone stop and wonder why we don't see positive news coming out of Iraq?

Because they don't sell as well as negative stories.

It all goes back to the money, as usual.

Additionally one could argue that the errors are part of the content of the paper. Either way the media is still reading the paper to you and emphasizing which parts they feel like emphasizing.

The good stuff is never covered. However, the bigger shame is that almost half of our great nation never go to look for the good things either. They sit back and look for more shiat to fling at the other half.

People like me regularly try to talk about the things we're accomplishing over there. However, the ugly people in the US and the world want nothing to do with it. They are hell bent on proving that the US is EVIL and will sully the efforts of the people that willingly PUT THEIR LIVES ON THE LINE to protect their freedom to turn around and sully their efforts.

So while I applaud people like you and their concern that we should minimize mistakes, I absolutely abhor you for blatantly ignoring the real story - what we're there for in the first place. Because to you its about proving the US wrong and you will go to any and all costs to do so. You've lost your ability to be impartial.

I was activated for Desert Shield/Desert Storm and I know from first hand experience that you aren't getting 99.9999% of the story. You're getting mostly statistical anomalies within the story.

Of course, Al Jazeera refuses to show the slaughterhouses or the execution of Mrs. Hassan as they don't consider her death -- or those of any other hostages -- part of the conflict.

You know, that explanation works for Al Jazeera. What's ABC's excuse?

He's got a point

They were already mired in barbarians before we went. It's why we went. Their atrocities are expected and part of our motives for the war.

We are not barbarians and should not commit atrocities.

Hence, our crimes are shocking and unexpected while theirs are same old, same old for much of that region.

Wow, that was difficult.

"Media only too happy to run a million Abu Grahib photos, but hasn't run a single one on the Fallujah hostage slaughterhouse"

"But of course"

Need I mention that we shouldn't be Abu Ghraibing no matter what our enemies are doing? And that we started the war?

Posting someone else's comments on the issue, because I have nothing insightful to say myself:
---

I've followed this story a little bit. As near as I can tell what happened is that an Iraqi commander announced that they had found slaughterhouses, but didn't present any evidence. He claimed that there were boxes of beheading dvds, tarps like those used for backgrounds in the videos, and clothes like those worn by the terrorists. But any or all of that stuff could be found in locations that aren't slaughterhouses, so as proof goes that's pretty weak. And anyway he didn't produce any of those things, much less give the media access to the supposed slaughterhouses.

So the reason that there's no story is that there's no story. A guy said they found slaughterhouses. That got reported--and pretty widely, all things considered.
Posted by zwichenzug at November 18, 2004 10:14 AM

That's because this shiat is expected of terrorists, whereas the Geneva convention is expected of North America, Europe etc. Although not the US anymore, you crazy hip cats are practically using Israeli tactics (although I'm not going to argue that doing so doesn't save US lives; in the short term at least).

Figures that chickenhawks want to see more blood. Join up for deployment and check it out first hand.

Slaughter rocks!

"Junkyard blog"?

I, for one, believe it.

JamesBong...

The package we're giving to Iraq is no Marshall plan... it's not a real reconstruction plan. NGOs like the International Red Cross should have been given a lot of these contracts. Not companies like Halliburton.

More importantly, everyone always says 'look how the troops are rebuilding schools'... well sure, in some areas maybe that IS happening... but my question is, why ARE the TROOPS rebuilding schools when thats what we pay HALLIBURTON to do?!

If our TROOPS are going to rebuild schools, so be it... i have no problem with that... but stop fcuking paying companies to do shi't they're not doing.

Our reconstruction package was a giveaway of our tax dollars. Nothing more, nothing less.

Is it possible that these so called "terrorist slaughter houses" are just propoganda??

If it was true there surely would be pictures all over the place.

Thank god we are finally being 'welcomed as liberators' and the world is a safer place.

I think of it as this;

Showing pictures of things like Abu and the prison abuse means that it will stay in people's minds. They'll remember it, because they were bombarded by the images.

In a month, people will already forget that they found these places, and no one will care, because they weren't shocked into beleive with pictures

i dislike media sloganese and i always have. i dislike how the word "slaughterhouse" has become a term we use for the brutal murdering of humans in foreign lands. i dislike how everyone is using this word in such a non chalant manner.

and now to be even more of a pussy about things.

i dislike this war. i dislike our presence in a nation that we have no business being in. i dislike our nation's mindset that iraq is linked to terrorist attacks on the united states.

Because everyone knows that "Well they did this, so what we did is justified, acceptable, and certainly not wrong" is a perfect excuse.

Grow up you farking retards.

What do you tell your children? Do you tell them to be better than the bullies? Do you tell them not to lower themselves to the standards of creeps?

Take a dose of your own advice please.

Um...because they have an agenda?

/Duh

Well if that's the kind of discourse in TF I might just have to sign up someday.

In other news, productivity in the vicinity of Radioactive Ass would go down the crapper

Oh, I see this has already been said. I am therefore useless. Again.

What if these "slaughterhouses" don't even exist but were made up from the get go? A lot of heat over the guy being shot is getting bigger and bigger, so I wouldn't put it past the propaganda boys to make stuff up.

Hell, the whole damn invasion was based on stuff that was made up.

The thing about John Kerry is he flip-flops.

I can't believe that noone has mentioned last night's South Park episode yet, as it ties directly into this discussion.

Media only too happy to run a million Abu Grahib photos, but hasn't run a single one on the Fallujah hostage slaughterhouse

You think our Chimp is being treated unfairly because he's being held to higher standards than terrorists? Jesus Farking Christ.

Why would Fallujah have Saddam style torture places? He never even went into that town for any reason.

I've known some less than stellar officers, but I would never refer to them as "second class lieutenants." I must have missed that class in my Officer's Basic Course.

because putting underwear on people's heads and being barked at by a puppy dog is FAR more degrading and shocking than say, chopping an innocent female aid worker's head off with a knife. duh.

twats.

There's a reason for that:

Terrorists being evil isn't news. We all already knew terrorists are evil.

OUR TROOPS being evil IS news.

Final Analysis

We are supposed to be the heroes here. I don't care what the enemy does - they are the enemy, so they are supposed to be awful. But when America and Americans commit war crimes, you better believe that should be front page news. We would be pretty cowardly were it not.

I know there are some schools and sewers being built in Iraq. That is what we are supposed to be doing. Tell me about what we are doing WRONG so that we can focus on bettering ourselves. I don't need a pat on the back if I know I am doing the right thing, and neither should America.