Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8945 total)
39 online now:
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Post Volume: Total: 865,177 Year: 20,213/19,786 Month: 610/2,023 Week: 118/392 Day: 31/87 Hour: 6/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is the media hurting the war?
Tal
Member (Idle past 3988 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 46 of 145 (408995)
07-06-2007 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by taylor_31
06-29-2007 9:44 PM


Money
Hi Taylor.

The first thing to point out is that the media is in Iraq to sell commercials/newspapers/magazines. Their job is not to report the news, but to make money.

What is an IED? I'll tell you what it is and what it isn't. It is not a weapon that stops CF (Coalition Forces) tactically or strategically. Not one IED has ever stopped a unit from accomplishing its mission. An IED is a statement. It is designed to erode the popular support for the campaign (Iraq is a campaign in the Global War on Terror) in order to facilitate CF withdrawal so that Al Qaeda can claim victory.

If there were no media to report these events, there would be no insurgency, for they would have no way to get their message out.

That being said, a free press is an integral part of our freedom and they must be allowed to do their jobs because they perform their part in keeping the government in check. I do happen to agree with your neo about the Press comparison during WWII and today. I would think that the discrepancy is due to the fact that good news SOLD during the WWII era, and it doesn't sell today.

The Press is a business. Its reason for existance is to maximize owner wealth, just like any other business.

Edited by Tal, : No reason given.


News Media: Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory 1 negative report at a time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by taylor_31, posted 06-29-2007 9:44 PM taylor_31 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by crashfrog, posted 07-06-2007 1:28 PM Tal has not yet responded
 Message 50 by taylor_31, posted 07-06-2007 3:12 PM Tal has responded
 Message 53 by DrJones*, posted 07-06-2007 5:05 PM Tal has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 145 (408997)
07-06-2007 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Tal
07-06-2007 1:17 PM


Re: Money
Not one IED has ever stopped a unit from accomplishing its mission.

It stopped my best friend's mission.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Tal, posted 07-06-2007 1:17 PM Tal has not yet responded

Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6810
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 48 of 145 (408999)
07-06-2007 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Hyroglyphx
07-06-2007 12:12 PM


Re: Military intelligence: Often an oxymron
Hi, nem.

I was mostly commenting on what I thought was initial point:

However, if yellow journalism is detected, there should be steep penalties for it.

However, I might have misinterpreted what you said, as you now say:

They aren't stopping them from saying whatever they want. They are simply saying, "We are watching what you say. We'll expose you if you lie."

So, if by "steep penalties" you meant exposure and possible loss of credibility thereafter, then I have no problem with what you say. In fact, as you point out, we already have organizations dedicated to that task. (I already have FAIR's website bookmarked.)


Q: If science doesn't know where this comes from, then couldn't it be God's doing?

A: The only difference between that kind of thinking and the stereotype of the savage who thinks the Great White Hunter is a God because he doesn't know how the hunter's cigarette lighter works is that the savage has an excuse for his ignorance. -- jhuger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-06-2007 12:12 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 145 (409001)
07-06-2007 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Hyroglyphx
07-06-2007 12:16 PM


Re: Military intelligence: Often an oxymron
Clock the time... it took four posts of discussing Iraq for NJ to bring up Bill Clinton.

That's gotta be a record.


"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-06-2007 12:16 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

taylor_31
Member (Idle past 4234 days)
Posts: 86
From: Oklahoma!
Joined: 05-14-2007


Message 50 of 145 (409008)
07-06-2007 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Tal
07-06-2007 1:17 PM


Re: Money
Hi Tal!

I assume that you are currently serving in Iraq. If so, thank you for your service, and I hope that you had a good Independence Day. I have some questions about your post for you.

Not one IED has ever stopped a unit from accomplishing its mission. An IED is a statement. It is designed to erode the popular support for the campaign (Iraq is a campaign in the Global War on Terror) in order to facilitate CF withdrawal so that Al Qaeda can claim victory.

But surely an IED is more than a mere statement! It seems that IEDs are but one tool of a lethal insurgency which has driven Iraqi political and social life into the gutter. Because of this insurgency, Iraq is now in the throes of a civil war. I think the media is simply reporting this hard fact. Doesn't the public have a right to know this?

If there were no media to report these events, there would be no insurgency, for they would have no way to get their message out.

You may be right in that the insurgents hope to stimulate negative news from the Western media, but I think that's an indirect part of their main strategy. Their real strategy to is force Iraq into chaos with these lethal weapons. Apparently they've done a gruesomely good job, because Iraq has progressed horribly from our perspective. Hopefully this surge will secure areas of the capital and we can get some progress on the political and economic fronts.

I do happen to agree with your neo about the Press comparison during WWII and today. I would think that the discrepancy is due to the fact that good news SOLD during the WWII era, and it doesn't sell today.

If I ever get into a college class where I need a good paper subject, I might choose this topic, because I think there's some good research to be done in this area.

I'm sure you know front-line conditions in Iraq far, far better than I do, so please correct anything that I misstated.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Tal, posted 07-06-2007 1:17 PM Tal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Chiroptera, posted 07-06-2007 3:53 PM taylor_31 has not yet responded
 Message 54 by Tal, posted 07-07-2007 12:41 PM taylor_31 has responded

Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6810
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 51 of 145 (409009)
07-06-2007 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by taylor_31
07-06-2007 3:12 PM


I assume that you are currently serving in Iraq.

Tal claims that he works in military intelligence.

I'll let you read his previous posts and wonder whether someone in intelligence is really allowed to log onto anonymous message boards and brag about all this intelligence he has access to, which would knock all our socks off if only he could divulge it.


Q: If science doesn't know where this comes from, then couldn't it be God's doing?

A: The only difference between that kind of thinking and the stereotype of the savage who thinks the Great White Hunter is a God because he doesn't know how the hunter's cigarette lighter works is that the savage has an excuse for his ignorance. -- jhuger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by taylor_31, posted 07-06-2007 3:12 PM taylor_31 has not yet responded

subbie
Member (Idle past 54 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 52 of 145 (409019)
07-06-2007 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Hyroglyphx
07-06-2007 12:22 PM


Re: Military intelligence: Often an oxymron
What danger is there in telling the American people that Iraq is a threat to national security as an excuse to save the value of the American dollar or to secure our oil status?

Well, I can't see any threat of immediately lawlessness from making such a report. If you do, you'll have to explain it to me. Thus, it has absolutely nothing to do with the doctrine of "clear and present danger."

Moreover, that kind of reporting isn't what most of the media is doing right now, with the possible exception of mindless neocon mouthpieces like Fox News and its ilk. It certainly isn't the kind of reporting that is the topic of this thread.


Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-06-2007 12:22 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1984
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 53 of 145 (409020)
07-06-2007 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Tal
07-06-2007 1:17 PM


Re: Money
If there were no media to report these events, there would be no insurgency, for they would have no way to get their message out.

You're lumping the various Iraqi factions into one group. Sure there are terrorists who want to "get their message out" to the west, but there are also the religious and ethnic sects who want to slaughter eachother on the way to their own states. Elminating the media does nothing to those guys.

Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.


Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Tal, posted 07-06-2007 1:17 PM Tal has not yet responded

Tal
Member (Idle past 3988 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 54 of 145 (409116)
07-07-2007 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by taylor_31
07-06-2007 3:12 PM


Re: Money
I assume that you are currently serving in Iraq. If so, thank you for your service, and I hope that you had a good Independence Day.

Yes, this is my 3d Combat Tour, second in Baghdad, you're welcome, and I celebrated July 4th with a Fish Sandwich.

Not one IED has ever stopped a unit from accomplishing its mission. An IED is a statement. It is designed to erode the popular support for the campaign (Iraq is a campaign in the Global War on Terror) in order to facilitate CF withdrawal so that Al Qaeda can claim victory.

But surely an IED is more than a mere statement! It seems that IEDs are but one tool of a lethal insurgency which has driven Iraqi political and social life into the gutter. Because of this insurgency, Iraq is now in the throes of a civil war. I think the media is simply reporting this hard fact. Doesn't the public have a right to know this?

Well, let me address the civil war issue. 90ish% of the violence in Iraq happens in a 30 square mile radius of Baghdad. I know first hand. My BCT (2d Brigade Comat Team, 82d Airborne) works the Adhamiyah and Sadr City neighborhoods. If I were to tell you that 90% of the violence in Texas happened in the Dallas/Fort Worth area, I don't think you would conclude that Texas is in a civil war. At least I don't. The Shia and Sunni tribes don't just wake up in the morning intent on killing each other. Sunni extremists (former Bathists for the most part) work with AQI to kill Shia with car bombs, or executions, or whatever they can. The bloodier the better, because that generates headlines. Shia extremists are backed by the Hezbos and Iran to broaden their influence by either killing CF or Sunnis. Since these acts generate alot of press, it causes backlash from both communities, and in the past has locked each faction in mutually reenforcing cycles of violence.

Now what you didn't hear much about was the latest attack on minerets of the Golden Dome in Samarra a few weeks back. Last year, when AQI blew the dome up, there was a huge backlash of violence; which was covered extensively in the Western and Arab media. This year, there was a demonstration in Sadr City which resulted in no violence.

I'm sure you didn't hear that in the news, yet this is a HUGE story because it shows that the Goverment and people (in the "worst" neighborhood) handled things much differently this go around.


News Media: Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory 1 negative report at a time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by taylor_31, posted 07-06-2007 3:12 PM taylor_31 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by taylor_31, posted 07-10-2007 12:39 AM Tal has responded

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 2456 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 55 of 145 (409128)
07-07-2007 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Hyroglyphx
07-06-2007 12:12 PM


Re: Military intelligence: Often an oxymron
NJ writes:

Those were men from his own unit denouncing him. They aren't journalists in any sense of the word.

Bull shit.

Let's see...Rightwing billionaire Sam Fox financed them, and the PR Company was Arthur J Finkelstein and Associates. And if I recall correctly, the claim that allegations against Kerry were made by members of his own crew turned out to be false (but I’d have to look into that one).

The Swift Boat Ads were noting more than a smear campaign by the Right.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-06-2007 12:12 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

taylor_31
Member (Idle past 4234 days)
Posts: 86
From: Oklahoma!
Joined: 05-14-2007


Message 56 of 145 (409518)
07-10-2007 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Tal
07-07-2007 12:41 PM


Re: Money
Perhaps you're right, and the media is being manipulated by the enemy. However, I think it's a mistake to blame the war's conduct on the media; rather, the responsibility lies with the actions of our administration. This war has been mismanaged right from the beginning, from which we did not even have a compelling reason to go to war. At least, I didn't think we had one.

But we've gotta make the best of it, so I hope that things get better soon. Already I think that Baghdad is beginning to stabilize a little better; hopefully this is an indication of things to come.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Tal, posted 07-07-2007 12:41 PM Tal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Thugpreacha, posted 07-10-2007 6:23 AM taylor_31 has not yet responded
 Message 58 by Tal, posted 07-10-2007 6:59 PM taylor_31 has responded

Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 13137
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 57 of 145 (409561)
07-10-2007 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by taylor_31
07-10-2007 12:39 AM


Some observations
  • The "enemy" is smarter than we give them credit for. We always fight yesterdays wars rather than todays wars. Baghdad will stabilize until we leave, but we can't force that country to be a democracy. Only its people can do that...Capitalism will bring corruption.

  • I agree that the war has been mismanaged. We had no clue how to fight it. If anything at all can be learned, it is that we are learning how to fight urban terrorism.

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 56 by taylor_31, posted 07-10-2007 12:39 AM taylor_31 has not yet responded

    Tal
    Member (Idle past 3988 days)
    Posts: 1140
    From: Fort Bragg, NC
    Joined: 12-29-2004


    Message 58 of 145 (409674)
    07-10-2007 6:59 PM
    Reply to: Message 56 by taylor_31
    07-10-2007 12:39 AM


    Re: Money
    the media is being manipulated by the enemy.

    I wouldn't say AQI is manipulating the news, but instead are taking advantage of the way the system works to get their message out and ultimately claim victory for forcing the US to withdraw.

    I think it's a mistake to blame the war's conduct on the media

    What do you mean by the "war's conduct?"

    This war has been mismanaged right from the beginning, from which we did not even have a compelling reason to go to war. At least, I didn't think we had one.

    Thank you for putting your opinion in there at the end. I like that alot more than the "there were NO WMD" chant. Allow me, if I may, to tell you my opinion, and why.

    Yes, President Bush said on many occasions that we knew Saddam Hussein possessed chemical and biological weapons. Why did he say it? He said it because it was the best judgement of the career intelligence analysts who serve our nation. George W. Bush said it, just as President Clinton said it before him, and just as Vice President Gore said it. Senator John Kerry said it as well in a speech on the Senate floor in 2002. According to the arms inspector David Kay, France in the 1990s concluded Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and so did Germany.

    If we said all that, what happenned? Where are these weapons of mass destruction? There are 4 possibilites. One is Saddam moved them out of Iraq before the war. Two is Saddam destroyed them and left no evidence. Three is that he hid them somewhere inside Iraq and we haven't found them. Four is that Iraq didn't have any weapons and we were all wrong.

    I'm sure we all remember David Kay, the former UN chief weapons inspector and head of the Iraq Survey Group reported that he had not found any stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. His statement dominated the headlines. But as alwasy, there was more to the news than the headlines. Here's what else David Kay said when he submitted his report to Congress in 2003:

    "We have discovered dozens of WMD-related prgram activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the UN during the inspections that began in late 2002." These included "a clandestine network of labratories and safehouses maintained by the Iraqi intelligence service. 'Reference strains' of biological organisms, concealed in a scientist's home, including a live strain of deadly botulinum, and new research on Brucella, Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever, ricin, and aflotoxin. In the cheimcial and biological weapons area we have confidence that there were at a minimum clandestine on-going research and development activities that were embedded in the Iraqi Intelligence Service," Kay reported.

    On January 28, 2004, when David Kay, the man who said we hadn't found any WMD, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee, he said, "If you read the total body of intelligence in the last twelve to fifteen years that flowed out of Iraq, I quite frankly think it would be hard to come to a conclusion other than Iraq was a gathering, serious threat to the world with regard to WMD...I think the world is far safer with the disappearance and removal of Saddam Hussein. I have said I actually think this may be one of those cases where it was even more dangerous that we thought."

    The Bush Administration may have been wrong about Saddam's actual capabilities, but they weren't wrong about his intentions.

    My assessment is that they were moved.

    Edited by Tal, : No reason given.

    Edited by Tal, : Add my reason


    News Media: Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory 1 negative report at a time.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 56 by taylor_31, posted 07-10-2007 12:39 AM taylor_31 has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 59 by taylor_31, posted 07-12-2007 12:16 AM Tal has responded
     Message 64 by Rrhain, posted 07-13-2007 4:59 AM Tal has responded

    taylor_31
    Member (Idle past 4234 days)
    Posts: 86
    From: Oklahoma!
    Joined: 05-14-2007


    Message 59 of 145 (409886)
    07-12-2007 12:16 AM
    Reply to: Message 58 by Tal
    07-10-2007 6:59 PM


    Re: Money
    You obviously know more about this topic than I do, so I will definitely listen intently to what you write.

    I wouldn't say AQI is manipulating the news, but instead are taking advantage of the way the system works to get their message out and ultimately claim victory for forcing the US to withdraw.

    I hope that this doesn't get off-topic, but here it goes.

    Who exactly is our main enemy in Iraq, and who would claim victory if we left? All of the Iraqis?

    What do you mean by the "war's conduct?"

    Well, I don't think that the war has proceeded that well. Judging by the reports from the media, Iraq seems to be cratering. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

    By the way, would you consider State of Denial by Bob Woodward to be a good source of information about Iraq? Because that's what I'm reading right now, and I was curious about what you thought of the book.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 58 by Tal, posted 07-10-2007 6:59 PM Tal has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 60 by Tal, posted 07-12-2007 2:38 PM taylor_31 has responded
     Message 61 by Chiroptera, posted 07-12-2007 5:27 PM taylor_31 has not yet responded

    Tal
    Member (Idle past 3988 days)
    Posts: 1140
    From: Fort Bragg, NC
    Joined: 12-29-2004


    Message 60 of 145 (409976)
    07-12-2007 2:38 PM
    Reply to: Message 59 by taylor_31
    07-12-2007 12:16 AM


    Re: Money
    By the way, would you consider State of Denial by Bob Woodward to be a good source of information about Iraq? Because that's what I'm reading right now, and I was curious about what you thought of the book.

    I haven't read the book, but I would if one were around. By all means if you find something in the book that piques your interest toss it up here and I'll give it a read. However, he is a reporter. His job is to sell commericals, or in this case, books. But if you find anything interesting post it up. A friend of mine wrote a good piece on why the media misreport when in a combat zone, but I can't access his site at work. I'll hit it up when I get to my pod and post it as an edit.

    Who exactly is our main enemy in Iraq, and who would claim victory if we left? All of the Iraqis?

    Al Qaeda mostly. They collaborate with the former Bathists (Sunnis) to exhaust U.S. national will, aiming to win by undermining and outlasting public support by using high profile attacks against Iraqi Civilians, kidnappings, beheadings, or blowing up Mosques. They are the main "pot stirrers" if you will. If we pulled out, Zawahiri or UBL himself would soon make a video proclaiming victory, much like Nasrallah (head of the Hezbos) did after Israel invaded Lebanon.

    Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah said Monday that his guerrillas achieved a "strategic, historic victory" against Israel—a declaration that prompted celebratory gunfire across the Lebanese capital

    The Average Iraqi certainly wouldn't claim victory.

    On the other side of the puzzle is Iran, who is helping the Shia extremists by providing them with training, weapons (EFPs), and material support using the Hezbos as a proxy to fight the US.

    In the middle are various groups on both sides (JAM, Jaysh Al Mahdi, or the Mahdi Army lead (sometimes) by Mookie Sadr) who have fought us on the past, but then join the political process and fight AQI. In the case of JAM, its still touch and go, as he doesn't really control all of his organization.

    Judging by the reports from the media, Iraq seems to be cratering.

    Al Anbar was recently thought to be a lost cause by the media. I'm sure you heard all about it when the violence was high. Now that the locals are fighting AQI, and the province has done a 180, what have you heard from it lately?

    Al Anbar as reported recently by Time

    Edited by Tal, : No reason given.

    Edited by Tal, : No reason given.

    Edited by Tal, : edit


    News Media: Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory 1 negative report at a time.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 59 by taylor_31, posted 07-12-2007 12:16 AM taylor_31 has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 62 by crashfrog, posted 07-12-2007 7:52 PM Tal has responded
     Message 63 by taylor_31, posted 07-13-2007 12:13 AM Tal has responded

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019