PDA

View Full Version : Media's coverage has distorted world's view of Iraqi reality



Az Red
01-20-2005, 03:54 PM
Very long piece.

http://worldtribune.com/worldtribune/05/breaking2453389.0680555557.html

I just wanted to get some reaction to this. I think you all know where I stand.

RedsBaron
01-20-2005, 04:01 PM
Thanks for the post. Prepare to get flamed.

RedFanAlways1966
01-20-2005, 04:05 PM
LTC Tim Ryan is Commander, Task Force 2-12 Cavalry, First Cavalry Division in Iraq. He led troops into battle in Fallujah late last year and is now involved in security operations for the upcoming elections. He wrote the following during "down time" after the Fallujah operation. His views are his own.

Guess he might know what he is talking about. Been there, done that. Cannot say the same about Seymour Hersh or Robert Parry. Or am I wrong (again)?

Thanks for the link. :)

Redsfaithful
01-20-2005, 04:06 PM
Interesting article. Media coverage certainly isn't ever perfect, and I don't know how you weigh the good that's being done against the bad that's happening in Iraq. I doubt anyone does. Regardless I'm sure the troops are doing the best they can in a bad situation, and this article reinforces that. Media coverage is partially going to be driven by the fact that this has been a particularly divisive war though, and I think media coverage of any government activity should err on the critical side. In my opinion, that's the media's job.


Prepare to get flamed.

Is that necessary?

RedsBaron
01-20-2005, 04:13 PM
Is that necessary?
Not if subsequent posts are similar to yours. You made no attack on anyone and didn't use any of the cliched responses some use here. You simply gave a reasoned opinion and I respect that.

CougarQuest
01-20-2005, 04:30 PM
Prepare to get flamed.
There will be NO flames. Discussion, perhaps, but no flames.
Several of us have fire extinguishers at the ready ;)

CbusRed
01-20-2005, 04:34 PM
There will be NO flames. Discussion, perhaps, but no flames.
Several of us have fire extinguishers at the ready ;)


images/photos/jpg





MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH :MandJ:

Mutaman
01-22-2005, 02:43 AM
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/01/22/malbrunot/index.html

key quote:

"These people will not surrender," he said. He was referring not only to the estimated 15,000-17,000 members of the Islamic Army in Iraq, which kidnapped him and Chesnot, but also to the dozens of other Islamic fundamentalist groups fighting in the country. "They have time, they have weapons, they have money," Malbrunot said. "And they are fighting at home. I am afraid it will only get worse and they will get more and more power. It frightens me."

What's even worse, he said, is that in President George W. Bush, "they have a great partner." Neither side is willing to budge. "

RFS62
01-22-2005, 09:32 AM
Wow, quite a piece.

RedsBaron
01-22-2005, 09:41 AM
Wow, quite a piece.
Yes it was. I do wonder if Iraq will even exist a few years from now, or if it will be officially a dismembered state, with the Kurds controlling a portion, and much in continued chaos.

GAC
01-22-2005, 10:23 AM
There will be NO flames. Discussion, perhaps, but no flames.
Several of us have fire extinguishers at the ready ;)

I just gave a fire extinguisher class at work. Remember... not all fire extinguishers are designed for every type of fire. So be sure you have the right one.

And remember "PASS" means "Pull, Aim, Squeeze, and Sweep"

And always aim at the base of the fire.

:MandJ: :MandJ:


Excellent article. I'm saving that bad boy! :thumbup:

I have come to find that I got my most accurate coverage about this war from those who are serving there. I have several friends/co-workers who have sons over there. Some got to come home for the Holidays on leave and got the chance to relay their experiences.

They say that a vast majority of the soldiers believe in what they are doing and agree with the overall objective. There are problems and "hot spots", such as in Fallujeh, Mosul, and around Baghdad, where the majority of the insuregents, who are Sunnis, are centralized. But overall, they stated that we are making alot of good progress, there is alot being accomplished, and that a majority of the Iraqis welcome them and want them there.

But the soldiers I have talked to say they don't get to hear/listen to alot of the media coverage that is going on over here in the states. And when they came home on leave they were somewhat disturbed at our media coverage of the war. They feel the media is not being objective and not covering alot of the good/progress that is being made all around Iraq. They impression they got from watching our media while home is that the whole country is in turmoil and out of control, and they say that just is not true at all.

Redsfaithful
01-22-2005, 11:13 AM
They feel the media is not being objective and not covering alot of the good/progress that is being made all around Iraq.

Am I the only person who would be really disturbed if the media was simply cheerleading?

Like I said earlier, the media's job isn't to be "fair and balanced", it's to tell the truth. There are many, many bad things happening in Iraq every day that don't make the news, just like there are many good things happening in Iraq every day that don't make the news.

Here's a blog that details everything that happens in Iraq everyday:

http://dailywarnews.blogspot.com/

It's stunning how many bombings there are, how many people are killed, etc that don't make the news.

The internet is the place to get news anymore anyway. I certainly agree with this guy that the mainstream media has failed us, I just feel that way for different reasons.

GAC
01-22-2005, 11:28 AM
Am I the only person who would be really disturbed if the media was simply cheerleading?

I don't think being objective should be construed as "cheerleading" RF.

Put yourself in one of those's soldiers shoes who has been over there, is experiencing and knowing what is going on firsthand, then comes home on leave and sees the media giving what they say is a very warped and unobjective report of what is going on, and not giving the soldiers any credit, or yes, accolades for those good things they are accomplishing.


Like I said earlier, the media's job isn't to be "fair and balanced", it's to tell the truth.

And like the soldier in this article says though RF... they are not telling the whole truth. They are being very "selective", or maybe the right word is "omissive" in the handling of the entire truth in order to get a desired result.

Just as this soldier pointed out this example...


More recently, a major news agency's website lead read: "Suicide Bomber Kills Six in Baghdad" and "Seven Marines Die in Iraq Clashes." True, yes. Comprehensive, no. Did the author of this article bother to mention that Coalition troops killed 50 or so terrorists while incurring those seven losses? Of course not. Nor was there any mention about the substantial progress these offensive operations continue to achieve in defeating the insurgents. Unfortunately, this sort of incomplete reporting has become the norm for the media, whose poor job of presenting a complete picture of what is going on in Iraq borders on being criminal.

Again...if you were a US soldier and read these headlines, and saw where the media was not being comprehensive in their coverage, then wouldn't you be somewhat amiss?

No one wants "white washing" or "cheerleading" going on in this war. I think we simply want the full, comprehensive truth in reporting.

RedsBaron
01-22-2005, 11:33 AM
I would guess that everyone is seeing only "part of the elephant" and is reporting what he or she observes, influenced by whatever biases and preconceptions they bring to the issue. A soldier or a journalist or just an observer in a relatively peaceful part of Iraq may believe everything is going well while someone in an Iraqi hellhole will nasturally believe there is no hope.

Redsfaithful
01-22-2005, 11:38 AM
Did the author of this article bother to mention that Coalition troops killed 50 or so terrorists while incurring those seven losses

I just think he's wrong. Most stories I read have the number of insurgents killed included. It might not be the focal point of the story, but it's usually there.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/21/iraq.main/index.html


Also Friday, a U.S. soldier was killed and another wounded while raiding a bomb-making cell north of Baghdad, the U.S. military said. With the fatality, 1,371 U.S. troops have died in the Iraq war.

The raid took place near Ad Duluiya, about 60 miles (97 km) north of Baghdad, a military statement said. One insurgent was killed and 12 suspects detained after the raid on eight locations, the statement said.

That's from the newest CNN.com "roundup". I think they report what they have to be honest. If the military releases an enemy casualty number then they seem to include it.

MWM
01-22-2005, 12:33 PM
Like I said earlier, the media's job isn't to be "fair and balanced", it's to tell the truth. There are many, many bad things happening in Iraq every day that don't make the news, just like there are many good things happening in Iraq every day that don't make the news.

And this is what disturbs me. The problem I have is that the coverage of the war is so different depending on the news source, it's hard to know who's telling the truth and who isn't. It's nice to have soldiers give their opinions and you certainly have to give credence to what they say, but I also don't think the soldiers are capable of being objective either. I appreciate what thay're doing and I have a lot of admiration for them. And I DO want to hear what they have to say. But the nature of the job they have to do probably prevents them from being completely objective. And I don't think that's a bad thing. Morale is critically important for the military and it would difficult to keep it high if they don't stay focused on the positive.

RedFanAlways1966
01-22-2005, 01:20 PM
RF and I must read different things. Because there is not a fair share of both good & bad stories regarding Iraq in what I read. All lives are precious (not part of The Baath Party philosophy), but whether it is 1, 2 or 7 soldiers killed in battle... it is always in the front-page section with a noticable headline. That headline does not say "Clash leaves 50 dead insurgents and 7 dead Marines". It normally is along the lines of "7 US Marines killed in Battle". And I have made it a point to see if the media points out the number of insurgents casualities. A lot of times there is no mention of it or it is buried deep in the story in a fashion like "and a number of insurgents were killed".

50 dead - 7 dead.... 57 total dead. A sad way for humans to rectify problems. We send man to the moon, cure diseases... but still revert to an age old way of settling disputes between two parties (kill). Technology is used, as it was to send Apollo 11 in space and save lives... and to find better ways to kill the "enemy" (a fellow human being). Sad. This is how it is still done and I can't change it. But I'd still say, in this brutality, that the side w/ 50 dead got their rears beaten pretty badly. However, this is not the tale I read in my local paper everyday. I get the vibe that the U.S. is losing the war. 50 to 7... not what I read. I get 7 to "no mention or some are dead".

Redsfaithful
01-22-2005, 01:56 PM
But I'd still say, in this brutality, that the side w/ 50 dead got their rears beaten pretty badly.

We killed over a million Vietnamese in Vietnam. And lost.

Phoenix
01-22-2005, 02:15 PM
I expect the Shiites will win power come election day. Its my hope that we can soon get out of there. The remanants of the Baath Party will continue to use terror to try to unseat the new gov't and hopefully they'll be up to the challenge. What's the alternative? Give the gov't to the terrorists?

RedFanAlways1966
01-22-2005, 04:15 PM
We killed over a million Vietnamese in Vietnam. And lost.

Lost? No. But I'll try to explain the facts of that situation...

Nixon was elected US president in Nov. 1968 and formal negotiations with North Vietnam (NV) started in Jan. 1969, w/ the first US troop withdrawals taking place in July. Bitter fighting continued though 1970 including a NV offensive in Feb. & March 1969 and a major military success for the US at the Battle of Hamburger Hill in May 1969. As fighting continued in South Vietnam (SV) in 1970, US and SV forces conducted a joint operation near the Cambodian border where they found and destroyed vast NV logistic stocks. This was followed by a countrywide NV attack on over 100 US and SV facilities and the fighting was fierce, but lasted less than a week b/c logistical difficulties (Cambodia stock destroyed) forced the attackers to curtail the operation and withdraw. This brought NV to the negotiating table. The US agreed to withdrawal more troops and they transferred ground operations to SV troops on August 11. The US continued to patrol the seas and the sky.

After a visit to Moscow by NV politicians in 1972, the Soviets agreed to a major invasion of the South (arms and supplies to NV). The attack began in March 30, 1972 and was known as the Easter Invasion. The invasion acheived some successes, but it soon ground to a halt (logistical problems once again sting the NV in part) due mainly to the determined SV troops. This gave the US confidence that the SV troops could succeed. After Nixon ordered the mining of NV harbors and the blockade of land and sea routes, the NV returned to the negotiating tables. A formal ceasefire agreement was announced on Jan. 23, 1973 and became effective on Jan. 28, 1973. Feb. 12 was a significant day for the US as the first US POWs were released. The last combat troops left Vietnam on March 29, 1973.

Meanwhile the NV were increasing their troops and re-building their war machine while the SV suffered partly due to decreased US aid. By the start of 1975 the NV had free run along the borders and controlled substantial areas within the South. The SV army was spread thin and unable to hold anywhere. The eventually overran Saigon on April 30, 1975.

The NV did not beat the US. The US did not LOSE to the NV army. That is fact. I shake my head when I see or hear people say that the US lost in Vietnam. The NV sometimes made advances on the US, but were always beat back. The US did not invade the North. Their job was to protect the South. Sounds like Kuwait-Iraq in Gulf War I for the US. And both times the other side did not hold true to their word when a halt was brought to US military activities. Perhaps we have learned a lesson from our withdrawal in Vietnam (among many other political, not military, blunders) and negotiating w/ certain types of people? I hope.

I try to understand why peole say the US lost to NV when in fact (read above) that is not true. It is WRONG. NV gained nothing when the US was there. But, as this topic is about, certain media gets RF to actually believe that the US lost in Vietnam. RF, as are a lot of people in our country, is not old enough to remember what happened back in 1970-1975. They get some of their information from media (internet and the like mainly) that seem to tell wrong info about Vietnam. Freedom of speech is a great thing, but it is a shame when people are misinformed b/c of it. There is a parallel to be drawn with Iraq and Vietnam in all this though. Vietnam was the first US war where the media played a major factor in swaying the US public to their agenda. That, BTW, is a fact IMO. The stuff about how the US left Vietnam is a fact as well... but not IMO, in truth.

RedsBaron
01-22-2005, 04:23 PM
I no longer have the book, but years ago I read a book by Col. Harry Summers entitled ( I believe) "On Strategy." The book concerned military strategy in general and the Viet Nam War in particular. Summers quoted a discussion which he had after the war with a high-ranking North Vietnamese official. Summers told him: "You [referring to the North Vietnamese] never defeated us [America] on the battlefield." The North Vietnamese official replied: "True, but that is irrelevant."
An argument can be made that the United States won every military battle in the Viet Nam War and still lost the war.

Redsfaithful
01-22-2005, 04:38 PM
An argument can be made that the United States won every military battle in the Viet Nam War and still lost the war.

And that would be the correct argument, in my opinion. The entire point of Vietnam was to stop Communist "creep", and we failed.

The point of resistance movements isn't really to win battles. It's to outlast the occupation until they leave.

We didn't win too many battles in the Revolutionary War, but I don't see anyone saying the British won.

Redsfaithful
01-22-2005, 08:43 PM
Here's a different perspective of Iraq, from an Iraqi woman's POV:

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/2005_01_01_riverbendblog_archive.html#110640049776 566608

Everyone views the world through their own experience. Everyone wants to have the work they're doing validated. And everyone wants to live a life full of peace and normality.

Mutaman
01-22-2005, 11:28 PM
Here's a different perspective of Iraq, from an Iraqi woman's POV:

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/2005_01_01_riverbendblog_archive.html#110640049776 566608

Everyone views the world through their own experience. Everyone wants to have the work they're doing validated. And everyone wants to live a life full of peace and normality.

Thanks, really interesting. I never thought that Iraqi's would be threatened into voting, but now that I think about it, it makes perfectly good sense, and just continues the same old pattern.

Ravenlord
01-23-2005, 01:27 PM
read the article. i haven't read any poster's comments. my thoughts are as follows:

1. he's right about the media. he's echoed dang near everything my friends and family in Iraq have said in letters and e-mail.

2. the timing of car bombings is a beautiful tactic. absolute genious by the terrorists. the ancient Greeks would be proud. (i know someone's gonna interpret that very wrong, but oh well).

3. the thing about even Al Jazeera showing up to something positve and the Western outlets not, is just down right scary. if reporters are so afraid to leave their little block, they shouldn't be there...just like they were in Vietnam and Korea and World War II.

4. i wasn't aware of the scale of the Arab on Arab travesties, but because of letters recieved, i knew they existed.

5. there's not really much to disagree with.

6. i'm sure someone's gonna say this isn't a credible story do to the website it's on. and i'm sure it's someone on the left. (please letme be pleasently surprised)

7. i'm sure someone's gonna comment on this: "Did the military lie to the media: no. It is specifically against regulations to provide misinformation to the press. However, did the military planners anticipate that reporters would take the ball and run with it, adding to the overall deception plan? Possibly. Is that unprecedented or illegal? Of course not."

someone's gonna say something along the lines of: "they shouldn't be able to do that cause it is misleading"
to which someone else will reply: "would you prefer more Americans die in the operation"

again, lemme be wrong on that.

8. that i'm probably the only one who knows anything about the authors he was talking about in the article. actually, this isn't an article because it's an opinon (i'm sure there's griping about that too). is still called an editorial or something else?

Ravenlord
01-23-2005, 01:32 PM
Am I the only person who would be really disturbed if the media was simply cheerleading?nope. they should really quit doing it.


Like I said earlier, the media's job isn't to be "fair and balanced", it's to tell the truth. There are many, many bad things happening in Iraq every day that don't make the news, just like there are many good things happening in Iraq every day that don't make the news.

Here's a blog that details everything that happens in Iraq everyday:

http://dailywarnews.blogspot.com/

It's stunning how many bombings there are, how many people are killed, etc that don't make the news.agreed. but most people get there news from print or TV. most people totally disregard internet sources.


The internet is the place to get news anymore anyway. I certainly agree with this guy that the mainstream media has failed us, I just feel that way for different reasons.what's the reason? (although i'll probably find the answer to that as i read further down the page).

Ravenlord
01-23-2005, 01:33 PM
I just think he's wrong. Most stories I read have the number of insurgents killed included. It might not be the focal point of the story, but it's usually there.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/21/iraq.main/index.html



That's from the newest CNN.com "roundup". I think they report what they have to be honest. If the military releases an enemy casualty number then they seem to include it.
but is the number killed included in print and on TV?

Ravenlord
01-23-2005, 01:35 PM
We killed over a million Vietnamese in Vietnam. And lost.
ever read Ho Chi Minh's book?

Ravenlord
01-23-2005, 01:39 PM
Here's a different perspective of Iraq, from an Iraqi woman's POV:

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/2005_01_01_riverbendblog_archive.html#110640049776 566608

Everyone views the world through their own experience. Everyone wants to have the work they're doing validated. And everyone wants to live a life full of peace and normality.
interesting.

1. what will her opinion after some return to normalcy and she has actual freedom?

2. this is an attitude starting to seep into America. how much freedom are you willing to give up for security? consider that Cuba, USSR, and China are some of the most secure places in the world.

3.how big is the area she's referring to?

4. i really hope it's just a misconception on her part about rations being cut off like that...if it's not, someone (a lot of them) need to be imprissoned.