Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Redsfaithful
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.
Quote:
|
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...
Quote:
|
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.