April 22, 2008
Iraq Steps Forward, and the Media Slinks Away
Ed Morrissey notes that Iraq is continuing down the path to political reconciliation even as the media choses to largely ignore these developments in favor of more pressing stories, like the present cost of Barak Obama's
half-eaten waffle on eBay.
One of those points of political reconciliation in Iraq is amnesty for some classes of detainees after determining they no longer present a threat of resuming insurgent activities.
Among those detainees released due to Iraq's amnesty law in recent weeks was Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein, who was arrested with a known al Qaeda terrorist leader in his home and in possession of bomb-making materials and terrorist propaganda that he presumably helped make. Part of the reason he was released is that he was no longer considered a threat; the insurgents he had (allegedly) provided propaganda for in Fallujah are long dead or dispersed.
I find it somewhat amusing the amount of time and legal expense the Associated Press incurred trying to free their photographer—and their reputation—to no avail, despite mounting the most deceptive, ethically-challenged of media campaigns on his behalf. It was only through the political progress of the Iraqi government that Hussein was released.
Perhaps tellingly, the Iraqi government advances that led to Hussein's release was down-played by the news organization, as it stretched the shaky boundaries of their credibility by implying his release was conditioned on innocence instead of amnesty.
Increasingly, proof of progress in Iraq is measured by how little the media talks about the nation's successes.
Enjoy the silence.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:23 PM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Post contains 270 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Off topic, but wanted to get an answer. You often mention the MSM is very Left.
Is that because the corporations, which own the MSM, trust the Left more than the Right to provide them with what they want (profit)?
Posted by: Robert in BA at April 22, 2008 02:43 PM (iaV+w)
2
Robert, I've seen this construct on the supposed influence of corporate ownership on journalism many times before, and think it is probably one of the more delusional suppositions out there.
For such a statement to be true, individual journalists would have to be near mindless drones, devoid of individuality, that can be redirected or casually reprogrammed with merely the replacement of a CEO figurehead.
It assumes that individual journalists have cognitive processes that are as
easy to rewrite as a jump drive. I tend to find many journalists surprisingly incurious, prone to rote tasks and reformulating instead of thinking, but even I give them more credit than this "interchangeable corporate head" theory allows.
I think that most journalists are far more robust drones than that, and therefore, harder to reprogram.
The journalism trend towards leftist thought comes from deep roots, from inherent personal sensitivities within individuals that guide students toward journalism as a potentially appealing profession (and others to engineering or business programs, for example), to collegiate texts and cultures within j-schools during formative years when journalists are taught how to think that push a liberal perspective and dogma into their world view.
This is hardly the stuff of just journalism school, however; most university humanities departments are left-leaning, as are the professions that these degree programs support. The big difference between journalism and these other programs is that by its nature, journalism has a much more public face.
After a biological predisposition, home influences, collegiate training, and cultural immersion in news organizations, most people will develop cognitive processes that will have coached them to process inbound information in a prescribed, nearly uniform way, eliciting a specific, almost reflexive response.
It is because of this that you can take nearly any event of major significance and watch a dozen reporters, regardless of where they were born or raised, write articles on the event that are remarkably similar in tone, focal point, emphasis, grammar, and organization. That uniformity, however, comes at the expense of flexibility.
To suppose that the hire of a new CEO or CFO can simply and quickly overwrite a journalist's firmware--a way of thinking that took years to form and almost to impossible to erase--is insulting to the drones and the culture than spawned them.
"Journalism happens" independent of the business, corporate side of the equation. This fact should be obvious in their continued insistence of practicing liberal-biased journalism, even as it alienates audiences, and in so doing, costs news organizations money, power, and positions.
Businessmen in new organizations would love to get journalists to grow and adapt so that the organizations can adapt and survive, but rather like the dodo, journalists seem to have a hard time evolving.
I don't know if that answers your question, but to be honest, is wasn't very well-formed to begin with.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 22, 2008 03:42 PM (xNV2a)
3
CY,
Nice theory, but I'm not buying it.
The journalists want a career. They live in a capitalist society. They march to the orders of their bosses. Those that don't receive the same treatment as Ashleigh Banfield. Toe the line or we'll shut your career down.
Your theory imparts that the media would be the only business where the worker bees (drones, to you) don't march to the orders given by ownership and management and there are no repercussions. Not a very sound business practice in the land of capitalism.
Also, if the MSM was liberally biased we would have seen a lot more (anything) about the hypocrisy of Dick Cheney and George W. Bush, the guys who simply hate taxes. GWB hates them so much (the govt. stealing the hard-earned money of the citizens) that he lobbied to have taxes pay for his baseball team's new stadium. Of course all team owners want the citizens to foot the bill for their playgrounds, but not all of them have made being anti-tax their main mantra.
Cheney, on the other hand, made most of his money by being the CEO of a corporation which gets most of its money from government contracts (paid for with tax dollars).
In a world where the MSM harps about the hypocrisy of Edwards' $400 haircut, you'd think this might get some (any) play. (For now we'll leave aside that the Edwards charge is about the Media's belief of the poor not deserving political representation).
Also, the fact that the MSM chased Whitewater for 8 years, and covered the Downing Street Memos for almost 24 hours makes me think the "liberal MSM" charge is a bunch of hooey.
Posted by: Robert in BA at April 22, 2008 04:28 PM (iaV+w)
4
Robert:
Who are journalists' bosses? The CEO/CFO or the Publishers or the Editors? Chain of Command affects most organizations, not just the military.
Take the NYT for prime example. The stockholders have been hammered for the last 20 years. However, the Sulzberger family has kept any take-overs of NYT leadership at bay thanks to their ownership of controlling (I forget the correct term) 'preferred' stock. "Pinch" Sulzberger is the COB of the NYT. He is, by all reputable accounts, left of center and many would put him on the extreme left.
So, while you might think you've got a nice torpedo for CY's hypothesis, you have completely failed to understand the 'culture of journalism'. It is as CY has stated. Born, bred, nurtured, taught, and reinforced - LEFT. That is why a self-identifying "conservative" journalist is about as rare to find as a self-identifying "conservative" Democrat. (My sincere gratitude to Zell Miller.)
Next, how do you explain the success of Fox News? Do you write it off due to 'gullible' viewers or some other BS? Rupert Murdoch is not a right-wing person. In fact, he is more in line with left-wing ideas...just more centrist than the current incarnation of the Democrat party. However, he does not dabble in the reportage of Fox News. He set up a business plan and hired people to run it. By most of those previously mentioned reputable accounts, Fox News is 'right of center'. And they are making a lot more money where others are making much less.
Posted by: Mark at April 22, 2008 05:39 PM (4od5C)
5
And the fact ABC (Disney) was headed by far left wing fanatic Michael Eisner. CBS president is also a far left wing nut job, Les Moonves. I have no idea about Jeff Zucker at NBC but NBC is considered the farthest left of all the network stations. Is Robert really that stupid?
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at April 22, 2008 05:59 PM (kNqJV)
6
No, Cap, Robert isn't stupid. He is just a typical lefty.
I believe I've expounded on this here before, but it's been a while, so a rerun seems to be in order. I should point out that much of this is based on "The Vision of the Anointed" by Thomas Sowell... if you can get a copy, do so, it's well worth the money.
Anyway, here's how it works. The average lefty believes, deep down in his/her soul, that they are a "good person" because they believe certain things, not because of anything they do (as most conservatives would consider more important), but because they believe and espouse certain political views. In fact, if you espouse these views loudly enough, most lefties will give you a pass for breaking them... i.e. Algore flying private jets and having a huge mansion--both contributing to a "carbon footprint" the approximate size of King Kong's.
The reverse is also true for lefties... if you do not toe the lefty line 100%, you are, by their definition, a "bad person." For example, see how they treated Senator Lieberman. He is a perfect lefty in all respects but one--the Iraq war. And for that, the lefties kicked him out of their party. Imagine how "bad" a person who is even farther out of the lefty lockstep must be, in their eyes.
Thus it is that Robert can talk about Bush's "hypocrisy" without ever blinking at Algore's. Algore, you see, is a "good person," and therefore it's OK if his walk doesn't match his talk.
Thus endeth the lesson.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 22, 2008 07:05 PM (RP0Mk)
7
C-C-G, but they just embarrass themselves with their lack of intellectual honesty. Did Robert not bother to see who was in charge of the news organizations before making that comment? If all he did was google ceo cbs he would have found out how ridiculous his question was. What's worse, that Robert is just a sheep and believes whatever left wing talking point he hears or the fact he doesn't do any research on his own?
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at April 22, 2008 07:20 PM (kNqJV)
8
Cap, Robert is a perfect lefty. That is, he is a sheep. Whatever MoveOn, DailyKos, etc. say, he believes. If they tell him that ice is hot and fire is cold, he'd believe it. And if the next day they say that ice is something else, he'd believe that too.
The bottom line is, he--and most of the other lefties--believes that his "good person" status is wholly dependent on echoing what other "good people" say. If you don't echo the "good people," you are a "bad person." So if the "good people" say that stone is soft, all the little lefty sheep would be finding rocks to use as pillows.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 22, 2008 07:29 PM (RP0Mk)
9
My bad.
NBC, owned by the largest defense contractor in the US, was virulently against the war.
My eyes must have been playing tricks on me, when I saw them cheering on the war and dismissing those against it as pacifists, Saddam lovers, and hippies.
BTW, I love that nickname ("hippies") for those who marched against the war in early 2003, but "prescient" or "absolutely 100% correct" are more accurate.
(Although I doubt even they could have foreseen the greatest military in the history of mankind being fought to a 5-year standstill by middle eastern teenagers).
Also C-C-G, I can see Gore's hypocrisy. I also saw him called out for it by the "oh so liberal" MSM. Bush and Cheney's hypocrisy, not so much.
Why that?
Should I believe you or my lying eyes?
Posted by: Robert in BA at April 23, 2008 01:14 AM (iaV+w)
10
C-C-G, once again Robert is lying. Another simple google proves it.
"An April 2001 article in USA Today described the president's 4,000-square-foot single-story limestone house in Crawford as an "eco-friendly haven."
"Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into purifying tanks underground -- one tank for water from showers and bathroom sinks, which is so-called 'gray water,' and one tank for 'black water' from the kitchen sink and toilets," it said. "The purified water is funneled to the cistern with the rainwater."
In addition, "the Bushes installed a geothermal heating and cooling system, which uses about 25 percent of the electricity that traditional heating and air-conditioning systems consume."
Is it even possible for far left wing fanatical nut jobs like Robert to be embarrassed when they are proven liars so quickly?
Oh, and did you notice how he "supports our troops?" Our brave men and women in the military can't even beat a bunch of teenagers. I'm wondering....can we question their patriotism yet?
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at April 23, 2008 05:34 AM (kNqJV)
11
(Although I doubt even they could have foreseen the greatest military in the history of mankind being fought to a 5-year standstill by middle eastern teenagers)....
Should I believe you or my lying eyes?
It seems you're going with your lying eyes. Or perhaps there's a transmission problem somewhere along your optic nerve. Or maybe you're just not paying attention. One way or another, reality is being badly garbled somewhere along the line between it actually occurring and your fingers striking the keyboard.
Posted by: Pablo at April 23, 2008 07:29 AM (yTndK)
12
Thank you, Robert, for proving my point.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 23, 2008 07:41 AM (RP0Mk)
13
"(Although I doubt even they could have foreseen the greatest military in the history of mankind being fought to a 5-year standstill by middle eastern teenagers)...."
A comforting fantasy for leftists, to be sure, but a fantasy nevertheless.
The people we're fighting are trained, equipped, and financed by two of the most sophisticated and lethal military-intelligence apparatuses in the world, those of Syria and Iran.
In addition, you have the former Mukhbarat of Iraq doing its bit. Saddam's boys have essentially transformed al Qaeda into a stateless military-intelligence apparatus, so our troops are actually facing four of the most sophisticated, lethal, and ruthless such organizations in the world.
Only as genuine cretin would refer to our enemies as middle-eastern teenagers.
Posted by: Tom W. at April 26, 2008 03:27 AM (UUp3o)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Without Ethics
Did you
read the article in the New York
Times today implying that John McCain sold political favors to an Arizona real estate developer that is also big campaign donor?
I'm no McCain fan, but after reading all four pages, I'm left still waiting for some substance, some sort of bombshell, that legitimizes this story as news.
Real estate developers try to make money from land deals? They're willing to trade for properties that they feel may be more profitable to them, and discard those properties they feel aren't going to be as profitable? Real estate developers try to attract and keep the attention of politicians by raising money for them?
Shocking. I'm sure such things have never before happened in the history of earth.
For the story to have merit and legitimacy it needs a "gotcha," an impropriety, some sort of ethical or legal breach on behalf of the businessman by the politician. This story runs on for four long pages, but the authors never present anything approaching unethical conduct on the part of the candidate.
To the contrary, instead of making a solid case based upon evidence, the article editorializes, it speculates and implies, but provides nothing to support the implied thesis of McCain's corruption.
In fact, the only evidence the story supplies are specific instances where McCain rejected inappropriate interventions, including one instance where McCain allegedly stopped speaking to the developer for a year over behavior—hiring a personal lobbyist—that was self-serving but entirely legal.
This Times story sought to create a furor over shady, unethical behavior, and it has done that in spades.
Jim Rutenberg is one author of the article, and a man who has apparently discarded his integrity as a reporter to write political hit pieces. This is the second Rutenberg article attacking John McCain in the Times in recent months, neither of which has provided any actual evidence of impropriety. The first alleged an affair with a female lobbyist that was remarkably evidence free, a trait that today's article also seems to share.
Rutenberg has now twice attempted to smear McCain with charges unsupported by evidence, and twice his editors have not only elected to run the hit pieces, but gave them prominent placement in print editions.
We've been fortunate in knowing for some years now that we don't have to wonder about the editorial biases in play at the New York Times, and now because of these articles and others like them we have no reason to question their ethics... they have none.
In the end, Rutenberg and other newsroom editorialists at the Times are hastening their own demise with this kind of journalism.
I'm not sure who will miss them when they're gone.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:02 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 455 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Ethics? Ethics? We don't need no stinking ethics!
Posted by: David at April 22, 2008 11:26 AM (cPLO6)
2
Great, good to have a serious scrutiny and air all this out. I'm sure we can look forward to a Rezko story in the next couple days and a Whitewater/Castle Grande expose' in the Sunday mag.
Posted by: megapotamus at April 22, 2008 12:11 PM (LF+qW)
3
The NYT has sent one of its more strongly coded signals. By putting "McCain" in the same headline as "developer", the four-page article is just frosting on the cake - the headline has already told the faithful that McCain and the Devil are identical twins. Oh, the horror!
The Sunday WaPo expressed its exquisite "concern" about the temperament of McCain. The NYT earlier shrilled its warning that McCain had occupied the same room as a female lobbyist who wasn't wearing hijab. Tune in tomorrow for the next in the MSM series of drip-drip-drip erosion and erasure of its former love affair with John McCain - now that there are real lefties in opposition to him.
Posted by: Micropotamus at April 22, 2008 02:04 PM (YeWPs)
4
Megapotamus, I expect to see an Obama/Rezko story about the same time that Satan opens an ice rink in Hades.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 22, 2008 05:54 PM (RP0Mk)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 18, 2008
Another Vet Snaps Under Pressure
As David Burge noted in
Bylines of Brutality, the emotional toll on media veterans is becoming ever more pronounced, leading to all sorts of radicalized, anti-social, and occasionally violent behavior.
Today, another media victim has apparently cracked under the pressure in my own backyard. Well, not literally my backyard, but close:
Eric Ralph Watson, 34, of 201 Old Grove Lane in Apex, was charged with one count of secret peeping. He was arrested shortly after 6 a.m. in the Brittany Trace subdivision, about a mile from his home.
Apex Police Capt. Ann Stephens said a neighbor saw a man matching Watson's description Thursday afternoon on top of an air-conditioning unit peeping into the bathroom of a female neighbor.
The witness called police and alerted the residents who live at the house.
Early Friday morning, Stephens said, the woman's husband confronted a man believed to be Watson, who approached the house again. The husband called 911, and an Apex police officer arrested Watson nearby.
Stephens said Watson and the woman do not know each other but that they might have attended the same gym.
Watson, a reporter for NBC affiliate WNCN-TV in Raleigh, was released from police custody with a promise to appear in court.
Hopefully, one day, there will be a cure for such behavior. Until then, as long-time media observer Treacher noted, it is important to treat journalists with not just revulsion and contempt, but with revulsion, contempt, and pity.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:04 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 251 words, total size 2 kb.
1
But...but...but... he was just practicing his "Get that interview!" skills...
Posted by: Jeff at April 18, 2008 02:29 PM (yiMNP)
2
Hey! That's in MY backyard!
Gonna have to contact Mrs Stevens and see if they need a couple extra eyes ...
Posted by: Dan Irving at April 19, 2008 12:02 AM (Kw4jM)
3
When will this brutal, useless journalism end? When we will stop throwing our sons and daughters into its bloody maw? When will we stop destroying our international standing through this insidious, satanic campaign?
Mr. Bush, tear down the Columbia J school!
Posted by: Pablo at April 19, 2008 08:09 AM (yTndK)
4
Uh, Bob? Don't look now, but this is really becoming a
quagmire.
CNN personality Richard Quest was busted in Central Park early yesterday with some drugs in his pocket, a rope around his neck that was tied to his genitals, and a sex toy in his boot, law-enforcement sources said.
Quest, 46, was arrested at around 3:40 a.m. after a cop spotted him and another man inside the park near 64th Street, a police source said.
Posted by: Pablo at April 19, 2008 11:06 AM (yTndK)
5
The quagmire that modern high stress media has become is clearly having a serious negative consequence on the poor reporters and commentators caught in this inhuman media machine. I blame Karl Rove.
Posted by: glenn at April 20, 2008 10:55 AM (zp+Xy)
6
When last seen, Watson was bitterly clinging to his notebook and press card ...
Posted by: Gary Rosen at April 20, 2008 02:51 PM (sHuCu)
7
I think you ought to delete his address. It really shouldn't be in there.
Posted by: AYY at April 21, 2008 11:12 AM (zCpqK)
8
His address is part of the story quoted, and appears in the original text. Citing addresses of newsmakers is also part of standard journalistic practice in many news organizations.
It stays.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 21, 2008 11:53 AM (xNV2a)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 16, 2008
HEY HOLLYWOOD! This Book's Success Should Tell You Something
The movie industry has released
one box-office flop after another regarding our modern wars against Islamic extremists, leading the dim and the dull in studio boardrooms and backlots to assume that Americans don't want to see or know about those conflicts.
But if the American people want to ignore those wars,then why is Michael Yon's Moment of Truth in Iraq currently #12 #10 in Amazon's sales rank? The obvious answer is that we aren't tired of content about the war, we're just tired of movies portraying our soldiers and Marines as psychopaths, murderers, or victims.
Show us a film that respects our troops, portraying their honor, their sacrifice, their dignity, and exceptional humanity under the most trying of combat conditions. Show us a film that portrays Islamic terrorists as the callous, torturing, murderous and irreligious thugs they really are. Show us that film, and I'll show you a film that generates hundreds of millions of dollars in profit and could actually contribute to winning hearts and minds around the world.
Oddly enough, that very project is waiting in the wings. A smart producer could build upon Yon's growing popularity, and his stories based upon the exploits of Deuce Four, the Stryker Brigade known as the Punishers, already made legendary in Yon's dispatches like Gates of Fire.
That might mean setting aside the community's general anti-war feelings for money, but somehow, I think they have the moral flexibility to make that happen.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:02 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 259 words, total size 3 kb.
1
I just finished Robert Kaplan's "Imperial Grunts," which showed troops from disadvantaged backgrounds (one Marine was even homeless before he joined), often driven by strong religious beliefs... and somehow he managed to refrain from looking down on his subjects or making them out to be victims. It allowed for criticisms of Bush/Rumsfeld, showed troops bitching contantly, and kept a consistent tone of admiration for their commitment and sacrifices. What's so tough about all this?
Posted by: tsmonk at April 16, 2008 10:33 AM (j0chB)
2
Its not that they think Americans dont want to see or know about these conflicts. After the flops of "Readacted", "In the Valley of Elah, "Lions for Lambs" and most recently "Stop Loss", Hollywood simply thinks the average American is TOO STUPID to get the message. A movie based on Gates of Fire or Marcus Luttrell's "Lone Survivor" would make box office gold.
Posted by: MAJHAM at April 16, 2008 12:24 PM (5ap+X)
3
"Hollywood simply thinks the average American is TOO STUPID to get the message."
Gosh, with an attitude like that, I wonder who they're supporting for President? (Is that old Variety headline "Stix nix hix pix" still valid, you think?) Guess the average adult movie-goer (most movies are obviously aimed at children and teen-agers) is pretty much a "typical white person" who is toting a Bible and a gun while married to a close relative and both of them are racist haters who are increasingly bitter about free trade. Otherwise these movies would be making a mint, right?
Posted by: JorgXMcKie at April 16, 2008 01:19 PM (nMT31)
4
#10 on Amazon but how many ordered/pre-ordered directly from Yon as soon as they knew about this book.
Posted by: Mekan at April 16, 2008 01:29 PM (hm8tW)
5
Why does anyone think it's accidental or stupid on the part of Hollywood? The so-called liberals along with the usual suspects on the left have all joined The Internationale. They do not rout for American success. These are people who embrace Chavez. They believe that Amerikkka is imperialist and must be defeated. The movies all crashed and burned? And they continue to make more of the same? Perhaps once you've decided that this mission must fail and to deliver propaganda to help towards that end, the success of it is less important than the amount.
Posted by: ducktrapper at April 16, 2008 02:31 PM (JWX9j)
6
What's funny is their REAL target audience won't watch those movies. We aren't even a blip on the horizon. If the "millyuns" who are hating the war won't go and see that trash its because its too soon and emotions are too raw or some variation on that theme. They may have hit the nail right on the head with that supposition but all of us regular Americans are entirely outside of the box. My mind keeps getting drawn back to the Passion of the Christ. Hollywood could not process the success of that movie. They don't understand there is a whole 'nuther country out there which if understood could provide a huge market for what? Movies!!!
Posted by: Belasarius at April 16, 2008 03:39 PM (CcBnr)
7
Luttrell's book has been optioned for a movie. You can google that to confirm. Surprised me too to hear about it. But Hollywood values money over prestige. The antiwar movies represent the sort of posturing and liberal pieties that prompt the self congratulation and status the schmucks in the movie business crave. But, well, money is money. If vulgar comedies make money, they produce vulgar comedies. If movies about feckless Americans being tortured in grimy Eastern European hostels make money, they make Hostel II. If a movie based on Lone Survivor makes money, we shall see.
Posted by: Zhombre at April 16, 2008 04:53 PM (SRZ4E)
8
Yon's book has been as high as #6 on Amazon. They must have run low, or out of books. I hope that will soon be remedied.
Posted by: Bill Smith at April 16, 2008 06:36 PM (+lPnm)
9
Hollywood's response:
*chirp*
*chirp* *chirp*
Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 16, 2008 08:49 PM (2ZGD5)
10
Tinselgrad is for makings of the collective-movie spirit! Boy-and-tractor sex movie, office worker girl meets Central Committee-falls in love-loses Central Committee-wins Chairmanship-liquidates oposition - you know, common peoples problemski not bitter and clingy peoples.
Posted by: DirtCrashr at April 17, 2008 11:40 AM (VNM5w)
11
"The God Delusion" is #5. By your logic, Hollywood should be making lots of movies about atheism, since "we" are sick and tired of having religion shoved down our throats.
Right?
Posted by: Blue Texan at April 17, 2008 04:54 PM (lbYKU)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 07, 2008
MSNBC Games McCain Speech with Irrelevant "Breaking News"
As has sadly become commonplace, Amanda at
Think Progress missed another story today, even though this one slapped her right between the eyes.
Her post, McCain's Speech On Progress In Iraq Interrupted By News Of Mortars Hitting The Green Zone, notes that MSNBC interrupted a John McCain speech about progress being made in the Iraq War with the breaking news story that four mortar shells hit Baghdad's Green Zone, an unremarkable development as Sadrists and insurgents have used mortars for harassment and interdiction (H&I) fires frequently throughout the war, usually to little effect.
There were no known casualties at the time the story was reported, and there was no known targets of importance hit. What Amanda did not grasp is the utter lack of a legitimate reason for MSNBC producers to break into McCain's speech, other than to try to undermine his message.
MSNBC needs to justify this "breaking news" event by proving that they have broken into other live events on their network to cover minor Green Zone mortar attacks during the campaign season.
Somehow, I doubt they can.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:42 PM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
Post contains 196 words, total size 1 kb.
1
The press coverage of Iraq, the WoT, and conservatives generally seems to be getting worse almost by the day. I see an analogy between hunger and the story the lefty press is hankering for - the one that busts the "we're making progress" idea wide open. Imagine a small animal in cover that would have to leave the cover and risk predation to get food. The species has evolved a sensible moderate fear of being in the open - too willing to leave cover, the animal gets eaten. Too unwilling, it dies of starvation. Over generations, a roughly sensible degree of willingness to leave cover evolves. But now suppose food becomes scarce. The value of staying in cover rapidly drops as starvation threatens, so the animal becomes more willing to leave cover in search of food - becomes reckless, even, if food is scarce enough. Recklessness in search of food becomes a better bargain as hunger increases.
The reporter looking for the big story that finally, finally gets Bush - the story Chimpy McHitlerBurton cannot escape - that reporter is facing an increasing threat of starvation. 10 months and counting down. Time is running out. The animal must leave cover. The press must dispense with even the pretense of objectivity and go out into the open. I predict more and more recklessly open bias in reporting between now and January. They're getting hungrier and hungrier. They're staring starvation right in the eye...
Posted by: Hyperpotamus at April 07, 2008 08:13 PM (STkWr)
2
Hyper, that was a superfine treatise.
In the best tradition of Chinese businessmen everywhere, I will now steal your words and use them as my own.
Actually I simply plan on saving your post in Notepad form because it's cool and RIGHT ON THE MONEY.
Posted by: Pillbox at April 07, 2008 08:49 PM (MQVqX)
3
Hyperpotamus, you just described the end of Dan Rather's career!
Posted by: Kevin Baker at April 07, 2008 10:20 PM (apIl/)
4
That small animal sounds like it could be a snake, and I hope that snake sees the shadow of the eagle that gets it.
Posted by: sherlock at April 07, 2008 10:24 PM (ojW85)
5
Your comments are pithy and accurate. I wonder about the term they cover. Can the time period go back to Walter Cronkite, or even Walter Duranty?
Posted by: P Kovchok at April 07, 2008 10:31 PM (9cpAC)
6
As I see it the press has its work cut out for it:
It has to keep attention off Rev. G D AmeriKKKa. It will have to cover up rioting at the D convention in Denver and the R convention in St. Paul (if the guys rioting at the D job can get out on bail in time). And it will have to cover up for BHO's inability to think on his feet or mouth anything but platitudes.
Hungry? They are starving.
Plus you hear the rumors. Reporters on the McCain bus are having fun. On the BO bus not so much.
Posted by: M. Simon at April 08, 2008 12:10 AM (+oI3L)
7
The disdain for objectivity has been overt for a number of years now. The ethically corrupt Geneva Overholser, high priestess of the MSM, had this to say a few years back when the media decided to declare all-out war (i.e. relentless slander) against Bush:
"[2004] was the year when it finally became unmistakably clear that objectivity has outlived its usefulness as an ethical touchstone for journalism."
- Geneva Overholser (Hartford Courant) justifying partisan journalism
As usual, we can turn for real insight to Orwell. Until recently I falsely believed that the Ministry of Truth was modeled after TASS and Pravda. Not at all. The inspiration came from the BBC and the British press:
" . . . and I saw newspapers... retailing these lies and eager intellectuals building emotional superstructures over events that had never happened. I saw, in fact, history being written not in terms of what happened but of what ought to have happened according to various 'party lines'... This kind of thing is frightening to me, because it often gives me the feeling that the very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. "
- Orwell
Posted by: William White at April 08, 2008 12:36 AM (mSX6M)
8
Fortunately the American People have many many sources for their news. Americans are free to choose to their own tastes.
Unfortunately some do not like the choices that Americans make in their news sources.
Posted by: John Ryan at April 08, 2008 06:42 AM (TcoRJ)
9
John Ryan, the news is supposed to be unbiased. Editorials are, of course, a different matter.
What we're talking about is "truth in advertising," or perhaps "truth in labeling" would be more accurate. If you're going to label something "news," it needs to be unbiased--just like something labeled "milk" had better not contain orange juice.
What you appear to be defending is putting orange juice (opinion) in a container labeled "milk" (news). Are you sure you wanna do that?
Posted by: C-C-G at April 08, 2008 08:31 AM (5m1ld)
10
I don't watch MSNBC, because I don't want to double their audience.
Posted by: Bill Smith at April 08, 2008 08:40 AM (Up4Is)
11
...Watch 'em, Bill, but keep one eye closed.
Posted by: Dave Dudley at April 08, 2008 10:48 AM (MdmUg)
12
Starvation indeed and quite nearly literal. It is a smashing good thing that the pretenses to objectivity are being blown to the winds. The rejoinder for Foxies has never been that they are unbiased, rather that they are a "meager" corrective to existing bias. Not incidenctally, they are able to be "fair and balanced" because they need engage no deceptions unlike the predatory, Alinskoid operatives that have wormed their slimy way into trusted institutions, consuming credibility built over decades like so much coal in a tender. Time's up, coals gone and with it, um, advertising revenue... who knew? We are fortunate indeed that the necessities of business act as a brake on endlessly corrupt practices. And as always the radicals have expensive tastes. Pity those in thrall to the BBC, media slaves is not too dire a description.
Posted by: megapotamus at April 08, 2008 11:54 AM (LF+qW)
13
All praises to hyper- and mega-potamus. It certainly appears that the MSM is breaking cover to attempt defeat at all costs in Iraq and to emplace Senator Present in the White House. Said media might be well advised to consider that hysterics in wishful-thinking reporting are counterproductive. But I have confidence that said media doth take scant advice from lowly potamus blogs, and will serenely (oh heck, hysterically) continue toward the precipice at ever-increasing velocity. Jeeves, more popcorn!
Posted by: Micropotamus at April 08, 2008 12:12 PM (YeWPs)
14
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the -
Web Reconnaissance for 04/08/2008 A short recon of whatÂ’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
Posted by: David M at April 08, 2008 12:44 PM (gIAM9)
15
Britain makes America look like a paradise of press freedom and honesty...I have to watch fox here to even get an idea of what is happening.
Posted by: Thud at April 08, 2008 04:58 PM (CqkCY)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 03, 2008
The "New Math" of Fox News
Here is the screencap of a link from an extremely misleading link on FoxNews.com this morning.
The link to "U.S. Warplane Launches Massive Airstrike in Basra" goes to the following story where you would presumably expect to read abut a serious escalation in U.S. bombings in Basra against Mahdi Army targets, which would likely prompt attacks by followers of al Sadr against U.S. military targets around Iraq.
What you learn from clicking the link, however, is that just two bombs were dropped in Basra, and they were small munitions that targeted militants hiding in specific houses.
Massive = 2.
It's nice to know.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:31 AM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
Post contains 115 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Sheesh! From the headline you'd think it was Dresden.
Posted by: RiverRat at April 03, 2008 10:44 AM (ybWKw)
2
Yikes - and here I thought "Shock and Awe" was back!
Posted by: Mark at April 03, 2008 11:04 AM (4od5C)
3
"slowdown" == "depression" too.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 03, 2008 12:09 PM (tvnQf)
4
Devastating != massive... at least, not
necessarily.
Posted by: Russ at April 03, 2008 12:26 PM (9X0tX)
5
It is "massive" in the sense that the projectiles were not quark or strange matter munitions but contained a measurable mass of explosives. Come on, you Rightwing nuts know what we're talking about here!
Posted by: megapotamus at April 03, 2008 04:41 PM (LF+qW)
6
The whole coverage of the Basra fight has been a disgrace. Newspapers have basically delared a consensus victory for Sadr based on... feelings, I guess. I'm surprised you haven't covered it more, CY. Does anybody have any idea how many casualties the Iraqi govt took? I just want to know, one way or the other.
Posted by: tsmonk at April 04, 2008 08:39 AM (j1orm)
7
I'm surprised you haven't covered it more, CY.
Frankly,I haven't covered it because my access to sources in that that part of the country is extremely limited and so much of the reporting being done is contradictory.
The Iraqi government forces, the best I can tell based upon anecdotal evidence, took low casualties during the operations in Basra, Kut, Baghdad, etc. I've seen no firm numbers, but I would estimate far less than 100 KIA, perhaps half that. The Sadrists got their clocks cleaned, with estimates of over 400 KIA , twice that wounded, and more than 100 captured, with more on the run.
Based on casualty numbers, it appears to be a clearcut victory for GOI forces, even though it remains in doubt if the mission's objectives were filled. The Sadrists seem to have won the media, but standards were low for them. All they had to do was avoid being utterly wiped out.
If you want to know who won in the eyes of the Iraqis, go to the yahoo.com news photo streams for Iraq, and note the huge crowds of men in southern cities such as Basra flocking to join the Iraqi Army.
How often do people voluntarily join an army they expect to lose?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 04, 2008 08:50 AM (xNV2a)
8
Yeah, I saw that. This whole thing, IMO, is the most blatant con-job by the MSM to date. It's as if the correspondents were leapfrogging each other to get their Cronkite moment. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
Posted by: tsmonk at April 04, 2008 09:44 AM (j1orm)
9
Remember ya'll. We won every battle in Vietnam and lost the war here in America. If they tell lies often enough without challenge, it will become accepted as truth. And just kickin' their asses don't work. You have to fight lies with TRUTH.
Posted by: Tonto (USA) at April 04, 2008 10:54 AM (GAL+4)
10
The operations in Basra have not been won or lost yet, they are ongoing. The brief Sadr uprising in response has been soundly put down with massive special group casualties and a call by sadr for his people to stop fighting.
Posted by: grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at April 04, 2008 11:37 AM (gkobM)
11
How often do people voluntarily join an army they expect to lose?
I blame the Democrats. If we were more irrationally exuberant we'd have a flood of able-bodied, bright, young conservatives like CY or any of the board posters here who would be more than willing to enlist. Sadly, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have scared off the wingnut hordes with their talk of "the new GI Bill", "investigating the VA", and "insisting on troop deployment rates that follow recommended Army guidelines". How many of you would be over there right now if you didn't think your right to fight for 15 consecutive months would be infringed upon. Really, this is all about the military-funded government sponsored medical coverage. If we just gave all our soldiers Blue Cross / Blue Shield or Aetna, people would be lining up around the block to join up.
Of course, if John McCain takes the White House, he'll change all of that. I bet you recruitment will skyrocket if he takes office. Nothing restores confidence in a military invasion like the promise of 100 more years on the ground.
Posted by: Zifnab at April 04, 2008 12:03 PM (Usaah)
12
Hey, zifnab, care to explain why that statement was relevant? Also, speaking of 100 year occupations, are the Democrats going to end this pointless war against Japan? After all, we have had trops there since 1945, and we are no closer to winning than when we started....
Posted by: Grey Fox at April 04, 2008 12:25 PM (tBDYW)
13
Hey, zifnab, care to explain why that statement was relevant?
Just that we all know where CY is leading with this bemoaning of the death of troop morale. It's yet another verse in the song that never ends entitled, "It's the Democrats' Fault". CY has been very... liberal... in expressing his opinion on that front.
Also, speaking of 100 year occupations, are the Democrats going to end this pointless war against Japan? After all, we have had trops there since 1945, and we are no closer to winning than when we started....
That's an excellent question. We could just as easily ask the last 5 Republican Presidents as we could ask the last 4 Democrats. And I'm in total agreement with you. Military bases in Japan are a giant waste of resources if you're not looking to build a global empire. Fortunately, America's been in Empire Building Mode since about 1945. Of course, we don't lose 30 soldiers a month fighting it out on the mean streets of Tokyo either. We also don't hemorrhage $12 billion / month in upkeep costs. So comparing Japan to Iraq is rather ignorant.
If McCain were to announce we should spend the next 100 years in Japan, I think he'd still raise some eyebrows. He'd be resurrecting a point of contention that died with the Ron Paul campaign. Why do we have this global military network of bases? We're spending a fortune in tax payer dollars to protect ourselves from a military that's been little more than a police force for the last half a century. Why do we keep military bases in the Philippines or in Germany or in Saudi Arabia, for that matter? But that talk strays perilously close to a discussion on "national security" which immediately invokes the GOP bugbears of creeping global communism and the trans-continental terrorist menace.
It's a discussion Republicans haven't been interested in having seriously since Nixon. Much better to just throw slurs - hippie, commie, terror-lover - at your political opponents than to engage in a rational discussion of what global military presence America actually requires.
Posted by: Zifnab at April 04, 2008 01:52 PM (Usaah)
14
Though the weapons used where J-DAMs, I think we would all agree that two MOABS would be a massive airstrike.
Posted by: David at April 04, 2008 03:30 PM (kjXZC)
15
No one blamed the Dems but you Zinfab. You make a strong case though. Count me convinced.
Posted by: megapotamus at April 04, 2008 03:52 PM (LF+qW)
16
Zifnab,
McCain's comment about 100 more years was in reference to Japan and Germany, something he made quite explicit in his speech. That was my point. He was saying that if things go right, we might very well have troops stationed there for a very long time indeed, not that we would still be fighting there.
As for "empire building," we can either play global policemen (because nobody else can), or we can let the rest of the world (Sudan, the Balkans, Kuwait, Taiwan, etc.) shift for itself. Do you really want to do that?
I suspect the reason why conservatives don't try to reason with you is because you don't come across are particularly rational. Your first post is a case in point - even with an explanation it doesn't make any sense.
Posted by: Grey Fox at April 04, 2008 05:11 PM (tBDYW)
17
Zifnab, I am sure you can provide links to the post where CY said he blamed the Democrats.
Oh, and as for commenters going down to their local recruiting office, as
I have pointed out twice recently, I am disabled and cannot join. You have, therefore, proven that you either can't or don't read or comprehend well, and in the process have made yourself look like a durned fool.
Congratulations.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 04, 2008 06:10 PM (5m1ld)
18
Of course, we don't lose 30 soldiers a month fighting it out on the mean streets of Tokyo either. We also don't hemorrhage $12 billion / month in upkeep costs. So comparing Japan to Iraq is rather ignorant.
Of course, we never lost hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq. That they're not exactly the same doesn't preclude drawing parallels, and suggesting otherwise is utterly ignorant.
Posted by: Pablo at April 04, 2008 08:16 PM (yTndK)
19
We haven't even lost as many soldiers in Iraq as we lost in one single battle on the way to Japan... I speak, of course, of Iwo Jima.
Shall we continue with the comparisons? I think we shall.
Our efforts in Japan have helped make them a stabilizing force in Asia, one of our staunchest allies, one of the largest and most vibrant economies in the world, and one of the freest societies as well. If we can do that in Japan, why can't we do something similar in Iraq?
You sure you wanted to compare Japan and Iraq, Zifnab?
Posted by: C-C-G at April 04, 2008 08:53 PM (5m1ld)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 01, 2008
Kettle Lectured by Kettle Over Pot Relationship
Over at Patterico's,
Mary Mapes rips into the L.A.
Times for falling for forged documents.
Yikes.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
06:36 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.
1
At first I thought it was an April Fools joke, but no, Mapes is still trying to justify her TANG story on Bush.
Posted by: daleyrocks at April 01, 2008 09:40 AM (0pZel)
2
Who in the world would give Mapes a forum?
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at April 01, 2008 11:01 AM (kNqJV)
3
Heh. She believes that the "right wing bloggers" that brought to light her 'creative journalism' are controlled by the Bush Administration.
Still beating the drum. And no one cares.
Posted by: Penfold at April 01, 2008 11:54 AM (lF2Kk)
4
Enduring the burble of loons like this dreadful liar is not the highest price liberty claims. But it's plenty high.
Posted by: megapotamus at April 01, 2008 02:05 PM (LF+qW)
5
I suspect that Mapes has crossed the line to where she now believes her own lies.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 01, 2008 06:44 PM (5m1ld)
6
I think it's reprehensible that people like The Nation continue to exploit Mary.
In our family, we occasionally refer to a former female student of my wife's as "The Deer Rider." This poor girl would tell fantastic stories to her classmates and teachers of how she regularly rode a deer to school, had remarkable magic powers, etc. She was a regular target by all the kids, and no matter how much the teachers and counselors would try to help, she would not budge from her amazing stories. It didn't help that her parents though she was a remarkably creative student who the teachers and students "just didn't appreciate her gift." With lack of correction at home, she was screwed.
Mary Mapes is a deer rider. Dan Rather encouraged her imagination and led her to believe the only way she'd be appreciated was for her special sort of creative powers. Competence was never attainable for mediocre Mary, so the capacity to believe in her delusions became her substitute.
If you have some pity on the unfortunate, say a prayer for Mary. I have to believe she only wanted love and respect, and apparently never had parents nor peers to showed her the correct way those items are attained.
Posted by: redherkey at April 01, 2008 11:22 PM (kjqFg)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
82kb generated in CPU 0.0171, elapsed 0.1002 seconds.
58 queries taking 0.0878 seconds, 233 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.