42 Comments

1. Terrye:

Roger:

You had another post concerning Google. In truth if you want to see why there are not more stories about Iraqi war heroes go look at google news. Irate mothers of fallen soldiers and [some]Iraqi War veterans protest at Bush’s ranch.

Note the “some”…. that was in the story, along with the gratuitous use of a woman’s greif. I take it people are udner the impression that when young men died in WW2 or Somalia or Afghanistan their parents celebrated.

I think that the media sees the soldier as either cannon fodder, murderer or a dead man sent to die by the evil right wingers and thus must be avenged. The only soldiers they show any real respect for are the ones who call the president a son of a bitch or trash the war when they come back. The fact that these soldiers are a very small minority is over looked.

When something like 7 out of 10 soldiers vote for the right wing guy they can count on the fact that they will be perceived by much of the media as an oddity.

But it does piss me off when google makes that crap a headline without even noting that the marines have killled or captured hudreds of insurgents in the last few days in Operation Quick Strike. Nor do they report that over all attacks on the soliders are down. Nor do they report that overall attacks on Iraqi civilians are down. but hey… if you want to go to Texas and call Bush names they will be right there with camera and headlines ready and waiting.

Aug 7, 2005 - 5:05 am 2. M. Simon:

It seems to be the topic of the day (media undermining morale on the home front) so I’ll give a link to something on the topic I wrote yesterday:The Will to Prevail. I start off with a bit written by Mark Steyn in 2004 and finish (via update – there may be more) with Steven Vincent.

Aug 7, 2005 - 6:19 am 3. Rick Z:

When I was an Air Force public affairs NCO at the tail end of the Vietnam conflict and dealt with the press on a daily basis, there were still many working journalists who themselves had military experience, and saw themselves as part of the Ernie Pyle tradition who saw their role as speaking of and for the concerns of the common GI. But there was also a new breed–products of journalism schools for the most part–who had come out of the radical ’60s academic culture without any personal experience with, or knowledge of, the military, and who idolized a new generation of iconoclastic writers like Hunter Thompson, Tom Wolfe and David Halberstram.

After Watergate the former type became all but extinct and, as a consequence, the general notion of soldiers as victims/morons/rednecks/psychopaths became the underlying common assumption of all subsequent war coverage. Heroism itself has been deconstructed as a contemptible artifact having no place in a post-modern narrative of class struggle and victimology.

Aug 7, 2005 - 6:29 am 4. Terrye:

Rick:

I agree. I am a baby boomer and I have to say that my generation is the most self centered, obnoxious and short sighted in history.

Hey it is all about us, and if it is not then it damn well should be. All this duty and honor crap is for dumb asses who are not smart enough to know what is really going on.

Think of the hundreds of thousands of mothers who have lost sons in far away conflicts they did not understand. Public displays of hostile grief would have been considered unseemly and an insult to the dead. Now we have an entire generation of people who think that when their son dies, they deserve an apology from the son of a bitch that sent him to war.

The other day I was talking to a woman who told me the story of her Uncle Granville. In WW2 this young man got to the place where he had enough. He told his commanding officer that he could not kill one more man. So that officer put him on the front lines unarmed and he was shot by the enemy. Nobody said a word. There was no flag burning, name calling, FDR you bastard you killed my baby. Nope. They waited sadly for his remains to eventually be returned and his mother mourned him until her dying day.

Stories like that are not unusual. They happen in all wars no matter what party the commander in chief happens to belong to.

But today the many of the parents of the soldiers are the same generation that took to the streets during Viet Nam and as far as many of them are concerned their greatest enemy is the United States military, not Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein.

And Osama knows this. That is why he said if you make Americans bleed, they will run away.

Aug 7, 2005 - 6:50 am 5. Ron Hardin:

The essence of morality is that you’re called and you go. We honor it in soldiers because we recognize it in ourselves. That call, an address to you, is what makes you you for the first time.

The media makes better audience ratings doing it as a soldiers-sent-to-kindergarten story, so that’s what they do.

Aug 7, 2005 - 6:56 am 6. ahem:

The better question is ‘where are the journalists with integrity’? More and more I’ve come to suspect that the Vietnam experience was considerably different from what was presented to us. They undermined us then and they’re trying to do the same thing now…

Aug 7, 2005 - 7:02 am 7. Terrye:

Well one of the the headlines in the SunTimes is the mother asking Bush, Why did you kill my son? So much for being a grown man in a volunteer military killed in the line of duty…When a cop dies in NYC is the fault of the criminal or the mayor?

I remember seeing the family of a soldier receive a medal from the president. They were dignified and crushed all at the same time. They said the fallen soldier died doing his duty. The press yawned, said nothing to see here let’s move on.

What folks seem to over look is that the mothers of those dead rangers in Somalia could have asked Clinton why he killed their babies, but if one of them had I doubt we would have heard about it.

Aug 7, 2005 - 7:33 am 8. David Thomson:

ìThey undermined us then and they’re trying to do the same thing now…î

How can we financially harm the MSM? That is the central question. Hurting them in their wallets is the only real option. We must do everything possible to encourage our friends to cancel their subscriptions and switch the TV channel. Journalists like Woodward and Bernstein are eligible to collect social security. They are too old and set in their ways to change.

Aug 7, 2005 - 7:58 am 9. Sunguh5307:

This is the dilemma of democratic warmaking- and we’ve gone back and forth with different approaches. Most under the vague topic of ‘civil-military relations’.

I think the ideal would be for the whole society to have a stake in our national security and warfighting personnel, like the Greeks and Romans, but it’s apparent that a significant portion of our country thinks it better to reject this. I personally believe it’s due to a misguided utopian impulse, but maybe that’s just one factor among many others.

In a recent post on my site I wrote that what I would prefer is to keep the military out of politics- that is what a volunteer army is supposed to do. But overt politicization makes this seem nearly impossible for the near future.

For the health of our democracy, it would be best to neither insult nor overly exalt our warmakers- they are a part of our society, not outside of it.

Aug 7, 2005 - 8:08 am 10. Terrye:

Michael Yon reminds me of Ernie Pyle. I hope he does not end up the same way. He makes me cry.

Aug 7, 2005 - 8:21 am 11. Jamie Irons:

I entirely agree with all that Terrye and others are saying here, but there is a peculiar aspect to all this, and that is that, according to recent surveys that I have not yet found* my link to,

the American military is by far the most trusted American institution!

How to reconcile these two seemingly contradictory sets of data, for lack of a better term?

Jamie Irons

*Ah, I found one! Here’s a link to a recent Harris poll, and be sure to notice, too, what the report says about trust in the MSM!

62 to 22 percent (almost 3-to-1) majority of Americans did not trust “the press”…

[snip]

Large majorities of between 3-to-1 and 2-to-1 trusted the police and the military in both the United States and in Europe. Large majorities also trusted charitable and voluntary organizations.

The Harris Poll #4, January 13, 2005

Aug 7, 2005 - 8:32 am 12. Jamie Irons:

Terrye

Michael Yon reminds me of Ernie Pyle. I hope he does not end up the same way. He makes me cry.

Yes, Michael is terrific. Over the past few months I have sent him contributions through PayPal, and he always replies to my notes. A very fine person, and a terrific and “objective” (that is, unsentimental and without glaring agendas) reporter.

Jamie Irons

Aug 7, 2005 - 8:41 am 13. Rick Ballard:

Sergeant First Class Paul R. Smith

Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester

Sgt. Rafael Peralta

The links go to organizations which have a clear idea of the meaning of honor, duty, courage and sacrifice.

The MSM would be well served to simply use these accounts rather than attempting to write about something of which they have no knowledge.

Aug 7, 2005 - 8:58 am 14. Terrye:

Jamie:

I just came in from doing a little yard work. It ain’t Baghdad out there, but it is plenty hot.

I got a note from Yon as well. He seems like a nice man.

I think that the only reason Hackett did as well as he did in Ohio is that he is an Iraqi war veteran. That and the problems of the Republican party there…but people respect soldiers despite the efforts of almost everyone to portray them as either helpless children or homicidal maniacs.

I have watched the media butcher enough stories to know that often as not they don’t know what they are talking about. clueless. And I think a lot of other people think the same thing.

People like Yon and Vincent are different and I would say that John Burns is different too. Therre are good journalists, but being good is not always what pays.

I remember when Nick Berg was murdered and his father blamed Bush, the press was all over the place. Later his sister blamed the media for turning the murder into a circus and the terrorists who killed her brother. But the press made sure we heard a lot more from the Bushbasher.

Now back to work. I can’t believe I used to work in this kind of heat all damn day.

Man, am I ever out of shape.

Aug 7, 2005 - 9:31 am 15. ThomasD:

I call bull on this cover-your-behind of a story from the Times. It truly is a slap in the face to every person who ever asked why the Times can never seem to report anything other than the negative from Iraq. It represents a tacit admission that this isn’t their war becasue this isn’t their (read: Democrat) government.

Yesterday, while flipping channels, I came across a news-blab show on Fox. They were discussing the large number of mosques that have recently been built in the suburbs of D.C. and how many of them were funded with Saudi/wahabbi money. When one of the guests was pointedly asked why the press has failed to report this her response was ‘well the government…’

Amazing, they tell us we need a free press to be a watchdog for government failure and abuse but when the press fails they get a free pass and pawn blame off on the government.

Aug 7, 2005 - 9:44 am 16. photoncourier.blogspot.com:

For the NYT to complain about lack of recognition for heroes in Iraq is like the boy who killed both his parents and then asked the judge for mercy because he was an orphan.

Aug 7, 2005 - 10:11 am 17. WAmom:

On Chris Mathews’ Hardball the other night, he interviewed two Ohio parents of the twenty fallen soldiers. Of course, they were the two parents who were critical of the war.

As Ralph Peters’ said in his August 4th NYP article, the enemies “don’t expect to force out our military through violence. They hope our political leaders will withdraw our troops. … the terrorists are fighting, above all, a media campaign. It’s their only hope.”

Aug 7, 2005 - 10:13 am 18. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

I read that story last night and was amazed at the blindness of the reporter and the internal illogic of the story.

It probably is true that the military is afraid to promote heroes because they know what the press will do with it. After all, that very story defames Pat Tillman by saying that original “heoric tales” were debunked. In fact, he was a hero for his choice to defend his country at the cost of a great career and not using his fame to avoid danger, not to mention dying in combat, friendly fire or not!

What is truly amazing is that many reporters had to have witnessed acts of combat heroism during the war and during the Fallujah campaign. They know there are heroes at all levels in this war but as has been pointed out, that doesn’t fit their narrative. Even the British cops who killed the wrong guy are probably heroes – “piling on” to a person presumed to be carrying an easily triggered bomb is like jumping on a live hand grenade to protect your fellow soldiers and was probably done for that purpose.

Aug 7, 2005 - 11:17 am 19. PJ:

Sometimes I think the media are blind to their prejudices. Sometimes I think they are lying.

Why no heroes? Case in point: my Sunday front page today, complete with analysis and headlines about how jihad is now, (only now, read Bush’s fault) growing out of control, Iraq casualties are zooming out of control.

Buried on the second to the last page is this AP story, about how Iraqi and US troops repulse attacks in Baghdad.

Bet there are lots of heroic stories there. We’ll never hear them.

Aug 7, 2005 - 11:17 am 20. PeterUK:

Modern journalists regard themselves as political activists,they are in the job to “make a difference”.to serve a higher truth,the story is merely the vehicle.

On a more sombre note,it is probably wiser ,taking into account the nature of the enemy,not to have heroes,it wouldn’t take long for names addresses and pictures of family members to appear in the press,purely as a public right to know,of course!

Aug 7, 2005 - 12:19 pm 21. dougf:

I am a baby boomer and I have to say that my generation is the most self centered, obnoxious and short sighted in history.–Terrye

Well I can’t verify that by historical examples, but as a fellow ‘boomer’ I am constantly embarrassed by the ’sophistication’ of my fellows. You are 100% correct. The ’smart’ people believe that dodging responsibility and looking out only for #1 is the ‘real’ way to behave. Perhaps everyone secretly always felt that way, but before us, they were ashamed enough by social pressure not to try to make it a virtue.

We screwed up.

As for the media—- they are beyond repair. A nation and culture that allows these creatures to dictate its public reality, and set the tone of its civic discourse is IMHO doomed. They will still be whining about ‘the man’,and how it is all his fault, when the barbarians are coming over the last walls.

The media IS the enemy.

MSMDE.

Aug 7, 2005 - 12:42 pm 22. Terrye:

I was just on polipundit and there was some guy who calls himself alphaliberal [that tells you something right there] who linked to s story at salon.com in whihc a young man returning from Iraq was unhappy that the president said “bring it on” and who was in a battle at Abu Ghraib prison where Iraqis and foreigners fought him and his comrades. no mention of an election. and of course since this young man is saying the right things he is an authority.

This is the problem. Iraq is not the ends of the earth. Tens of thousands of Americans are going to serve over there and they will all have different experiences. The problem with the media and the left is their use of anecdotal evidence to create an image. Why bother? these guys are coming home, not going to the moon.

Some will support this, some not. But most of them would not do or say anything that would besmirch their unit or the service.

Aug 7, 2005 - 12:57 pm 23. thibaud:

Jamie Irons

Re the “recent Harris poll … about trust in the MSM: 62 to 22 percent (almost 3-to-1) majority of Americans did not trust “the press”… ‘Large majorities of between 3-to-1 and 2-to-1 trusted the police and the military in both the United States and in Europe’”

Interesting that the highest degree of distrust for the military and the police was in France, whose citizens also had the highest degree of trust in the MSM. Le Monde is held in almost universally high esteem; les flics are mistrusted by most.

Also, the lowest degree of trust in the MSM was found in Britain, whose mainstream press is intensely partisan (while the tabloid press is notoriously over the top) and whose journalists are protected by far more stringent libel law than here.

From the above I’d conclude that France has a naturally strong anti-establishment streak whose wrath escapes the press only because of an unbelievably rigged pro-MSM legal and political structure that inhibits competition, supports failure, and snoops on and generally reduces journalists to humble servants of the state.

And that the current and ineluctable trend toward fragmentation of our MSM into a much more partisan press a la Britain (Torygraph and Times on the right, and the Beeb, Al-Guardian and Independent on the left etc) will not restore public confidence in the press in this country. Curious to hear others’ thoughts.

Aug 7, 2005 - 1:03 pm 24. Terrye:

thibaud:

I noted that about France before. I think I read somewhere that something like 90% have faith in Le Monde, but that seems to be the only thing they have faith in.

It is interesting. Maybe it has to do with the cultures that respect doing rather than talking about doing. if that mades sense.

Aug 7, 2005 - 1:16 pm 25. thibaud:

John Moore,

it probably is true that the military is afraid to promote heroes because they know what the press will do with it. After all, that very story defames Pat Tillman by saying that original “heoric tales” were debunked.

Not a good example of your point. I’m not sure it defames Tillman to point out what Tillman’s own, normally pro-military parents bitterly criticized: the fact that the military royally screwed up and then buried its mistake, thereby causing great distress to the family. I like most Americans have great esteem for the military but they’re still subject to CYA and other bureaucratic foibles. How would you react if they told the world that your son was killed by jihadists when they knew damn well he was killed by friendly fire?

I say this not to let the MSM weasels and anti-Bush partisans off the hook but to point out, contra the Ernie Pyle example noted above, that it’s very difficult to paint battlefield events today in purely or even primarily heroic, stirring colors as was done pre-Vietnam.

To clarify, the cause is heroic, and just, and necessary; but war itself remains as it always has been: sheer chaos, in which heroism matters but is less influential than chance, superior tactics and training, information/intel, and dozens of other factors. Yes, we need and do indeed have many heroes, but if a war reporter’s primary goal is to report truth, then he will often have to report unpleasant facts. Yes, yes, I agree that our current crop of MSM know-nothings are in the main not competent to report on an institution and a warfighting milieu that few of them have any inside knowledge of.

But let’s not pretend that if truly competent, experienced military/war journalists would give us a steady diet of Ernie Pyle and heroism tales. Remember, even just and necessary wars are still war, and war is hell. Damned confusing hell, as Tillman’s sad example attests.

Aug 7, 2005 - 1:23 pm 26. Rick Ballard:

“whose journalists are protected by far more stringent libel law than here.”

How do you see journalists being protected by stricter libel laws? Their editors being less willing to publish speculation concerning peoples reputation? I don’t follow the logic.

I agree with you about market fragmentation continuing in the US. Degree of trust is going to be dependent upon perceived political affiliation. I wonder what the response to a poll questioned phrased “Aside from political and world affairs coverage, what degree of trust do you place in national media reporting?”

The response to such a question might cheer up the 80% or so of journalists who are not writing to the template generated by the Phoney Five Hundred because they aren’t on the politics/world affairs beat.

Aug 7, 2005 - 1:27 pm 27. thibaud:

Terrye,

Re France and the French media, one of the reasons for the huge disconnect between the public and the political class, which assumed when it announced the EU constitution referendum that it would pass easily, is the lack of any real competition to Le Monde. LeFigaro is slightly to the right and Liberation slightly to the left, but all of these papers are solidly pro-elite, whether it be the political, corporate, cultural or labor elite. Aside from the tabloid Marianne, the French press is more of an echo chamber than any other in the western world.

But this may just be starting to change, thanks to — surprise — French bloggers. One of the reasons for the rapid spread of anti-constitution sentiment was a technically amateurish but extremely eloquent blog set up and maintained by a teacher of shop in southern France, who pointed out what anyone familiar with the American constitution could see: that the EU constitution was mush, that it offered no protection of rights at all, and that it was not even a real constitution. This blogger’s powerful, clear, succinct arguments carried the day, and have changed the fate of a continent.

And not just a continent. Our own economy, which everyone expected to totter because of very rational expectations that foreign debtholders would start to swap out US debt for euro-denominated debt, received a huge boost when these investors decided that European debt suddenly became significantly riskier. Unbelievably good luck for us. And largely thanks to the hubris of the French political class and the newfound reach of the French blogosphere.

Aug 7, 2005 - 1:33 pm 28. thibaud:

Rick,

You’re right, I have that backwards. Our libel law is much more stringent against plaintiffs. Strike that from the record.

Aug 7, 2005 - 1:36 pm 29. Rick Ballard:

So stricken. Interesting about the French shop teacher. I hadn’t heard of that.

If France deported all graduates of L’ecole Polytecnique it would probably become a nice place to live. Someday.

Aug 7, 2005 - 1:52 pm 30. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Thibaud, I partially agree. The military can no longer lie about heroism. But Tillman was defamed. Anyone reading that article who didn’t know the full Tillman story would conclude that the military made up a false hero. In fact, the military misrepresented a real hero. Is it more heroic when in combat to be shot by the enemy than accidently by your own side. I think not.

I don’t know the details of the evolution of the misrepresentations. I believe that in the past, it was common to say that a friendly fire casualty was actually a death from enemy action in order to reduce the grief of the family (”at least he died fighting for his country”). In fact, friendly fire casualties are a result of enemy action, just a little less than direct killing. After all, usually friendly fire mistakes would not happen except in coambat with a real enemy or in an area where any movement might be enemy.

The Jessica story may have been a result of some low level PIO hoping to push feminism, for all I know. I never believed it for a second.

I knew two special operators whose job included creating friendly fire casualties among the enemy by spoofing enemy fire control nets. Were the people thus killed not killed, in combat, by the enemy? What were their North Vietnamese families told? A SEAL friend of mine killed a a friend during an ambush. Was that friend less a soldier?

Today, in an environment where “the truth must come out”, but only if it is damaging to the WOT, it may no longer be possible to extend that courtesy. Also, the availability of the internet and phones to troops on the line might lead to the truth leaking out, putting the family through a second period of grief. In any case, the MSM has no qualms in distressing victims if it further’s their goal of defaming the military.

Aug 7, 2005 - 1:54 pm 31. Terrye:

I think numbers make a difference.

My father was at Okinawa. We could fight this war for decades anot lose as many men as died there. And there was no email, or phone calls or camera phones. But something remains the same, the soldier only knows his war. His war may not be the same as some other guy’s war.

My uncle and my Dad fought different wars and had different reactions to their experiences. If all soldiers are gung ho then people think they are brainwashed, if some have doubts or questions then there will be someone there ready to exploit them.

I think one thing that has changed: once upon a time we were the good guys. The guy in White Hose was the good guy and the Saddams of the world were the enemy. Now we have to think about that. And the left thinks it is good if we think aobut it. I think it is moronic. If we are not better than Saddam then this war is the least of our problems. Their inabilty to comprehend that is stunning.

Aug 7, 2005 - 2:11 pm 32. chuck:

thibaud,

From the above I’d conclude that France has a naturally strong anti-establishment streak whose wrath escapes the press only because of an unbelievably rigged pro-MSM legal and political structure that inhibits competition, supports failure, and snoops on and generally reduces journalists to humble servants of the state.

During Desert Storm I tried to read the reader comments posted at the Liberation web site, I say tried because I haven’t much French. The one thing I did conclude was that, in France, everyone had an opinion and they loved to expound it at length. I had the impression that there was more variety of opinion than in Germany. So we will see how things develop there.

As to the British papers, I started depending on them back during the Kosovo conflict and still read them more regularly than the US papers. I especially like the book reveiws at the Telegraph and London Times. So maybe the British system isn’t all that bad. And maybe I should pony up for a subscription to the WSJ

Aug 7, 2005 - 2:34 pm 33. thibaud:

More on the French approach to journalism: http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/007874.html

…much of the French broadcast media is state-owned, as is the venerable news agency Agence France-Presse.

But that’s not all: Even the “private” French press is massively subsidized. It enjoys lower tariffs for freight transport, a postal discount, a reduced value-added tax rate and a complete exemption from local taxes on investment. Government also subsidizes secondary printing facilities and helps pay for the distribution of French papers abroad. … If a newspaper faces revenue losses because of declining advertising or circulation, the government will help make up the difference. The only catch is that, to benefit from this munificence, publications must officially register with a state agency (the French call it an organisme) run by a committee of editors and government functionaries.

Aug 7, 2005 - 3:06 pm 34. Kevin P:

Thibaud:

I don’t want the press to lie to me and present a sugar coated false picture of the war.The PR problems of the Tillman case were monumentrally stupid. He was a hero whether he was killed by friendly fire or by other means. The fog of war is always going to produce these tragic situations and the Army should just print the truth and then explain that this does happen in battle situations.

Today’s MSM goes out of it’s way to find those who are oppossed to the War. Yes, there are soldiers and parents of soldiers who are against the war or how it is being waged. And their voices deserve to be heard. But the percentage who feel that way about Bush and the war are given far more attention then those who don’t. From everything I have read the military vote was very pro Bush, by a larger percentage then the general public. Yet if you looked at Chris Matthews and who he focuses on you would think that it was the opposite.

The Bush administration has made many errors in this war and when they do screw up I want the press to point it out. I don’t want them to be cheerleaders. I also don’t want them to be promoting their agenda against the war and trying to pass off their agit-prop as neutral journalism. The Quaqmire-Vietnam theme began from the start of the War in Afghanistan. The Battle of Baghdad was actually being compared to Stalingrad before it had begun. I am sure there are some exceptions but if the news is bad it will get played up and any triumphs will be downplayed or ignored. The only theme that the L.A. Times carries on the war is the casualties. very little of the actual battles and actions that you read on the Millblogs are examined in the Press.The war in Iraq is not conventional but with hard work it can be covered correctly. The link about Wolfe Blitzer that was on Instapundit yesterday was a classic example. The actual facts rarely change the theme of the stories.

Aug 7, 2005 - 4:03 pm 35. allan n:

I completely agree with Shrinkwrapped comments. When I originally read the article in the NYT I wondered (as I often do) if the writer was being purposely misleading or naive. I tend to thing he was being naive, but, then, maybe I’m naive

Aug 7, 2005 - 4:38 pm 36. PeterUK:

It is worth looking at the circulation figures and the state subsidies of French newspapers.http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/007874.html

It sheds light in the independence of the press.

Aug 7, 2005 - 4:39 pm 37. Kevin P:

Thibaud:

This mornings L.A. Times was a classic example of how they cover the war. Front page starts of with a good story about the fight for women rights to be included in the constitution. Nothing wrong with that. It’s current and important. Go back to finish that story and to the side of it is a little story about a mass wedding in a Iraq ’slum”. Quircky but OK. Crammed underneath that is a 80 or 90 word article about, get this, a succesful blunting of a series of cordinated insurgent attacks by a combined Iraqi-American force. One Iraqi soldier died, 6 “insurgents killed and 12 captured. A victory! A story of Iraqi forces performiing well. Buried. You and I know that if 5 to 10 Marines had died this battle would have received front page treatment.

But the Times id not done. Pages later the LAT covers the story of the mother who lost a son in Iraq who is marching on Crawford to protest along with 50 other anti war protesters. This lady gave her son to this country so I will say nothing bad about what she feels. she earned the right. But it is 5 times longer then the story about the battle and includes a large picture of the Mother.

And of course they are not finished. The magazine section does a story about 6 soldiers in the reserve who are serving or have served in Iraq. The LAT pays a lot of attention to reservists. Since many are called away from families and jobs they tend to be a tad less enthusiastic. Their stories deserve to be heard too but the Times has a knack for digging up the ones that are pissed. To be fair there was a couple that were interviewed that seemed to be supportive but their feelings seemed vague. The story started with the enraged wife and ended with the qoutes about how the reaervist thinks the war was OK, sorta and the last line is “is the price we pay worth it?”

My brother is serving as a reservist in Kosovo and he tells me there is a variety of views in the armed services, just as anywhere else.As in every war there is bitching and there are stupid mistakes that get soldiers killed.This is hardly unique in the history of war. But Bush would still win the Military vote handily but if one read the LAT you would never know it. The casualities get front page coverage, the victories are stuffed under mass wedding stories. Whether their agenda journalism is sub-conscious or overt it doesn’t matter. the News coverage is one sided and anything but balanced, sometimes leaning towards outright hostility.

Kevin Peters

Aug 7, 2005 - 7:23 pm 38. thibaud:

Kevin,

Not sure why you addressed me — my original post was specific to the Tillman screwup and the idea (misguided, IMO) that reporters should focus on heroics.

I could not agree more that the MSM are vastly underreporting events from the battlefield and other crucial strategic aspects of the war. To report on the status of Zarqawi’s organization, his tactics, the effectiveness of same, territory held, taken, lost etc, is not the same as telling Ernie Pyle stories of heroism.

The latter requires empathy and some understanding of the soldier’s experience of battle; the former requires keen analytical skills, good sources within not only the military but also well-placed locals who may well be sympathetic to the other side, and above all, high intelligence and good judgment. Oh, and let’s not forget great physical courage. The number of journalists who currently fit that bill is, I’m certain, in the single digits. John Burns, probably. I can’t think of any others; there are plenty of courageous journalists who lack the strategic depth to make sense of what they see, and plenty of very keen analysts who lack the fairmindedness and/or physical courage to get the story and tell it straight.

So all in all, I’m with you on trashing the MSM, but I will emphasize again that it’s not so simple as rounding up a bunch of less biased, or even pro-military, reporters who will cleanse the press of bias and make it readable again. The current generation of reporters is unsuited to this extraordinarily demanding task. Simply won’t happen with them.

You’re wasting your time reading the LA Times or (aside from Burns) the NY Times or WaPo: these guys can’t tell it straight because they don’t know jihadists, don’t know the military, don’t know arabic and don’t know the imams, pols, ex- and current ba’athists…. How did they ever get assigned to Baghdad, anyway? All due respect to Burns, but how the hell can you properly cover a country whose language you can’t even speak?

IMO it will take a decade– maybe even a generation– before we have a critical mass of truly competent, analytically superior, militarily savvy war journalists. Wait till the better-ducated Iraq veterans come back home and learn about reporting and writing. Maybe we’ll see one or two additional John Burnses in another five+ years.

Aug 7, 2005 - 8:40 pm 39. Knucklehead:

I need some help from the more intelligent (than me, so it is small compliment indeed) participants here like Rick Ballard and such….

What is the seditionist angle behind this NYT article? They do nothing I can detect, even in sports and wine coverage, w/o some attention paid to the larger purpose.

Aug 8, 2005 - 6:57 am 40. Rick Ballard:

Knuck,

You’re being both too generous and too critical in your assessment of intelligence.

The Fantasy Five Hundred editors (Cardinals) responsible for the maintenance of the creeds of their faith based community would probably insist that conscious sedition does not occur. They are , after all, charged with the maintenance of the delusion of man’s perfectability and anything challenging the delusion is definitionally heresy. Rooting out heretics and maintenance of the dogma has a much higher priority than allegiance to any particular nation. It is also rather unsurprising that dogma should infuse even the most mundane portions of the organs by which their delusional faith is propogated.

As I’ve noted elsewhere, the MSM is simply a classic Skinner box to which adherents to the One False Faith can turn on a daily basis to hit the bar and receive the sustenance necessary to for them to continue to ignore reality.

Aug 8, 2005 - 9:02 am 41. Kevin P:

Thibaud:

My rage isn’t directed at you and I don’t think we are too far apart. Most journalists are generalists and thus , as you noted, cover the technical aspects of the war as well as the Millblogs. I don’t want the press to be a stenographer for the Military PR types. I just don’t want them to prosecution attorneys that see their job to win the fight against the military.

I also don’t think some Ernie Pyle stories are by definition wrong. If the Army had played the Tillman story straight I do not think an ounce of heroism would have been lost. He was a incredible hero before he stepped foot in Iraq. I would like to see the MSM simply cover the actions of our troops when things go right , not just when they are killed. They do not have to embellish the truth. If they would drop their agenda and just report the story straight our soldiers would look fantastic just as they are. It is fine to cover the story of the 14 dead Marines. It’s important that their gift of their life to our country is reported. But the living soldiers would love to see their good work given the same attention. Not to present a lie. But simply to expose the public to the full story.

Kevin Peters

Aug 8, 2005 - 11:27 am 42. Kevin P:

Do not cover. aarghh

Aug 8, 2005 - 1:14 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: