Right.
Rather than a daily/weekly/monthly count of dead US servicemembers (with non-combat deaths included without comment...to inflate the numbers? Reveals the thinking behind the number, if not the agenda), why not a daily/weekly/monthly count of the number of IEDs successfully removed without harm? Particularly given within the context of number encountered, it would tell the story of a declining insurgency more clearly than just deaths.
Convoy attacks are WAY down...without comment from the press.
al-Najaf is largely quiet...largely without comment from the press.
We still have soldiers dying, but the battlefield focus has shifted (and is continuing to shift more) from major cities in the heartland to minor towns in the frontiers, and the terrorist supply chain. This is less worthy of note from the Embellishment Media than just a running total of deaths?
Ridiculous. (no exclamation point because I’m too cynical to be surprised anymore) |
| |
Written By:
Nathan
URL:
http://brain.mu.nu/
|
|
um... maybe I’m just slow, but surely you aren’t using Scrappleface as an example of biased media. Don’t get me wrong, I agree totally with your points but Scrappleface is a satire site to make the point that the MSM is full of sh*t. |
| |
Written By:
RC
URL:
http://
|
|
Jon references Scrappleface as an example of a blogger pointing out biased media. Along with LGF, et al. |
| |
Written By:
Nathan
URL:
http://brain.mu.nu/
|
I guess my preference would be for the media to avoid the problem of:
... to tell whether what we see is slow, difficult progress to democracy....or a slow, difficult descent into civil war
To your initial point, I think there are many times that the media incorrectly creates "information" from data, either by omission or by spin, when all they needed to do was report the facts.
Just give me the facts, issues and events that surround the facts, let me sort out my own information.
|
| |
Written By:
Dean
URL:
http://www.todaysdemocracy.com/site
|
From my perspective Bill Roggio over at The Fourth Rail does an excellent job each day of collecting the relevant newspaper articles, press releases, transcripts, etc. and posting an article that really helps everyone understand what’s going on in Iraq.
The Fourth Rail |
| |
Written By:
Marlin
URL:
http://
|
”…we simply don’t know what arc the story is taking. It may be impossible, from here, to tell whether what we see is slow, difficult progress to democracy....or a slow, difficult descent into civil war.
But, on a day to day level, the media doesn’t seem terribly interested in puzzling that narrative out. They’re satisfied with reporting anecdotes;…” Jon, I am beginning to see the blind spot that accounts for some of your more…obtuse posts. Of course the liberal MSM sees the arc the story is taking: Bush is a train wreck and any story that in any way makes him look good must be balanced with something (anything!) that brings the story into “proper” perspective.
Imagine yourself as the editor of WWII-era accounts of Nazi party successes. Knowing that the Nazis will fail and the misery they will bring, no story of any of their early success will cross your desk without its reference to a counter action taken by their opponents or a possible flaw in their accomplishment. And, how could you ever approve of a story that was made up of only positive things about the Nazi movement?
The liberal MSM believes that they have an obligation to “tell the story” and not just report the facts. If a Democrat were in the White House, then the arc would be different and the need would be to balance any negative news with positive information in order to “tell the story”.
The media has no need to puzzle out the story. They already “know” the story. Ignorant red state types have stupidly slowed the march of liberalism and created a modern dark ages. Until America comes to its senses and supports the liberal agenda there can be only one [Bush caused] disaster followed by another. There’s your arc. It’s as plain as any given story in the MSM can make it.
|
| |
Written By:
notherbob2
URL:
http://
|
For God’s sake, the main story of the week - of the month really - is how the New York Times bought the Bush administration’s case for war hook, line and sinker. Uncritically. Cheerleaders even.
Of all the times to pick to point out so-called liberal bias in the press, this was precisely the wrong one. An actual liberal press would have found Curveball, exposed Chalabi for the charlatan that he is, and actually done some real investigation of the Niger documents.
Jesus Christ - the Bush administration used the press to propogate rumor and falsehood as fact to start a war. And yet you have the temerity to suggest the press is liberally biased? Wow.
|
| |
Written By:
mkultra
URL:
http://
|
And yet you have the temerity to suggest the press is liberally biased? Yeah, too bad they didn’t go after President Clinton when made the same claims about WMD during his tenure in office. It’s rather difficult to spin a 180 quite that fast. Unless you’re going to suggest that Saddam got rid of his WMD after President Bush took office. |
| |
Written By:
Mark A. Flacy
URL:
http://
|
Of all the times to pick to point out so-called liberal bias in the press, this was precisely the wrong one. For fucks sake, Douglas Feith has nothing on you. You are, indeed, the fucking stupidest person alive.
I pointed out that there was plenty of anecdotal evidence for "both directions" of bias. If you think there’s no bias in the media at all, or that there’s only ever been a right wing bias, then you’re worse than stupid—you’re a stooge. An actual liberal press would have found Curveball, exposed Chalabi for the charlatan that he is, and actually done some real investigation of the Niger documents. And they would have leaped tall buildings in a single bound. Meanwhile, back here on earth...Jesus Christ - the Bush administration used the press to propogate rumor and falsehood as fact to start a war. Everybody agreed with them. I know you’re wedded to the whole "Bush lied" thing, but fucking Hillary Clinton said that the intelligence data was consistent from the Clinton to the Bush administrations, and that she’d had Clinton-era Intel people confirm for her what the administration was saying. Lawrence Wilkerson—a fellow you lefties were just recently touting—was quite insistent that the intel was there; that France had been confirming some of the stuff you guys called "lies".
Christ, I’ve been very patient with you, but this is pretty fucking stupid even by your standards. |
| |
Written By:
Jon Henke
URL:
http://www.QandO.net
|
The MSM isn’t "explicitly biased"? Come on. Is there really any doubt after 2 1/2 years of reporting doom and gloom on Iraq that they have predetermined the arc of the story and they aren’t going to let facts get in the way of reporting that story.
The MSM has also has a story about how we went to war. MKUltra has memorized most of the talking points from that story arc. First of all, he buys into the premise that the New York Times’ reporting carries weight with people other than liberals in New York, LA and Washington."the New York Times bought the Bush administration’s case for war hook, line and sinker. Uncritically. Cheerleaders even." Robert Kagan wrote a great column addressing this part of the story arc. In reality, the New York Times began its reporting on the Iraqi WMD threat long before January 2001. It had reported on this threat incessantly for several years before Bush entered office. The Times consistently reported on the threat posed by Iraqi WMD programs when it served to justify Bill Clinton’s decision to bomb Iraq on the day the impeachment vote was scheduled to begin. Does anyone really think the Times’ amnesia on this issue is happenstance. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/24/AR2005102401405.html An actual liberal press would have.....exposed Chalabi for the charlatan that he is, and actually done some real investigation of the Niger documents. The Bush Administration inherited Ahmed Chalabi and the INC but the MSM doesn’t let that stop them from portraying the Bush Administration as the party responsible for giving them input on our policy towards Iraq. The INC was formed in 1992, and the CIA gave it millions of dollars during the first few years of the Clinton Administration. It fell out of favor for a while, but it went back on the payroll in 1998 when Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Act. The neocons may have always supported Chalabi, but from 1998 on, so did the Clinton Adminstration. http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/talking_politics/documents/02769271.htm
Does anyone other than idiots like MKUltra think that the Times’ lack of reporting on the forged Niger documents was due to the right wing, corporate bias of Pinch Sulzberger? It seems a lot more likely that the Times didn’t report on the documents because they weren’t the source for American or British intelligence on Iraq’s attempts to buy uranium in Africa. They only became newsworthy after Joe Wilson referenced them in his multiple lies to Nick Kristoff and Walter Pincus about the "findings" from his "investigation".
The MSM is busy promulgating multiple story arcs that are contradicted by the facts. They seem to be well aware of Goebbels’ theory about repeating a lie enough that it becomes accepted as the truth. Thank God for the blogosphere. |
| |
Written By:
Anonymous
URL:
http://www.qando.net
|
|
The problem is that news is forced to be bite-sized, so it never contains the context that would make it meaningful. Details here. |
| |
Written By:
sammler
URL:
http://stonecity.blogspot.com
|
Mickey Kaus tells it like it is about the NYT:“…Pinch’s overarching, original crime: Freeing a respected national newspaper to become an unashamed cocooning organ of New York liberal political and aesthetic prejudices (with a few exceptions, like Miller, that are slowly being corrected).” |
| |
Written By:
notherbob2
URL:
http://
|
Isn’t the media supposed to be anti-administration? Would not a pro-administration media be way too close to a Pravda style propaganda machine. Isn’t it important to have people questioning the actions and motives of those in power? If the press doesn’t do these things who will?
Come on boys, why don’t you be Libertarians. You are supposed to be suspicious of those in power. You are supposed to oppose the aggregation of governmental power in to the hands of just few.
|
| |
Written By:
cindy bravo
URL:
http://
|
You are supposed to be suspicious of those in power. You are supposed to oppose the aggregation of governmental power in to the hands of just few. I’ve already just made that point, Cindy. |
| |
Written By:
Jon Henke
URL:
http://www.QandO.net
|
So, the MSM are just dunces, not capable of writing a comprehensive story. LOL
I have a bridge I would like you to consider buying. |
| |
Written By:
RA
URL:
http://
|
“Isn’t the media supposed to be anti-administration?” No, it isn’t. It is supposed to be the media. Facts should feature heavily into what they report. They should be neither pro nor anti administration. You are obviously mired in the sixties when the media (due to their historic conventions) was too pro-administration and needed to loosen up.
A cat who sits on a hot stove will never do that again. However, being a cat, it will never sit on a cold one either. You, like a cat, are still counting on the liberal media to save us from another Vietnam. Since you don’t deal well with facts, it is easy for the DNC and the media to keep you ignorant of the fact that things have moved on and that the journalistic template that served us well in the sixties and seventies no longer is appropriate. People who have stayed informed (neo-neocon, for instance) are laughing at you brainless DNC camp girls.“If the press doesn’t do these things who will?” Read any good blogs lately? Liberal media lies are bad, no matter what the cause.“You are supposed to oppose the aggregation of governmental power in to the hands of just few.” You, zero, are supposed to question lying liberal media. You venture out of the cocoon and therefore have no excuse for still being such a sucker for media lies. Do you read neo-neocon? Why not? |
| |
Written By:
notherbob2
URL:
http://
|
|
Highly informative blog. Got to know many things about it. |
| |
Written By:
Robyn
URL:
http://www.quickplumbing.net
|
Edward Tufte put it best:
"Information is differences that make a difference." |
| |
Written By:
Phelps
URL:
http://www.donotremove.net
|
