The Liberal Media and the Role It Plays in Undermining U.S. Troops

Iraq Forum

It is common knowledge that the liberal media is largely anti-Bush, anti-war, anti-success-in-Iraq. David Gregory and James Carville are two top culprits.

…


Conservative radio talk-show host Laura Ingraham in the Lions Den, Carville Advises W to Talk About Failure

March 21, 2006

Was it David Gregory, or an SNL parody of a biased liberal MSMer? The topic on this morning's Today show was whether media coverage of Iraq has presented a distorted picture. You might think under the circumstances that Gregory would feign some kind of fairness. But Gregory's very first question to James Carville advanced the theory that . . . President Bush is a liar.

Asked Gregory: "Is the problem for this president and top administration officials that the public doesn't believe what they say anymore?"

Laura Ingraham was as tenacious as a top point guard in fighting through the double-team to make her case. She pointed out that NBC and the Today show expended huge resources to cover the Olympics and even to answer the question "Where in the World is Matt Lauer?" She suggested that they devote some of the same resources to broadcast the Today show directly from Iraq, that they accompany troops, speak with US and Iraqi military personnel and with villagers and see the reality on the ground.

Instead, pointed out Ingraham, the MSM's approach is to stand on a balcony in the Green Zone, reporting on the latest IEDs, killings and reprisals. A timorous Gregory replied: "And you think Iraq is safe enough [to do what Laura proposed]?" Ingraham: "Yes. I was not on the hotel balcony. I was out with the U.S. military. It can be done in any part of the country." Laura attempted to continue, but Gregory cut her off: "I get the anti-network point."

When Carville launched into an extended guffaw at Laura's expense, Ingraham riposted, off camera: "It's not funny." Things got testy and contentiousness, as Carville, any pretense of Southern chivalry gone, used the hackneyed line on Laura: "excuse me for speaking while you're interrupting." When Gregory asked Carville what his advice to President Bush would be, Carville 'helpfully' suggested: "Talk about the consequences of failure."

That's the American spirit: DNC/MSM-style.

http://www.newsbusters.org/media/2006-03-21-NBCTSIngraham.jpg


Laura, you go, girl!

Damn you liberal media!

Let me ask and you not answer this: what is wrong with criticizing Bush? Is it not our right to challenge the governemnt and our 'elected' officials when we feel they have made incorrect or poor decisions?

I await your non-response.

Thank you very little.

-HECK!

http://images.usatoday.com/life/_photos/2006/03/20/inside-gregory.jpg

Laura, I am way behind on listening to the archives here because we are working our tails off, but I wanted to comment on something you said 17 minutes into your show on 15 Feb. You were talking about how the IA (Iraqi Army) drives around in the pick-up trucks. You are SO on target about that. I am out here training and working with IA here in Mosul every day. We are in our STRYKERS, which survive everything except for huge IEDs, and these guys ride around with us in their pick-ups. We are constantly amazed at their bravery because these guys are blown up in those trucks with frightening regularity, and yet they still go out on patrol, and they still come back from leave each week. Wish you could have made it up here, I am glad you had a great trip. Keep up the fight...

William H.
Mosul, Iraq



Since discovering your show on a local radio station, I get my news from your show and Hannity & Colmes. Being a member of the District of Columbia Air National Guard, your appreciation of the troops does my heart good. I saw you on H&C last night and again on Fox & Friends this morning and have one simple thing to say—YOU LOOK FABULOUS!

Steve (TSgt, F-16 bomb loader)
Georgetown, DE


Laura,

Thank you so much for what you are doing to get the facts out to the public. I am a Vietnam vet and a former chaplain for a Vietnam veterans organization. The sound bite by Col. Mark Samson and the anger and pain he felt about the bad press given to the Iraqi troops and the efforts of our own troops is understood by many vets.

The kindness of our military personnel cannot be highlighted enough. They were good and kind in Vietnam and they are performing those same acts of kindness in Iraq. What our press will focus on are the exceptions of My Lai and Abu Ghraib. Just as you heard many Iraqis expressing their appreciation for what our troops are doing for Iraq, I heard many thank you's from the Vietnamese.

The question does present itself very pointedly here, will Iraq be another Vietnam? Will we abandon our friends in Iraq as we did our friends in Vietnam? Only time will tell.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. —Edmund Burke

John M. Naples, ID

Laura,

You are a neocon apologist, and a blame-everyone-but-yourself hypocrite. Using the war to pump your own conservative agenda makes me sick. I hope your dog gets a rash.

HECK!
Sunny, So Cal.

-HECK!

Laura,

It was our honor and privilege to spend time with you; I enjoyed it very much and so did the Soldiers. You have changed my opinion of the "human factor" for many of the famous people in our media. You showed us the personal side that we rarely see and your sense of humor and take on politics really improved the morale for all of us. It is greatly appreciated!

On another note: the troops have fondly issued you the title of Command Sergeant Major (CSM). I have to tell you, be proud of that. It is the hardest rank earned in the Army. Of the entire population of new recruits during one year, only .03% will ever obtain the rank of CSM (usually after about 20 years of service). We are the NCOs that keep the train on the tracks and our Officer counterparts informed and properly advised on all matters. It is the one rank that I have found that few Soldiers or leaders ever mess with--including generals. So wear that title with pride. They issued that title based on how well you ran your program over here. And I think you have earned it as well!!

If I am ever in the area I will definitely try to link up for a beer or dinner. I recently found out that I have been selected to take over a senior CSM position so I am sure I will find my way to the DC area.

Take care and thank you for the time you spent with the Warrior Team,

Brian C.
Command Sergeant Major (CSM)

Laura,

God bless you for going to Iraq and supporting the toops. We are both veterans of the Viet Nam War. My husband a decorated Marine and I was a Navy Nurse. We did not get the acceptance nor did the troops while they were there or when they returned. You cannot beat servicemen who are doing their job and the pride they have in doing it well. These guys & gals are terrific. We pray for all of them. We believe in what they are doing.

Bud & Carolyn K.
Warrenton, VA


Dearest Laura,

You are doing great things for America and the troops with your show. Thank you for taking the trip to Iraq. Thank God for modern medicine and your courage in your success against cancer.

I am an active duty USAF major and pilot. As a career serviceman, I am deeply grateful for your support. As a Christian I am profoundly grateful for your willingess to defend people of faith. May God continue to bless you,

Chuck R. Mount Holly, NJ

Yes Laura sure did mop the floor with NBC this morning.

Amazing how nothing Bush said about Iraq seems to ever come to past and we still have those who believe every word that proceeds out of his mouth.

I thought the personal reference to a city way up north Iraq as evidence of how well things are going while the capital of the country is in complete turmoil was the highlight of disillusion to me.

Oh but wait!!! It’s the “Liberal Media’s fault” that Baghdad is under siege of daily violence and killings every day. But then again, it’s no worse than California right?

Man this stuff is rich.

All three networks are like left wing infomercials these days. Of course there are those who will counter that charge by contending that it is impossible for the TV media to be liberal because they are big business, and big biz can't be liberal. Nice try.

Well if you spoke to my friends and family who have been over there, the media has an accurate picture. What these neoconservative fools wants is for people to have a rosy and inaccurate picture of Iraq. They further abuse our troops by trying to use them for a political end, they don't care for our troops but to stand on their bodies and push their own agenda.

Laura Ingraham is a dolt, well over 80 people in the news media have died over in Iraq, to say they're trying to lie about the war spits on their graves, the Iraqi civilian graves, and the American soldiers' graves. Just because you don't like the news for its truth, doesn't mean you need to promote lies.

Why do you think they keep asking the media to ask questions of the American soldier? They want to focus on the soldier because then they can stop paying attention to the civil war erupting over there and they can counter any criticism of the war as anti-troop.

These people make me sick, she is a far cry from the Jill Carroll's of the world.

The outcome of this war is very likely to be a self-fulfilling prophecy that is based only on the perception of whether we are winning or losing. It’s obvious that the TV networks would love to rub it in Bush’s face if we lose. But they have taken sides, and in a very real way, they have become a larger adversary than the bombers in Iraq. They report from Iraq. Their power is the spontaneous image. So they string together the images and comments of individual Iraqis to virtually build a video collage that reflects their pre-conceived viewpoint. It’s not news at all.

The bombers shape the explosives, and the TV networks shape the perception of the effect of the explosion. Therefore, the number casualties from an exploded IED are not nearly as significant to the mission of the bombers as is the number of Americans that can be discouraged in their support of the Bush policy by that explosion. The biased media helps spread that discouragement by amplifying the destructive impact of the bombing. The bombers then see the effect of their bomb being amplified far beyond its actual explosive power, and they are further encouraged to bomb some more. Whereas, if the process were reversed, the bombers might decide that they could not defeat the U.S. military and just give it up.

The bombers blow up people, not to reduce the number of combatants, but rather, to change the minds of non-combatants.

It's like a broken record- any news outlet that could be considered critical of Bush or the war is automatically dubbed as 'liberal media'. One day that crutch will be kicked out from underneath those who need it to support their argument.

-HECK!

This is what the public media doesn't print. If they did, it would undermine the witch hunt.

http://www.defendamerica.mil/iraq/rebuilding.html

Witch hunt? Do you want some kind of neo-facist government where criticising the government is outlawed? The goose-step mentality is not for me.

-HECK!

Yes, the point is they're not supposed to criticize because everything is happy and good as gum drops in Iraq. There is no incompetence over there, and the liberal media is trying to get themselves killed over there to paint Bush as a bad guy. We all know how right Ingraham is in proclaiming the media does its reporting from the hotel balcony, just ask people like Jill Carroll or David Bloom, they were captured or died (respectively) in their hotel rooms.

This boring blame the media tirade is the equivalent of a person whining about police footage showing a cop beat down an unarmed man that has done nothing.

It is not surprising that some people would deny that the mainstream media have a liberal bias. Most liberals deny it because admitting it would undermine them. But many people deny it simply because they don’t see it. Ironically, this group includes most of the members of the liberal media itself. This was a basic observation in the very insightful book, “BIAS” by Bernard Goldberg.

Yesterday, not only did Laura Ingraham blame the TV networks for biasing the war coverage in order to undermine Bush, but so did Bush. He laid out the very same dynamics that I did in post #15, but then he said he was not blaming the media. Well they sure took it that way. I never heard so much defensiveness as what was put forth by the three networks last night and this morning. Last night on Nightline, ABC mounted a vigorous defense by doing the very thing that they are being accused of by the supporters of the war. Amazing! They are accused of doing something wrong, and they do it again to prove that they did not do it.

That's the real problem with media today, as if there are two sides two every story. Of course you only hear this bluthering on topics you don't like to hear the news from, like the chaos in Iraq.

Person A: Did you hear about the rapist that was just arrested?

Person B: Yeah, but you can't call him a rapist, we need to hear both sides of the story.

Person A: But they found DNA linking the guy to the crime and the victim's bloodstains were found on his clothes and in his car.

Person B: But that's just what the media's reporting, she could have brought the attack on by herself. Yeah, if they reported both sides of the story, he might not be billed as a rapist. But what with this biased media...

"I admit it, the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."

--William Kristol, the most influential Republican/neoconservative publicist in America.

-HECK!

Let's not forget the conservative media: Fox News, the Wall Street Journal editorial pages, the Washington Times, the New York Post, The American Spectator, The Weekly Standard, the New York Sun, National Review, Commentary, Limbaugh, Drudge, etc

-HECK!

March 23, 2006

Call it the Ingraham Effect. Two days after Laura Ingraham sent shockwaves through the MSM with a Today show appearance in which she charged that the media accentuate the negative in their Iraqi coverage, and just the day after a palpably stung Today responded with a segment defending its coverage, Today led its show this morning . . . with good news from Iraq.

http://www.newsbusters.org/media/2006-03-23-NBCTSEngel.jpg

To be sure, Today would under any circumstances have covered the rescue of three self-styled Christian peace activists. Story here. But would Today have otherwise highlighted the story of a successful coalition military operation in the way that it did? In the show's very opening, Katie dramatically intoned:

"Good morning. Breaking news: US-led forces in Iraq launch a dramatic rescue operation and free three Western hostages." In fact, the news wasn't quite breaking. It had occured many hours earlier and had been widely covered overnight.

Guest host David Gregory, who had aggressively sparred with Ingraham during her appearance, enthused:

"What good news to report this morning. Those freed hostages. Two Canadians and a British national are safe this morning four months after they were kidnapped in Iraq."

Katie then interviewed Richard Engel, the NBC reporter in Baghdad whose largely balcony-based, Green Zone coverage had sparked some of Ingraham's ire.

Engel emphasized the exultant mood: "Members of Christian Peacemaker Teams here in Baghdad told us they jumped for joy when they heard the news that three of their colleagues had been rescued."

Engel reported that the activists had been rescued this morning [Baghdad time] by coalition troops. Even when Engel struck a somber note, mentioning that one of the activists, Tom Fox, had been murdered by his captors, and that US journalist Jill Carroll still remains a hostage, Katie Couric closed with this positive take:

"Alright, Richard. Well, at least three happy endings coming out of Baghdad this morning."

["And Bush sucks!"]

I would like to see the interview process for people looking to work for one of these networks.

I couldn't have said it better myself...

Let's look at some polls:

CBSNews Poll

President Bush Describes Iraq
Better than it is: 66%
Accurately: 23%
Worse than it is: 6%
±3%, March 9-12

The Media Describes Iraq
Better than it is: 24%
Accurately: 35%
Worse than it is: 31%
±3%, March 9-12

President Bush's Handling of Iraq
Approve: 31%
Disapprove: 63%
±3%, March 9-12

Hmm...the 31% that approve of his handling of Iraq is the same as the number that think the media portray Iraq worse than it is. Interesting.

A lot of you have obviously never seen foreign news coverage of Iraq. Stop whining because it's on the nice end of the accurate pictures, they haven't shown any of the bodies.

FOX News... I didn't know an entire network could be so far up a president's ass.

-HECK!

I guess that's what smells then...

And if you want to do a little reasearch you might find that the FOX News cookie is crumbling.

FOX News is down 13% in total ratings 25-54 while MSNBC is up 47% and CNN is up 4% in February '06 compared to the same time last year.

During primte time they are down too.

Greta Van Susteran's On The Record (-22%), O'Reilly (-21%). Hannity & Colmes (-17%).

Keith Olbermann's Countdown (+55%),

-HECK!

Don't you find it interesting that conservatives jump to the ratings of Fox News when you point out the inaccuracy and bias in their reporting? Is that the only defense? When a student is failing a class, you talk about his need for improvement; using their logic we should look at whether the kid is popular in school. Regardless, he's still failing a class.

I also love the adventures in hypocrisy here. Taking the Cafferty example or even looking at the fact that there isn't an issue with 1 billion Muslims around the world, should we start jumping on the media for only highlighting the stories about Muslims killing Christians? I mean come on, pull your head out your ass long enough to be consistent.

Bush's all around ratings fading, FOX news reeling, times are good.

-HECK!

Ah yes, "a bad idea is better than no idea". Not exactly a confident stance.

-HECK!

I believe this line of accusation birthed by Bush and his right winged base is totally absurd. They are quick to label the media as “liberal” or “left” when the coverage they present doesn’t favor their agendas.

Furthermore, I think it’s absurd to expect the media or anyone to report on schools or hospitals being built given the level of violence we see there on a daily basis. How do you report on the rebuilding of a police station when someone drives a bomb laden truck into the heart of Baghdad and blow up 56 people in one day?

If the level of violence we see there happened in your neighborhoods, streets and marketplaces, who would take solace in knowing that they built a new school two blocks up the street?

I can’t imagine for the likes of me had this been Bill Clinton or another democratic President that has bungled the job like this current administration. The cries for his head would be deafening.

Lastly, maybe Bush had the purest of intentions when he invaded Iraq, which I doubt. However just on the ineptitude we’ve witnessed so far, how can anyone continue to support his efforts?

Regardless of republican, democrat or independent, we need a regime change in Washington. To continue to support his inadequacy borders on the criminal. And I use the word “borders” loosely.

Notice that when you talk about accuracy or the subject matter of debate, people want to bring up ratings. The simple fact is this attack the media is being pushed by simpletons.

http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2006/images/narrative%20charts/cable/cable%20C.JPG

Source: The State of the News Media 2006


Stuff you won't find in the MSM or hear about from socialist U.S.-bashers around the globe: http://www.defendamerica.mil/iraq/rebuilding.html

I think it is a constant among right wingers: "the media are biased, their coverage of the events in Iraq is flawed, and so on, while in reality schools and hospitals are being rebuilt on a daily basis and common Iraqis daily life is improving."
I would like to step back and have a look at what happened in previous conflicts sharing some common characteristics with this one.
France at war in Algeria in the late fifties: french militaries are massively sent to build schools and teach to children, build hospitals, roads, infrastructures. The media reports attempts on a daily basis but documentaries emphasize on the construction / reconstruction efforts carried out. What's more the military prevails - the country appears more or less peacified.
1962: Algeria is independent, hundreds of thousands casualties later, consisting mainly in deads within the algerian poulation, due to a civil war.

Vietnam, sixties: attempts and battles, but construction of schools and hospitals, "free elections" in South Vietnam proving that democracy is alive and prevalent.
1975: Vietnam is now an independant communist country.

What the Americans are doing now in Iraq present a lot of common points with what occured in these countries.
Yes, schools, hospitals, water and sewage treatment plans, are built. But is the common Iraqi secure ? Is he facing a significant risk to be blown up in an attempt, killed by people from another ethnical group ? If the answer is yes - and it seems to be the case - then you can keep building schools and hospitals, civil war is most likely to prevail.

I guess you don't believe in personal responsibility Curley. If a Republican fails, it's always someone else's fault. I believe in personal responsibility, obviously you don't.

So Hawk, I obviously expect no response, but how do you think it's really going over there? The people I've talked to that have been there paint a very worse picture that the 'liberal' media portrays.

Bet that CNN coverage of the first Gulf War really got those undies fired up though

-HECK!

My cousin is in the army, she paints a worse picture than the media paints, is she a liar? Considering she watched a civilians car explode as it went over an IED, I wonder what crap you write. You probably won't write anything in response because as I said, you're a trolling child who can't be an adult.

It's typical how this always develops into personal attacks by you "left wingers".
Understandibly so, it's all you really have. Slams, conspiracy, accusations and absolutley NO solutions. Talk about juvenile and trolling children....

Please EUCLID, did you ever think there is bad news because it's bad over there? Do you know what news doesn't reach here? It's much worse. On news around the world, they show the blood and the bodies, here you just see a burning car or a hole in the ground so stop with the, "The media is trying to put a bad face on this war."

You want them to cover the power station that just went up, while ignoring the fact that the power grid is worse than pre-war levels and that people with power get it sporadically. Objectively, what should I cover? It's not all about bias, it's about telling the facts; the fact that reconstruction is stagnant and a lot of the money is being plunged into security is significant. Just because you like or dislike the news being reported doesn't make it biased.

We had a recent jobs report, over 200,000 job added, but wages remain somewhat flat. Do you want them to leave out the stuff about wages because it might sound like they're downing the jobs report? No, you report the facts, flat or declining earnings and more jobs aren't the best combination. Just because it doesn't reflect well on your Golden Boy doesn't mean the news is biased.

Back to Iraq, they continually take control of cities, should we report that they're controlling cities to show how efficient the military is, or should we tak about them repeatedly going back in to take control of the same cities because insurgents always move back in? What do you report objectively?

If you as a reporter could freely travel around Iraq and now you can't really go anywhere because of safety, what do you report objectively? If you're a reporter going to report a positive story about the handover of a city from the military to the Iraqis, but your vehicle comes under fire, what do you report objectively?

The war supporters will continually whine about this war, but won't take the time to actually look at what's going on there, it's not good. I've been to one funeral already and all the people I know have said it's not good over there, so don't talk to me about misreporting. Reporting the stories the way you want them reported would be misinformation.

Euclid, I don't give much weight to reports on the condition of Iraq, good or bad. Again, the marines I know and have talked to who were there, in combat, have all said it is worse than the mainstream American public are led to believe. Of course, that is coming from only five troops, but I'll take their word for it, and that's no picture painting, that's fact. You can call it spin or liberal propaganda, but and the end of the day, it's a fact, Jack.

-HECK!

Euclid
I am myself disappointed when I hear that what foreigners retain from the demonstrations in France, through the reports being broadcasted by their domestic media, is that here cars and dustbins are being burnt, or road signs torn apart. Indeed, that happens but that's the fact of a minority of people seizing the opportunity of demonstrations to damage properties. This has always existed.
I disagree with that cherry-picked coverage of the events. For it depicts one of the faces of reality, not enough in itself nor significant to paint a relevant picture of the whole situation.
So when people complain about the bias - I can see what their concern is and how much it is legitimate.
The difference is that if people were being killed on a daily basis in France, insecurity prevailing like it is in Iraq, maybe the media would be playing their role in emphasizing this part of reality because it would indeed be significant. 40 people being blown up in an attempt once a week matter more than two schools and a hospital being inaugurated.

Can we all agree it's not flowers and rainbows over there, nor is it muder/death/kill riots?

To me, when a report on the 'war' going down in Iraq is shown, if it shows some kind of weakness in the military then conservatives seem to try and scoff it off as 'liberal media'. Why is that? Does anyone here not want to know about soldiers KIA or MIA? What about Iraqi civilians? Do we just want to see soldiers handing out candy bars to kids so we can sleep easy and faith in the adminsitration is secure? I won't shelter myself from the cold, hard truth. I won't kid myself. I'm not afraid.

-HECK!

This time, the NY Times reaches to find news of "worsening retention levels" in the U.S. Army. It goes front page above the fold with a story titled "Young Officers Leaving Army at a High Rate." Compare this to the headline in USA TODAY, "Army Surpasssing Year's Retention Goal by 15%."

"You take the good, You take the bad, You take them both and there you have the facts of life. The facts of life."

-HECK!

h@ts, HECK, and ICB

I would agree with you that my allegation of media bias is mistaken if it were as exaggerated as you portray it. Showing explosions and mangled bodies while not showing rainbows and hatching birds, is not what I am talking about.

I provided a specific example of an ABC news report to show what I mean by bias. If we had the transcript, we could take it apart piece by piece, and you would agree that it has no basis as a news report. It is an agenda driven piece that is intended to sway the viewers rather than inform them. It clearly leads the viewer to a specific conclusion, yet it provides nothing to prove that conclusion. Instead, it relies on the convincingness and authority that naturally flows from up close and personal video interviews of a couple of people with conviction. For all the viewer knows, the conclusion may be completely false, and its opposite true.

Well then, go get the transcript.

Maybe if I have to worry about being blown up while covering a story, it would change my perspective because we all know the Iraqis don't have to worry about that...wait, but then there were those attacks on the mosques, the attacks on the police, the bodies that show signs they were killed execution style...

I completely agree with H@ts, it is very important to keep a critical mind about information being "treated" by mainstream media - which doesn't mean this information is to be dismissed - oh, maybe at the one exception of the propaganda being spewed by Fox News

You mean stuff like this?



http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/5158/cavuto2006022415ku.jpg

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/2072/cavuto2006022420wc.jpg

EUCLID, I see what you're saying, but let's not forget that, as morbid as it sounds, the American public loves a good car wreck. That's why every news broadcast everywhere starts with a murder, kidnapping or natural disaster. If they started with the local kid winning the spelling bee people would turn the channel faster than you can say MSNBC.

It's our innate morbid curiosity that enables these news organizations to show the conflict rather than the resolution in Iraq. It's all about ratings and selling you crap you don't need during the commercials. Don't like it? Don't watch it. If enough people follow suit then the powers-that-be will have to change their tune. Until then, welcome to the show.

-HECK!