Blaming media bias is a very old and very lame argument. The problems going on in Iraq are not the medias doing. From a strategic point of view, Iraq is an enormous disaster whichever way you want to look at it.
Iraq now has ties with and has become friendly with Iran - who Bush insists is now the greatest threat to US security - so square that circle. Iraq has become a far better training ground for radicals and terrorists than Afghanistan ever was. American credibility, both politically and militarily has been hugely damaged. 2000 US troops killed, and who knows how many injured... etc etc
Why the media is to blame for this is anyone's guess, but for the die-hard Bush fan they'll look anywhere but the obvious.
EUCLID said this in post #1 : Nobody is saying that people are not getting killed Iraq or that it is as good as gumdrops over there. Nobody is saying that the media should not report the explosions and killings. However the U.S. television news media and its defenders have thrown these red herrings out on the table in defense of the accusation that they are biasing their coverage of the war in Iraq.
What the critics are actually charging is a media behavior that is much more subtle than simply showing too many explosions and not enough happy things. The real point of contention is that the media takes the explosions and mixes them with their own opinions to form a larger picture. That picture is that the outlook in Iraq is hopeless because Bush took us into a war that was unjust, and then he mismanaged it to boot.
The television media are constantly stating what the Iraqis think about this or that, as if they can legitimately speak for the entire population. Then to reinforce their credibility, they ask an Iraqi or two on the scene who then give an opinion that confirms what the media is suggesting about what the Iraqi people think.
The reality is that they probably asked ten Iraqis what they thought when doing that segment, and then in the final editing, picked the one or two that best supported the overall perception that that media was trying to convey in the piece. Invariably, that perception is that the war is going badly for the U.S.
There are no clear battle lines in Iraq by which to gauge the progress of the war. The assessment of who is winning is solely a matter of perception, so perception is reality. Therefore, the tools of perception are as effective of a weapon as the guns and bombs. The media have clearly taken sides and are using that weapon of perception. Their objective is to defeat Bush or, and in the largest focus, to defeat political conservatism. The actual outcome in Iraq is completely beside the point except for the discredit to Bush that results if the war is lost.
Of course, the critics of the war vehemently deny any media bias in the coverage. Although it is possible that they simply don’t see it because of their position, the more likely explanation is that acknowledging the bias would defeat its purpose. Anyone who is being undermined by the effect of this bias, however, can see right through it in a heartbeat. They don’t need the approval of the deniers to recognize the obvious.
Absolutely! This has been prevalent since the dawn of "modern" journalism and the flower-children of the 60s. The fact is that a majority of young journalists get into the journalism with an anti-establisment, I-will-blow-the-whistle-and-change-the-world attitude to begin with. Picture if you will the young rebel shaking his fist at the establishment. What else can one expect?
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Let us win glory for ourselves, or yield it to others.
Whidden said this in post #3 : Sorry Curley, er Desert. and H@ts.
I moved your responses to this thread. The other thread is a blog, and for the thread starter only.
As you know, I questioned the logic and purpose of this Editorial forum quite extensively in your thread about the rules. I don't think my concerns were really addressed, but I thought I would give it a try. Now I must say that I have absolutely no idea what the point of this Editorial section is or what the rules are.
In the rules, you clearly said that there would be no response to these editorials. You even discouraged response in the form of another editorial.
You said that any response would be moved to an off topic thread. But now I see that the off topic thread is right alongside of the editorial and designated for the purpose of responding to the editorial. Moreover, the editorial gets copied into the response thread so you have the editorial that was not supposed to be responded to, placed into the response thread, and then responded to.
In your quote above, you say that the editorial thread is a blog thread, and for the thread starter only. Well which is it--a blog or a thread with a starter post? According to the rules you stated, the editorial is not intended to become a thread.
Don't get me wrong. I am not complaining about any of the response, pro or con. But I would appreciate a clarification of the latest rules and the intended purpose. Thanks.
Listen, Euclid, I dont mean to be an ass here, or whatever,
but this wasn't even my idea. I just impemented it. It works just fine in the Gold member lounge. We have some blogs. We have an off topic thread that people can talk about the blogs in the blog section.
It's very popular.
It never took off in here, got confusing, what can I say?
Really, if it irratates you, do like everyone else does and just ignore this whole section. Who knows why something works in one area, and not in another? I dunno.
Different personalitys maybe.
I'm sorry if my previous post was SHORT, I may be a little cranky, as it's way past my bedtime.
03-26-2006 10:20 PM
and H@ts. 
I'm sorry if my previous post was SHORT, I may be a little cranky, as it's way past my bedtime. 
