Lyman_Bostock said:
Then why did it take my prompting for you to admit there indeed were good stories over there? And that it wasn't all bad?
Wow, didn't realize that either of my posts said, "There are no good stories in Iraq." Maybe I should go back and read them. Or maybe you should. Or maybe you should have before you lashed out at me.
You have to hunt high and low to find the good stories, the few that there are. The bad ones, they're in your face 24/7. And it's certainly made to seem like there are more bad ones than good ones. Is that a fair appraisal? Do the bad stories outnumber the good by this much?
So, do you think the media has fixated too much on the bad calls in the last NBA Finals game? Should we instead be talking about how Dwyane Wade stepped up and made the free throws at the end and that great bank shot at the end of regulation.
I said it before. It's the nature of the media to report the negative more than the positive. And as others have pointed out, it's hard to report stories about school being rebuilt or other things that you don't witness. How are we supposed to trust the military's account of an event after the Tillman incident? Should we just blindly say, well, they said it happened this way, so it must have. And reporters, ar damn few of them, leave the safe zones because they're safety can't be guaranteed. Far from it.
Why is it, when you see a headline like "Three Marines killed in Iraq," that it's never put in context? What mission were they on? What were they trying to do? Was it part of a larger operation? How many of the enemy were killed in the same incident? If that information isn't there, the reporting is either slipshod or biased. Or maybe both.
I can only assume it's because if the headline read "Three Marines killed by roadside bomb whiile on mission trying to find non-existent weapons of mass destruction that were a false premise for this war" or "Three marines killed but we got 10 of their guys on a raid of suspected insurgents," it wouldn't fit the headline specs. To get all the information you want in a headline, it'd have to be six columns, 18-point. Headlines, because they are headlines, are hard to fit a lot of context in. To say that newspapers need to include all the subtext is just to say that newspapers will never make you happy unless they conform their reporting to your world view. In this case, I'd suggest you start reading the Washington Times.
If you can't see that the enemy is using media in this country to manipulate public opinion against the war, then you might prove you're an idiot. Al-Zarqawi basically admitted that's their strategy.
I'm not saying we should ignore the bad. But I'm afraid we're falling into the "useful idiots" category with our zeal to point out all the troubles without pointing out the good works we've done. People can't just assume those good works are taking place. There's a bit more at stake in a war than a robbery or a fire, you must admit.
Like I said, it's hard to report things without getting out there. And right now, it isn't safe to go many places. Reporters generally stay in safe areas anymore because there have been so many kidnappings. Any more, you can't trust what you're told. And it's hard to say a reporter should go out and risk his life to check something unless it's a big story. Some stories are easier to get than others, but, oike I said, if you trust the military's account of any incident after what happened with Pat Tillman, you're fooling yourself.