Does the press want Vietnam II?

[Tarhog]

Today in the White House press briefing, Ari Fleischer was battered over the Administration's view of the war. Many of the questions asked 'why won't the administration admit they underestimated the degree of Iraqi resistance?'. Rumsfeld was battered as well in the Pentagon briefing today. Although I think its a legitimate (although perhaps loaded) question, I get the sense at times that some of these journalists actually yearn for this to become a 'quagmire' so they can say I told you so. Am I imagining things here. Again, its a legitimate question, but is the goal of asking it to get at the truth and ensure the American public is informed, or is it a determined effort to undermine the Bush administration?

[Kilmer17]

Im still trying to figure out why we allow press folks to travel with seemingly every battalion, unit, brigade, whatever.

[Mad Mike]

They are looking for a sensational story. That's what they do.:doh:

[redman]

The questions about "how long with the war take" have - to use a current term - "embedded" in them the rather obvious assumption that the questioner thinks it's taking too long. It frankly reminds me of the proverbial child in the back seat on the road trip whining, "Are we there yet?"

This is simply the press wanting to be part of the story rather than simply reporting on it. They love scandal and conflict, and so far there is none to be had within our government or military regarding this war. So they create it instinctively. All of that is made easier by the fact that the journalism profession tends to be both secular and left of center, things Bush is not, so it's easier for them to oppose/challenge him.

[stratoman]

Originally posted by Tarhog

or is it a determined effort to undermine the Bush administration?

IMHO, YES!!

[Awgustlab]

They also noted a while back that one of the reasons the press is with the troops is because they want them there to document the WMD when we uncover them.

[stratoman]

Originally posted by redman

The questions about "how long with the war take" have - to use a current term - "embedded" in them the rather obvious assumption that the questioner thinks it's taking too long. It frankly reminds me of the proverbial child in the back seat on the road trip whining, "Are we there yet?"

They love scandal and conflict, and so far there is none to be had within our government or military regarding this war. So they create it instinctively.

" They love dirty laundry"

Don Henley

[codeorama]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

Im still trying to figure out why we allow press folks to travel with seemingly every battalion, unit, brigade, whatever.

We are hoping they get shot, ........:laugh:

j/k

[Glenn X]

One of the worst questions asked during that briefing today was by a gentleman (whose name currently escapes me) from ABC News:

"Mr. Fleischer, would you be willing to concede that the Fedahyeen Saddam guerrillas, if nothing else, must be commended for the fierceness of their desire to fight and the fervency of their nationalism?"

This is not a question. This is an argumentative suggestion masquerading as a question. The intent of the questioner here was not to get Mr. Fleischer to respond either affirmatively or negatively so much as it was for said questioner to grandstand and proclaim, "These unconventional hired guns of Saddam's, no matter what we may think of them, are damn fine soldiers!"

Which, of course, they are not. They are brutal and cowardly terrorists who hide behind women and children and employ hit-and-run fighting tactics. If only the gentleman from ABC News were keen enough to understand that.

[joe]

I believe that there are journalists who think that such questions should have been asked in 1964 and 1965, but weren't.

I also think that they believe that the public wants the question answered, wants to know how long this war may be expected to go on, and that it is their duty to ask the question. I know that I would like to know, although I don't think it is a good idea for the military to answer the question, so despite my curiosity, I should not know.

On the other hand, I don't think that all journalists have such noble motives. Most probably are just trying to find something sensational to write or speak about, which is, after all, what is demanded of them by their bosses, because such sensationalism sells. Still, you can't lump them all together in a neat package

[Tommy-the-Greek]

Originally posted by redman

The questions about "how long with the war take" have - to use a current term - "embedded" in them the rather obvious assumption that the questioner thinks it's taking too long. It frankly reminds me of the proverbial child in the back seat on the road trip whining, "Are we there yet?"

This is a great point. Thank God we didn't have this media during WWII or they would have wanted us to surrender and we would all be speaking German or Japenesse(SP). The first 6 months of WWII after pearl harbor was terrible for us. No good news at all and they would not have had the patience to wait for things to turn around. The whole purpose of the doo little raid was to shut the then media up for awhile and give the american people hope.

People we are a little over 1 week into this thing. And in this first week we have advanced into the enemies country farther in that time period then any other army in history. The German Bitzkreig of france took 3 weeks if memory serves me right and the french didn't put up a fraction the resistance Iraq is doing. It may take months or a year or more. You can't order a victory like a bigmac at a drive thru.

[Sarge]

My answer to the pres would be, "We get there when we get there.". The only reason it is taking so long is because we are worried about civilian casualties. If we weren't hampered by that, we would be sitting in the smoking ruins of bagdad right now. Fleisher has the patience of a saint, IMHO.

[NavyDave]

Heck on The oreilly factor the guest was a professor from NY who was complaining that Fox News is too patritotic in its reporting and that NPR was fair and balanced:doh:

[joe]

We did have the media during world war II. Remember Edward R. Morrow? How about Andy Rooney, did you know that he was a war correspondent who accompanied our troops through France and Germany? How about Bill Mauldin, who recently died. He cartooned for Stars and Stripes. Check out his book "Up Front." It was published in 1946, but should still be available. Have you seen the photo of the flag being raised over Iwo Jima? Who do you think took the photo?

[luckydevil]

Yeah there is no bias in the media. I think the media is veing very fair

[Glenn X]

Originally posted by NavyDave

Heck on The oreilly factor the guest was a professor from NY who was complaining that Fox News is too patritotic in its reporting and that NPR was fair and balanced:doh:

Yeah, I saw that, ND. Very funny.

"National Public Radio is where I go for fair, balanced, and objective news." :laugh:

Joe, you do realize that the media of today is very different from the media of sixty years ago, don't you? I mean, can you imagine Edward R. Murrow reporting during WWII: "According to the British, the Nazis are committing naked aggression against their sovereignty and their people by bombing the bejesus out of London. On the other hand, the Nazis deny such claims and blame everything on the Jews"? Murrow and other reporters of the era from Allied nations would've never given credence to the enemy regime's propagandists, as our media is doing today by giving airtime to the Iraqi Ministry of (dis)Information.

Or how about the attempted Vietnamization of Gulf War II by the Western news media, Joe? When I hear of the Middle Eastern media (and their analogues in Russia and China) doing this, I'm not the least bit surprised. What usually passes for "journalism" in these places couldn't even meet the "high" standards of tabloids like The Weekly World News in this country. However, when I hear of our press and the European press painting the U.S. military's progress in this conflict in the most negative terms possible, that gets my dander up.

Of course, I shouldn't really be surprised over this, as the Western media tried the same Vietnamizing tactic in their reporting in the early stages of the battle in Afghanistan, trotting out those time-honored Vietnamistic buzzwords, "quagmire" and "bogged down," and asking those damning rhetorical questions, "We may win in end, but at what cost?"

Just the same, though, I always find myself asking, "Why? Why are they doing this?"

The answer is surely to be found in the institutional cultures spawned by these newsgathering organizations. Just as the Pentagon and the NYPD have their own unique workplace cultures with their own unique values and traditions, so, too, do The New York Times and the BBC. As David Rennie of London's Daily Telegraph, pointed out to Bill O'Reilly on Wednesday evening, "I have a friend who works at the BBC, and she told me recently that she's afraid to tell her colleagues that her boyfriend is a [british] Royal Marine because they tend to think of soldiers, especially American and British soldiers, as "baby-killers" and "mindless belligerents"... [but] I honestly don't think that what's going on at the BBC or The New York Times is part of any sort of conspiratorial or conscious effort to make the war in Iraq and the soldiers fighting it on the British and American sides look bad. To them, to these people in the news media, this kind of negativism simply comes naturally. In fact, it's so natural to them that they probably don't even see it as negativism or negative coverage."

Bingo, Mr. Rennie. Bingo.

[fansince62]

a better question might be: why hasn't the press done a better job of documenting the atrocities committed by the Fedayeen? how abuot some first hand interviews? why is it a Pentagon tape that is documenting these crimes and not our "indepedent" press?

[codeorama]

fansince, I'm not sure what news your'e watching, but everywhere I've looked, there are plenty of accounts of the "dirty" tactics going on. I see plenty of stories about the Iraqi's executing our troops, wearing civilian clothes, ambushing, suicide bombers....... I'm not sure what we are missing out on because of the press..

When I watch the news, I expect the truth, I expect to see what we are doing and what the enemy is doing. I hate the commentators who offer their opinions regardless of which way they lean. I want the facts and I will judge for myself.

What I don't understand is how reporting Iraqi civilian casualties or really anything from the Iraqi view point is un american or is only done by traitors.

If we want to cheer for our country, that's fine, but the media shouldn't slant it that way and only show us things complementary to the US.. IF they did that, what difference is there between us and the former Soviet Union and Iraq? Seriously?

It seems like many just expect the media to show the US kicking a$$ and nothing going wrong.... But guess what, that's not the news, that's one side of the story. I want to see it all.

[Glenn X]

code, do you honestly think that The New York Times, L.A. Times, and BBC are giving you the straight story?

There's this myth that's taken root in Western journalism that holds: "Being objective is being combative, argumentative, or even downright rude when questioning your subject, especially if said subject is a member of 'the status quo' (e.g. the U.S. government or the U.S. military)." code, how is being combative, argumentative, or even downright rude when questioning, say, the President or Ari Fleischer instrumental in getting at the truth when this approach is not taken with Saddam Hussein or his officials from the Iraqi Ministry of Information?

[TC4]

Originally posted by Glenn X

One of the worst questions asked during that briefing today was by a gentleman (whose name currently escapes me) from ABC News:

"Mr. Fleischer, would you be willing to concede that the Fedahyeen Saddam guerrillas, if nothing else, must be commended for the fierceness of their desire to fight and the fervency of their nationalism?"

This is not a question. This is an argumentative suggestion masquerading as a question. The intent of the questioner here was not to get Mr. Fleischer to respond either affirmatively or negatively so much as it was for said questioner to grandstand and proclaim, "These unconventional hired guns of Saddam's, no matter what we may think of them, are damn fine soldiers!"

Which, of course, they are not. They are brutal and cowardly terrorists who hide behind women and children and employ hit-and-run fighting tactics. If only the gentleman from ABC News were keen enough to understand that.

I saw that too.

The reporter's name is Terry Moran, and he is the ABC News White House reporter.

I have seen him on ABC News before too, and I am convinced he is nothing but a FLAMING LIBERAL A--HOLE!!!!

[Glenn X]

Terry Moran! Yes, that's it, TC4! Thanks for the assist, man. I was trying to recall his name to no avail when I put up that post about his ludicrous question.

[codeorama]

Originally posted by Glenn X

code, do you honestly think that The New York Times, L.A. Times, and BBC are giving you the straight story?

There's this myth that's taken root in Western journalism that holds: "Being objective is being combative, argumentative, or even downright rude when questioning your subject, especially if said subject is a member of 'the status quo' (e.g. the U.S. government or the U.S. military)." code, how is being combative, argumentative, or even downright rude when questioning, say, the President or Ari Fleischer instrumental in getting at the truth when this approach is not taken with Saddam Hussein or his officials from the Iraqi Ministry of Information?

What I am saying is read MANY sources, read or watch sources on both sides, the truth has to be somewhere in between...

But if all you watch is FOX news, you are no more getting the whole story than the Iraqi's.

[joe]

GlennX

My referal to the great journalists who covered World War II was simply made to refute the assertion made by Tommy-the-Greek that there was no media coverage of those events. That assertion was simply absurd.

I originally joined this debate because I do not believe that all media is liberally biased. I do not see a vast conspiracy out there. What I see are journalists who are trying to sell themselves and to do so they are trying to come up with some sort of sensationalism. It really is quite capitalist if you think about it, but I digress.

And please do not think that I in any way refer to foriegn journalists. They have their own agenda and are clearly biased in their reporting.

I refuse to sucumb to the paranoia I saw in the initial posts on this subject, which would make Spiro T. Agnew proud:-)

[Glenn X]

Originally posted by The Codeman

if all you watch is FOX news, you are no more getting the whole story than the Iraqi's.

:laugh:

You think that FNC is the same as Iraqi state-run, Saddam Hussein-owned (or is that OWNT? ) television, Code?

You're a funny man, sir. You oughta try standup comedy.

Originally posted by joe

I do not believe that all media is liberally biased. I do not see a vast conspiracy out there.

As I've previously said to Code, there is no conspiracy to slant the news to the left, joe. Why? Because it's not necessary. Certain types of jobs naturally tend to attract certain types of people. For example, the military and law enforcement tend to attract those interested in upholding and protecting the status quo, which is a conservative impulse. On the other hand, journalism tends to attract those who want to change the world and, in the process, challenge the status quo, which is a liberal impulse.

ABC News' Peter Jennings made this clear when he was quoted by the Boston Globe in July of 2001 as saying, "Those of us who went into journalism in the '50s or '60s, it was sort of a liberal thing to do. Save the world." While Jennings is dead on, the fact is that the vast majority of people going into journalism today are still doing so to "save the world." And at journalism schools and in newsrooms across this country, saving the world typically amounts to viewing "everybody to the right of Lenin [as] a 'right-winger,'" as Bernard Goldberg jokingly puts it in his provocative and insightful exposé, Bias. Jennings, who has frequently denied the existence of a liberal tilt to the media, then conceded to the Globe that "Conservative voices in the U.S. have not been as present as they might have been and should have been in the media."