Curious War Coverage

enaena
Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
This war coverage has been curious. With all the time to do filler stories between correspondent updates, the only thing that we seem to see are stories about our casualties, tragedies like this roadblock incident, the discord in our chain of command, and the "tenuous" nature of our supply lines.



WITHOUT going into the pros/cons of the war, why are we not seeing articles on the progress we have made, a few gratuitously "patriotic" stories, in depth profiles of the Kurds, interviews of Iraqis here in the U.S. that can tell us from first hand experience what the nature of Iraq is? I turn on CNN or NPR and all I'm hearing/seeing is how poorly we have fared in this war. We don't hear the stories of dead marines hung in the town square or women hung for waving a collation forces, we hear how Rumsfeld is an impossible to deal with, etc., etc. Empirically speaking, this is was is going very well, and as wars go, not much to write home about (barring any use of WMD.)



Am I dreaming or is this negativity clouding our ability to get the news of who we are fighting and how things are going?

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 5
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    you just have to know where to look. Mainstream media is going to give joe/jane six-pack what they want to hear so they can keep their ratings up. Middle america can't put specifics in context. They don't want the complexities. They just want to be able to go to sleep at night thinking that they understand and that their view and what they support is benefiting the world, be they pro- or anti-peace.



    The last thing networks want to do is look like they are 'anti-american' or unsupportive of our troops. If there was too much focus on civilian casualties, this criticism might be dircted at them.
  • Reply 2 of 5
    1337_5l4xx0r1337_5l4xx0r Posts: 1,558member
    Quote:

    We don't hear the stories of dead marines hung in the town square or women hung for waving a collation forces



    Uhhhh....



    How did you hear about this?







    I think the pro-war side would like to see far more troops in the region, greatly reducing the risk/vulnerability of the troops that are already there.



    The anti-war side would... well... that's obvious.



    Rumsfeld has all the warmth and colour of an iceberg. He is, as they say, a Media Darling.



    edit: as an aside, I find it deeply satisfying to see a hawk get torn apart by the media vultures.
  • Reply 3 of 5
    enaena Posts: 667member
    good points....





    but.....





    I think "the Media" (all generalizations are wrong, even this one) have monopoly information power. Saying that the networks are market driven is a bit like saying that Microsoft is market driven. "The Media" are capable of pulling sensory depravation on us when they want to: the only bad publicity is NO publicity.
  • Reply 4 of 5
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    The media is always just playing the "gotcha" angle. Not much more too it than that.
  • Reply 5 of 5
    mrmistermrmister Posts: 1,095member
    "you just have to know where to look. Mainstream media is going to give joe/jane six-pack what they want to hear so they can keep their ratings up. Middle america can't put specifics in context. They don't want the complexities. They just want to be able to go to sleep at night thinking that they understand and that their view and what they support is benefiting the world, be they pro- or anti-peace."



    You have a lot of contempt for the public...a syndrome you usually ascribe to the Bush administration.
Sign In or Register to comment.