Curious War Coverage
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
You have a lot of contempt for the public...a syndrome you usually ascribe to the Bush administration.