Why are casualties the only story?

[Yonivore]

Thomas Sowell (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20050125.shtml) has an excellent column on the subject of media bias as it relates to the Iraq war:

If a battle ends with Americans killing a hundred guerrillas and terrorists, while sustaining 10 fatalities, that is an American victory. But not in the mainstream media. The headline is more likely to read: "Ten More Americans Killed in Iraq."

This kind of journalism can turn victory into defeat. Kept up long enough, it can even end up with real defeat, when support for the war collapses at home and abroad.

One of the biggest American victories during World War II was called "the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot" because American fighter pilots shot down more than 340 Japanese planes over the Mariana Islands while losing just 30 American planes. But what if our current reporting practices had been used back then? The story, as printed and broadcast, could have been: "Today, 18 American pilots were killed and five more severely wounded as the Japanese blasted more than two dozen American planes out of the sky." A steady diet of that kind of one-sided reporting and our whole war effort against Japan might have collapsed.

Whether the one-sided reporting of the war in Vietnam was a factor in the American defeat there used to be a matter of controversy. But in recent years, high officials of the Communist government of Vietnam have admitted that they lost the war on the battlefields but won it in the U.S. media and on the streets of America, where political pressures from the anti-war movement threw away the victory for which thousands of American lives had been sacrificed.

Too many in the media today regard the reporting of the Vietnam War as one of their greatest triumphs. It certainly showed the power of the media - but also its irresponsibility. Some in the media today seem determined to recapture those glory days by the way they report on events in the Iraq war.
Sowell is right, but he leaves one important issue unaddressed. Why is it that the mainstream media can justify their relentless negativity and their single-minded focus on American casualties? After all, journalists are well aware that terrorists are being killed too, and that much progress is being made on various fronts.

But these things do not deter the legacy media, for a very simple reason: with very few exceptions, they do not respect the mission in Iraq. They take it as an article of faith that the war was a mistake; that the purported absence of WMDs in Iraq (not true, but close enough for the purpose) means that there can be no good justification for the conflict; and that all casualties are, therefore, a waste.

If you really believe that the Iraq war is being fought for nothing, and is not an integral part of the war on terror, then this logic is compelling. There is nothing to report but mounting casualties. Defeating the enemy is immaterial--indeed, in many quarters it is an article of faith that our presence in Iraq creates enemies rather than destroying them--and any progress being made in rebuilding infrastructure, opening schools, etc., is chimerical. I think that helps to explain why most old media outlets are so oblivious to repeated complaints that they aren't telling the whole story.

Are you people ever going to get it?

[Bandit2981]

its because the media operates by a single rule, which people naturally follow...if it bleeds, it leads. once people start tuning OUT for negative, bloody, murderous, gory stories, thats when the media will change its format.

[mrblonde17]

This goes back to the late 1800s and early 1900s when yellow journalism first found its way into our homes. Papers sell better with bad news. People will buy or watch if they think it could adversely affect them. There is also the train wreck theory. We know it's ugly, but we're going to look anyway. If the media only ran "feel good" stories, consumers would eventually tune out. There's no real pressing information for them. Bad news sells.

[spurster]

We won in Vietnam? Now that's serious revivionsist history! That's exactly what I thought standing by the Vietnam Memorial in DC.

[exstatic]

I know, spurster. The US had control of Saigon, and maybe 2-3 cities. They barely dared go past the city limits at night. The rest of the country was controlled by the VC and NVA. The various Congresses and administrations were trying to fight a holding war, not a winning war, and flushing US servicemen's lives down the toilet every day. That's why we lost, not because of negative press coverage. The negative coverage was warranted by failed policies that were killing hundreds of kids a month with NO end in sight. The war wasn't lost on the homefront, it was lost in the offices at 1600 Pennsylvania avenue and the Capitol building.

[Nbadan]

But in recent years, high officials of the Communist government of Vietnam have admitted that they lost the war on the battlefields but won it in the U.S. media and on the streets of America, where political pressures from the anti-war movement threw away the victory for which thousands of American lives had been sacrificed.

Thomas Sowell should be investigated for being a payola reporter. Blaming the anti-war movement for our defeat in Vietnam is a oft used NeoCon talking point. The NeoCons in the Nixon administration, Cheney, Piper, and others felt betrayed when Kissinger and Nixon negotiated a withdrawl of U.S. troops from the peninsula. These wacko's wanted us to stay in Vietnam using much the same party propaganda and faulty logic they are now using to justify us staying in Iraq, and ironicly, or not, for many of the same reasons.



The war wasn't lost on the homefront, it was lost in the offices at 1600 Pennsylvania avenue and the Capitol building.

Bing! Bing!

Of course, you'll never get a politician then or now to admit it.

[exstatic]

These wacko's wanted us to stay in Vietnam using much the same party propaganda and faulty logic they are now using to justify us staying in Iraq, and ironicly, or not, for many of the same reasons.
We will not be out of Iraq before the end of Bush's second term. Book it. The Neocons have WAY too much invested in Halliburton projects to let happen what will eventually happen: the fall of the puppet government. The good news for many of us is that this will cost the GOP the '08 election. The bad news is that the dyin' ain't over yet for our boys.

[Nbadan]

The Neocons have WAY too much invested in Halliburton projects to let happen what will eventually happen: the fall of the puppet government. The good news for many of us is that this will cost the GOP the '08 election. The bad news is that the dyin' ain't over yet for our boys.

I guess you could say we lost the war of Iraqi hearts and minds the moment the Abu Gharib pictures surfaced, and the destruction of Fallujah just sealed the deal, but that isn't the way the Neocons, or there elk like Sean Hannity see it. They will blame liberals like Kennedy, the anti-war movement, France, Michael Moore, and Dan Rather before they ever do any real introspection on their own failed policies - the real reasons for our defeat in Vietnam, and, hopefully sooner rather than later, in Iraq.

[Yonivore]

I know, spurster. The US had control of Saigon, and maybe 2-3 cities. They barely dared go past the city limits at night. The rest of the country was controlled by the VC and NVA. The various Congresses and administrations were trying to fight a holding war, not a winning war, and flushing US servicemen's lives down the toilet every day. That's why we lost, not because of negative press coverage. The negative coverage was warranted by failed policies that were killing hundreds of kids a month with NO end in sight. The war wasn't lost on the homefront, it was lost in the offices at 1600 Pennsylvania avenue and the Capitol building.
I guess you guys know better than the North Vietnamese.

We will not be out of Iraq before the end of Bush's second term. Book it. The Neocons have WAY too much invested in Halliburton projects to let happen what will eventually happen: the fall of the puppet government. The good news for many of us is that this will cost the GOP the '08 election. The bad news is that the dyin' ain't over yet for our boys.
Qualify your comment. Because, well, we're not out of Germany yet either and that war took place over a half century ago.

Are we going to be in combat, in Iraq, at the end of President Bush's second term?

[JohnnyMarzetti]

I hope not but with Dubya we can never tell.
Yonivore you are such an idiot.
Having military bases in other countries doesn't mean we are occupiers of those countries.

[Yonivore]

Having military bases in other countries doesn't mean we are occupiers of those countries.
Thanks for making my point. We started out as an occupying force in Germany and just stayed on.

[dcole50]

Vietnam is the media's fault?

Sorry, I'm not buying it.

[Yonivore]

Vietnam is the media's fault?

Sorry, I'm not buying it.
An agendized left with a complicit media and a weak administration...

We had the military might to win. But, with a demoralized force (thanks to "baby-killer" epithets and such) and fickle politicians (thanks to a vociferous anti-war movement), the war was lost over here...not there. There isn't a single military battle won by the NVA. Not one.

[JoeChalupa]

Why is the election the only story?

[violentkitten]

funny how herr yonivore is quick to fault previous administrations for mistakes in using american force yet cannot bring himself to do the same with the current administration.

my God we went into iraq because saddam had wmds and now were supposed to think its a success because the iraqis had an election. bullshit.

[Yonivore]

funny how herr yonivore is quick to fault previous administrations for mistakes in using american force yet cannot bring himself to do the same with the current administration.

my God we went into iraq because saddam had wmds and now were supposed to think its a success because the iraqis had an election. bullshit.
Because I believe the current administration had used military force appropriately.

[CommanderMcBragg]

Because I believe the current administration had used military force appropriately.

Military force is military force.

[violentkitten]

uh war based on a mistake is not appropriate

[CommanderMcBragg]

uh war based on a mistake is not appropriate

The biggest mistake is people actually re-elected Bush.

[Yonivore]

The biggest mistake is people actually re-elected Bush.
10 million -- okay, 8 million Iraqis disagree with you. Do you think they'd of had elections this weekend if John Kerry were president? Doubtful.

uh war based on a mistake is not appropriate
What mistake would that be?

Military force is military force.
A diplomatic tool.

[dcole50]

10 million -- okay, 8 million Iraqis disagree with you. Do you think they'd of had elections this weekend if John Kerry were president? Doubtful.

well, as long as the iraqis like the president of the united states then i'm happy.

[violentkitten]

oh gee i dont know how about the presence of any wmd program whatsoever? fuck man bush sold us a lie and you swallowed

[Yonivore]

oh gee i dont know how about the presence of any wmd program whatsoever? fuck man bush sold us a lie and you swallowed
What lie?

[dcole50]

he's referring to the wmd's in iraq.

[violentkitten]

can't you read you gotdam juco graduate?


presence of any wmd program

[CommanderMcBragg]

Yonivore should of spit instead of swallow.

[Yonivore]

can't you read you gotdam juco graduate?
Well, except the David Kay report enumerated many pieces of evidence that pointed to the existence of ongoing WMD programs.

Here's a question I've yet to hear anyone answer: Just where did the WMD's Saddam was known to have in 1998 -- repeat, known to have -- that were never accounted for to the UN inspectors before they left Iraq?

Where'd they go?

[violentkitten]

bush said he knew dingleberry. he said it was there and then, it wasnt. now were supposed to think the election makes everything ok?

[Yonivore]

bush said he knew dingleberry. he said it was there and then, it wasnt. now were supposed to think the election makes everything ok?
Will violentkitten be the poster to answer the 80 billion dollar question? Apparently not.

Just where were did the WMD's, he was known to have at the time inspectors left Iraq, go?

[violentkitten]

bush said he knew. you dont make definitive statements like that without the evidence to back it up

[Yonivore]

bush said he knew. you dont make definitive statements like that without the evidence to back it up
Well, gee, since neither the President nor Secretary Powell were in control of the weapons they knew existed, at the time they made the statement, it's entirely possible (as was speculated by David Kay, in a very reasonable supposition in his report) they were 1) moved out of Iraq, 2) destroyed, or 3) hidden in Iraq after the evidence/intelligence showing their existence was collected and before the invasion. But, since Saddam Hussein continued to violate the resolutions requiring him to account for them -- there's just no way to know, is there?

So, you tell me, where'd the weapons we ALL know existed in 1998 that were never accounted for?

[violentkitten]

bush said he knew and you just said that he didnt. thank you.

[Yonivore]

bush said he knew and you just said that he didnt. thank you.
At the time he said it, I believe he knew. I guess you've never been able to grasp the concept of dynamics. Your would must be static...where nothing ever changes. Where something said today can be factual only to be made false by the actions of another tomorrow.

Nice world you live in. So, I guess you're not going to tell me where you think the WMD's Clinton said he had in 1998 went, are you?

[violentkitten]

oh so he forgot? man as much resources as this country devotes to intel you would think that wouldnt be a problem

[Yonivore]

oh so he forgot? man as much resources as this country devotes to intel you would think that wouldnt be a problem
So, you're not going to answer the question? I'll take that as an "I don't know." And, since you don't know where the fucking WMD's went, I'm comfortable with sending military inspectors in to look for them.

[CommanderMcBragg]

So, you're not going to answer the question? I'll take that as an "I don't know." And, since you don't know where the fucking WMD's went, I'm comfortable with sending military inspectors in to look for them.

Isn't that what the UN was doing?

[violentkitten]

So, you're not going to answer the question? I'll take that as an "I don't know." And, since you don't know where the fucking WMD's went, I'm comfortable with sending military inspectors in to look for them.


hahahaha. bush said he knew. i dont have to prove anything. in case you havent been paying attention he gave up trying to vindicate his mistake

[Yonivore]

Isn't that what the UN was doing?
Not very effectively and, you'll recall, they left Iraq in 1998 when there were still known stockpiles of WMD's yet to be destroyed.

[Yonivore]

hahahaha. bush said he knew. i dont have to prove anything. in case you havent been paying attention he gave up trying to vindicate his mistake
Hell, everybody knew. The question seems to be, where'd they go?

Now, if you can prove they were destroyed between the time they were last known to exist in 1998 and when the President made his statement, then you'd have an argument. But, you can't...and Saddam Hussein never claimed to have destroyed them.

[violentkitten]

bush said they were there real time.

[NameDropper]

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraqi regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
- George W. Bush

[Yonivore]

bush said they were there real time.
Jeeze...you're stupid. Join Nbadanallah.

If I said there's a red Toyota sitting outside my window right now, come look; and when you got here it was gone -- does that mean it wasn't there when I was looking at it out my window?

I'm through with you.

[Yonivore]

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraqi regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
- George W. Bush
What's the date on that quote NameDropper?

[violentkitten]

ok im stupid because bush said he knew that hussein had the weaponry because he had current evidence that hussein did and that turned out to be wrong?

no surprise you cant continue your argument because you have none. game over, bitch.

[violentkitten]

its easy to see why bush won when he has lap dogs like yonivore gullible enough to believe anything