Prev | List | Random | Next
One of the benefits the press gains from ignoring violence in Iraq for a few weeks is the opportunity to run headlines like this one in the NY Times:
BAGHDAD, Iraq, April 15 -A suicide bomber steered his car into an Iraqi police patrol south of Baghdad late Thursday night, killing four officers, and three bomb attacks in the capital wounded at least nine people on Friday, Iraqi officials said.True, as long as we ignore the various suicide attacks on US positions and numerous bomb attacks throughout the country.
The attacks followed two deadly car bombings in the capital on Thursday morning, and extended the recent surge of violence that ended two months of relative calm after the January elections.
Update: Et tu, Philly?
BAGHDAD - Sunni insurgents took at least 60 people hostage in an Iraqi town near Baghdad yesterday and threatened to kill them unless Shiites left the area, a Shiite official quoted residents as saying.
The hostage-taking and three successive days of bombings that killed at least 34 people suggested that insurgents had regrouped after a lull in violence since Jan. 30 elections.
Last week I asked What if they had a Tet offensive and nobody came? Perhaps now I could rephrase to what if they had a Tet offensive and everybody arrived just a little late?
What's surged is the "reporting" of Iraqi deaths.
Johhny Jihad has also changed tactics to double IED's and double suicide bombers in order to get those headlines.
"Johhny Jihad has also changed tactics to double IED's and double suicide bombers in order to get those headlines."
Correct. And why wouldn't 'he'? They know that the MSM will play right along and give them the headlines they are looking for. Where is the sense of responsibility in the media? How many deaths are they indirectly responsible for by assisting the islamofascists? Until their top priority changes from "getting Bush at all costs", more of the same will continue to happen.Posted by Buckley F. Williams at April 16, 2005 01:42 PM
Since 9/11, the US has successfully fought:
-a special ops war in Afghanistan
-a conventional war in Iraq
and an insurgency in Iraq (partially successful)
The biggest challange has been fighting these wars with a hostile internaional media. I would be interestd in reading reports on how both Israel and the US plan to deal with this problem of winning the information war.
The insurgents know who to play the international media in Baghdad, but I sense the media is very willing to play along.
The US media is aligned with the leftist international media but needs to pretend it's for the troops for ts domestic audience which consists of many moderate and conservative Americans.
This conflict could be seen in the coverage of the Fallujah marine incident where the American media joined the internationa media in constantly and gleefully broadcasting this minor incident, in context of the entire battle of Falllujah, but then suddently pulled back. I sense they realized they had, once again, gone too far.
The US is winning all its wars except the information wars. I'm anxious to see if the US has a strategy to turn this around or if this is seen as mission impossible.Posted by kate at April 16, 2005 02:52 PM
Can't you see how illogical this post when compared with your previous comments. You basically chided the media in the past for dwelling "too much" on negative news coming out of Iraq.
Now, you accuse them of ignoring the "bad news" (ie. suicide bombings, IED attacks).Posted by IRR Soldier... at April 16, 2005 03:14 PM
I accuse them of shaping the news. It's not the report itself I have issues with, it's the characterization of violence swelling after a long lull. My position may seem illogical to you if you are incorrect about my fundamental stand on the issue. Short version: The public - or that percentage who actually care - deserve facts from which they can draw their own conclusions.
In other posts I've also noted those who do a good job of reporting facts from Iraq. This isn't inconsistent with saying today's Times coverage is flawed. I am guilty of all to often using "the media" as shorthand for certain members of that group - a point I acknowledged in an earlier post this week. To clarify, the topic of this post is today's NY Times. Meanwhile, the Inquirer - a paper that does an overall excellent job of covering the conflict - takes the same approach. I alluded to that with a Shakespeare quote in the update.
Does it matter? Yes - watch as other media outlets follow the Times lead, even if they've been dilligently reporting the ongoing violence in Iraq over the weeks since the election. The story line will be that this violence is "fresh". The only "fresh" aspect of any violence in Iraq are the suicide attacks on US installations - a point the Times and virtually all other media outlets seem to be ignoring.
Could they be waiting for an attack that results in US deaths? Will we get "increasingly bold and successful" insurgency stories if that happens? I think we all know the answer to that.
Straight reporting of good or bad news would be fine with me. If journalists have any responsibility whatsoever it's that. I'm repeating myself here, but see my coverage of the soldiers who forced an Iraqi citizen into the river, or of Tim Site's reporting on the Marine shooting in Fallujah. Not popular with a lot of Mudville readers, but consistent.Posted by Greyhawk at April 16, 2005 04:00 PM
... or what if they gave a Tet Offensive and all the bad guys were killed before they could get to the staging areas or crossed the wire?
Face it, the NYT still has hope.....that we will loose.Posted by CDR Salamander at April 16, 2005 04:01 PM Hide Comments | Show/Add Comments in Popup Window(6) | (Note: You must refresh main page to view newly posted comments here)