Hide Comments
Interesting comment, because in a different thread a member of your amen chorus bemoaned the lack of bloody photos of what the insurgents are doing.
And then, of course, when any civilian ventures to make a comment about the war the inevitable response is, "You can't possibly know what it's like." This is true if no one will show us what it is like.
So, which is it? Do you want the media to cover the unpleasant realities of war or do you want the media to refrain from doing so? Or, like idelogues everywhere, would you rather simply talk out of all eight sides of your mouth on that and other issues, and denounce as unpatriotic anyone who should happen to notice your hypocrisy?
Just wonderin'
Posted by WW at June 5, 2006 08:15 PM
Dear WW,
Hmmmm, looks like somebody snagged a "Kos Kitchen Pass."
I think you're conveniently overlooking something: for many in the MSM, the war in Iraq is not about Americans and, sure as hell, not about Iraqis. Nope, it's all about THEM and THEIR needs.
Capisce, paisan?
Posted by Mark at June 5, 2006 08:27 PM
I'm confused. Are you saying a "member of your amen chorus", a straw man, and I must all three agree or else I'm a hypocrite?
Posted by Greyhawk at June 5, 2006 08:29 PM
"Just wonderin'" above didn't read the post, did he? Well, I'll help him a bit; here's what he missed - a member of the press was quoted, bemoaning the fact that he might have to cover stuff that wasn't "fun" (hint - you have to read to the end to get to the "fun" comment), and made it fairly clear that "fun" included photos of dead Americans. Call it unpatriotic, or call it despicable; there's little difference in his case. He wasn't bemoaning a lack of photos of dead Iraqis. There are plenty of those, thanks to the "Allahu akbar" crowd. There will be more, and, if those who think that cut-'n-run is a clever solution for everything happen to get their way, there will be a lot more.
Posted by tom swift at June 5, 2006 08:33 PM
i'm assuming that input from "ww" was a moonbat parody, right? if not, what a delicious example of wilful ignorance: spinning the MSM's soft-focus gloss on terrorist behavior as just their heroic effort to spare us from the ugliness of war and its pornographic compunction to exhibit US servicemen's pain as just 'telling us how it is.' Is that it, ww? incredible.
"Some people don't have access to the major papers, but I think that if Americans are serious about wanting to know what is going on there, they can find out."
- hah. now that was good one.
Posted by ex-democrat at June 5, 2006 08:35 PM
Come on, Mark. Iraq sucks. Everyone who goes there says so. Why shouldn't a reporter be able to say the place bites the big one, too? If anything, it's going to generate more sympathy for the troops in that reporter's mind. Geez.
Greyhawk, the so-called Milbloggers are forever getting their panties in a knot over the media. So are the lefties, by the way.
If they file pictures 'n stories about the insurgency's violence against civilians and/or U.S. troops, then the wingnuts accuse 'em of focusing on the bad news and even disrespecting American troops by showing them dead. If they don't file those stories, then the wingnuts accuse 'em of ignoring the atrocities committed by the terrorists, and the military nutscratchers say no one can ever understand what it's like so shut up why don't you.
If the media goes an interviews a dead marine's crying wife, they're exploiting the grief for profit. If they don't do it, they're ignoring the pain felt by the families. The only thing that would satisfy you is a propaganda channel. Well guess what? You have one. It's called Fox News. So what are you bitching about?
Posted by WW at June 5, 2006 08:41 PM
Oh, and if the media file pictures 'n stories about the insurgency's violence, and show that crying marine's wife, the lefties will think it's all part of the propaganda drumbeat on behalf of the Liar-in-Chief. If they don't do it, the lefties will say the media are trying to sanitize the war.
My complaint with the media is different than that stuff. I think they've become slaves to unrealistically high profit margins and as a result they've cut back their spending on reporting. Because of all that, they do the easy stories. They're not well enough staffed to do the hard ones.
I also blame the public, which is lazy, easily distracted, irresponsible and selfish. And then we have the ideologues on both sides, who resolutely refuse to look facts in the eye until someone gives them permission. In the case of the so-called Milblogs, that someone being the White House and its propaganda arm, Fox News.
And don't start thinking I'm some fan of the NY Times or Washington Post. They're just as gulty as Fox News of rubber stamping the Liar-in-Chief's press releases, especially in the runup to the war. We've been ill-served by all kinds of institutions.
Posted by WW at June 5, 2006 08:49 PM
Yes, people have different opinions. But I want you to explain how unless people agree with people they disagree with they are hypocrites, per your first comment.
Posted by Greyhawk at June 5, 2006 08:58 PM
"There are so many troops and so few press. You have a very small chance of witnessing a death..."
Let's try a more accurate version of that statement:
"There are so many troops and so few deaths. You have a very small chance of witnessing a death."
Posted by Martin L. Shoemaker at June 5, 2006 09:03 PM
Martin,
"Bingo" as they say.
Posted by Greyhawk at June 5, 2006 09:23 PM
Notice that in complaining about this issue, the NYT invokes the Tet Offensive, citing it as "the bloody yardstick". That's no coincidence. The Tet Offensive was a victory for U.S. forces, but journalists used "photos showing dozens of dead American soldiers stacked like cordwood" to convince the American people that it was a defeat, undercutting civilian support for the war effort and ensuring that the U.S. would lose the war.
The news media remember this, and they want to do it again. The NYT is openly saying so. But the U.S. armed forces also remember, and they are not going to allow it this time.
Posted by Pat at June 5, 2006 09:39 PM
Skulls Before Cities, The Belmont Club's take on this.
Posted by Cannoneer No. 4 at June 5, 2006 09:44 PM
I think the NYTimes is most interested in seeing...
MORE (pronounced Mhore)
American bodies.
Posted by DANEgerus at June 5, 2006 10:34 PM
Thank you for bringing this to our attention Greyhawk.
I don't think the issue is to show or not to show photos of dead Americans. The issue is the cynicism and callousness shown by Mr's Hondros and Carr in this article.
Carr actually attempts to equate movie violence to real people being killed.
There are certainly times when showing the horrors of war in a way only photographs can depict are appropriate. Photo journalists who take such photos have a sacred responsibility to the dead and their surviving families to be sure they are viewed in context and not shown simply to exploit the death/s of heroes.
Posted by The Ugly American at June 5, 2006 11:59 PM
Americans were once known as the 'Ugly Americans', now about 45% (the left wing) are known as the 'Cowardly Americans'. Why would any country want to pardner with the U.S. in the future since they would be allied with cowards? This will come back to bite the left wing dim-wits one of these days.
Posted by Scrapiron at June 6, 2006 02:40 AM
Martin has it right.
2500 deaths over 3 years, a million troops cycled in and out of Iraq over that period. Odds are a journalist could be there for 6 months and not see an American killed. I bet they see plenty of people killed by the Insurgents. Of course, that is not the story they are pushing.
Posted by James Stephenson at June 6, 2006 10:42 AM
I think it's pretty clear that the NYT wants to show more dead Americans so that we'll become disenchanted enough to pull out the troops. They want to demoralize us.
During WWII FDR forbade news organizations from showing dead Americans. Was that because he didn't want us to know the truth? Uh, no. It was because he knew the effect it would have on people.
Posted by Tom the Redhunter at June 6, 2006 12:19 PM
WW,
Your sneering tone makes it harder for people to listen to you. That's a hint from a lesson I still haven't fully learned.
It's always better to present your case as graciously as possible. If you asked your questions differently, you might get more thoughtful responses.
Posted by Trevor at June 6, 2006 12:28 PM
WW,
This is just an FYI, but using phrases like liar-in-chief don't show how smart you are or make people cringe at how 'devastating' an insult that is. It's actually a pretty sophomorish phrase that most 3rd graders could come up with.
It actually detracts from anything substantial you might have to say because it says you're more interested in being seen as clever and witty than you are interested in having your views discussed.
Oh, and seriously, from the way your posts read, I could walk into a room your in, say the words 'fox news' and you're head would explode.
Get a grip man.
Posted by Tigger at June 6, 2006 01:00 PM
Perhaps we need more photos of dead reporters?
Posted by dali root at June 6, 2006 05:25 PM
Journalist are an odd lot as are photographers. If journalist were as intent on listening as they were on tweeking their prose to impress their bosses with their writing skills they might come closer to the truth in their stories.
Many photographers have a rule "keep shooting whatever the case". There are stories of some photographers laying down their cameras to help victims or people in imminent peril. They have recieved praise from some but also criticism from others in their profession.
I was involved in emergency services for over 20 years and responded to some gruesome incidents. We regularly cordoned off the scene when removing the severely injured and dead. We had a close working relation with the local press and they often photographed the scene but this was more for the accident reconstruction and/or the coroner investigation. I don't know of any of those photo ever making it into the newspaper. But more than anything, the scene was cordoned off out of respect for the dead and injured. Such a traumatic event shouldn't be for public display. Be it in your home town or a war.
My feeling is that the soldiers are responding in a similar way. The dead and injured are their friends and you're not going to let your friend's fate end up as a pulitzer prize nomination.
I would suppose that the quality of professional of the photographers working in Iraq and afghanistan runs the gauntlet. One thing the soldiers and marines might do is query them on whether they intend to keep shooting regardless of what happens. If the answer is yes then they should be informed that the soldiers intend to do the same thing. If the photographer goes down, the soldiers will keep shooting too(at the enemy) and the photographer will be left to his own devices.
Posted by Tbird at June 6, 2006 07:42 PM
I like Tbird's idea above all. The operative phrase here should be "don't bite the hand that feeds (or protects) you."
Subsunk
Posted by Subsunk at June 6, 2006 08:32 PM
There are certainly times when showing the horrors of war in a way only photographs can depict are appropriate. Photo journalists who take such photos have a sacred responsibility to the dead and their surviving families to be sure they are viewed in context and not shown simply to exploit the death/s of heroes.
Translation: Clear it with the Ministry of Propaganda first.
Posted by WW at June 6, 2006 10:37 PM
It's always better to present your case as graciously as possible. If you asked your questions differently, you might get more thoughtful responses.
I don't think so, Trevor. The so-called Milblogosphere exists almost exclusively as a megaphone for the far right wing of the Republican Party. Military issues are just the vehicle du jour, and often not even that, as illustrated by the milbloggers' near total silence on the failings of veterans health care, the cuts in veterans benefits and the Liar-in-Chief's never having attended a single military funeral.
Not to mention the wasting of nearly 2,500 military lives in a war started on a lie and mismanaged from the get-go. Nope, can't talk about any of that, but the milbloggers can go on and on and on and on and on about 19 deaths in Somalia.
You see, it's not about the lives or about competence or even about U.S. victory. For you and your kind, it's entirely about the partisan identification of the commander-in-chief. If it's a Republican, you're willing to fight to the last drop of someone else's blood to cover up his incomptence.
Posted by WW at June 6, 2006 10:42 PM
WW,
They have medications that can stop those voices in your head bro.
Posted by rick at June 6, 2006 11:02 PM
Yes, I'm sure, but I think in my case I will need to anti-medication medication. Faux News has polluted the air and our precious bodily fluids. ;-)
Posted by WW at June 7, 2006 03:11 AM
WW,
Fair enough bro. Glad to see ya have a sense of humor.
Posted by rick at June 7, 2006 03:14 PM
In an above comment, Trevor says to Willy
Your sneering tone makes it harder for people to listen to you. That's a hint from a lesson I still haven't fully learned.
It's always better to present your case as graciously as possible. If you asked your questions differently, you might get more thoughtful responses.
To which Willy responds:
I don't think so, Trevor. The so-called Milblogosphere exists almost exclusively as a megaphone for the far right wing of the Republican Party...
You see, it's not about the lives or about competence or even about U.S. victory. For you and your kind, it's entirely about the partisan identification of the commander-in-chief. If it's a Republican, you're willing to fight to the last drop of someone else's blood to cover up his incomptence.
Of course, Trevor is an American soldier currently serving in Iraq. But that's the danger you run pretending this or any other milblog is a political site, and insulting commenters here accordingly. The Party talking points you cut and paste into a response wind up making you look very foolish (at best).
Posted by Greyhawk at June 9, 2006 10:07 AM
Hide Comments |
Show/Add Comments in Popup Window(28) | (
Note: You must refresh main page to view newly posted comments here)
