Media's Coverage Has Distorted World's View of Iraqi Reality

[Flash]

I have to ask an obvious question, did anyone stop to consider the source of the article? A US Army Battalion CO is not a disinterested observer of the war, he has a direct investment in the outcome and how he thinks it should come across. It also doesn't hurt his career to publish this article, it makes him look good. The media, with the notable excepton of Al Jazeera, has no vested interest in the outcome. Do you really think that a majority, or een a significant minority of the press really want the US to fail in Iraq? A lot of the media might be liberal but I seriously doubt they want the US to lose.

As for the 'liberal' media, I read the Washington Post every day (my hometown paper) and have seen plenty of articles on civil affair and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe if people actually opened up the paper and read some of the articles instead of just glancing at the front page they would see this. Should the media act a cheerleader for the US anyways? What about just reporting the news?

As for WMDs... do you have the security clearance to know for a fact that Saddam never had any?

I hate to be rude, but do you?

But I do think that there are people who have access to information that would probably scare the crap out of you if you actually knew 10% of what they know.

You are going on assumptions, don't. The Intelligence Community as a whole screwed that one up. And yes, I read stuff every day that makes me cringe. A lot of it is not scary but just depressing, not many bright spots in Iraq.

Did you know that Saddam and Al Queda did have contact prior to Saddam’s removal?

It was very low level and it never amounted to anything, basically feelers. Did you know that Osama bin Laden hated Hussein? Pretty convenient we haven't heard that too often, even in the 'liberal' media.

 

[VarmintShooter]

Do you really think that a majority, or een a significant minority of the press really want the US to fail in Iraq? A lot of the media might be liberal but I seriously doubt they want the US to lose.

I seriously think that the majority of the media would love for Bush to look bad. I doubt that the media would mind if we failed over there, after all, what would be the mechanics of a failure? Bush having to leave without finishing the job. There is no chance that we will be defeated by being driven from the country by militants, but politically we could be manipulated to leave ... I think the media would love that, and I think that would be us losing the war. Do I think that the media wants Americans to die? No.

As for the 'liberal' media, I read the Washington Post every day (my hometown paper) and have seen plenty of articles on civil affair and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe if people actually opened up the paper and read some of the articles instead of just glancing at the front page they would see this. Should the media act a cheerleader for the US anyways? What about just reporting the news?

But massive headlines of US soldiers killed and a page 7 blurb about the good we are doing are not equal coverage of the news, right?

Cheerleader, no. Unbiased (fair and balanced? just kidding)? I'd like to see it. Deliberately reporting on the negative while downplaying the positive in order to sway public opinion? Not good.

 

[akamifeldman]

Lots of good posts here everyone, sorry I don't have much time to post a point-by-point reply to everything. I don't want to re-argue the Iraq War (we've done it so many times), but I will say that I agree completely with Alex and Flash's posts.

A4sForever: I choose not to put personal information on a public website. I do not post gouge, nor am I in a position to do so...yet (get it now?). I simply exchange ideas on this site, and for that matter it should be of no importance what my (or your) background is. You've "been there and done that," and I thank you for your service to our country. Leave it at that.

 

[A4sForever]

A4sForever: I choose not to put personal information on a public website. I do not post gouge, nor am I in a position to do so...yet (get it now?). I simply exchange ideas on this site, and for that matter it should be of no importance what my (or your) background is. You've "been there and done that," and I thank you for your service to our country. Leave it at that.

O.K. .... that's your call. Biographical information next to your post makes it helpful to know who I/we are talking to/dealing with ... and no one on this site wants any of your "personal" information, so that is a fake rationale on your part and is a non-starter. I put "non-personal" bio info next to my posts merely to establish a starting point. You make or break your own reputation after that, based on your input(s). Your "profile" merely helps share a little background info and engenders mutual respect --- based on one's accomplishment or achievements. It doesn't help me or anyone else get into your bank account. But it does have a way of "weeding out the phonies" and agenda-driven idealogues ... would you not agree ???

Anyone and everyone can have an opinion ... the only question is: is said opinion based on ignorance, and agenda, or intellect --- and is it worth considering, as a result? But then, I'm not really telling you something you don't already know, am I ???

It's all up to you, but with your attitude, no one here REALLY cares much about your inputs ..... ALOHA :magnify_1

 

[akamifeldman]

I choose not to put personal information on a public website.

Leave it at that.

 

[vegita1220]

He means he wants to remain anonymous when he's posting liberal viewpoints of a HS kid(did you graduate yet) on a public website populated in part by psychotic military types(ahem...Marines) who might not like what he has to say...

Just messing with ya'll.

 

[akamifeldman]

did you graduate yet

Nope, not yet. Five MORE months! June, here I come!

Was there a thread/discussion in here originally, or was it just me?

Oh -- right.

 

[beau]

I think a lot of our public education systems are worse than the media......personal opinion. I always hated in HS when I was the only one of two people in my honors english class to argue against the status quo of touchy feely (feel good opinions). Issues like gun control, sexual harassment, women in the military.......didnt help me get laid in HS from those uber hippy types, but that was a personal problem!

 

[Fly Navy]

I think a lot of our public education systems are worse than the media......personal opinion. I always hated in HS when I was the only one of two people in my honors english class to argue against the status quo of touchy feely (feel good opinions). Issues like gun control, sexual harassment, women in the military.......didnt help me get laid in HS from those uber hippy types, but that was a personal problem!

That's ok, we spent 3 months talking about the Civili Rights movement in my US History class and 2 days talking about World War II. Now, don't get me wrong, the Civil Rights movement was important and is responsible for shaping a lot of this country, but I'd wager that World War FREAKING 2 had MUCH more of an influence over how this country developed, with technology, world power, economy, turning over to the Cold War, etc. That pissed me off to no end.

 

[akamifeldman]

So why is it then that a large proportion of teachers/educators/professors are liberal? (really, what do you guys think?)

 

[akamifeldman]

People are liberal because they've never had a "real job."

This is the best you've come up with?

 

[Fly Navy]

So why is it then that a large proportion of teachers/educators/professors are liberal? (really, what do you guys think?)

Like Patmack said, it has a lot to do with their career track. You've heard the term "Ivory Tower of Academia" right? If you haven't, believe me, you will in college. A large segment of professors never worked in industry (we'll use industry to mean a non-academic job). A lot of them are essentially professional students. Think of a History professor. Let's say he or she went to college, loved it so much, continued to grad school, and shoot, maybe they got their doctorate too. The whole time, they've stayed in school, and now have a teaching position (obviously this is simplified). Ok, so they learned a lot about some aspect of history from reading books and researching. Yes, you can learn a lot that way. But the real world isn't always in books. To really have a grasp of reality you have to go out and experience it and see it. I think we can all agree on that. So essentially, you have a bookworm spouting his opinions and beliefs to fresh, young minds who sometimes thinks he's a god of knowledge. Combine that with ego, and you get a lot of professors who think they are infallible. I've run across them myself. Some of them will even punish you for trying to argue with them by giving you failing grades. Don't think it's real? I know people it has happened to. More often than not they'll just try to embarass you in front of class.

Teaching is a good career, a noble one, but it's not always consistent with the real world. You'll see this a lot more when you go to college.

What REALLY irks me is when a professor gets political in an engineering class. I dont' know about you, but I don't see where politics and RF theory can be related. I mean, can you tell me how the war in Afghanistan has anything to do with Laplace transforms?

 

[Red2]

I think another reason may be that people vote their interests. Why is the military predominately conservative? Conservative governments tend to spend more on the military and are more in line with their interests. Why are teachers/professors liberal? Liberal administrations tend to spend more money on public education, research grants, etc. Look at the teacher's unions, they heaviliy support liberal candidates because they believe that these candidates will best support their interests.

My experience in grad school showed me that the college split among students (at least in history)was 50/50 conservative/liberal. However, the conservative students were planning on entering a non-teaching posistion upon graduation (law, business, military :icon_smil ) while the majority of the liberal students were going on to get their PhD or were planning (or already were) elementary and secondary school teachers.

As far as the academic writings and research being slanted, I'll have to disagree. There are a great number of history books written that tend to be complimentary of conservative politics. The question is whether or not teachers choose to use liberal or conservative textbooks in their classes. The idea that "revisionist" history means "liberal" history is a misnomer. "Revisionist" simply means reevaluting the history that was written comtempory to the time. For example, a "revisionist" history of World War II that is critical of the United States would be preceived as liberal while a "revisionist" history of the New Deal may actually be conservative since it would be critical of FDR and his programs. My research into Richard Nixon was "revisionist" but was somewhat conservative since it tended to be complimentary of Nixon's foreign policy and economic achievements, while still critical of his domestic affairs. The "traditionalist" literature, written shortly after the events, tended to be liberal in nature. Of course, perceived bias in historical writings tend to be dictated by the primary sources used, the author's personal biases, and the biases of the reader.

 

[petescheu]

I can't believe you just said Laplace transforms... i thought i had heard those words for the last time many years ago... shivers up the spine...
And i dont think it's too far fetched to say that some left wingers (ie hollywood and the rest of them types) are left wingers because they simply don't live in the real world like the rest of us do... that's what Pmak was saying about "not having a real job." Basically they are just way out of touch with reality...

 

[Fly Navy]

I can't believe you just said Laplace transforms... i thought i had heard those words for the last time many years ago... shivers up the spine...

I don't think I even remember how to do them. I did a total brain dump when I graduated college.

And i dont think it's too far fetched to say that some left wingers (ie hollywood and the rest of them types) are left wingers because they simply don't live in the real world like the rest of us do... that's what Pmak was saying about "not having a real job." Basically they are just way out of touch with reality...

In regards to Hollywood, ABSOLUTELY. Acting is not a real job. There is no responsibility in it. They lead pretend lives. I remember an interview with David Schwimmer, of Friends fame, and they asked him what he wanted to be when he grew up. He said a lawyer. They then asked him if he had regrets because he didn't become one. He said "No, not really, I did get to play one on TV." Now, it was obviously somewhat of a joke, but that right there can be a cause of problems. Will Smith said that he thought he'd be a good shot in real life because he pretended to shoot so much on screen. Actors, in terms of contributing to the function of a society, are useless. Before you arts people jump on me, yes, I do believe arts are important in a society. But tell me how a high school drop out (like so many actors) is qualified to tell Americans how they should vote and think in terms of politics.