Kill One, Scare Ten Thousand: The Dishonest Media in Iraq

  • Thread starter Solid Fro
  • 30 comments
  • 1,622 views

Solid Fro

I told you so.
Premium
7,889
SolidFro
RRoDzaaah!
Lieutenant Colonel Tim Ryan, a task force commander in Iraq, has a few interesting words for the media in Iraq. I encourage you to read the whole article.

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2005/01/aiding_and_abbe.html

Here are some excerpts, but I highly recommend reading the whole article.

I just read yet another distorted and grossly exaggerated story from a major news organization about the "failures" in the war in Iraq. Print and video journalists are covering only a small fraction of the events in Iraq and more often than not, the events they cover are only the bad ones. Many of the journalists making public assessments about the progress of the war in Iraq are unqualified to do so, given their training and experience. The inaccurate picture they paint has distorted the world view of the daily realities in Iraq. The result is a further erosion of international public support for the United States' efforts there, and a strengthening of the insurgents' resolve and recruiting efforts while weakening our own. Through their incomplete, uninformed and unbalanced reporting, many members of the media covering the war in Iraq are aiding and abetting the enemy.

Much of the problem is about perspective, putting things in scale and balance. From where I sit in my command post at Camp Fallujah, Iraq, things are not all bad right now. In fact, they are going quite well. We are not under attack by the enemy; on the contrary, we are taking the fight to him daily and have him on the ropes. In the distance, I can hear the repeated impacts of heavy artillery and five hundred-pound bombs hitting their targets in the city. The occasional tank main gun report and the staccato rhythm of a Marine Corps LAV or Army Bradley Fighting Vehicle's 25-millimeter cannon provide the bass line for a symphony of destruction. Right now, as elements from all four services complete the absolute annihilation of the insurgent forces remaining in Fallujah, the area around the former stronghold is more peaceful than it has been for more than a year. The number of attacks in the greater Al Anbar Province is down by at least 70-80% from late October -- before Operation Al Fajar began. The enemy in this area is completely defeated, but not completely gone. Final eradication of the pockets of insurgents will take some time, as it always does, but the fact remains that the central geographic stronghold of the insurgents is now under friendly control. That sounds a lot like success to me. Given all of this, why don't the papers lead with "Coalition Crushes Remaining Pockets of Insurgents" or "Enemy Forces Resort to Suicide Bombings of Civilians"? This would paint a far more accurate picture of the enemy's predicament over here. Instead, headlines focus almost exclusively on our hardships.

The scene is repeated all too often: an attack takes place in Baghdad and the morning sounds are punctuated by a large explosion and a rising cloud of smoke. Sirens wail in the distance and photographers dash to the scene a few miles away. Within the hour, stern-faced reporters confidently stare into the camera while standing on the balcony of their tenth-floor Baghdad hotel room, their back to the city and a distant smoke plume rising behind them. More mayhem in Gotham City they intone, and just in time for the morning news. There is a transparent reason why the majority of car bombings and other major events take place before noon Baghdad-time; any later and the event would miss the start of the morning news cycle on the U.S. east coast. These terrorists aren't stupid; they know just what to do to scare the masses and when to do it. An important key to their plan is manipulation of the news media. But, at least the reporters in Iraq are gathering information and filing their stories, regardless of whether or the stories are in perspective. Much worse are the "talking heads" who sit in studios or offices back home and pontificate about how badly things are going when they never have been to Iraq and only occasionally leave Manhattan.
 
So the fact that the USA has no right to be in Iraq has no bearing on this guy? Is he trying to say that "for every rine that gets killed we wack 10 terrorists" ? I see little to no point for this, if he wants to make it public how many people he's killed, houses he's raided, or building's he has symphoniously destroyed then make a videotape. Don't start complaining about the media unequally portraying what's happening. Everyone knows the the media is biased, and it will never change. The war in Iraq and the things he's complaining about are pointless and a lost cause. What kind of response did you hope to generate by posting this? I don't know your stance on the whole issue, but judging by your signature you're on his side. As for the sig, I'm thinking Canadians are just about as on par- only our country doesn't send us in to other countries to tell them what to do and kill people for little or no reason. We have to respect them because they're putting their lives on the line, for their country , and taking orders from some of the most narrow-minded, lying cheating stealing scum ever conceived on the face of the earth.
I have seen many videos and interviews of hospitalized soldiers and marines from Iraq, and many videos of soldiers that finally returned home after their 3rd tour of duty- consecutively. Not one of them had something positive to say, not one of them felt proud about what they had accomplished and not one of them said they;d ever go back. They all had the same mind: Killing innocent civilians and children does not stop terrorism. If anyone is a terrorist, it's George Bush. That's exactly what he's doing. Using fear to get something he wants- oil. If you can't comprehend that (I say "you" as a whole, noone in particular) then you should get out from under the rock you're living under and take a step back to look at what the USA has become after George Bush got elected. And don't even get me started on the elections. I suggest you study the film Farenheit 9/11. And don't for a second think that I'm going to take back what I just said.
 
You hardly presented a topic, and I therefore had nothing to stick to. You need to get out more.

As for Bowling For Truth- Moore presents examples, there's no way one person can make an accurate representation of the entire USA or world, or even a single state. Therefore, you have to look at the situation as a whole. Things like these can not be picked apart and presented as pure fact-only evidence, because, frankly, noone knows what the truth is. So, ask yourself this, What has Bush accomplished? and How did he go about doing that?
 
The whole "documentary" was proving wrong.

Why does Moore call it a documentary when it cannot be presented as pure fact when, by definition, documentaries are about presenting facts? Moore cuts and pastes lies in the film and parades them around as "fact". Sounds more like propaganda to me.
 
Excuse me . You ask us to STUDY a film made by an acknowlaged member of the liberal left.
A film that has been recognised even amongst our own liberal media as a fairly good piece of propaganda , a film that distorts the truth and presents us with the filmmakers opinions in the guise of facts.
And you want to be taken seriously ? After all but admiting you base YOUR opinions on a piece of propaganda with very little basis in fact ? Whats next asking us to study Karl Marx ?
 
PublicSecrecy
and taking orders from some of the most narrow-minded, lying cheating stealing scum ever conceived on the face of the earth.

:lol: Don't sit on the fence about this one...tell us what you really think

PublicSecrecy
Using fear to get something he wants- oil. If you can't comprehend that (I say "you" as a whole, noone in particular) then you should get out from under the rock you're living under and take a step back to look at what the USA has become after George Bush got elected. And don't even get me started on the elections. I suggest you study the film Farenheit 9/11. And don't for a second think that I'm going to take back what I just said.

If you can't comprehend that the oil situation has not changed since Clinton was elected, then you need to stop watching propaganda films and maybe read a newspaper ;)
 
The newpaper is just as bad. You can't find an unbiased report anywhere, so don't try. Micheal Moore's films are designed to question and provoke though, not make accusations and present hard facts, because not only can much of it be denied (whether it's true or not) but much of it will be picked apart and taken out of context.
 
PublicSecrecy
The newpaper is just as bad. You can't find an unbiased report anywhere, so don't try. Micheal Moore's films are designed to question and provoke though, not make accusations and present hard facts, because not only can much of it be denied (whether it's true or not) but much of it will be picked apart and taken out of context.

It depends on what newspaper you read, but some don't tend to sensationalise things quite as much as a film that was designed to make money at the box office.

I think Moore's F 9/11 stretched the truth a little bit too far, but I also think that his film bowling for columbine had some valid points. The most impressive thing in that film, was that he managed to get Wal Mart to discontinue stocking 9mm bullets after he tried to return some to the store that were still inside those two kids...that was powerful stuff and a small success.

At the risk of hijacking this thread about the negative aspects of the middle eastern press towards anything the west does (and that includes Europe..we are the capitalist western infidel too ;))...that aside, what is this Oil conspiracy? I don't see any US flags flying above oil wells, or any cheap oil being distributed in the US. Things are, as they were.

oilprice1947.gif


As you can see, the price of oil was at its highest during the Iran/Iraq conflict, something the world wants to avoid again. We all need oil, not just the US ;)

Also, note that the price per barrel has gone up slightly since the first Gulf war. It doesn't make sense for the US to be invading Iraq to get cheap oil, when in fact they now pay more :odd:
 
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/story.jsp?story=601489

There's an article in The Independent today (newspaper of the year, again) relating to Viper Zero's title in this thread : dishonest media in Iraq. It's by Robert Fisk direct from Baghdad.

"Hotel Journalism" is what he calls it: western journalists reporting from their hotel rooms rather than the streets of Iraq's towns and cities. Their editors sometimes refuse them to leave. It's simply too dangerous.

The New York Times correspondents live in Baghdad behind a massive stockade with four watchtowers with rifle toting security men with NYT t-shirts. NBC are holed up in a hotel room with an iron grille over their door and are forbidden by their security to even visit the swimming pool or the restaurant. Other Western journalists are doing it too. It's so bad that some t.v. stations are talking of withdrawing their reporters and crews.

Robert talks about how six months ago it was possible to leave Baghdad in the morning and drive to Mosul or Najaf to cover a story and then come back in the evening. By August it was taking him 2 weeks to negotiate his dubious safety.

There is no way of journalists checking death tolls either as it's too dangerous for them to go to the cemetary or visit the hospital.

Many reporters are reduced to telephoning the American military or the Iraqi "interim" government for information from their hotel rooms. Or they take reports from journalists who are with American troops and can really only get the American side of the story.

He ends with saying that it is still possible to report from Baghdad but fewer and fewer are doing this because of the risk to their lives.

On a final note, did anybody from the U.K. see Jeremy Bowen: On the Frontline (BBC1 10.15 Sunday 16)? This guy was a war correspondent who covered Beirut, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq - and any other war torn country you can think of. It was a great documentary. Some of the footage was harrowing though.

He declinded to report on this Iraq war - very wise choice. It seems that he made the correct decision with regards to his life.
 
I didn't say that America profits from the oil- THE BUSH FAMILY DOES. Same with the weapons being sold to the government which are then distributed to the army.
 
PublicSecrecy
The newpaper is just as bad. You can't find an unbiased report anywhere, so don't try. Micheal Moore's films are designed to question and provoke though, not make accusations and present hard facts,
Actually, they are designed to make accusations. Blatant and shallow ones, at that. And if they aren't designed to present hard facts, they have absolutely NO business being called 'documentaries'.
because not only can much of it be denied (whether it's true or not) but much of it will be picked apart and taken out of context.
Do you have even the slightest idea how stupidly ironic these words are? Moore is the absolute master of picking things apart and taking things out of context. You do realize that he regularly splices together clips from different events to make people like Bush or Charlton Heston appear to have said things they never really said, right?

I'm not going through this again. Anyone who believes a word Michale Moore says, or who has their 'thoughts' provoked by anything other than revulsion after seeing one of his films, deserves what they get.
 
Viper Zero
[/i]

I guess that's me.



So, like... one-thousand chicken scratches? OK...

:rolleyes:

Kill One, Scare Ten Thousand. Kill 1000+, Scare 10,000,000. War involves casualties but one death is more than enough let alone a thousand plus. You post this topic as if we shouldn't fret over one kill. Seeing that the topic name implies belittling public reaction, it seems as if you imply that 'a death is a death so deal and don't fret' because oh look what this official army guy said. I'll take the pictures and death count over what a war general (who obviously wants to promote the war) has to say to show our "progression" in the war.

Hell, there could be more footage of American victories in the news but if at least one news flash appears on the screen about how another 8 US soldiers die in a car bomb attack, subconciously I won't say to myself "well, I guess those 8 dead Americans really can't replace the hundreds of footage of American victories I see on the news". And don't pull that "ultimate sacrifice" Bus***. These kinds of arguments always pop up and when it comes down to the deaths, pro-war activists always patronize on the 'ultimate sacrifice for the country' phase. You know, we wouldn't have any deaths in the first place if we didn't need to fight unnecessary wars. It as if pro-war activists (including soldiers) say that soldiers are expendable. Well, it's pretty sad on the activists part, but if a soldier thinks of it like that, well then...

And 'unnecessary' wars, if that's the only thing I said that you think you can contradict, how 'bout no WMDs were found.
B/C of the pre-emptive attack before the UN can finish their investigations (in fact, they only had about 10 more days left before the US invaded) we would have never known whether or not we could've had international backing aka more friendly armies involved.
The most deaths of the coalition is of the US (should be less if we had the backing of the whole international community).
No direct threat to US citizens (maybe interest like oil and stuff but certainly not the US mainland).
No link found has been found between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein (pretty sure that all the official reasons why we invaded Iraq is false).
And more heinous war crimes against ethnicities are being commited in Africa/Sudan more than anywhere else (why not go liberate people their instead of fighting a war for a biased [it's all about oil, oil, oil, and PR by taking down the bully of the middle east that'll make the surrounding middle eastern countries 'trust' their oil to us] cause huh??? HUH?!?!?) :grumpy:
 
s0nny80y
Snipped for the sake of reader's sanity

Periods. Paragraphs. They are your friends, learn to use them. I couldn't manage to get but about halfway through your post, but it looked like the standard anti-America tripe.

Can you guys please at least get something new to talk about? The same old thing rehashed four hundred times gets pretty boring. And please, make it readable next time.
 
Ghost C
Periods. Paragraphs. They are your friends, learn to use them. I couldn't manage to get but about halfway through your post, but it looked like the standard anti-America tripe.

Can you guys please at least get something new to talk about? The same old thing rehashed four hundred times gets pretty boring. And please, make it readable next time.
^stay on topic next time




Not being able to read words, now that's a new low on trying to avoid intelligence of any forms, big baby.

Anyways, yeah, the unnecesary war sucks, deal. Or, if you're on an opinions forum, you state arguments, no matter if it's rehashed...



...(unless you're a veteran oooooooo wow, big boy :rolleyes: )
 
s0nny80y
^stay on topic next time


Typical, the pro-war activist stays as stereotypically ignorant as possible.




Not being able to read words, now that's a new low.

Anyways, yeah, the unnecesary war sucks, deal. Or, if you're on an opinions forum, you state arguments, no matter if it's rehashed...



...(unless you're a veteran oooooooo wow, big boy :rolleyes: )

Ah yes, telling me to stay on topic, and then calling me ignorant. Amazingly hypocritical of you. Editing your posts won't help you, either.

It's well known that just about half the media world is biased against Bush. For instance, when did you hear about the national deficit shrinking eleven billion dollars in the first quarter?

I bet you didn't, because the media wants to make Bush, the war in Iraq, and everything else that the Bush government is involved with look as bad as possible. If that involves telling half the story, telling half truths, or just blatantly lying - They don't care.

As long as biased media coverage is the norm, we'll have people like PublicSecrecy and s0nny80y thinking that they actually know what they're talking about.
 
and that's where we draw the line; the reliability of news organizations. So, soldiers have not died due to hostile attacks in Iraq right? :rolleyes:

So you guys are telling me that you'll only accept information from primary resources such as the General's weblog/essay right? Don't you guys get the feeling that he has a biased opinion for the war therefore his word is as good as of any news organization.
 
Sunnyboi has it backward.

A fighting man who is actually there and is doing the work in Iraq or a CNN reporter living it large in a Baghdad hotel room?

Hmmmm, which do I believe more? Decisions, decisions...
 
Viper Zero
Sunnyboi has it backward.

A fighting man who is actually there and is doing the work in Iraq or a CNN reporter living it large in a Baghdad hotel room?

Hmmmm, which do I believe more? Decisions, decisions...

Kinda obvious that since a soldier won't go AWOL in fear of getting shot, the only way to live longer is to support the war for better war spending aka armor, protection, humvee armor platings, and all that stuff.

Anyways, alot of the correspondents in the major news organizations are embedded journalists. They get to see the action first hand hence the graphic video encounters that air on the news.

Talk about playing a forced hand.
 
s0nny80y
Kinda obvious that since a soldier won't go AWOL in fear of getting shot, the only way to live longer is to support the war for better war spending aka armor, protection, humvee armor platings, and all that stuff.

Wow, you just went though CNN's Top Stories list. Body Armor! Up-Armored HMMWV!

The military has these things now and are not standard issue.

Anyways, alot of the correspondents in the major news organizations are embedded journalists.

Like the embed reporter who fed the soldier the question to Rumsfeld about the Up-Armored HMMWVs only because the reporter had a political agenda?

They get to see the action first hand hence the graphic video encounters that air on the news.

My point exactly. They show you the terrorist car bombing, but not the school that just opened for the first time down the street. Thanks for proving my point, Sunnyboi.
 
Viper Zero
My point exactly. They show you the terrorist car bombing, but not the school that just opened for the first time down the street. Thanks for proving my point, Sunnyboi.

So, let's forget the dead soldiers in turn for footage of American-aided civil buildings in Iraq that will soon be blown up by terrorist car bombings. Just like the re/formed Iraqi police.

s0nny80y
Hell, there could be more footage of American victories/sucesses in the news but if at least one news flash appears on the screen about how another 8 US soldiers die in a car bomb attack, subconciously I won't say to myself "well, I guess those 8 dead Americans really can't replace the hundreds of footage of American victories I see on the news". And don't pull that "ultimate sacrifice" Bus***. These kinds of arguments always pop up and when it comes down to the deaths, pro-war activists always patronize on the 'ultimate sacrifice for the country' phrase. You know, we wouldn't have any deaths in the first place if we didn't need to fight unnecessary wars. It as if pro-war activists (including soldiers) say that soldiers are expendable. Well, it's pretty sad on the activists part, but if a soldier thinks of it like that, well then...
 
s0nny80y
So, let's forget the dead soldiers in turn for footage of American-aided civil buildings in Iraq that will soon be blown up by terrorist car bombings. Just like the re/formed Iraqi police.

Aw, you're one step ahead of the liberal media, sunnyboi. You actually called the terrorists "terrorists", not "insurgents".

There may still be hope for you.
 
Back