Has the "Liberal Media" been Vindicated in the coverage of this Military Action?

[alfbinet]

I believe this is an honest question. In previous posts on this board the media has been labeled "Liberal", by a majority of the posters. How do you feel they have they covered this Military Action? I won't call it a war since it was not declared by Congress.

[gcutler]

Do you think the people wounded or the family of those killed really call it a "Military Action" because it is not "Declared By Congress", it is a War...

[alfbinet]

gculter: No I do not. I am sure they do care. But I bet that in the future a lot of folks will say this was a "Military Action" to cover their buttocks. The outcome was never really in question. It is the aftermath we have to be concerned about, and I do believe there will be major repercussions that we will have to deal with. The point of the post was "was our media" biased to the "Liberal" point of view.

[Halfsek]

Well, it will take a long time to see if the media is vindicated. As much as I feel the media has a left wing slant (hell, 80% vote democrat according to the last poll) I am, for the most part, quite happy with how they've represented the war.
I honestly feel they did it in a fair and balanced way. There is no reason you can't be fair and balanced while still being happy that your side is doing well in the war.

But when the fighting is over, I'd like to see how the media is after a good year or so of going back to normal.

I would think the answer is no. The only ones who might change are the embedded reporters. All the others will go back to their normal ways.

[alfbinet]

Halfsek, do you mean they (the embeded reporters) will become "Conservative Republicans"?

[lastmanstanding]

80% vote democrat according to the last poll~

It is far worse that that.

80% voted for CLINTON.

Democrats are not a problem. Clinton could have just as easily been a Republican. Whatever worked best for him a the moment was great. Thank God he was in it for himself and didn't get to launch another Great Society.

The Liberal Media had Iraq cast as Vietnam II, and you know what, as usual, they had it really really wrong.

Now they have a real problem. War worked, and America liked it, if you believe the pols.

[Richard King]

The outcome was never really in question.Many of the media stated that we would be "bogged down" just as in Viet Nam. They stated that we would have to do hand to hand combat in every building in Baghdad. Many appeared to me to be hoping that that would be exactly what would happen. I think that MANY members of the media who were embedded with the troops learned a sense of respect that they NEVER anticipated for those puttng their lives on the line. Whether they will be forever changed is to be learned over the next few years.

[Cyclone]

Don't forget, they said that same thing about Afganistan just a year+ ago.

I was watching Canadian News on C-SPAN last night. They almost seem disappointed in the events unfolding. One commenter said that when the statue fell that this was really just a small crowd. Another kept asking "Where are the weapons of Mass Destruction" and could not be bothered to see the liberation right before their eyes.

[Richard King]

They almost seem disappointed in the events unfolding.And I suspect several here, judging from previous posts, are also disappointed that there is any success there at all.

How dd you get that airplane to break the sound barrier? :D

[Punkitup]

I would caution that this thing is a long way from over and it’s a little too early for tallying up the media or military scorecard. There is still lots of room for disaster in the near term post force on force situation we are moving into. The media may yet have lots of fodder for speculative second-guessing. An Army Mechanized Division is not trained or equipped to act as a civil police force, they are after all a mechanized entity. And the Marine Corps for the most part likewise has no such inclination at all; they are an amphibious assault force plain and simple, with one doctrine, move forward and eliminate all opposition with extreme prejudice. It is unfair for them to be cast in a role they are not trained and equipped to carryout in anything more then a ham-handed manner. This leaves options in the near term for managing civil order pretty limited. The burden could fall to the Army’s airborne units, who have at least a rudimentary amount of training in this vein, but I would submit that they are woefully undermanned to do so, especially when they are still needed along with the Marines to put out foot patrols and flush out armed resistance all over the country. All of this I can assure you will be lost on the media; the talk of lack of control and inability to safely move humanitarian aid has all ready started.  For my part I am surprised that a contingence for this is apparently not in place, I would like to have seen every available Military Police unit both active and reserve in Kuwait and ready to move in augmented by further light infantry troops, but there you go that's speculative second guessing on my part.

No, the jury is still out on how this will ultimately play out in the media.

Speaking of that media though, I am glad to see that MSNBC seems to have gotten a bit of much needed backbone. They are reporting things quite broadly, and are asking some hard questions about where we go from here, as they should, but they have a plainly visible underlying tone of support for the country and the troops. I am pleased to see that they are striking somewhat of a happy medium.

The course set by MSNBC down the middle of the road gives someone like me an option to Fox News and their usually position of gently cupping the Presidential scrotum come what may. Fox has had some fine reporting from their embedded correspondents, but we are ultimately returned to the studio to listen to sub-moron tabloid touts like Shepard Smith and Rita Cosby reel off scripted tag lines, and any attempts at moving away from the teleprompters by this pair are painful to watch. Rita Cosby is the worst, I will puke if I hear this woman crow one more time “my sources are saying”, and then carries on to quote widely reported information in an attempt to interject some semblance of credibility on her part. Fox has a lot of very competent people working for them Molly de Ramel, Major Garrett, Brenda Buttner, Rick Leventhal just to name a few, the list is extensive, but as long as they are primarily anchored by these parrots spouting scripted pabulum, it won’t be the channel for me. They need more anchors like Bret Hume and Neil Cavuto who are equipped to speak intelligently on a subject. 
 
Pray for Peace
James – USMC 1980-84
"Armed and Curious"

 

[Richard King]

They need more anchors like Bret Hume and Neil Cavuto who are equipped to speak intelligently on a subject.Agree. I generally do my browsing of other sources as soon as Shepard Smith's face appears on the screen or his voice comes screeching out at me. He is the best thing for the other news networks out there.

[BobMurdoch]

I think that the cable news channels have moved more to the right to survive against FoxNews who has been cleaning their clock. The broadcast networks have been much more criticizing and providing more of an emphasis on the negatives. Then again, I may be wrong.... I've watched so little broadcast news as I flip the channel in disgust away from them when I see them doing this, but I hear Dan Rather and Peter Jennings have been the worst offenders. Brokaw's focus on the "Greatest Generation" may have given him a different perspective than the other 2, which explains why I have heard less complaints about his coverage.

I have been mostly watching FoxNews, although I try to catch Keith Olberman (I'm a sucker for sarcasm in my reporting, I've been a fan of his since his SportsCenter days) on MSNBC as well.

[toenail]

Originally posted by alfbinet
gculter: No I do not. I am sure they do care. But I bet that in the future a lot of folks will say this was a "Military Action" to cover their buttocks. The outcome was never really in question. It is the aftermath we have to be concerned about, and I do believe there will be major repercussions that we will have to deal with. The point of the post was "was our media" biased to the "Liberal" point of view.

Generally speaking, they did okay. But it is amusing to see a very glum-faced Peter Jennings report the downfall of Baghdad. He just couldn't hide his feelings. I also take note that for a few days the media, in general, were all over Bush and company about how "they" had said the war would be over quickly, and that it was really turning into a "quagmire." Bush, of course, had to take the super-cautious position that the war could be quite extended. Turns out "the media" kind of over-estimated the strength of Iraq's resolve. It was especially fun to see the idiot Arnett TOTALLY misconstrue what was happening. If one were to listen to him, you'd think that we were still mired in Kuwait.

[Halfsek]

Originally posted by alfbinet
Halfsek, do you mean they (the embeded reporters) will become "Conservative Republicans"?

Ummm, yeah. That's exactly what I mean. :rolleyes: :)

No, nothing of the sort. Just that now they might be more willing to have a better attitude to the people of the midwest and south; since that is where many of the soldeirs hail from.

[waydwolf]

    No. They absolutely have not been vindicated in any way, shape, or form.

    Their reporting, other than at Fox, has been to try to paint everything as not as good as the Pentagon and White House briefings and news conferences say while Fox almost tries to make it sound far better.

    AP immediately insisted there were no biochem weapons and that it was all pesticide without bothering to report that the prior inspections found Iraq had indeed mixed weapons agents with pesticide before.

    The best coverage is seeing the soldiers doing their thing. When I saw an American GI laying wounded on a stretcher and being carried off the field still manage to pump out two rounds from his shotgun in the firefight, it was very illustrative of the tenacity of our troops to do their job no matter what.

    At least this time, the media isn't playing up doubt and dissention in the ranks like they did during Desert Shield as Desert Storm approached when they did everything they could to get soliders on camera to b*tch and moan about being in it just for a college education and not wanting to shoot anyone.

    I only worry Fox will go too far and end up making the soldiers look trigger happy. They're raring to fight a stand-up battle, but they aren't looking for wanton destruction. This isn't Apocalypse Now no matter how much the opposition wants to paint it that way.

 

[RichW]

"And I suspect several here, judging from previous posts, are also disappointed that there is any success there at all."

If you are referring to me, then you are totally wrong (and I take a personal offense as well). I don't think anyone doubted we could be victorious in our use of force. Bosnia and Afghanistan proved that. I am elated that Baghdad was secured without house-to-house urban combat. But no one can deny that that was a risk.

Those of us who did not want to see this War launched are more worried about the second order effects of the War. Will the Arab/Moslem opposition to the War give more support and sustinence to terrorists and pose a greater domestic threat than Saddam ever could.

And of course, "winning the peace" wil be tougher. I persoanlly don't think that the US can fill the power void in Iraq now. We need the help and support of the UN and the world community.

[Martyva]

despite what most of us think, the Media does not, normally, have a left or right bent (this excludes Fox news which uses news to attract viewership by being somewhere to the right of Attila), news organisations normally lean toward the establishment (those in power). Over the past 30 to 40 years there have been repeated examples of this. For one to label the Broadcast media as either liberal or conservitive is, probably due to our need to label everything based on our own beliefs.

[waydwolf]

We certainly do not need the support of the UN. They are a totally irrellevant entity.

The world on the other hand we can deal with directly. We've been able to achieve international co-operation directly so remarkably well precisely because we went around the UN.

The UN was NEVER intended to be its own entity with its own principle and aims. It WAS intended to be a meeting place of the nations of Earth where their individual aims and principles could meet to a common ground.

The UN acts of its own accord with its own goals totally at cross purposes to most of the nations who belong to it. It has become a refuge for discredited socialist futurists from around the world who still attempt to force their ways on their own people who rejected them and their ways, now through a third party with some razor thin veneer of moral high ground. A moral high ground their history since inception shows to be totally illusory.

I for one do not care what the so-called "Muslim word" thinks in the slightest. I only care what "individuals" think. The nonstop lefty group assignment as making all Muslims fit in one small pocket doesn't work now, never has. It totally ignores that the Shia leaders in Iraq have largely welcomed us and if we do not blow the reconstruction, their good will can show Iran and the rest of the largely Shia fundamentalists that we can be a help and benefactor to them and that we are not the Great Satan.

As long as the west continues to paint the entire Muslim world with a single brush stroke and ignore tribal, ethnic, cultural, philosophical, and historical differences and divisions, the extremists among them will continue to get away with speaking for all the rest, and the people who pretty much founded higher mathematics will remain an irrellevant though troublesome part of the human family as history moves forward.

We need to do better by them than allow leftist group association rule the day and keep the middle east in a quagmire where it has been forever now. Turkish Muslims are NOT Indian Muslims are NOT Iranian Muslims are NOT Ethiopian Muslims and so on any more than Irish Catholics, Italian Catholics, Sicilian Catholics, and Polish Catholics are synonymous.

Their biggest commonality is wanting to be free and to be prosperous, not be terrorists. We should give them that first wish and do everything we can to facilitate the second wish.

[RichW]

"Their biggest commonality is wanting to be free and to be prosperous, not be terrorists. We should give them that first wish and do everything we can to facilitate the second wish."

I disagree here. There is a significant number who are so dead set against the US that they will do anything to cause terror. Its not a matter of wanting to be free, but a matter of jihad.

Think about it. Bin Laden had both money and freedom and he became the granddaddy of modern terrorism. We stirred the hornet's nest in Afghanistan (an action I feel was justified). But we created more hornets by invading Iraq. It remains to be seen if we are safer or more in peril here in the USA because of it. I have a feeling that our invasions has led some of the "neutrals" to jump to the other side. One must also remember that, in certain circles of Arab culture, treachery and trickery are considered fine arts rather than vices. We must be even more vigilant than before. I fear that we will see another 9-11, or perhaps a biological attack in this country very soon. I hope I am very wrong.