Posted on 05/21/2004 7:06:51 AM PDT by Lando Lincoln
To the casual observer, the situation in Iraq is bleak, the Iraqi people don’t really want democracy, and the only worthwhile story is the brutality and intimidation of Iraqi prisoners.
To the “casual observer” of the mainstream media, that is.
Although common sense and a semi-continuous pulse would be enough to notice the media’s pack mentality in its Iraq coverage, the numbers paint a compelling—and disturbing—picture.
On any given day, Americans are treated to maybe a dozen stories highlighting the good deeds being done by coalition forces—building bridges, literally and figuratively, and generally improving daily life for ordinary Iraqis—and that’s among all cable news outlets and hundreds of newspapers and magazines.
How many Americans know about the five million Iraqis who are now returning to school or the many non-Baathist professionals who are now finally starting to earn a decent salary?
We’ve been inundated with literally thousands of hand-wringing stories about the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. The media’s obsession is to some degree understandable given the images, as a visual component inherently gives any story that much more life.
But all that can be said about the savage slaughter of American Nicholas Berg at the hands of terrorists—on video—and then some.
The disparity is striking. The numbers speak for themselves.
From May 11 to May 19, there were more than 6,600 stories in the Lexis-Nexis news database with “Abu Ghraib” somewhere in the text. During the same span, there were just over 3,000 with both “Berg” and “Iraq.”
To fully appreciate the significance of those statistics, though, the prisoner abuse story was already two weeks old at that point, and the news of Berg’s beheading broke on May 11.
Why is this important? Because the “noise”—the collective impact of news from various sources—has been so focused on Abu Ghraib, the political backdrop is the savagery of Americans, not that of the terrorists we are fighting.
In some respects, the terrorists are winning more favorable coverage.
The terrorists who cut off the 26-year-old American’s head claimed their brutality was revenge for the prisoner abuses. The news media bit. More than half of all stories on Berg mentioned Abu Ghraib, with many leading newspapers running the story with “revenge” or “vengeance” in the headline.
But since when can terrorists be taken at face value? Just because the terrorists claim a certain motive doesn’t mean it is so. Before the Abu Ghraib photos surfaced, terrorists didn’t exactly lack for motivation to kill Americans.
With all the attention on “revenge” or “vengeance,” another possible motive has been almost universally ignored.
Less than 10% of stories on Berg stated that he was Jewish, not an unimportant fact when radical Islamic terrorists say “Death to Israel” or “Death to the Jews” like most people breathe.
It’s plausible that Berg’s religion was not a factor in his death. But according to news reports, he had an Israeli stamp in his passport, and it’s more than likely that his murderers knew he was Jewish.
At the very least, it is an important data point that cannot be ignored.
But ignoring is something at which the media specialize.
Consider that during the same May 11 – May 19 period, there were more than 2,500 stories on Fallujah or Muqtada al-Sadr, the radical Shi’ite cleric who is leading a spirited rebellion—with relatively few followers—in the south.
The particular focus on al-Sadr, in fact, has enhanced the perception among many Americans that Shi’ites are radicals who oppose the very concept of democracy.
And why wouldn’t they believe that when the mainstream media has produced precious few stories on the many peaceful demonstrations—led by Shi’ites—calling for al-Sadr to lay down his arms? Look at the numbers: of the 1,571 stories in Lexis-Nexis on al-Sadr, only 31 also contain “peaceful demonstration” (or its plural).
With the June 30 deadline to transfer power to the Iraqi people approaching, the Washington Post on Wednesday offered the following page-one headline: “U.S. Faces Growing Fears of Failure.” Media groupthink dictates that the next buzzword to watch is “failure.”
Kinda describes the media’s selective outrage in covering the war in Iraq, doesn’t it?
Thanks for posting! The "mainstream media" is not giving us the full story, that's for sure . . .
Just like the North Vietnamese did.
BTTT!
The messenger becomes the message?
It is basically too late in this country. The tentacles of the communist party keep growing into every branch of society. Only a revolution can save it, with rigorous enforcement of treason laws. But with treason declared 'patriotic' and those who are really patriotic declared the equivalent of treasonous (i.e., see Nancy Pelosi's recent screed against GWB) don't expect it to occur in time to prevent tremendous destruction.
In reality, democracy is mob rule; and Islam would rule in a "democratic" Iraq.
Americans are exposed to a constant liberal propaganda campaign telling them that democracy is a good form of government; and most Americans are too fat, dumb, and happy to worry about losing the individual freedom that causes them to be fat, dumb, and happy.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, Give me liberty, or give me death." -- Patrick Henry. 1775.
I think one of my biggest issues with the way the media coverage plays out is how they constantly ignore the real issue that most Muslims seem to have : THEY HATE ALL JEWS.
It's not even disputed. I heard an Arab reporter on the radio saying that he loved America, but that he "hated American policy, especially regarding the 'Palestinian Question.'"
In other words, hey Americans, we love your big-screen TVs and your nice cars, but we hate Jews, and we hate that you support Israel's right to exist.
I think it's remarkable that the media constantly refers to supposed "injustices" against the Arabs being the justification for terrorism, yet fails to point out that it's pure irrational undiluted hatred for the Jews that seems to fuel every major political decision by the Arab nations.
A wedding party at 0300 hours?"
You have really missed out.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Right on target.
When I was in Kuwait for 10 weeks, the religious day for weddings is our Thursday night. This firefight occurred on Tuesday or Wednesday. This was no wedding. Today on ABCNBCBCCNN the killing of women and children was the headline. Today on centcom in Iraq, carried by all the cable news channel stated that zero, no children were killed in the attack and this was verified by troop inspection. Found 25 30 year old dead Syrian males, passports, mortars, ak47, satellite phone, etc.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To these whiners
A “Col Jeesup's rant” I think it's time for Donald Rumsfeld to have a few words with ABCNBCBCCNN:
"Liberals, we live in a world that has walls and those walls need to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Michael Moore?"
"I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for prisoners at Abu Ghraib and curse the Commander-In-Chief, you have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that prisoner intimidation at Abu Ghraib, while tragic, probably saved lives and that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives."
"You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at ABCNBCBCCNN you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use then as the backbone of a life trying to defend something. You use them as a punch line in a propaganda headline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to TV media who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it.
I would rather you just said "thank you," and you go back to reporting the real news. Otherwise, I suggest that you get off that elitist throne, put down the microphone equipment, push away from the feeding trough, waddle your fat ass outta my sight and SHUT YOUR MOUTH! Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to."
SELECTIVE OUTRAGERS, PLEASE READ THIS. IF YOU ARE NOT OUTRAGED, THEN YOU ARE A SELECTIVE OUTRAGER!!!
The foreign service goes limp. Bush appoints a flaming fag as embassador to Romania!!!!
As U.S. Ambassador Michael Guest prepares to end his mission to Romania later this year, retrospectives on his service are likely to accentuate the positive. Under his watch, the government in Bucharest remained firmly in the “New Europe” camp: Romania contributed troops to the Iraq War, joined NATO, and was usually strongly aligned with America.
But other observers of his tenure paint a less glowing picture, believing that a changing of the guard at the U.S. embassy is long overdue. Guest’s critics charge that his ambassadorship has sent a different message abroad than most Americans would care to transmit, exporting not democracy or free markets but the sexual revolution.
When Bill Clinton selected the homosexual hot dog heir James Hormel to become ambassador to Luxembourg, it was a highly controversial move. Senate Republican leaders placed a hold on the nomination and forced Clinton to grant Hormel the assignment through a recess appointment. However, criticism of George W. Bush for appointing Guest, an openly gay man, to the post of ambassador to Romania was muted. While party loyalty was a major factor in this contrast, it was also the case that some senators objected to Hormel not due to his sexual orientation as such but rather because he was considered likely to use his ambassadorship as a government-sanctioned platform for gay-rights advocacy. There were no similar concerns about Guest, who was a 20-year career diplomat, lifelong Republican, and former Reagan administration press aide.
Yet some Americans serving their country in Romania contend that a transformation in the embassy’s culture took place nevertheless. As the gay marriage debate raged at home, taxpayers began to foot the bill for a de facto civil union in Bucharest.
When Guest was sworn in, Secretary of State Colin Powell recognized his male partner, Alex Nevarez, during the ceremony. Nevarez traveled to Romania with the new ambassador and moved in to live with him at the official diplomatic residence. He accompanied Guest as he presented his credentials to Romanian President Ion Iliescu.
Nevarez was an active participant in both formal and informal embassy events, where he would be introduced to attendees as Guest’s partner. Insiders recalled him attending a Marine Corps ball with the ambassador (something that would have been impermissible for the Marines themselves) and being mentioned in invitations, including a draft of one to be sent for a Fourth of July party at the ambassador’s residence.
All of this would have raised eyebrows as recently as the Clinton administration. One of the main arguments against Hormel was that his lifestyle would offend the Roman Catholic majority in his receiving country. The Orthodox Christians who predominate in Romania have also traditionally disapproved of homosexuality, yet our government sent them an ambassador whose partner is treated as the equivalent of a spouse.
This cultural innovation was not without impact on embassy staff. Cdr. William Dempsey was a career naval officer serving in Bucharest as chief of the Office of Defense Cooperation, managing $40 million in U.S. assistance to the Romanian armed forces. A devout Evangelical Christian and father of five, he had been accustomed to his post being a family-friendly environment. After Guest began his mission, the persistent recognition and endorsement of same-sex partners prevented him from participating in certain events to avoid having to explain homosexuality to his young children.
Dempsey met with Guest to discuss his concerns and identify himself as a source for a January 2002 Family Research Council newsletter article critical of gay activism at the embassy. Guest had reportedly told his staff members that he knew his homosexuality would invite some controversy and was willing to talk to people who were concerned.
Dempsey recalls that the two men had a civil conversation about these issues and the ambassador asserted that he was not interested in promoting any type of “homosexual agenda.” Dempsey told Guest that it was less a matter of his intentions than the tone his behavior set, arguing “as the ambassador, you are the agenda.”
Others put it more strongly. “Suddenly it was like there was a club running things,” said one Foreign Service veteran who had been stationed there. “If you weren’t part of the gay clique, you did not belong.”
According to these observers, Guest’s presence made Bucharest a more attractive assignment for other gays in the Foreign Service. They report that other people’s partners were recognized at embassy events alongside men’s wives and women’s husbands. Advertisements for the annual Christmas party invited not just spouses but partners. Guest set a precedent that would be followed by others, with the cumulative result of lending government support to positions taken by gay-rights advocates.
To be sure, the U.S. embassy in Bucharest under Guest is not the only place where officials grapple with the issues surrounding diplomats and their same-sex partners. A national organization, Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies, lists “increasing opportunities for same-sex partners accompanying personnel on assignment overseas” and securing taxpayer-funded health insurance and benefits for the “partners and children of lesbian and gay employees” in its mission statement. Colin Powell has met personally with GLIFAA representatives. Although the electorate continues to debate the merits of government-sanctioned domestic partnerships, they are increasingly supporting them with their tax dollars among government employees.
But the environment in Bucharest does demonstrate the extent to which official recognition of such partnerships has institutional support within the government despite disagreement among the general public. Some Americans posted there felt that it was not feasible to challenge these new practices involving diplomats’ same-sex partners and would therefore not register their complaints.
For his part, a few months after Dempsey made his objections known, he was informed that he would be moved out of Bucharest early. Despite receiving the highest possible marks on his last performance evaluation, conducted before Guest arrived in Romania, he was told verbally that he had become “disruptive to the collegial atmosphere” at the embassy. Officially, however, his reassignment was not attributed to his criticisms of Guest, and Dempsey emphasizes that there was never any formal reprimand or penalty against him.
Others who have worked in Bucharest claim that the cultural shift at the embassy was not limited to the formal approval of same-sex relationships and make graver charges. These witnesses claim that promiscuity among some Americans stationed in Romania increased to levels that threatened to jeopardize the mission’s reputation and subject U.S. government employees to blackmail. They stated that some diplomats were engaging in homosexual relations with Romanian citizens and other foreign nationals.
Such dalliances led some to ridicule the U.S. diplomatic presence in Romania as the “pink embassy” and the “Bucharest bathhouse.” A letter sent by a group of Romanian NGOs and individuals to President Bush and Secretary Powell in January named high-level appointees responsible for having “transformed the U.S. diplomatic addresses in to havens of debauchery,” and further alleges that “(b)ased on reports and pornographic photos circulating around newspapers…” they “… use their privileged positions to corrupt young Romanians, paying them for sexual relations, by both cash and visas to the U.S.” The signatories of this letter include the Union of War Veterans, the National League of December 1989 Combatants, and three former Romanian parliament members.
An erstwhile gay lover of a former high-ranking official at the USAID mission in Bucharest has described such conduct in a sworn statement. He says that he lived with this official for four years in his government housing under the guise of serving as household help. There he claims to have witnessed U.S. government employees engaged in lewd acts and entering into other compromising positions.
According to his deposition, these acts included multiple sexual encounters with young Romanian men, some of whom may have been minors. The high-ranking USAID official’s taxpayer-provided residence was said to be the site of wild sexually charged parties where participants allegedly used drugs and viewed pornography. He states that this official has made sexually explicit photographs of himself available on the Internet. He accuses other officials of paying for sexual favors as well as offering foreign nationals visas in exchange for money or sex. Asked for comment, the USAID press office said it was unaware of any such allegations. Calls to the Inspector General’s office were not returned.
This goes beyond moral and cultural tensions over homosexuality. If true, these serious betrayals of diplomatic responsibility are incompatible with the professional climate required to represent this country abroad effectively. Contrary to a firm U.S. policy against illicit sexual liaisons and the corruption of minors, they would constitute illegal acts using taxpayers’ property and money with the potential to harm national security.
In addition, our national reputation has suffered enough recent damage in Romania due to the case of Kurt Treptow, a prominent historian the U.S. embassy in Bucharest placed on the Fulbright Commission. Yet Treptow was a convicted sex offender. He videotaped himself engaging in sexual acts with children as young as seven, some of whom were allegedly orphans, and was sentenced to seven years in Romanian prison for pedophilia and child abuse.
Bucharest Business Week, an American-owned English-language newspaper that has been persistently critical of Guest, has published stories arguing that the incident was not a mere oversight but a symptom of a larger problem with the climate of the embassy. In its tenacious coverage of the scandal, BBW has reported that Guest’s former public affairs officer, Kiki Munshi Skagen, had her writings published by Treptow’s publishing house and then helped select him for the commission. While embassy officials dismiss claims that this was a conflict of interest, saying that personal knowledge should only enhance awareness of a candidate’s qualifications, this familiarity apparently did not help disclose Treptow’s criminal behavior.
Defenders of the U.S. mission have responded by claiming that the BBW is journalistically irresponsible and sensationalistic, attempting to create a scandal where none exists. The embassy’s current public affairs officer, Mark Wentworth, has described the publication as “inexplicably inclined toward” conspiracy theories. But the incident remains a potential drag on Romanian public perceptions of the embassy.
This obviously does not necessarily mean that appointing an ambassador of a certain sexual orientation leads directly to a total collapse in standards of behavior, as even some critics of the current state of affairs at the embassy in Bucharest concede. Dempsey, for example, told TAC he had no direct knowledge of any of the more lurid allegations and does not believe that Guest would condone such activities.
Whoever is posted as U.S. ambassador to Romania will be responsible for maintaining acceptable standards of conduct. Whether redefining marriage and the family to include nontraditional arrangements would have any impact on their ability to do so is something Americans are presently discussing. There is a reason this debate is occurring and why bureaucrats with control of taxpayer dollars and an international platform should not seek to circumvent it. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ping
No offense but that should be its own thread.
This one is about media coverage of Abu Ghraib.
I would go further. I would state that they are MONOPOLIZING the coverage.
E.g., the thesis of David (The Media is "Conservative") Brock is Debunked (Big Time!), see the latest media-failure-to-cover scandal:
Media Sitting on Saddam's Torture Videos--Newsmax, May 21, 2004
The U.S. backed Arab-language news network Al Hurra broadcast video on Wednesday depicting grisly acts of torture on Iraqi citizens ordered by Saddam Hussein. But so far at least, the shocking new video remains embargoed by U.S. media outlets.
The Washington Post admitted on Friday that it was in possession of some of the gruesome torture images - but did not publish them in a report on the video buried on Page A21. Instead, Post editors decided to front-page stale images of U.S. abuse of suspected terrorists held at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison.
"The [Hussein torture] video reached news outlets," the paper explained, "as senior spokesmen for the Bush administration began to express frustration that the treatment of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. troops had overshadowed well-documented human rights horrors of the Hussein era."
In video yet to be broadcast by any U.S. outlet, Hussein torture victims are shown being flogged and having fingers chopped off. One detainee is filmed as he is thrown from a roof, another beheaded by a sword-weilding member of Saddam's elite Fedayeen unit.
According to the Post, video of the beheading shows a man placing the severed head on the victim's prone body. Another scene shows a man's tongue being cut out.
As NewsMax.com reported on Sunday, other gruesome images from the embargoed video include scenes of Kurdish detainees being castrated and babies being gassed to death.
During the beheading, the executioner reportedly sings "Happy Birthday, Saddam."
Al Hurra news director Mouafac Harb told the Post that he obtained the new torture video on Monday and deemed the images both authentic and newsworthy.
"I was approached with a tape, which I had not seen before," he explained. "I had not seen on the popular Arabic satellite channels any program like this."
nt>
Are you outraged at the flaming ambassador?
That wasn't the point of my post or the thread, is what I'm saying. It's a valid topic for its own thread but this one is about selective media coverage, not for something that would naturally fly under the radar of domestic press coverage.
All Torture! All the Time!
NEW YORK TIMES: C.I.A. USED 'PSYCH-OUTS' ON QAEDA BIGS
The Central Intelligence Agency has used coercive interrogation methods against a select group of high-level leaders and operatives of Al Qaeda that have produced growing concerns inside the agency about abuses, according to current and former counterterrorism officials.
Alleged coersion methods include threatening a detainee with a gun during questioning, use of reverse psychology and "truth or dare," taunting terror suspects with allegations of "chiiii-cken, bawk bawk b-kawk," and subjecting detainees to marathon audiotapes of Air America.
NEW ABUSE SHOCKER: MARINES USING HOT LEAD ON ALLEGED INSURGENTS
New US Iraq abuse allegation surfaced today, as the New York Times reported that the U.S. Marines tortured suspected Iraqi resistance forces with high-speed metal projectiles, resulting in nearly two dozen deaths.
According to Human Rights Watch, Marines in Fallujah were recently seen systematically perforating the flesh of Iraqi suspects with lead projectiles, "without a lawyer present, and before the were even arraigned."
"Lead is a known carcinogen, and this type of torture can be severely painful and inhumane," said Human Rights Watch spokesman Blake Schultz. "For Arab men, there is nothing more humiliating than exit wounds."
"If the reports are true, the U.S. is in clear violation of the Geneva conventions," said Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT). "I can't believe this happened without the knowledge and consent of the Administration."
KENNEDY: THRU BEER GOGGLES, 'SADDAM DOESN'T LOOK HALF BAD'
Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy today said that "Saddam's Torture Tavern has reopened under new U.S. management," and complained that "these new fuckers are watering down the drinks."
Kennedy added that "hey pal, you don't know me," as he slumped to the floor while reaching for his car keys.
BOSTON GLOBE CORRECTS ABUSE PIX STORY
The Boston Globe today issued a correction of a Abu Ghraib prison story it ran in Tuesday's edition, depicting what it said were photos of Iraqi detainees "being thrown from cliffs, put through washing machine wringers, dressed as women, sliced bread-style by clotheslines, pounded into the ground like nails by falling telephone poles, turned into human accordions, and smashed by falling objects including boulders, pianos and ocean liners." According to several websites, the images were actually animation cels from 1940s and '50s MGM and Warner Brothers cartoons.
The Globe said it was conducting an internal investigation of its recent award-winning 15 part abuse series, Naughty Wet Spankings of Shame, and was "actively reviewing" its policy of sourcing foreign affairs reports from Cambridge homeless shelters.
TORTURE GAL FINGERS HIGHER-UPS
Lyndee England, the U.S. soldier seen by millions leading Iraqi prisoners on leashes, implicated her American military superiors in the mistreatment of prisoners at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison.
"Sure, why not?" said England, when asked if she believed the orders may have come from the President.
England, who was playing Mortal Kombat II at a Fayetteville, North Carolina bowling alley lounge, also appealed to the American public for support and "a carton of Merit Menthol 100s."
EMBATTLED RUMSFELD REFUSES CHANCE TO APOLOGIZE
Even half a world away in Baghdad, embattled Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was unable to escape a mounting barrage of criticism for his handling of the Iraq torture crisis. Pressed by a pool of reporters for a response to demands for his resignation, Rumsfeld snapped angrily.
"Oh for goodness sake, do you mind? I'm making 'number two' here," said a visibly shaken Rumsfeld from a restroom stall at Baghram Air Force Base.
CRUMBLING BUSH FOCUS OF CONTROVERSY
(AP) Controversial US President George W. Bush remained the focus of increased rancor today as questions mounted about the clamorous uproar over the burgeoning abuse scandal whose growing momentum threatens to create another divisive wedge in an already angered electorate, which imperils his very administration as it teeters on the brink of disaster, and oh God oh God yes yes yes there it is right there baby uhhhhh AHH....AHH... JOURNALISM! JOURNALISM! JOURNALISM! uhhhh... mmm phhhhh
PRESS PLANS EXPANDED ABUSE COVERAGE
Heads of several major network and cable news operations announced expanded yearlong coverage of the Iraqi prison crisis today. "There is an insatiable, latent public demand out there for information about this scandal, and we intend to supply it," said CNN president Tom Johnson, announcing the premier of a color-coded buttocks on its news crawl to alert viewers to new scandal developments. Cable news rival MSNBC answered with 'Keith Olberman's Top 5 Abuses of the Day," and promised "20% increased screaming from Chris Matthews."
The major networks were quick to follow suit. ABC News said it would revamp the venerable 'Nightline' program as 'Abu Ghraib After Dark,' featuring a pajama-clad Ted Koppel. Starting May 20, CBS will premier 'CSI: Iraq', while NBC is posed to counter with "Marshall Law and Order: Special Victims Unit."
The NBC news division said it would also focus on hard news, sending the Today program on assignment to Iraq. According to an NBC press release, hosts Katie Couric and Matt Lauer will investigate torture stories "in an adorable camouflaged VW Beetle, which will be auctioned off on eBay for Breast Cancer Awareness."
In Entertainment News -- AMERICAN GETS BIG BREAK ON ARAB TV
I'm about ready for the declaration of Marshall Law and the temporary selective suspension of the first amendment. We need our own Abu Graeibe (sp) filled with treasonus media mavens and al-demoquiedas. Sweep Al-Jazera and Al-Arabia out of orbit.
Truth is already dead. Let it rest in peace.
Your point is taken. I posted this article on its own thread yesterday, and got zero interest from the so called born-again conservatives. They are crying a river over gay marriage, but silent on fisting and golden showers in the American embassy in Romania. It is like it is illegal to critisize your own President; even if he does something stupid like that. I did not mean to intrude on your thread, but I only wanted to get reactions from this forum since we were talking about selective outrage. I guess no one cares.
Well I wouldn't say no one cares. It's just difficult for people to find an easy bogeyman in this case. You could blame Bush for the unforeseeable, but now that this situation has occurred, he could damage himself more by cleaning house.
That said, with the Abu Ghraib scandal, maybe it would be politically easier for him to do now?
bttt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.