Posted on 10/09/2005 5:52:51 AM PDT by Vigilanteman
When Army Spc. Bobby Hillen arrived in war-torn Iraq in January 2004, he saw small children playing in bomb craters in the streets. As he was leaving Iraq a year later, Hillen, a National Guard soldier from Brookline, recalls seeing children being shepherded into new schools that were part of the U.S. and coalition forces' reconstruction effort. "It was a drastic difference," said Hillen, 22, who believes most Americans never see such accomplishments because the media generally ignore positive developments in Iraq. "It's a slap in the face to a soldier when you turn on the news and all you hear are the negative aspects," he said. Hillen is not alone in his views. Other Iraqi war veterans from the Pittsburgh region contend that much of the good news that takes place in Iraq -- such as schools, hospitals and roads being built and utility services being restored -- fails to make the high-profile reports. As a consequence, violence becomes the whole picture. Patrick Witcop, of Kennedy, who was a first sergeant with the 307th Military Police Company in Iraq for much of 2003, came home for an emergency leave in November that year. After watching the evening news for two weeks, Witcop got the impression the war had taken a turn for the worse, he recalled. "I was anxious to get back to my unit," he said. "When I got back, it was no worse. It was just the reporting making it look awful." A new national organization -- Families United for Our Troops and Their Mission, a group that supports the mission of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan -- has addressed the issue in recent news releases.
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghlive.com ...
I guess that's good news...sort of.
But still, the article focuses on the 'complaints' of veterans and doesn't even begin to chronicle the positive gains made in Iraq.
They don't say how many schools, how much electricity, how much oil has been sold, how many businesses have been started...they don't even tell you where to go to find out these things.
I wonder if that's because they still don't know themselves...
Good read from those on the front lines! I agree some if not most are stuck on sensational journalism. From catchy headers to hyped/pumped stories, its about eyeball hits & who cares if there’s a credibility issue with reporters touts. MSM is really a one way media focus and who verifies the stories content? Just your regular bunker mentality!!
I'm sure the army would be more than happy to tell them if they bothered to ask.
Everything you ever wanted to know, right at your fingertips:
The First Amendment stipulates that we are free to speak and print our own opinions. We-the-people do that in personal speech and in newspapers, magazines, and books. And lately on the telephone and via the internet.Journalism distorts that by claiming to be "the press." Some of journalism is part of the press - broadcast journalism is no part of the press unless I have the right to broadcast without a license.
The Constitution defines the public interest. The public interest is that everyone be allowed to speak on an equal basis - the legitimate role of the government does not include facilitating the speech of some and not others. And the fact that broadcast journalism takes its cue from a prominent newspaper is irrelevant to the question of whether the speech of a broadcaster is "in the public interest."
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.