Reporting What You Want, Not What You See

Strategy Page ^ | December 16, 2005

[robowombat]

Reporting What You Want, Not What You See

December 16, 2005: A story slowly creeping into the news is the disconnect between what American troops experience in Iraq, and what is reported back in the United States, and the rest of the world. For U.S. troops, who are reenlisting in record numbers, even after multiple tours in Iraq, they are fighting a war they are winning, and they see the evidence of this all around them. You’d think that this would make a good story, but it doesn’t. The war on terror, and especially the war in Iraq, have got caught in the middle of other political conflicts. In the United States, the Democrat Party, out of power after nearly half a century, are eager to get control of the government once more, and agreeing about victory in Iraq is not seen as helping their cause. The American mainstream media, needing bad news to keep their ratings up, opt for the Democratic Party view of things.

The hostility from the rest of the world is easier to understand. With the end of the Cold War, everyone will naturally gang up on the lone superpower. Add to the mix all those disappointed Soviet Union fans looking to relive the good old days, and you have a mass of hostility looking for an outlet. America makes the perfect villain, because it’s one that isn’t really a threat. The U.S. will not only take the heat, but continue to be a good trading partner and be quick with a helping hand if anyone gets in trouble.

What the troops think, and experience, is something that can be ignored for the moment. If it becomes too obvious that reporting victory in Iraq cannot be avoided, then the media depends on the fact that the media reports the present, not the past. The media works on the assumption that its readers have no long term memory. Thus there would be a flurry of stories on how all is well in Iraq, and then on to the next headline grabbing disaster. This happened right after the 1991 Gulf War, and right after the three week invasion of Iraq in 2003. History and punditry do not mix.

What the troops see is the majority of Iraqis glad to have them there, and Saddam gone. But the troops also see that Saddams thousands of thugs, and the Sunni Arabs in general, are still free, and fighting to regain the power that Saddam lost for them. While the American media and the rest of the world rabbit on about “the Iraqi resistance,” the troops note that the Iraqis who are still killing, are the same ones who did so for decades while working for Saddam. American troops are killing bad people, not Iraqi “freedom fighters.” Future histories will wonder at how the media was able to carry off their charade for so long. But so far they have, although it’s becoming more difficult as more people get their news from the Internet, where the troops have more of a voice. Not just with blogs and email, but with the different attitudes of web based news organizations. Less burdened with old habits (the only good news is bad news), they also have demographic advantages. Younger people are more often getting their news from the web, rather than TV or paper. At least people the same age as the soldiers know what’s really going on.

As a practical matter, the military can’t do much to get the true story out. Actually, the mass media is already backing off from their Iraq coverage, because of a combination of too much good news, and too much alternative coverage from the troops, and Iraqis themselves. Good news is no news. Moreover, the large number of people who have bought into the idea that Iraq was a mistake, evil, and a defeat, that there will long be an audience for revisionist historians, who will invent alternate realities of what really happened in Iraq.

What the history books will report will be how the battle for Iraq brought democracy (which al Qaeda outright condemns) to the Middle East, and forced Islamic terrorists to show their true colors (fanatic butchers, who don’t much care who they kill.) This led to a sharp decline in al Qaeda’s popularity, and a renewed enthusiasm for democracy throughout what al Qaeda considered their home base. Militarily, it’s known as “taking the war to the enemy.” It’s an ancient strategy that still works. But that was rarely reported, for now. You'll just have to wait.

[westmichman]

If we just had a local paper that did only local news and sports, I wouldn't have to support the local disinformation rag.

[carumba]

The American mainstream media, needing bad news to keep their ratings up, opt for the Democratic Party view of things...

Nice try, they don't need an excuse.

[rj45mis]

I love the truth. I hold on to it dearly. Thanks for the post.

[theDentist]

The media works on the assumption that its readers have no long term memory.

No assumption. It's readers may have a vague memory of a corresponding event from last Tuesday, but they don't recall for sure.

[JeffreyH]

I can tell you for certain. I would see things in downtown Baghdad with my own eyes... then 15 minutes later see it on CNN web or TV - and it wasn't even CLOSE to what just happened. Over and over and over again.

Sometimes I wondered if they were in a completely different country reporting these 'facts'. Really p*sses me off - especially after seeing with my own eyes.

I still talk with others over there - and can tell you that the media is STILL way off base on their reports.

[Wristpin]

Thanks for your service Jeffrey!

[theDentist]

I have no doubt you are right. Someone on FR reported seeing Christiane Amanpour tell a new sstory about the invasion on CNN for US viewers, then a whole different take on it for CNN International. Talk about tailoring your stories.

[Dallas59]

The MSM has found out that it can't push it's "truth" any longer....especially when there's "people in their underwear and pajamas" on the Internet analyzing, disputing and correcting what is "reported" to the them.

[HOTTIEBOY]

How does one go about removing a word from the English language. I mean, if a word no longer exists or is obsolete, how do we strike it from the dictionary?
I think "treason" should be removed. It is a useless word that has no meaning. Nothing amounts to treason. That is, unless you live in Cuba, where you would be killed for treason.
In the US it is called freedom of speech. Where is the line drawn between freedom of speech and treason? If that word even exists anymore.

[JimRed]

What the history books will report will be how the battle for Iraq brought democracy (which al Qaeda outright condemns) to the Middle East, and forced Islamic terrorists to show their true colors (fanatic butchers, who don’t much care who they kill.) This led to a sharp decline in al Qaeda’s popularity, and a renewed enthusiasm for democracy throughout what al Qaeda considered their home base.

That draws a parallel with the I.R.A., who were heroes in Ireland when they were fighting occupying British troops. But when they turned to terrorism, blowing up pubs and murdering civilian political opponents, then let their true Marxist leanings be known, support dropped. Much of their support came from leftists in the U.S. from then on.

[wouldntbprudent]

Here's some news the MSM wants to hide:

http://photoshow.comcast.net/watch/JY8xs3uG

[reformedliberal]

You and the rest of the troops and contractors will, in large numbers, actually be home for the next couple of elections.
The donks aren't going to be able to disenfranchise as many as they did in 2004, and, of course, we still won that election.

Thank you for your service and keep on reporting what your friends in Iraq are saying and seeing. Let them know that we support them, too. As fewer people of all ages ignore the legacy media and get their information directly off the net,we will win here at home, as well as overseas.

[Thunder 6]

True enough. We knew the only time we ever made news was when one of us was killed, or some knucklehead blew up a pipeline. Never a good word about what the guys were accomplishing. It got old. And the media dudes wonder why we didn't like having them around...?
Regards,