Posted on 04/14/2003 4:15:56 AM PDT by Mean Daddy
April 14, 2003 -- ONE byproduct of war is often a major change in media and news reporting. In the Civil War, photography was born. In World War II, Edward R. Murrow brought radio into its own with his dramatic reports of the Nazi blitz on London. In Vietnam, television became pivotal as images of bloodshed soured American backing for the war. The Gulf War saw the growth of CNN as all-news television became essential. In the Iraq War, the public may well have learned not to trust the broadcast networks or the establishment newspapers.
Never before have Americans had the chance to watch the establishment media while also seeing events unfold for themselves, live, on television. Our collective understanding of the dissonance between the two is breeding a distrust of the major news organs that will likely long outlast this war.
Those in professional politics take the media's distortions for granted, and even learn to play them through what has come to be called "spin." We know what's happening in Washington, the White House and Congress; each morning, when we read the version the media give to the public, we can't but help notice the difference.
But the average American rarely, if ever, gets that opportunity. In this war, they did - and their reaction to media news is likely never to be quite the same.
Each morning, we sat reading our copy of The New York Times, The Washington Post or the Los Angeles Times and ruminated on their prophecies of doom and quagmire. Then we looked up to see, on television, correspondents actually embedded with our troops reporting quick advances, one-sided firefights, melting opposition and, finally, welcoming crowds.
Then the TV would cut back to the anchors and military analysts far from the battlefield. There, with their pointers and maps, we heard all about how we had too few troops in Iraq and the war plan had misfired and that Bush's failure to enlist Turkish cooperation was likely to prove disastrous.
For months before the war started, we had read articles in the establishment media about how house-to-house fighting in Baghdad would consume our troops like a meat grinder. We heard dire TV predictions of poison gas, missile attacks on Israel and burning oil wells. None of it happened.
Then, as the war unfolded, it was obvious that minor mishaps would dominate the network and newspaper coverage. Friendly-fire casualties, accidental journalist deaths, temporary supply shortages, unavoidable killing of civilians - all were played with the same or greater gusto than was the news of the actual war itself.
Who can forget juxtapositions like this one: A joyous mob hauls down Saddam Hussein's 40-foot statue in a scene reminiscent of the fall of the Berlin Wall - while ABC's Peter Jennings belittles the Iraqis as a "small crowd"?
The disjuncture between the reality and the reporting became obvious to anyone who had eyes and ears.
A few news organs, including this newspaper, featured reports that the established media felt were cheerleading in their optimism. But reality proved the "cheerleaders" right and the pessimists wrong.
The result has been a major shift in American media/news habits. While CBS viewership dropped 15 percent from pre-war totals, ABC fell 6 percent and NBC gained an anemic 3 percent, the Fox News Channel audience rose 236 percent while CNN and MSNBC (with smaller audiences) recorded similarly impressive gains.
On morning TV, the cable show Fox and Friends actually drew 2.9 million viewers, more than CBS' 2.8 million on its Early Show - the first time a cable news station has beaten a network news program in ratings (but not the last).
Among younger viewers (18-34), CBS Evening News fell 16 percent while Fox News Channel gained fivefold.
But the biggest loser was The New York Times, formerly the newspaper of record, but now reduced - in full public view - to a newspaper of the political opposition. Its readers got to see, in plain view, the paper's pessimism and bias against the Bush administration.
This has been a rough war for tyrants and those who try to control the thoughts of their people. In Baghdad - but also in Manhattan, at the headquarters of the Times, NBC, CBS and ABC.
The war coverage may be the turning point for a majority of Americans, but It started much earlier. This is the dawning of a golden age for America, where Truth and Skepticism will take their rightful predominant place with care for "the chilrun".
FREED IRAQI'S CHEERING CHAMPIONS OF FREEDOM WHO ARRIVED
Click picture for more Information
THIS JUST IN: "Americans who only watch CBS/CNN/NBC/ABC
are at risk for developing depression, shingles, and other DSM symptoms and signs.
The therapy may be as follows, Rx : FREE REPUBLIC 1-2x q2-6h or prn"
I hadn't checked the author until I saw how you bumped the thread!
The "elite" have noticed that the media does not accurately portray reality, and the "elite" have no incentive to announce or address it. In fact, the media is an organ, a part of the elite, and accuracy is NOT part of the agenda. At best, the goal is market share and revenue. At worst, the goal is manipulation of public opinion and perception in order to effect a deeper level of control.
If these reporters had not been "embedded" they would have been on the sidelines, giving cynical reports about what was happening from Kuwait and Qatar.
The only reporters covering the stories in Baghdad and other Iraqi cities would have been Peter Arnett and the anti-American foreign reporters and we wouldn't have seen the same pictures that we've been seeing. They would have avoided the jubilant crowds and the positive images.
Says it all. The left tried to compare Bush to Hitler and Sadamn, but the biggest comparison is that the "Leftist, Elite Media Guard" is a whole team of Bagdad-Bobs.
I always knew you were one sharp cookie! ;-)
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.