Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Conservative VS. Liberal Debate on media bias..I Win!
washington post ^ | 11/18/01 | Myself, Howard Kurtz

Posted on 11/27/2001 6:55:01 AM PST by finnman69

Edited on 09/03/2002 4:49:35 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

The following is an e-mail debate I had with an AOL chatroom liberal regarding media bias and how staggeringly incorrect the liberal media was in reporting the war in Afghanistan. This e-mail exchange after I had destroyed a chatroom full of liberals who could not stand being told he NY Times was 100% wrong. I also pointed out the NY Times has been running OPINION pieces on the front page masquerading as news. The NY Times puts the words "military analysis" in 1/16" high letters under the blaring title story to cover theirs asses. When I asked why does the Times run opinion stories on the front page instead of with the other opinion stories I never got any reposnse other than its their right.


(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS:
Notice how he could not admit the major newspapers got it completely wrong. Also notice how it became a debate on freedom of dissent rather than my illustrating it was poor biased journalism.
1 posted on 11/27/2001 6:55:01 AM PST by finnman69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: finnman69
Nice job. I am going to bookmark for the sheer joy of substantial factual refutation. It seems that the news forcasters, have less credibility and accuracy than the weather forcasters. Kind of like Jennings forcasting that Bush would be booed in Yankee Stadium. Wrong again. Can we, should we refer to the media as news forcasters, instead of reporters? LOL

regards

2 posted on 11/27/2001 7:03:26 AM PST by okiedust
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
Thanks for the post.
3 posted on 11/27/2001 7:12:32 AM PST by CaliforniaDreamer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
Sometimes it seems like many journalists today don't really understand the difference between reporting the news and slanting the news...read a piece recently in a British paper where Bush's style of speaking was called refreshing in its simple honesty...the liberal press in America seems to equate simple honesty with a lack of verbal skill or intelligence...this is the same media who kept saying that compared to algore GW was a mental lightweight despite GW's Harvard degree and algore's record of dropping out of school...it is a great joy to see the media elite being unmasked by plainspoken Americans like Rumsfeld and GW.
4 posted on 11/27/2001 7:13:34 AM PST by foreshadowed at waco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
Very well done. A lesson in rational debate (on your part). I will strive to follow your example.
5 posted on 11/27/2001 7:32:15 AM PST by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
Amazing how the tune has changed in a couple of weeks.

Face The Facts: Bombing Works
With our information edge, U.S. air power is an awesome tool. Let’s make better use of it

NEWSWEEK

Dec. 3 issue — Over the last decade, every time the United States has engaged in a strategic bombing campaign it has achieved its goals—think of the Persian Gulf War, the Bosnian air campaign (which persuaded Milosevic to sign the Dayton accords), Kosovo and Afghanistan. And after each war, influential experts and journalists have emphasized that the central lesson of the operation is... air power alone doesn’t work. With the Taliban in ruins and American allies in control of three quarters of Afghanistan, expect to start hearing arguments about how our victory had little to do with bombing.

IN THIS VIEW American military campaigns over the last decade are all optical illusions. What looks to the naked eye like victories produced by air power were really—with some creative interpretation—victories from the ground.

You might think this is a difficult case to make. Yet consider the lead essay in the current issue of International Security, the premier journal of national-security studies. The author, Prof. Daryl Press, explains that in the gulf war, 38 days of heavy bombing—which destroyed command bunkers, bridges, telephone exchanges, power plants, supply lines and tens of thousands of troops—had little effect on Iraq’s military. But four days of scattered ground combat crushed the Iraqi Army and persuaded them to surrender.

This is not so different from the argument made about the Kosovo campaign. NATO flew 37,465 sorties, relentlessly destroying every major military, industrial and communications site in Serbia. But if you thought this was what made Milosevic fold, you’re wrong. Soon after the war, commentators decided that it was a couple of phrases that Bill Clinton muttered about the possibility of ground troops that did the trick. Who knew that words could be so powerful?

What looks to the naked eye like victories produced by air power were really—with some creative interpretation—victories from the ground.

A few weeks into the current campaign the skeptics began their drumbeat. Air power never works, Afghanistan is ill-suited for it, it has strengthened the Taliban politically, etc. Then came the awkward fact of the Taliban’s near-total collapse. But it turns out that this one also was a result not of the weeks of lethal bombing but of the few Special Operations, conducted by a couple of hundred soldiers (most of whom were actually helping guide the bombing, but never mind). And, of course, pride of place now goes to the fearless Northern Alliance, the indispensable force on the ground. (The alliance was often walking into abandoned towns that the Taliban had fled from, but never mind that, too.)

It’s time to face facts. American air power today is an amazing weapon of war. The combination of the information revolution and precision munitions has produced a quantum leap in lethality. William Owens, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, explains the fundamental transformation. “The key instruments that make us so powerful from the air are global positioning systems, laser guidance, detailed maps, radar, J-Stars, moving target indicators. All of these give you information—really knowledge. What sets the United States apart from its adversaries is that we use information much better than they do. Properly used, that can be an unbridgeable gap.”

And in many ways this is only the beginning. “Strategic bombing could be much more effective,” Owens explains. “Imagine an integrated network of sensors that made us see the entire battlefield all the time and a military that was totally interconnected at all times. If we had such a system now, finding Osama bin Laden would be easy.”

Many in the defense establishment are still trapped by the lessons of Vietnam and World War II—in which dumb bombs were largely ineffective. Bureaucratic and political support for old-fashioned systems of power projection remains strong. And nostalgia for land power is still widespread. That’s why Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s attempts to transform the military along the lines Owens advocates were killed by the permanent defense establishment.

One of the main reasons air power is constantly scoffed at—even as it succeeds in test after test—is that many people believe that the limited, precise targeting we are moving toward isn’t really war. The chief criticism of the Afghan campaign was that it was not lethal enough. “Why aren’t we carpet-bombing troops?” we were asked. But carpet-bombing has never been very effective; otherwise Vietnam would have been a thundering success. The better the information you have, the fewer bombs you need to drop to hit a target. During Desert Storm it would take, on average, 10 bombs to hit one target. In the Afghan campaign it took about two bombs to hit a target. The point is to achieve your military objective, not have a fireworks display.

The unease about antiseptic warfare goes beyond bombing itself. Throughout this war, commentators have worried that by not using ground troops we were making war too easy, losing the sense of struggle and sacrifice that are essential to its pursuit. But while there is something to this impulse, surely if America can achieve its objectives without placing too many of its soldiers in harm’s way, it would be crazy to do anything else. Certainly if my son were in the military I would like him to be as lethal and effective as possible. This part is actually not new, revolutionary thinking at all. Remember the words of actor George C. Scott, paraphrasing Gen. George S. Patton: “You don’t win the war by dying for your country. You win the war by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.”

6 posted on 11/27/2001 7:36:00 AM PST by finnman69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
Bottom line is the papers and liberals like this idiot have just as much repent power as Bin Laden. Bush is under scrutiny yet he is not defensive, conservatives are people who repent of their mistakes, unlike terrorists like Bin Laden who are way too close in attitude to liberals.

Suspicion about dissent does not mean condemnation or witch hunt by the way. Liberals out to stop playing victim when they perfectly know they are the prosecutors and victimizers of America.

7 posted on 11/27/2001 7:44:32 AM PST by lavaroise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
"When you read the Washington press..... many now look like baseball announcers warning of defeat during the first inning.

You just gotta love Dick Cheney.

8 posted on 11/27/2001 7:47:26 AM PST by kylaka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
It's really great to know that the only access to the military enjoyed by the media/left comes only from Clinton holdovers. Thats the only explanation I come up with. That and the unquenchable hate of Republicans to a degree that they'd rather see the United States destroyed than give credit to the Bush Administration.
9 posted on 11/27/2001 7:48:46 AM PST by Channel_Islands_EANx_Diver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
“You don’t win the war by dying for your country. You win the war by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.”

The reason the media were howling for ground troops / kia's is a blatant attempt to pin dead bodies of Americans on Bush, purely for political gain.

How sick is that?

10 posted on 11/27/2001 7:56:35 AM PST by Channel_Islands_EANx_Diver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
You won---100 to zero
11 posted on 11/27/2001 8:01:32 AM PST by Media2Powerful
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
"We cannot know yet whether they were right or wrong--and in any case, they were stating opinions--not fact..."

So, these "journalists" were "reporting" opinions, totally unsubstantiated by the facts, as news.. on the front page of their respective papers... have I got this right? Did not your liberal friend Boberich confirm your original thesis, that the press is heavily biased, and is reporting slant as fact? What can be more childish than a liberal who refuses to admit that his original contention is clearly wrong? You can routinely expect them to attempt to change the subject, as Boberich does here, to avoid and mitigate the pain and embarrassment they feel for being proven factually wrong yet again.

12 posted on 11/27/2001 8:05:42 AM PST by Richard Axtell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
It's pathetic--they haven't a clue when they've lost the debate because reason means nothing to them.

They also seem to believe dissent is this noble aspiration, a duty or something. Dissent is healthy if it's focused and meaningful. Screeching and whining is not dissent, and neither is cheerleading for the opponent.

Dissnet is screaming about tribunals or habeas corpus for detainess. This helps ensure that it doesn't get out of hand. Moaning about the war is what the ragasses are hoping we'll do.

13 posted on 11/27/2001 8:29:00 AM PST by big gray tabby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
Specifically it took approximately 2-3 weeks longer than they anticipated to accomplish goals such as knocking the Taliban out of power.

Not really. I can't believe anyone knew how long it would take to knock the Taliban out of power. It's been 9 weeks since the attacks on the USA, and we have already toppled the Taliban. This is an amazing feat. Let no country underestimate the raw power of American military might.

14 posted on 11/27/2001 8:35:18 AM PST by monkeyshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
Fantastic, well-reasoned argument. Great job of not allowing him to change the focus of the debate to the silencing of dissent. I was also interested in your opponent's contention that the media portrayal of the war was not biased because it was only an opinion. First, as you pointed out, there were several clear, declarative statement saying that the war was a failure. Second, a statement of opinion can be an example of media bias. For example, if I write an article citing numorous sources with the opinion that Bill Clinton is the worst president in American history to the exclusion of any other views, my article is biased (even though it's true).
15 posted on 11/27/2001 8:47:53 AM PST by Ronnie Radford
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
Excellent work!!

You gutted him like a fish. ;^)

16 posted on 11/27/2001 9:14:46 AM PST by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #17 Removed by Moderator

To: Tauzero
Re-read the 'opinions' quoted in the stories above and tell me any of them are true.
18 posted on 11/27/2001 8:06:07 PM PST by finnman69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

Comment #19 Removed by Moderator

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson