READER COMMENTS ON
"CBS Reporter Explains Lack of 'Good News' in Iraq"
(25 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 1/19/2006 @ 12:21 pm PT...
Lets see ... democracy of the American type involves freedom of the press but the press is really not free in Iraq, not even safe.
So who wants to jump up and down and tell the world how good it is going there?
Are the administion complainers brain dead? If only embedded "journalists" who travel along with the military are considered "free press" then we can ascertain that the admin is just off its rocker.
War, violence, torture, and all of the "gifts" this admin has given us are not the things we want.
"Good news" of the kind the admin wants would be nothing more than admin catapulted propaganda which is "garbage" in journalistic terms.
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 1/19/2006 @ 12:31 pm PT...
Lara Logan has exposed a major fallacy behind the Bush administration's claims of "progress" in Iraq.
The so-called progress consists primarily of REBUILDING SOMETHING THAT WAS DESTROYED DURING OR AFTER OUR INVASION. How can that be progress? If I burn your house down, then agree to build you a new one, are you better off? No...eventually you're back where you started, except you've had to live somewhere else in the meantime and pay rent.
It's the same with schools, hospitals, roads, office buildings, hotels, factories. Finally somebody in the media had the guts to stand up to Bush and expose this nonsense. Good for you, Lara.
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 1/19/2006 @ 1:31 pm PT...
Here's a glimpse at how Iraq rebuilt itself after the first gulf war. They had rebuilt 90% of the damage in just 2 years with no help from the outside world.
And in nearly 3 years and countless billions of dollars we have accomplished what?
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 1/19/2006 @ 1:43 pm PT...
Here is another take on that story,
"One Marine, Sgt. Todd Bowers, who did two tours in Iraq, described the attitude of many press types. "They didn't want to talk to us." Why? I asked. "Because we were gung-ho for the mission." Bowers, who was saved from grievous injury when a bullet lodged in the sight of his rifle (a sight his father had purchased for him), is chary about the press."
"At the same site, the Marines had repaired an old Ferris wheel. The motor was dead, but when two Marines pushed and pulled by hand they could get the thing turning to give rides to the children of the Iraqi employees. They did so for hours on end. A photographer from a large American media company watched impassively. "Why don't you take a picture of this?" demanded one Marine. The photographer snorted, "That's not my job." "
The press aint hero's over there people. When they are protected by the marines, they still do not report anything other than bad news.
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 1/19/2006 @ 2:10 pm PT...
Big K #4
If journalists are working in an environment where it is safe for them only if they are with the military, that is a huge journalistic conflict of interest.
Embedded means being in bed with. That is a no no for the science of journalism.
Embedded is bad enough, but embedded with the military, which is commanded by a commander in chief is all the more problematic.
Bush is the one who is lying to the American People, according to the polls in the US that ask people what they think about the president's credibility.
So the military, being the agent of the Lyin King, is not the entity the press should embed itself with ... if their stories about how great and wonderful things are in Iraq are to be believed.
Come on ... things are not good in any country that has been invaded, occupied, and told what to do at the end of a gun.
The trigger happiness the president wants the press to peddle is not the happiness we want for any country.
Just the facts maam, imam, and you too prez.
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 1/19/2006 @ 2:55 pm PT...
If the facts of an embedded media are not to be believed, then why listen to any of it, positive or not? With your logic we should turn off the computers and the news programs and just go about playing Scrabble.
And what news are we to believe? Al Jazeera? They seam embedded as well, just not with our guys. You can not discredit the media outlets you disagree with simply because they do not tell you something you want to hear.
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 1/19/2006 @ 3:42 pm PT...
Which one of you faxed Osama the liberal talking points?
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
said on 1/19/2006 @ 4:12 pm PT...
I can't imagine what would be good news about a war where we invaded a 3rd world country for oil. A country which did nothing to us. The only "good news" I want to hear is that all our soldiers are coming home and Iraq can find their place in this world. It will ultimately come down to that anyway.
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 1/19/2006 @ 4:24 pm PT...
For Big K: I'd be skeptical about all news, either from Al Jazeera or from our own embedded journalists, and just ask one simple question:
"What does PROGRESS IN IRAQ mean?" Taken literally, "progress" means "advancement" or
"better than before," wouldn't you agree? So...how are the people of Iraq, or are we, better off than before we invaded that country?
Saddam Hussein is under arrest. That's one sign of progress. Beyond that, I can't see anything. He was arrested over two years ago. Since then, almost all of our casualties have occurred. Where is the progress the Bush administration claims the media are ignoring? Rebuilding something that was destroyed since we invaded cannot be progress. Unless I'm missing something, we've spent trillions of dollars and lost 2,200 dead and over 15,000 wounded to arrest Saddam Hussein...meanwhile adding immeasurably to the threat of terrorism.
The elections and constitution have left Iraq just where it was before, in the hands of Muslim clerics. That isn't progress, if our goal was to create a Western-style democracy. Iraq is still a theocracy, only without Saddam Hussein as its secular leader. Again...we've done all this simply to arrest him, in the final analysis. Can it possibly have been worth the cost?
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
said on 1/19/2006 @ 4:29 pm PT...
All I am saying is the press is ignoring some of the positives. Is the entire thing positive? I leave that to your own good judgment. But are there things going on other than the bombings? Absolutely. And it is a good question why the "conservative" media is ignoring them. Considering, according to the almighty Brad, they are in lockstep with Bush.
I find it stupid that someone could at once say the media is Bush's lap dog and point out that they are not doing what he wants. It is an insult to my intelligence, and yours.
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
said on 1/19/2006 @ 4:32 pm PT...
Those kooky liberals in the media.. they never report about the buildings we DIDN'T bomb.
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 1/19/2006 @ 4:42 pm PT...
O.K., Big K. I'll keep an open mind. I hope you're right. But claiming the media are ignoring the good things isn't the same as saying good things are happening. And except for Saddam's arrest over two years ago, I don't see any.
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
said on 1/19/2006 @ 5:29 pm PT...
Right-wing talking points is all we ever get from you. Do you have a brain of your own? Let's have an honest discussion about issues.
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
said on 1/19/2006 @ 6:39 pm PT...
If the press gave full coverage of all things "News worthy" I'm sure the handful of "good news items" would leak out also .Like how DU is being used in a so-called non-nuclear war WTF ,get the fricken troops out and take ya fricken radio-active wastse with ya!
Am I too cynical or is this some noecon wastse disposal solution ,800 fricken tons of the crap spread over the poor bastards in Iraq...
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2006 @ 5:40 am PT...
I am about to make a cynical and hurtful remark, but it continues to cross my mind. In the real ugly world of reporting, it is not fair to expect journalists to be intrepid risk-takers. We have a CBS reporter saying "why should I risk my life in a war zone to cover a bridge opening?" She's right. And we have another journalist who is hostage to militant forces in that same war zone who appear to have no use for the life of the hostage. But I am hardly sympathetic to the journalists as a group, because here in the safety and security of the USA, they continually allow themselves to be bought by the very parties who have caused this terrible state of affairs. The same journalistic enterprises do not accept the responsibility of doing their job even when it is safe. I am not crying myself to sleep over lost journalists, and I doubt seriously if many Americans are either---and THAT, dear readers, the tragic story here. Not a hostage situation.
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2006 @ 6:25 am PT...
LOL and spot on!
Big K #10
Degree at times is a consideration. Intensity comes to the line and a type change results when the line is crossed.
What I mean is that the press is saying it is a bit bad there, when the fact is that it is intolerable.
When we tolerate the intolerable we are diminished, deflated, and corrupted.
The fascist things of our country are intolerable, and the scripts read between commercials are just poison for the masses.
"It is bad" is a lie when the truth is "it is intolerable".
Imagine a reporter describing a rape taking place. Imagine the reporter telling us that the victim's kidneys are still working, lungs are still working, heart is still beating, and then calling all that good. Never mind that the person has just been raped. That is what the fascist neoCon regime wants the press to do.
And imagine my reaction when the government complains that the reporter mentioned that it was a rape, when, in the government's mind, the reporter should have focused on the fact that the heart, kidneys, and lungs are working well.
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2006 @ 6:54 am PT...
Big K.. explain to me this then.. why is it that when TRAVESTIES are reported, Bush and his supporters -immediately- bring in this bullshit about "where are the good stories!"..
You mean, the good stories about a wedding, a very happy time in a families life, with much happiness and celelbration, that WE BOMBED THE SHIT OUT OF AND KILLED DOZENS OF INNOCENT CIVILIANS? Or when we bombed a family that was sleeping, killing the women and children with out "precision guided bomb"?
Do you REALLY think it matters one fuck that "two marines spun an old broken down (likely from our attacks) farris wheel to entertain a few kids", when during the same time frame, we blew up several families and lost other troops during our ILLEGAL and UNNECISARY war?
It's amazing how people can sit here, with HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of dollars (near $1 trillion, by the time it's gonna be done, as I understand it) being spent, 10s of THOUSANDS of people DEAD, the DESTRUCTION and POISONING of an ENTIRE COUNTRY.. and cry because no one is saying "look, we fixed a bridge we blew up for illegal and pointless reasons!"..
Look at the bigger picture, you moron.. Look at the FACTS and stop trying to sugar coat this autrocity. People are dying DAILY, and you can find fault with "reporters who don't show us fixing what we destroyed", but you can't seem to find fault with the lying piece of shit that tricked us into this war in the first place? Great patriot you are.. keep killing your fellow citizens, then complaining how people are taking it too seriously..
COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 1/20/2006 @ 6:59 am PT...
For GTash: The journalist is certainly right that risking her life to cover a bridge opening doesn't make sense. And the Army officer is right that asking soldiers to pose for photos in public is a pointless risk to take.
But it also doesn't make sense to consider the bridge opening as "progress," either. Because the bridge didn't get blown up until we invaded Iraq. If the Bush administration could show that a NEW BRIDGE or a NEW SCHOOL or a NEW HOSPITAL was being opened, and the media were ignoring it, they'd have an argument. But if that were the case, we'd hear about it from Scottie McLellan, anyway.
COMMENT #19 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2006 @ 8:27 am PT...
Yes. There may be some legitimately good news to be covered in Iraq, but I think it's slim pickins. Your main point (What's the value of covering the repair of stuff we broke in a wrongheaded invasion?) is well taken. It might be different if we were talking say about the Occupation of Japan after World War II. Recovery would mean something if we had popular support at home and abroad, even for fixing things that got broken in the battle. That is simply not the case with Iraq and America today. I still maintain the real story here has more to do with what journalists have been doing (or not doing) when they are safe and secure.
COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2006 @ 2:07 pm PT...
My friends that came back from over there tell me that they were not scared while there, it was when they read the news here that they worried about their buddies. The media is showing every single death, every single misstep, every single tragedy. But nothing else. Think about it, 2200 deaths in combat over this much time. We have 160,000 troops there and who knows how many indigenous people. How many people died in New York City last year from violence? The numbers are similar. Yet they find other news in New York, don’t they.
COMMENT #21 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2006 @ 3:36 pm PT...
Also, notice no one is saying that the press should not report the news it does, they are just saying it could be more balanced.
COMMENT #22 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2006 @ 8:09 pm PT...
So Big K, you malign all journalists just because one photographer didn't take a photo of soldiers being friendly to Iraqi children? That's mature. Oh wait, did someone whipser "stereotyping"?
By the way, it's heroes, NOT hero's. If you put an apostrophe in the word it means something belongs to it. Does anything belong to "hero" in your sentence?
Hero's pants, would be correct. But you don't write about pants or anything belonging to an individual hero.
Heroes = more than one hero
Hero's = there better be a noun after it, something that belongs to an individual.
This is third grade stuff.
Stop abusing the apostrophe. It is not correct even if you see other people do it...because they are equally incorrect. This mistake makes you look ignorant and detracts and distracts from your point.
As the commercials say..."The more you know..."
COMMENT #23 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2006 @ 8:10 pm PT...
COMMENT #24 [Permalink]
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 1/21/2006 @ 6:20 am PT...
I attended a town meeting yesterday hosted by my congressman, Christopher Shays. He's an up-front guy who works hard and is scrupulously honest.
But his attitude toward Iraq reflects the depth of the problem. After telling us, "I've been to Iraq ten times (making him one of the best informed people in Washington on the situation there, theoretically), he responded, "We'll have to see" when I asked him, "Haven't the recent elections left Iraq as a theocracy, when we've lost 2,200 soldiers in an attempt to establish a democracy?"
He went to say, "The insurgents are playing to public opinion in America. They're counting on our comparing Iraq to Vietnam." I almost fell out of my seat at that point.
When did Chris Shays become a mind-reader? How many insurgents has he interviewed, that he can profess to know what a suicide bomber thinks? Does he really believe someone who blows himself up is doing it to influence American public opinion?
Did it ever occur to him that the people he blithely calls "insurgents" might in fact be patriotic Iraqis who just hate us for invading their sovereign land?
It's called the arrogance of power, as in "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
It even affects good guys like Chris Shays, a man of character and principle who went to Washington as a maverick and has morphed into an imperialist.
COMMENT #25 [Permalink]
said on 1/22/2006 @ 10:51 pm PT...
Thanks for the spelling lesson. The one time I do not use a spellchecker and see what it gets me. Plenty of people here use horrible grammar and spelling and can barely articulate a coherent statement, but hey, if you are not a raving liberal then and only then will we castigate you for it. Otherwise, you are “a’ight.”
Out of that entire diatribe the only thing on topic was your question of whether I would malign all journalists because one did not take one picture. That was an example. You know the definition of an example, right? Please, add something to the convo. A lesson in spelling and grammar simply proves you have nothing else to say of consequence.
Mr. Mills on the other hand presents a different problem. He hears a congressman speak who he generally regards as a good man. The congressman has been to Iraq, and has visited a few times in fact. Mr. Mills will tell us that the opinion of such a one is irrelevant because Mr. Mills posed a question he thought he knew the answer to. When he did not get the answer he was looking for he became upset. This is an example of bias. He asked for the opinion by a respected person who has more authority on a subject but rejecting it based on his own opinion. An opinion not supported by the real word experience of going to the place in question.
I find that interesting, and indicative of the arguments posed by the left. Then he humanizes them. Patriotic Iraqis would not kill children. These guys do. In fact have targeted them in the past. What say you to that Mr. Mills?