Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Dirty Little Secrets Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Journalism Versus Reality in Iraq
James Dunnigan    12/3/2005 1:30:53 AM


American troops are developing a hate-hate relation with journalists. The basic problem is that soldiers and marines in Iraq have access, usually via the Internet, to what the mass media is saying about what they think is happening in Iraq. These news reports, all too often, do not reflect what the troops experience. It gets uglier when the troops realize that reporters are spending most of their time in the Green Zone or some well guarded hotel, leaving it to local Iraqi stringers to collect information and photos for the reporters stories. Relations are a bit better with the few embedded journalists who still travel with the troops out in field. But even the embeds are often mistrusted and disliked, because some of them are blatantly out for dirt, not an accurate story.

Few of the troops understand that the news business is driven by dramatic events, not the tedious kind of process the troops go through every day to defeat the terrorists. To the troops, the war is being won. They see bad guys killed in large numbers, and few Americans getting hurt (it?s fairly common for their to be about twenty enemy dead for each American loss). The troops see tangible evidence, every day, of Iraqis having a better life. The troops cannot understand why that is not news, and why journalists always seem to be looking for a negative angle. To the average G.I., the attitude is, ?what are these reporters looking for?? They are looking for a story, and bad news is a story. Good news is not. As a result of this clash of cultures, reporters are increasingly seen as a potentially dangerous enemy. For the troops, this is already accepted as true for many Arab journalists. Some of those have been arrested for hostile activity, or later revealed as al Qaeda agents. European journalists are seen as particularly clueless, so wrapped up in their anti-American fantasies, that communication is nearly impossible. But after watching a CNN clip on the net, or viewing an online story from the New York Times or Washington Post, it?s hard to view U.S. journalists as fellow Americans.


 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2
Jim-MtnViewCA    RE:Journalism Versus Reality in Iraq   12/3/2005 12:21:26 PM
Mr Dunnigan does his best to present this topic in a non-judgemental way that shows the motivations for both sides sympathetically. I think he is making too much of an effort. Whether purposely or from not thinking things through, reporters are working to advance our enemies. If you are pro-American, ask yourself: when 3 Americans are killed does CNN report that 100 were killed? Does Fox report that no Americans are harmed? No, they both report the truth (yes, al-Reuters is an exception). So why do we watch Fox? For myself, it is the tone of the coverage. With CNN, you feel like the reporter is saying "some Americans died. so what, they deserve it!" With Fox the reporter conveys a feeling of "sorry to have to tell you that some of our neighbors, and neighbor's kids were killed". You can be pro-American and tell the truth. You can report true statements and be anti-American. If you are anti-American you are my enemy. There's no need to make excuses, just treat them as such.
 
Quote    Reply

PaulG    RE:Journalism Versus Reality in Iraq   12/4/2005 8:57:00 PM
JFD Says: ?It gets uglier when the troops realize that reporters are spending most of their time in the Green Zone or some well guarded hotel, leaving it to local Iraqi stringers to collect information and photos for the reporters stories.? And he says: ?The troops see tangible evidence, every day, of Iraqis having a better life.? Why, after almost 3 years, are journalists spending most of their time in the Green Zone or well guarded hotels? Could it mean that they don?t feel safe outside the Green Zone or well-guarded hotels? Further, could their fear be tangible evidence supporting the notion that things really aren?t getting better in Iraq?
 
Quote    Reply

Pseudonym    RE:Journalism Versus Reality in Iraq   12/4/2005 9:42:40 PM
"Could it mean that they don?t feel safe outside the Green Zone or well-guarded hotels? Further, could their fear be tangible evidence supporting the notion that things really aren?t getting better in Iraq?" If you could pay someone a couple dollars to do your job for you and take the credit, would you? Or instead of lounging in your AIR CONDITIONED hotel watching television and surfing the web, would you go out in the heat and walk around talking to people? Think about it.
 
Quote    Reply

PaulG    RE:Journalism Versus Reality in Iraq   12/4/2005 11:51:20 PM
Pseudonym, Interesting suggestion. JFD did specify ?well guarded? hotels ? what are they well guarded against? Mobs of Iraqis seeking decent air conditioning? Let me just say I?m skeptical. I think they're worried that what happened to the four peace activists link will happen to them. Let?s try another approach to support my contention that the reason they?re not venturing out is because they don?t feel safe. Question: do U.S. soldiers ever venture outside the Green Zone alone, without weapons or protective gear, in civilian clothes? When they have a few days off, do they venture outside the Green Zone and hit the Baghdad nightclubs in civvies, unarmed? I don?t know if they do or don?t. I just haven?t heard any reports of that. I haven?t heard reports either way, to tell you the truth. If they don?t, I?d like to know why not.
 
Quote    Reply

Pseudonym    RE:Journalism Versus Reality in Iraq   12/5/2005 3:52:09 AM
They are well defended against terrorist actually, who are still there, though in ever decreasing numbers. Did you know Zarqawi's family has disowned him? The war in Iraq is going great. Who gives two hoots if they crumble into a million smaller factions. The War in Iraq is paying dividends larger than anyone could have hoped. The Muslim world is seeing how many MUSLIMS the terrorists are killing, and people like Zarqawi's family have to take out ads in newspapers because terrorists are becoming persona non grata. The Iraq War is exposing these vermin to the light. Anyways, the fact remains, the reporters don't go out themselves because they don't know the land as well as their stringers and can pay them chump change to do their job for them, while they sit in their air conditioned satellite television internet laden hotel jacking off to jenna jameson and printing whatever the terrorists want. IE, the war is being lost. Go look at some Military blogs man, we are winning, big time. Crap go read some reports from Muslim Countries about how the terrorists are beginning to be viewed.
 
Quote    Reply

PaulG    RE:Journalism Versus Reality in Iraq   12/6/2005 1:02:33 AM
Pseudonym: The issue is progress in Iraq, and for three years Strategy Page and posters hereon have been bellyaching about how we?re really making progress but the MSM won?t report it. Often accompanying these protestations about progress are assertions like the ones you?ve made (Zaqawi?s family disowning him, Muslim world turning against terrorists, etc.) which purport to demonstrate the progress the MSM won?t report. Well, that?s just fine, but it doesn?t provide any tangible measure of how things are really going. But there is ONE tangible measure I can think of that doesn?t depend on any media bias: if, after three years, U.S. soldiers are afraid to venture outside the Green Zone, alone and unarmed, that kind of tells you all you need to know about how things are going in Iraq, doesn?t it? Even in Vietnam, U.S. soldiers could blow off steam in Saigon hotspots, so in terms of socio-political stability we seem way behind even our experience in that conflict. So people can assert all they want that we?re making progress, and cite anectdotes about how electrical power is being restored and the Iraqi kids are going to grammar school, etc., but if a person can?t go into a city without mortal fear of death or abduction, it seems like we?ve failed in a very profound way to meet even the minimum standards of success necessary to achieve the goal Bush has set: a stable, free, democratic Iraq. And we?ve failed 2.6 years after ?Mission Accomplished.? Is there any progress at all in this respect? Has the Green Zone at least been expanded since 2003? I understand you still need to travel in an armed convoy from the airport to the Green Zone. Is that still true? With this rate of progress, when are we supposed to meet our objective? 2100? And why carp about people who consider this rate of progress a failure? Don?t they have a legitimate point?
 
Quote    Reply

Pseudonym    RE:Journalism Versus Reality in Iraq   12/6/2005 1:59:38 AM
"The issue is progress in Iraq, and for three years Strategy Page and posters hereon have been bellyaching about how we?re really making progress but the MSM won?t report it. Often accompanying these protestations about progress are assertions like the ones you?ve made (Zaqawi?s family disowning him, Muslim world turning against terrorists, etc.) which purport to demonstrate the progress the MSM won?t report. Well, that?s just fine, but it doesn?t provide any tangible measure of how things are really going." We are not fighting a country. We are fighting a state of mind. The fact that Zarqawi's family, i don't remember his real name off the top of my head(Zarqawi being a town near his home), anyway the fact they are scared after that wedding bombing shows the terrorists are turning moderates against them. Then considering Iraq if you look there, we are building up their military in two years to this level while may not seem like alot to you is amazing to me. It took 10 years to do in Vietnam, and they didn't have to get rid of as many former officers as we have. In the USA it takes 10+ years to train officers for higher ranks, the kind you need anyways. The Shia and Kurds are on our side for the most part, it really is only the Sunni Minority that is the problem and even now they are fracturing, with a wedge of dead muslims between Al Q and the Iraqi Sunni. "But there is ONE tangible measure I can think of that doesn?t depend on any media bias: if, after three years, U.S. soldiers are afraid to venture outside the Green Zone, alone and unarmed, that kind of tells you all you need to know about how things are going in Iraq, doesn?t it? Even in Vietnam, U.S. soldiers could blow off steam in Saigon hotspots, so in terms of socio-political stability we seem way behind even our experience in that conflict." That says nothing about Iraq. That says the Government doesn't want soldiers risking themselves alone outside the Green Zone. Think about how few men we have lost in this war. Now ask yourself why we are losing so few men. While I applaud George Bush for trying to effect change in the Middle East it is a tricky situation. Just look at Middle Eastern history if you want to see what kind of problem we face. Every day in Iraq the terrorists kill more and more muslims and this is making them think. "So people can assert all they want that we?re making progress, and cite anectdotes about how electrical power is being restored and the Iraqi kids are going to grammar school, etc., but if a person can?t go into a city without mortal fear of death or abduction, it seems like we?ve failed in a very profound way to meet even the minimum standards of success necessary to achieve the goal Bush has set: a stable, free, democratic Iraq." Goals are nice lofty things to strive for. That doesn't mean we should throw in the towel and go home, it just means Bush set an impossible goal to strive toward. Sorta like the Star Wars Program of Reagan. A nice nearly impossible public loved goal, that while not attainable at the time had the effect that Reagan wanted. To continue forcing the Soviets to spend more and more money until bam, they collapse. What do you think the Muslim world would think if we told them we were going to fight their war on their ground so their dead would raise questions as to why they were killed by the people supposedly trying to free them from our tyrannical oppression. What you say and what you do are not always the same things. "And we?ve failed 2.6 years after ?Mission Accomplished.?" Bush was referring to taking out Saddam, but if you really want to know the mission was fully accomplished on the WMD front. No longer will Saddam be sitting and waiting while his bribes slowly erode the Sanctions and he can continue his quest for nuclear weapons. And before you go off on that please go read some of the accounts by the US Weapons Inspectors. "Is there any progress at all in this respect? Has the Green Zone at least been expanded since 2003? I understand you still need to travel in an armed convoy from the airport to the Green Zone. Is that still true?" Damn those soldiers and their ritualistic Safety practices in a war zone. "With this rate of progress, when are we supposed to meet our objective? 2100? And why carp about people who consider this rate of progress a failure? Don?t they have a legitimate point?" You are confusing the War on Terror as the War for Iraqi Democracy. Democracy in the Middle East will take a couple generations to bring about, the simple fact being their religion doesn't want it. That doesn't mean we can't show them the downside of terror. It's a real tricky war, trying to not unite the whole Islamic World against us in Jihad, splitting them up instead of driving them together, all the while our real enemy is the Middle Eastern Strain of Islam. Go read what their supposed Holy Men teach them, that is our enemy. To attack that
 
Quote    Reply

PaulG    RE:Journalism Versus Reality in Iraq   12/6/2005 1:17:07 PM
Pseudonym: I?m not disputing either the content or the value of your anectdotal observations (e.g., about Zaqawi, or the rather intricate account of our strategy and how we?re winning). I don?t have any way of judging their value. I?m left without a context by which I, as an American taxpayer and patriot, can reasonably measure how the war is going. For example, suppose the German information minister told me that in one month the German Army inflicted 100,000 casualties on the Red Army. Would that mean the war is going well? Not if we leave out the fact that the month is April 1945 and the Soviets suffered 100,000 casualties taking Berlin. The information about inflicting 100,000 casualties can be totally misleading without seeing the context, or adopting a more accurate measure ? e.g., the amount of German territory still controlled by Germany. As a patriot and taxpayer I think I have a right to be given some tangible measure how things are going in Iraq, and anectdotes can?t do that, and even individual combat soldiers? perspective can?t do that (even the mighty JFD noted in How To Make War that individual soldiers do not tend to have any idea of what the overall strategic situation is). And as much as the MSM may be looking for bad news, there?s no sense denying the Bush administration has a vested interest in spinning (or inventing whole cloth) news that makes things look better than they really are. Bush?s Mission Accomplished stunt did not, as you say, refer to ?taking out Saddam.? Bush used the opportunity to announce that ?Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.? Yet 2.6 years later we have MORE combat troops there than we had in May 2003, and according to you, Bagdhad is still a war zone. If, by these measures, things are going well, then ?going well? has lost all meaning.
 
Quote    Reply

Pseudonym    RE:Journalism Versus Reality in Iraq   12/8/2005 12:43:37 AM
"I?m not disputing either the content or the value of your anectdotal observations (e.g., about Zaqawi, or the rather intricate account of our strategy and how we?re winning). I don?t have any way of judging their value. I?m left without a context by which I, as an American taxpayer and patriot, can reasonably measure how the war is going." You will never have a context by which to measure this war. We can't sit back and say, well first Normandy then Paris then Berlin then Japan. Doesn't work that way. This is a war against an idea not a nation. This will take generations to win, and after two years this is where we are at. Half the country doesn't understand, and does not have the ability to watch the war linger. Personally I think we are gonna lose this war in the end, well not lose, just not win. Sooner or later, since we will not fight to win, we will back off, nukes will become commonplace in the Middle East and North Africa since I doubt many people will understand Bush's true fear. Eventually one of these nuclear countries, who have long long histories of Revolutions and Coups, as well as hosting terrorist organizations some with close ties to the Government like Iran, will eventually topple the nukes either going loose or being used out of spite. Then we will end the war, but will still have lost. "For example, suppose the German information minister told me that in one month the German Army inflicted 100,000 casualties on the Red Army. Would that mean the war is going well? Not if we leave out the fact that the month is April 1945 and the Soviets suffered 100,000 casualties taking Berlin. The information about inflicting 100,000 casualties can be totally misleading without seeing the context, or adopting a more accurate measure ? e.g., the amount of German territory still controlled by Germany." This isn't World War 2. "As a patriot and taxpayer I think I have a right to be given some tangible measure how things are going in Iraq, and anectdotes can?t do that, and even individual combat soldiers? perspective can?t do that (even the mighty JFD noted in How To Make War that individual soldiers do not tend to have any idea of what the overall strategic situation is). And as much as the MSM may be looking for bad news, there?s no sense denying the Bush administration has a vested interest in spinning (or inventing whole cloth) news that makes things look better than they really are." LOL. The MSM has its own agenda and massacres and mayhem play better and get them more profits. If you watch what has really happened I think Bush has been quite restrained in his war of words. I think you and Bush as well forget the value of good old fashioned lying to everyone to make your enemy confused and looking the wrong way. Propaganda is a strong part of war, but unfortunately while everyone from the terrorists to the Democrats like Dean practice it, only Bush will be fried for using it. "Bush?s Mission Accomplished stunt did not, as you say, refer to ?taking out Saddam.? Bush used the opportunity to announce that ?Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.? Yet 2.6 years later we have MORE combat troops there than we had in May 2003, and according to you, Bagdhad is still a war zone. If, by these measures, things are going well, then ?going well? has lost all meanin" I hate to tell you but this is a low intensity conflict. Major Combat Operations construe big tank and infantry battles. This is an insurgency, far far lower scaled then Vietnam where we were fighting large units. Korea wasn't a Police Action, this is a Police Action. We are showing them the Rule of Law. In fact if you look you will see our lack of Military Police size is a problem, you will see the difference. We don't need tanks and bombs to fight this war. We need to introduce Law to the Middle East. A rather hard and tedious project that will occupy us for the next fifty or so years.
 
Quote    Reply

PaulG    RE:Journalism Versus Reality in Iraq   12/8/2005 4:08:31 AM
Pseudonym: If we will never have a context by which to measure this war, then how can we ever know we ?won?? What does victory mean if we can?t measure it? And then why carp if the MSM or Democrats say we?re losing it? If there's no way to measure it, all opinions are equally valid. One definite measure: we?re blowing money big time on this project. $270 billion and ticking; Congressman Murtha estimates another $100 billion coming up. Another measure: 2000+ KIA, 15,000 or so WIA, and ticking. And we will never have a context by which to measure if we?re successful? How could that be anything other than an argument for pulling out right now before we sink any more into this? This doesn?t have to be WW II to have a way of measuring progress. E.g.: 2003: 50% Iraqi unemployment. 2005: 25%. 2003: 10% Iraqi homes with electricity. 2005: 50%. 2003: 80% of Baghdad considered a combat zone. 2005: 20%. 2003: Bagdhad airport closed. 2005: Bagdhad airport open to international airlines serving 1 million passengers a day. 2003: 0 tourists visit. 2005: 100,000 tourists visit. I?m making up all the above figures. But I?m throwing them out as possible measures of progress toward a peaceful, democratic Iraq. A way of telling if we?re getting anything for our money and blood. Maybe SP has cited specific statistics like the above (or better ones) to show how well we?re doing, and I just haven?t seen them. Or maybe someone knows about them. But stats like the above would help me understand; anectdotes don't. And if we?re making no progress or going backward on some of these measures, I?d say the MSM has a better grip on the situation than SP.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy