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
Pseudonym    RE:Journalism Versus Reality in Iraq   12/8/2005 5:53:44 AM
"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." The Muslims will stop preaching for jihad against the USA. The Muslim world will move forward from the Stone Age. Groups like Al Qaeda and all the other various organizations will lose support and eventually peter out. The fight to that point will take a long time. Terrorism must become a non starter as a way for them to effect Diplomacy. "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." That's because Saddam spent all the money he got on Palaces and left his people in squalor and starving. We are completely rebuilding a country while fighting an insurgency doing everything it can to stop us. So your theory is we should stop fighting and let terrorists do as they want because half the civilian population, though barely any military agree with you and they are the ones seeing it firsthand, doesn't want to pay for it. How many acts of war did Saddam have to commit before enough is enough? People like you, and I agree there are alot of you, are the reason I am starting to think we will lose this war. You don't have the stomach for the long haul. "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?" Please read up on Neville Chamberlain. We have terrorist nations striving for nuclear weapons. Who will we attack when the first one goes off? We probably won't know who did it if we sit back and watch country after country that supports terror build them. But hey, who cares about that? "This doesn?t have to be WW II to have a way of measuring progress." Measuring progress is possible I guess, but would require the ability to see what all the different factions of Muslims in the Middle East were thinking. I guess we could sit back though, when Iran gets around to following through on that promise to "wipe Israel off the map" we will have the problem solved. Then again most the worlds oil will also be glowing in the dark at that point and this wondrous nation we built will crumble economically as our energy needs can no longer be supplied. Famine, Depression, lots of small wars. Lovely situation that will bring around. "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." The MSM has no clue what they are talking about, but you don't care. You want to leave Iraq, that is your agenda. Remember, all the MSM shows is the negative parts of the war. That is how they make their money, shock media. You are saying you don't care about gains. I think we are doing quite well. The Sunni and Shia are fighting each other, the Kurds are on our side hoping for a country. The whole point of 911 was to start their Global Jihad, they failed miserably. Every day we fight in Iraq forces more and more Muslims to question why the terrorists target Muslims and not Americans, for the most part. Go ahead forsake the dead from 9/11, forsake the dead soldiers and piss on their grave. That is the right they died giving you.
 
Quote    Reply

PaulG    RE:Journalism Versus Reality in Iraq   12/12/2005 2:03:50 AM
Pseudonym: You seem to be confused about my ?theories.? The theory, or rather assumption, I?m operating under here is pretty common sensical: if we are engaged in a costly enterprise (e.g., Iraq), it's important to find out if we are making any progress that would justify the continued sacrifice in blood and dollars. From the get-go I?ve been asking for a fair way of measuring progress in Iraq. JFD has for years been saying we?re making progress and deriding the MSM for not reporting it. I?ve put forward some undisputed facts (lack of safety outside the Green Zone for example ? a component of JFD?s own argument) that suggest to me things are NOT going well. Simply restating the admininstration?s rationale for going in does not help inform anyone of whether or not we are making any progress. What I keep getting back from you are what appear to be contradictions: ?This isn't World War 2.? ?Please read up on Neville Chamberlain.? ?You will never have a context by which to measure this war.? ?The war in Iraq is going great.? ?This is a war? ?this is a Police Action.? I also get false logic, e.g., my skepticism of our progress in Iraq means I?m pissing on the graves of dead soldiers, and ?straw man? arguments, e.g., ?So your theory is we should stop fighting and let terrorists do as they want? which is nothing that I?ve said and nothing that I?d agree with. Meanwhile, how do I know that some statements you make, like the length of time you think we?ll need to accomplish our mission of establishing law in the Middle East (fifty years) are not simply excuses for failed policy? Mind you, I?m not even saying they ARE excuses, but I?m asking you ? how would a skeptical American patriot and taxpayer know? What is the tipping point at which you believe an American might legitimately say that this policy is a failure and we need to rethink it? Or are you of the opinion that Americans are not entitled to ask such questions ? that we should simply continue to fork over our soldiers and our tax dollars ad infinitum, and just trust what the government tells us?
 
Quote    Reply

PaulG    Green Zone and Journalists   12/12/2005 2:13:45 AM
In his intial DLS, JFD noted: ?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.? Interesting exchange on CNN?s Reliable Sources today that calls into question the Green Zone assertion: link Laura Ingraham tried to sell the JFD line about the Green Zone and beat a hasty retreat when confronted by Pamela Hess, a UPI Pentagon correspondent who actually just spend nine weeks there: ------------------------------------------------------- INGRAHAM: But they're inside Baghdad, Clarence. They're not going around the country, as some reporters are and bloggers are, going around the country reporting on the Internet about stories that reporters from our mainstream news organizations, they're not getting these stories because they're not leaving the Green Zone too often. HESS: That's completely wrong. INGRAHAM: OK, well -- OK. HESS: Reporters don't live in the Green Zone. There's one media house that's inside the Green Zone. Reporters are living in Baghdad, so can we just put that one to rest? KURTZ: All right. But let me ask you this: Are administration officials exacerbating... INGRAHAM: I meant Baghdad. You're right. Sorry about that. (CROSSTALK) INGRAHAM: I'm talking about the dangerous area in Baghdad. KURTZ: The most heavily guarded, obviously, period -- place. PAGE: We, by the way, have one journalist who's been kidnapped... INGRAHAM: Right. PAGE: ... and another one who almost got blown up a couple of weeks ago. So they are where the action is. ------------------------------------------------------- There is also some interesting discussion about why the soldiers in the field view it differently than how it's reported. To wit: they agree with me and with JFD back in his How To Make War days -- soldiers do not generally have a grasp of the overall strategic situation.
 
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